• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Boycott Arizona?

JoeTheJuggler said:
Something that hasn't been brought up here yet: the Real ID Act doesn't necessarily guarantee that a driver's license is proof of legal immigration status.
Click to expand...
This misses the point. Under Real ID a licensee isn't required to be a legal resident, however his status must be on the card.

IOW, states that allow it could still issue DLs to illegal aliens, but that persons illegal status must be on the card.
 
Spindrift said:
Can someone give me an example what is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien? I'm not a cop so I don't know how one goes about detecting illegal aliens except when you catch them crossing the border or you catch them for something else and check them out.
Click to expand...
Can't produce a license when driving a car, SS# given comes back invalid, name doesn't check out, etc etc.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And those "suspicious acts" would have to be related to being an illegal alien, right? I mean, any other crime does not separate out people based on their immigration status.
Click to expand...

"Hey, I heard you crossed the river this morning. Did the coyote help you? Did you see uncle Esteban before in Mexico City before you came over?"

No admission but probably sufficient for reasonable suspicion.

If you've got a grudge against someone, just call in an anonymous tip that they might be an illegal alien. Police would then have to follow up.
Click to expand...

Yes. Under certain conditions anonymous informants are enough to get reasonable suspicion. Would it be abused? Yes. Wouldn't be the first time.
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
But they're not detaining you for not carrying documents.

They're detaining you because you were unable to answer the officer's questions about immigration status to his satisfaction.
Click to expand...
No, they're detaining you because you were driving a car with no valid license and a name that doesn't check out and a SS# that belongs to a 65 year old man and you're in your early 20s.
 
WildCat said:
Can't produce a license when driving a car, SS# given comes back invalid, name doesn't check out, etc etc.
Click to expand...

You mean all of these, or any one of them?

I was once stopped when I'd left my wallet at home. (I was given a compliance ticket. All I had to do was run down to the municipal city hall and show them my driver's license.) Does that mean if that happens under this law, the driver will be detained until the feds inform the police that my status is valid?

And the law applies to everyone the police come into contact with, not just motorists.
 
drkitten said:
Similarly, if I tell them that his girlfriend Juanita is an illegal, that's reasonable suspicion for them to pick her up, too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure they'd jump right on that case. They'll get to it right after they solve the case of the wallet that was pickpocketed at the festival.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You mean all of these, or any one of them?

I was once stopped when I'd left my wallet at home. (I was given a compliance ticket. All I had to do was run down to the municipal city hall and show them my driver's license.) Does that mean if that happens under this law, the driver will be detained until the feds inform the police that my status is valid?
Click to expand...
I was stopped once when I had forgotten my wallet. I gave the cop my name and SS#, he checked it out on the spot, and in a matter of seconds was able to determine I had a valid driver's license.

And that was in 1986 or so, even the department in Mayberry has those new-fangled compooter thingamajiggers now.

And the law applies to everyone the police come into contact with, not just motorists.
Click to expand...
True, that includes people caught breaking and entering, robbing, shoplifting, etc.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I can't think of one thing that comes out of Arizona. No offense. I'm sure stuff does but I wouldn't know what to boycott.
Click to expand...

Its sad but true. I could name a few high profile things, but not many. Today this is a depressed place with a bottomless economy and not much above ground industry. This isnt the AZ of the early 90's with a motorolla, cisco, honeywell and bull industries on every corner that couldn't wait long enough for tech school students to graduate. The wildlife corridor thru maricopa is gone, replaced by miles and miles of empty "houses" (illegally built investment modules that led to the mortgage meltdown).
 
WildCat said:
Yeah, I'm sure they'd jump right on that case.
Click to expand...

If they don't, I can sue (and win).

From the text of the law:
NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

[...]

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
Click to expand...

A policy that gives priority to murder investigations over immigration violations -- or for that matter, fails to give immigration violations priority over every other crime in the books -- "limits the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted," since federal law permits all law enforcement personnel to work full-time on immigration cases. The only real legal barrier would be the laws against working more than 40 hours per week.....
 
drkitten said:
If they don't, I can sue (and win).

From the text of the law:


A policy that gives priority to murder investigations over immigration violations -- or for that matter, fails to give immigration violations priority over every other crime in the books -- "limits the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted," since federal law permits all law enforcement personnel to work full-time on immigration cases. The only real legal barrier would be the laws against working more than 40 hours per week.....
Click to expand...

That's a real stretch of interpretation.
 
quixotecoyote said:
That's a real stretch of interpretation.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's a fairly straightforward interpretation of a very badly written law. The reason that particular provision was put in was because a lot of localities were simply outright refusing to enforce immigration law, so this was put in to give private citizens the authority to force the localities to enforce it.

Unfortunately, they didn't restrict the private citizens to any reasonable use of that authority.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
This sounds much more like BS:



The law authorizes police to detain people they suspect of being illegal. They can be held unless/until federal agencies inform the local police whether their immigration status is valid. If the person in question can produce good documents, they won't be detained. So effectively, it is "show me your papers" or go to jail for a while.

It's BS to say that we all present our driver's licenses when we buy something at the store.
Click to expand...

Detained does not mean arrested. When a cop pulls you over for speeding, you have been detained. You cannot leave until the cop gives you permission to leave. You have not, however, been arrested, which is what happens when you go to jail.
 
drkitten said:
Not really. It's a fairly straightforward interpretation of a very badly written law. The reason that particular provision was put in was because a lot of localities were simply outright refusing to enforce immigration law, so this was put in to give private citizens the authority to force the localities to enforce it.

Unfortunately, they didn't restrict the private citizens to any reasonable use of that authority.
Click to expand...

That would be more believable if there weren't plenty of statutes already on the books that require police to arrest people for murder, arson, theft and the like and which would contradict the rather silly interpretation that this law means they must pursue illegal immigrants to the exclusion of all else.

For example: Here is a law that says they have to bust up riots: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03804.htm

Now, if they went to bust up a riot and Citizen Silly tried to sue because that policy limited the number of hours they could spend chasing illegal immigrants, what do you really think would happen?

eta: My answer would be that the courts would interpret the new law as saying that you can't have policies of refusing to enforce immigration law, and that would be that.
 
Last edited:
"A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. "

This part was in response to situations like the signage at Department of Economic Security which stated that illegals would not be reported to INS nor would they be denied AHCCCS health care (which most legal residents don't qualify for), nor cash assistance. Proponents of these policies claimed it would cut down on identity theft if the illegals didnt need an SS to get benefits and health care.
 
DavidJames said:
I will not alter my plans to visit AZ (I never had any), but in honor of AZ, I will be stopping every white Republican male I find and ask them if they are legal.
Click to expand...

You may be in for a nasty (or nice?) surprise if they don't know you're talking about immigration!
 
Are there any actual illegal immigrants from Mexico in Arizona? Last time I was down there I don't think I saw a single person who was even vaguely Hispanic looking. For the whole ten days I was there it was just old, angry white people that had just moved there from someplace cold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom