Lies Within the Text of SB1070

by

Governor Brewer and others have claimed that opponents of SB1070(I’ll give them Holder and Nap0litano) have spread misinformation on the bill. She and other Sb1070’s should drop the charade and admit to what SB1070 really is: a drastic measure to rid Arizona of all 400,000 plus undocumented immigrants, which by its very nature will inevitably affect many cititizens and legal permanent residents.

If Brewer and co. were straight up about it, I could not write about the glaring self-contradiction that the bill contains within.

First, a conversation I had with the Arizona Tourism Office:

[Allyson] Hi, I’m Allyson. How may I help you?
[Visitor] Hi
[Visitor] I am thinking of going to Arizona to see the grand canyon and have a couple of questions
[Allyson] Alright, go ahead. 🙂
[Visitor] I am a Mexican-american citizen, and was wondering what places in Arizona I should avoid.
[Visitor] I’ve heard lots of stuff about the new law there, and am a little worried.
[Allyson] For issues in regards to the new immigration law, please follow the link to contact the proper branches of government or local authorities as we are not legal professionals. Thank you. http://azgovernor.gov/
[Visitor] The arizona governor?
[Visitor] she isn’t an expert on tourism?
[Allyson] I only have information about what kind of ID you will need. You will not need to avoid any area of Arizona.
[Visitor] what kind of ID do I need, then?
[Visitor] ?
[Allyson]
Did you emigrate here?

[Visitor] Yes.
[Allyson]
Then all you will need is a valid driver’s license or other valid legal document to prove citizenship. But, you will not be questioned unless there is probable cause.

[Visitor] A new york driver’s license will be enough?
[Allyson]
Yes, as long as it was issued by the federal government.

[Visitor] hmm, that worries me; ny driver’s license is not issued by the federal government.
[Allyson] It is issued by the state government which is governed by the federal government.
[Visitor] oh ok, but i thought citizens did not have proof of citizenship.
[Allyson] I will send you all the information that I have on the law.
[Allyson]
The new law does not require U.S. citizens to carry identification. The new law merely requires aliens to carry registration documents that they are already required to carry under federal law. Under the new law, law enforcement officers may only inquire about immigration status if there is first a lawful stop, detention or arrest for a violation of some other law, and then the officer has reasonable suspicion that that you are an alien unlawfully present in the United States. If this occurs, the legislation provides that any one of the following forms of identification will be accepted by law enforcement as proof of legal immigration status in the United States:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

3. A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.

4. Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance*.

The federal government, or a state or local law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government, can only make the final determination of a person’s immigration status. State or local law enforcement officers who are not authorized by the federal government cannot make these determinations.

* If you question the validity of your state’s form of identification, please refer to your state’s Motor Vehicle Division

This can also be found at this site

So the law lies. If a U.S. citizen has an encounter with law enforcement and does not have any of the above proofs, he/she is presumed NOT to be a citizen. And since SB1070 applies, in part, to all 14 year olds and up, many citizens will not be carrying identification on them. Next time you hear a person speaking about “mistruths” on sb1070, know that they probably are the one pointing you in the wrong direction. U.S. citizens must carry Identification on them if they think they could raise “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. You know, like looking like a working class Mexican.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

12 Responses to “Lies Within the Text of SB1070”

  1. Arizona Immigration Law Sb1070 Text - MeMiM Says:

    […] The Lakers beat the Sons hollow on Monday, and while the wager remains in jest, a number of civil rights group went ahead and filed a class action law… Lies Within The Text Of SB1070 « Life Through The Lens Of Bryan […]

  2. Arizona Immigration Law Sb1070 Text - Ardub Says:

    […] The Lakers beat the Sons hollow on Monday, and while the wager remains in jest, a number of civil rights group went ahead and filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Arizona and SB1070 this week. of Colored People (NAAC… Lies Within The Text Of SB1070 « Life Through The Lens Of Bryan […]

  3. Arizona Immigration Law Sb1070 Text - XTS Says:

    […] Lies Within The Text Of SB1070 « Life Through The Lens Of Bryan If this occurs, the legislation provides that any one of the following forms of identification will be accepted by law enforcement as proof of legal immigration status in the United States: 1. A valid Arizona driver license. […]

  4. Common Sense Says:

    I have heard much more individuals discussing that the law is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids state and local laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act.
    Once again it only applies in situations where the law contradicts the current law. Arizona’s law requires that State/Local authorities hand over suspect illegals to the proper federal authorities. Maybe you’ve forgetten (since we haven’t enforced these laws) but it is still a crime to enter our country illegally.
    But as long as we are talking about Constitutionality let’s talk about the Commerce Clause from the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This clause prohibits states and localities from passing laws that burden interstate or foreign commerce by, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with particular foreign nations.”
    Boycotting Arizona is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so knock it off already. Also to the Arizona government, how about we step up and actually file suit against these cities?

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Why should I even address the ancillary questions of boycotts of localities when you do not consider the serious constitutional questions of SB1070, such as it violating the supremacy cause? Especially since your claim is erroneous. It doesn’t have to contradict, purely speaking. The mere fact that the federal government has already stated that SB1070 will hinder ICE should be enough to give you pause in your bare conclusions.

      And, for the record, as per the supremacy clause argument, the whole “the feds aren’t doing the job, so the state can” is not remotely disposition. See Plyler v. Doe.

  5. bjohns15 Says:

    *dispositive

  6. emuleman Says:

    * The Arizona law simply enforces existing federal laws. Now Arizona police can actually enforce laws that are already on the books. Obviously the reason for this is because the federal government is not enforcing the law effectively in Arizona. The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona. No new actions. No new powers. No new nothing. Simply enforcing federal law, and absolutely nothing else.

    * The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime. Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. The same thing happens to me when I get pulled over, they ask to see my drivers license or identification card. This is not a new, radical concept or law. Police have been asking people for identification for many years.

    * The law prevents employers from hiring illegals, and prevents people from being hired as day labor off the street. This again is only allowing Arizona to enforce the federal law.

    Again I just find it amazing that people are getting all worked up about this. Federal law already exists, but the Federal government does not enforce it. Arizona has a huge immigration problem. They finally decide to pass a law that allows state officers to enforce the federal laws. It is the federal government’s irresponsibility that has finally caused Arizona to take charge and protect its citizens.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Your analysis wrong. See preliminary report by four Arizona law professors

      • emuleman Says:

        I have no idea of what preliminary reports by which four Arizona law professors you are referring too. Maybe a link would have been nice.

        Rather than have me read some reports to try and figure out what exactly you are referring to that makes my statement wrong, it would be nice if you would cite an example for both me and your readers, as this would be beneficial for starting a discussion on this subject. Your response in quite inadequate for starting a dialogue.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        It’s called google. type in “preliminary report arizona law professors”.

  7. daver Says:

    Just an FYI, perhaps it is a bit beside the point, but a NY state driver’s license will _not_ prove citizenship under SB1070. The law left a little wiggle room, “Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, PROVIDED THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE*.” (Emphasis mine.) New York is one of many states that doesn’t explicitly require proof of citizenship during the issuance of state ID. If you are traveling to AZ from NY, you would be wise to bring your passport and/or birth certificate and/or any other documents that establish legal presence OTHER than a NY ID, and to carry them on your person at all times. Also, given the way the law is written, were an AZ law enforcement officer to accept a NY state ID as proof of citizenship (or one from any of the twenty-some other states that either don’t explicitly require proof of citizenship,) he/she would open their department up to a lawsuit and fines (as codified in SB1070.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: