Quick question regarding Arizona Law [modified]- updated status
-
Stop spreading FUD. That's what the media want you to believe. Actually, read the law here[^]. It specifically states *any valid state license* is proof.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/Where, exactly, does it say that? I have downloaded the bill itself[^], and the phrase "state license" does not appear anywhere within it. There are 39 mentions of the word "license" in the bill: most of them apply to business having their business license revoked if they hire "illegals" and the rest deal with whether or not a person's car will be impounded. In section 5(E)(2), the law states: "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3). This is the only definition of "unauthorized alien" or "illegal immigrant" in the statute. Under federal law, normal drivers licenses are insufficient documentation a right to work in the United States: only proof of citizenship or a resident alien card (aka a "green card") is valid. You are the one in error.
-
Well if that's the case I'll be more than happy to give more support to the law, that I already support and will be more than happy to see it implemented all over the country and not only in AZ. I know what my con nationals do, and it's simply not right for other immigrants (like me) that come to the country legally, that paid thousands of dollars to get our documents... did the things right to be short, I don't like the idea of someone else, who is illegaly here, not doing things rights, get the same rights as me or worse, more than me. I don't know the latest changes done to the law, I know there were some, and now that I think it twice, you're right, when I came to the country I was asked by the DHS to always carry with me a copy of my I-20, the document that says I'm legally in the country. And dude, chill down, it's not spreading lies, if you ask around more than 95% of the people will tell you that the law is about profiling, racism, harrasment, etc etc etc instead of getting angry for something that has not been properly "advertised" by the state government you should ask them (if you live there) to properly explain it or explain it yourself to others.
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
I don't live in AZ (I used to 20 years ago). However, I do know that what is being spread through the media is a bunch of lies about the law. And it is spreading fear and painting AZ and the people of AZ as a bunch of bigots. I have read the law and you can find a link to it in other posts of mine in this thread. People need to educate themselves instead of listening to the lies of the media. I agree that the state needs to better explain and advertise the law.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
yea, but part of the law allows people to sue police if they aren't asking for papers. How stupid is that?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
That is actually aimed at so-called "sanctuary cities" whose governments direct their police departments to ignore immigration law, not at the police themselves, who basically just follow orders from city management.
-
When you are at the port of entry (airport) or actually when you applied for the visa at the embassy, they advice you to always have your papers with you which includes Passport and I-90. I-90 is just a piece of paper that they clip to your passport when you arrive to the port of entry. This is not new, this was the case atleast since 2008[ thats the date I arrived in the US]. Now, as related to Driving licence, some states have applied the SAFE program (or something like that) that basically ties your immigration status to your driver license. Before this program anybody could get a license without the need to show proper immigration papers. I live in Colorado and the state follows this program. So in Colorado, it is enough to show your driver license to prove you are in legal status. But again, to be safe always have your I-90. This information may not be accurate. I am not a lawyer ... just my experience.
-
Where, exactly, does it say that? I have downloaded the bill itself[^], and the phrase "state license" does not appear anywhere within it. There are 39 mentions of the word "license" in the bill: most of them apply to business having their business license revoked if they hire "illegals" and the rest deal with whether or not a person's car will be impounded. In section 5(E)(2), the law states: "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3). This is the only definition of "unauthorized alien" or "illegal immigrant" in the statute. Under federal law, normal drivers licenses are insufficient documentation a right to work in the United States: only proof of citizenship or a resident alien card (aka a "green card") is valid. You are the one in error.
read section 9.a.2 of the law (page 15) "2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. "
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
Bassam Saoud wrote:
I-90 is just a piece of paper that they clip to your passport when you arrive to the port of entry
It's Form I-94. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_I-94[^]
రవికాంత్
Yes it is. I was going off memory.
-
Stop spreading FUD. That's what the media want you to believe. Actually, read the law here[^]. It specifically states *any valid state license* is proof.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/Actually, maybe you should read it. I did, and did not find any such statement. What it does say is" B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). and: J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS. There is also a recent amendment to this bill that further expressly prohibits "racial profiling" as grounds for initial detention and questioning, and might additionally clarify acceptable proof of legal presence, but this does not appear to, in spite of your assertion. There is not, however any clear definition of what documentation will suffice, and since many states (some of which neighbor AZ) do not require proof of legal residence (you don't have to be a citizen to be legally present, a work visa - green card - is acceptable) to obtain a DL, it is not likely to be acceptable alone. Given the emotions, I would again urge prudence.
-
read section 9.a.2 of the law (page 15) "2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. "
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/That section has nothing to do whatsoever with what constitutes proof of being present in the country legally. It specifies the conditions that must be met before the police officer can impound a vehicle. You need to read more carefully.
-
Actually, maybe you should read it. I did, and did not find any such statement. What it does say is" B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). and: J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS. There is also a recent amendment to this bill that further expressly prohibits "racial profiling" as grounds for initial detention and questioning, and might additionally clarify acceptable proof of legal presence, but this does not appear to, in spite of your assertion. There is not, however any clear definition of what documentation will suffice, and since many states (some of which neighbor AZ) do not require proof of legal residence (you don't have to be a citizen to be legally present, a work visa - green card - is acceptable) to obtain a DL, it is not likely to be acceptable alone. Given the emotions, I would again urge prudence.
Read section 9.a.2 of the law (page 15) "2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. "
Rob Graham wrote:
amendment to this bill that further expressly prohibits "racial profiling" as grounds for initial detention and questioning
this provision was already in the law, though less clear, see section 7.B: "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin"
Rob Graham wrote:
Given the emotions, I would again urge prudence.
Yes, emotions are definitely high. Everyone should educate themselves on the law. I am with you that extreme prudence is warranted.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
I don't live in AZ (I used to 20 years ago). However, I do know that what is being spread through the media is a bunch of lies about the law. And it is spreading fear and painting AZ and the people of AZ as a bunch of bigots. I have read the law and you can find a link to it in other posts of mine in this thread. People need to educate themselves instead of listening to the lies of the media. I agree that the state needs to better explain and advertise the law.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/I agree with you that the law is being badly mis-characterized. At the same time, you need to be careful to be accurate in your defense of the law. It is not at all clear how a person , stooped for a traffic violation, would be able to prove he was here legally. A driver's license might well not suffice, as legal aliens (green card holders) can also get then, as can illegal aliens in states that choose to ignore immigration requirements (very few states require a birth certificate to get a DL, but rather just proof of residence- a paid utility bill will do - and usually proof of insurance). There was an attempt a few years ago to force states to require proof of citizenship or a visa before issuing a DL, but it was shouted down by the same folks trying to shout down this law. Had that passed, a current DL would clearly suffice, but it did not.
-
Read section 9.a.2 of the law (page 15) "2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. "
Rob Graham wrote:
amendment to this bill that further expressly prohibits "racial profiling" as grounds for initial detention and questioning
this provision was already in the law, though less clear, see section 7.B: "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin"
Rob Graham wrote:
Given the emotions, I would again urge prudence.
Yes, emotions are definitely high. Everyone should educate themselves on the law. I am with you that extreme prudence is warranted.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
That section has nothing to do whatsoever with what constitutes proof of being present in the country legally. It specifies the conditions that must be met before the police officer can impound a vehicle. You need to read more carefully.
Rob Graham wrote:
section has nothing to do
hmm, you may be right about that.
Rob Graham wrote:
You need to read more carefully
yes, apparently i do. lol. in any case, in public statements by the AZ governor, AZ police chiefs and other AZ gov't officials, they did state that a drivers license would be sufficient. but, actually, apparently I did read it correctly. This[^] wikipedia article explicitly states: " A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[27]" and references section 2 of the law.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/modified on Monday, May 3, 2010 1:21 PM
-
I agree with you that the law is being badly mis-characterized. At the same time, you need to be careful to be accurate in your defense of the law. It is not at all clear how a person , stooped for a traffic violation, would be able to prove he was here legally. A driver's license might well not suffice, as legal aliens (green card holders) can also get then, as can illegal aliens in states that choose to ignore immigration requirements (very few states require a birth certificate to get a DL, but rather just proof of residence- a paid utility bill will do - and usually proof of insurance). There was an attempt a few years ago to force states to require proof of citizenship or a visa before issuing a DL, but it was shouted down by the same folks trying to shout down this law. Had that passed, a current DL would clearly suffice, but it did not.
You are correct that i need to be more careful and more accurate. Regarding the proof of citizenship to obtain a DL I think that may have recently changed. In Utah they recently, since Jan 1 2010, require a birth certificate to obtain a state DL. They say it is response to federal requirements of the "Real ID Act[^]". Don't know how true that is.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
actually, apparently I did read it correctly. This[^] wikipedia article explicitly states: " A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[27]" and references section 2 of the law.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
I agree with you that the law is being badly mis-characterized. At the same time, you need to be careful to be accurate in your defense of the law. It is not at all clear how a person , stooped for a traffic violation, would be able to prove he was here legally. A driver's license might well not suffice, as legal aliens (green card holders) can also get then, as can illegal aliens in states that choose to ignore immigration requirements (very few states require a birth certificate to get a DL, but rather just proof of residence- a paid utility bill will do - and usually proof of insurance). There was an attempt a few years ago to force states to require proof of citizenship or a visa before issuing a DL, but it was shouted down by the same folks trying to shout down this law. Had that passed, a current DL would clearly suffice, but it did not.
actually, apparently I did read it the law correctly. And wikipedia agrees with me. This[^] wikipedia article explicitly states: " A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[27]" and references section 2 of the law.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
Rob Graham wrote:
section has nothing to do
hmm, you may be right about that.
Rob Graham wrote:
You need to read more carefully
yes, apparently i do. lol. in any case, in public statements by the AZ governor, AZ police chiefs and other AZ gov't officials, they did state that a drivers license would be sufficient. but, actually, apparently I did read it correctly. This[^] wikipedia article explicitly states: " A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[27]" and references section 2 of the law.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/modified on Monday, May 3, 2010 1:21 PM
The problem arises in the way the law is written. It depends on the federal definition of being in the US legally. In the last few years, federal law has changed so that standard-issue drivers licenses are NOT sufficient documentation of status. The so-called "enhanced" drivers license will work, because it is actually an informal passport: you can use it to make a land crossing of the borders with Canada and Mexico. The vast majority of people do NOT have enhanced licenses because they are much more expensive and anyway, most people who travel between the US and foreign countries get an ordinary passport because it is much more versatile. So, according to how the law is written, people who are stopped by the police -- primarily those with brown skin and Spanish accents, but really, any obvious foreigner -- will have to prove citizenship according to the standards of the federal government. That means a certified copy of your birth certificate showing US birth, a US passport, an enhanced drivers license or a green card. Foreigners will have to have available whatever documentation allows them to remain in the US: If you are from India and working in Phoenix, you had best carry your green card, H1-B stamp or other federal papers, or face immediate arrest and deportation proceedings.
-
I wouldn't worry about it -- it won't hold up anyway. However, I thought that when out of your own country you should always have your passport on you. A visa too, but the cops prefer cash.
It could take years to get it struck down, however.
-
The problem arises in the way the law is written. It depends on the federal definition of being in the US legally. In the last few years, federal law has changed so that standard-issue drivers licenses are NOT sufficient documentation of status. The so-called "enhanced" drivers license will work, because it is actually an informal passport: you can use it to make a land crossing of the borders with Canada and Mexico. The vast majority of people do NOT have enhanced licenses because they are much more expensive and anyway, most people who travel between the US and foreign countries get an ordinary passport because it is much more versatile. So, according to how the law is written, people who are stopped by the police -- primarily those with brown skin and Spanish accents, but really, any obvious foreigner -- will have to prove citizenship according to the standards of the federal government. That means a certified copy of your birth certificate showing US birth, a US passport, an enhanced drivers license or a green card. Foreigners will have to have available whatever documentation allows them to remain in the US: If you are from India and working in Phoenix, you had best carry your green card, H1-B stamp or other federal papers, or face immediate arrest and deportation proceedings.
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
he vast majority of people do NOT have enhanced licenses because they are much more expensive
they are not more expensive. i have one and it costs the same as before: $10.00
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
So, according to how the law is written, people who are stopped by the police -- primarily those with brown skin and Spanish accents, but really, any obvious foreigner -- will have to prove citizenship according to the standards of the federal government.
you really should educate yourself on the law. It specifically states you can't use Race as a reason. Nor the color of skin. Racial profiling is specifically outlawed.
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
Foreigners will have to have available whatever documentation allows them to remain in the US
That is already required by federal law. Legal foreign residents and foreign visitors must carry with them at all times documentation as to their status. You really need to get educated.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
he vast majority of people do NOT have enhanced licenses because they are much more expensive
they are not more expensive. i have one and it costs the same as before: $10.00
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
So, according to how the law is written, people who are stopped by the police -- primarily those with brown skin and Spanish accents, but really, any obvious foreigner -- will have to prove citizenship according to the standards of the federal government.
you really should educate yourself on the law. It specifically states you can't use Race as a reason. Nor the color of skin. Racial profiling is specifically outlawed.
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
Foreigners will have to have available whatever documentation allows them to remain in the US
That is already required by federal law. Legal foreign residents and foreign visitors must carry with them at all times documentation as to their status. You really need to get educated.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/Keep in mind that the law explicitly gives "concerned citizens" the right to sue police departments and other government entities that do not enforce this law fully. No matter how frivolous such a suit might be, police departments and other entities will be forced to spend an awful lot of money defending themselves. To minimize the legal risk, the law will almost certainly be over-enforced. Also, the law specifically indemnifies police from enforcing it. As long as a cop can provide a justification for demanding papers -- ANY justification -- they can act without fear. The law specifically permits trivial violations to act as that justification: you crossed a street while the light was red, your radio is "too loud" and the cops are responding to an alleged noise complaint, you appear to be loitering, your town has a "clean yard" ordinance and you haven't weeded in a while. Racial profiling is very, very real in the United States, and statutes and policies that claim "you can't use race as a reason" are irrelevant. The fact is that a white person who jaywalks will be told not to do that again, assuming a cop bothers to stop him. A racial minority who jaywalks will almost certainly be stopped and cited. I have seen this happen dozens of times. Trust me: I am quite educated with regards to racism in the United States, and I can see very clearly where this law will lead. There is a reason why every civil rights organization in the US opposes it so strongly.
-
Keep in mind that the law explicitly gives "concerned citizens" the right to sue police departments and other government entities that do not enforce this law fully. No matter how frivolous such a suit might be, police departments and other entities will be forced to spend an awful lot of money defending themselves. To minimize the legal risk, the law will almost certainly be over-enforced. Also, the law specifically indemnifies police from enforcing it. As long as a cop can provide a justification for demanding papers -- ANY justification -- they can act without fear. The law specifically permits trivial violations to act as that justification: you crossed a street while the light was red, your radio is "too loud" and the cops are responding to an alleged noise complaint, you appear to be loitering, your town has a "clean yard" ordinance and you haven't weeded in a while. Racial profiling is very, very real in the United States, and statutes and policies that claim "you can't use race as a reason" are irrelevant. The fact is that a white person who jaywalks will be told not to do that again, assuming a cop bothers to stop him. A racial minority who jaywalks will almost certainly be stopped and cited. I have seen this happen dozens of times. Trust me: I am quite educated with regards to racism in the United States, and I can see very clearly where this law will lead. There is a reason why every civil rights organization in the US opposes it so strongly.
I have no doubt that what you say happens. I just don't think it's a wholesale issue. There are bad cops everywhere, and good cops who have occasional bad-mood days. I'm a white male US citizen and I have been mistreated myself by cops who were having a bad day and I didn't really do anything wrong. I just was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the cop chose me.
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
Also, the law specifically indemnifies police from enforcing it
Unless they do something wrong and it can be shown they violated the law themselves.
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
A racial minority who jaywalks will almost certainly be stopped and cited. I have seen this happen dozens of times.
And you were there the dozens of times when some white-guy jaywalked and was not cited? riiiiight.
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
There is a reason why every civil rights organization in the US opposes it so strongly.
Then why didn't they oppose the federal law after which the AZ law is worded and based? Answer: because there isn't a real violation of civil rights and they knew the feds wouldn't enforce it. They know AZ will. This is all a smokescreen. The real goal of these so-called civil rights groups is to have free and open borders. With no real sovereignty for the USA.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/