Arizona Passes "Changes Bill" To New Immigration Law

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

PHOENIX -- Arizona lawmakers have approved several changes to the recently passed sweeping law targeting illegal immigration.

If Gov. Jan Brewer supports the changes, they will go into effect at the same time as the new law, 90 days from now.

The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.

Pearce defended that provision, saying there shouldn't be a restraint on when police act on a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in the country illegally. "It is a lawful contact," Pearce said.

The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.

Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.

Brewer likely will sign the follow-on bill, said the spokesman, Paul Senseman.

Pearce said that change doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

I like it. I like it a lot.

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

If the objections were dishonest, there would be no need for a 'changes bill'. Fact is, people can not simply rely on the good intentions of the powers that be. You can't put something into law that could be twisted in a manner that you didn't originally intend, and expect us to simply accept it because we trust you.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

...

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.

Actually, going after "many occupants in a residence" is likely to be a very effective way of identifying illegals.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

One thing I still don't see addressed, and I'd like to, is whether out-of-state (but American) drivers licenses will be considered acceptable evidence of identity/status when a "suspected illegal" says he/she is a USC. Or will Arizona LE still be detaining out-of-state USC's of color because they drive a beatdown car and dress like ####### and are pigmented all wrong?

[Susita 175]

Actually, going after "many occupants in a residence" is likely to be a very effective way of identifying illegals.

Immigration has caught MANY illegals here that way, at least here on Long Island. Tips from the police department on overcrowded houses have been the starting points for raids.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Immigration has caught MANY illegals here that way, at least here on Long Island. Tips from the police department on overcrowded houses have been the starting points for raids.

Yup, true in Jersey too. Overcrowded residences and tons of beat up cars parked on the street all the time are dead giveaways.

[Susita 175]

One thing I still don't see addressed, and I'd like to, is whether out-of-state (but American) drivers licenses will be considered acceptable evidence of identity/status when a "suspected illegal" says he/she is a USC. Or will Arizona LE still be detaining out-of-state USC's of color because they drive a beatdown car and dress like ####### and are pigmented all wrong?

I better tell Luis and the kids to dress nice on our next road trip to AZ. And I better bring all my little latino kids birth certificates and social security cards with us It gives me a chuckle but it really is sad.

Do you think the little soccer stickers on the back of my SUV, the little family sticker, or the 'my child is a honor student at _____ Christian School' will help out?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I better tell Luis and the kids to dress nice on our next road trip to AZ. And I better bring all my little latino kids birth certificates and social security cards with us It gives me a chuckle but it really is sad.

Do you think the little soccer stickers on the back of my SUV, the little family sticker, or the 'my child is a honor student at _____ Christian School' will help out?

I'm just glad my impending trip to AZ will be before the law kicks in. No way in hell am I taking my wife there once this takes effect.

ps. which, by the way, is exactly what the people of arizona want. so it's a win-win.

Edited April 30, 2010 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[sachinky 465]

Can someone explain the distinction between "lawful contact" and "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to me?

Also, aren't driver's licenses issued by the DMV only after some form of legal presence has been proven? I understand it can differ from state to state but I presume I can't get a D/L unless I have some sort of papers on me?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Can someone explain the distinction between "lawful contact" and "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to me?

Me going into the police station to report a rape or terror plot is lawful contact, but not a stop/detention/arrest.

Also, aren't driver's licenses issued by the DMV only after some form of legal presence has been proven?

I have no idea what each state does but in New Jersey, yes. And the expiration date on the DL is supposed to be set to match the expiration date of your status IIRC.

Which is why I do think the Arizona law should accept out-of-state DL's as evidence of status. I believe it does not, though.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Can someone explain the distinction between "lawful contact" and "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to me?

Also, aren't driver's licenses issued by the DMV only after some form of legal presence has been proven? I understand it can differ from state to state but I presume I can't get a D/L unless I have some sort of papers on me?

You'd be surprised what you can get at a flea market here in Texas. I can literally walk down to the flea market and get a "valid" new social security card to establish a new identity (or steal someone else's for that matter). - DL's aren't exactly the best way to distinguish one's legal status to be quite honest.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You'd be surprised what you can get at a flea market here in Texas. I can literally walk down to the flea market and get a "valid" new social security card to establish a new identity (or steal someone else's for that matter). - DL's aren't exactly the best way to distinguish one's legal status to be quite honest.

Which is why I'd like to see a national ID which everyone has to carry.

What bothers me is the likelihood that USC's of (brownish) color will end up carrying their passport books or passport cards all the time while white USC's won't because they know they most likely don't have to. That would be wrong.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Can someone explain the distinction between "lawful contact" and "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to me?

Also, aren't driver's licenses issued by the DMV only after some form of legal presence has been proven? I understand it can differ from state to state but I presume I can't get a D/L unless I have some sort of papers on me?

someone has to be in custody or has to be being interviewed by police during a traffic stop for the question of weather they have legal status or not can be asked.

some states do require proof of status prior to issuance of a DL or state ID some don't. soon most if not all will require it.....we're headed toward a national ID real quick.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which is why I'd like to see a national ID which everyone has to carry.

You like the idea of every citizen having to prove their legal status at any given moment?

[sachinky 465]

Ok. Got it. Thanks for the clarifications.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

.....we're headed toward a national ID real quick.

which would adequately address a lot of the concerns i have.

but expect for a lot of push back from the civil liberties crowd.

You like the idea of every citizen having to prove their legal status at any given moment?

I like it more than the idea of only citizens of color having to carry evidence.

If this is the path we're going to take, I want to see all citizens do it.