A. 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.
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).
There’s lots of room for interpretation here.** For example, does provision A above dictate that Arizona can give suspected illegal immigrants no civil rights protections not explicitly dictated by Federal statute?
The grayest gray area may be the word “reasonable,” as in, “reasonable suspicion” and “reasonable attempt,” above. The concern, of course, is that one person with brown skin and blue jeans could be “reasonably suspected” of being an illegal. Three or more in a public place? They’re now “reasonable suspected” of using that public place as a day-labor pickup spot. And what is a “reasonable attempt” to determine a person’s immigration status? Several terms are defined in this bill, but not “reasonable.”
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
Jon’s segment with Wyatt Cenac includes a clip from Fox News saying that the law will require legal immigrants to carry proof of their status. I don’t see that in Arizona Senate Bill 1070, but don’t take my word for that.*** Please leave a comment if you find it.
In any case, Jon tells Wyatt that “part of the law says that as a citizen of the United States, you’re within your right to refuse to show identification. Anyone can tell Arizona law enforcement, ‘Hey, I’m a citizen,’ and the police have to take you at your word. It’s a loophole so big, you could drive a truck full of, oh I don’t know, day laborers through it.” I can’t find this in the bill either.**** Let me know if you can.
I have found Arizona Code Title 13, Section 2412, though:
|13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person’s refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person’s true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person’s true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
So once again it comes down to “reasonable suspicion.”*****
How will Arizona’s new law be implemented, in reality? CNN’s Rick Sanchez interviewed Joe Martinez, chief of police for Kearny, Arizona, who apparently could speak only for himself and his police department, and had no intention of stopping people on the street based on racial profiling.
We’ll have to see how this one plays out on the streets and in the courts. Meanwhile, know your rights in case you’re stopped by police. Consult the ACLU of Arizona (or find your ACLU affiliate here) and FlexYourRights.org.
*I’m not a lawyer.
**I’m not a lawyer.
***I’ve never been a lawyer. Legal researcher, sure, but not a lawyer.
*****Hi. Still not a lawyer.