What papers, exactly, are they looking for? Re: Arizona issue

[The Backlash Cometh]

Birth certificates? What if you're born in Mexico, but became a nationalized US citizen at the age of 2? If you don't have a driver's license, does that mean you have to carry around your citizenship papers?

Also, what is the name of the paper that an legal alien has to carry around while he works picking crops? Temporary Visa?

Are there any other papers that would satisfy the police?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Zig-Zag?

:shrug:

[alfredo]

2. Any papers the victim doesn't have on his/her possession.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. If you are asking about a Green Card Holder

a Green Card Holder has to carry his or her green card on his or her person at all times. That is a legal requirement from the feds. You also have to present this upon demand by a FEDERAL officer (I hope state cops know that, doubt it, but still), and report to the Federal ICE that you changed address within 90 days.

As a naturalized citizen you have, in theory, the same rights as a natural born citizen, which also means not having to carry your passport, or naturalization papers on you person at all times. The way I read SB 1070, if I traveled to AZ, since I do have an accent, better carry my passport with me at all times.

Now since I am a naturalized citizen I have one up over you, I have a passport and to a point were used to carrying proof of legal residency for fifteen years. But what happens to a citizen who was born in the US and lost his or her passport but happens to have the wrong skin color and an accent? Born in East LA is not a comedy... and I wonder if it was loosely based on a case that we were actually involved in... guy was born in Mississippi, lived in Los Angeles and was deported to Mexico... took over a year to finally prove he was a US citizen... and this is over 20 years ago.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Green Card

That's what people carry who come to the US to work for a temporary period? So this Green card is what they mean by "papers?"

Why wouldn't my driver's license work in Arizona if I'm a naturalized citizen?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. That is your PERMANENT RESIDENCY card

it has all the rights and duties of a citizen except serving as a cop, officer in the armed forces or voting.

There are many types of visas.

Tourist visa, what my parents have... it allows entry into the country for up to 90 days of the year

Work Visas, non permanent resident status, at the end of it you are supposed to go home

Student visa, well you are here to study, that's it.

and Permanent resident card, otherwise known as a green card since at one time they were well green.

[Vickers]

8. Can you point me to a link where this requirement is spelled out?

My wife NEVER carries hers (unless she's traveling outside the USA). She keeps it in the fire safe.

She's never been asked for it otherwise, and this is the second mention I've seen about this on DU today.

[blondeatlast]

10. My ex was advised by INS to keep it in a safe deposit box.

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. I was advised by INS to carry it at all times

at the port of entry at San Isydro at 18

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/

We were also advised of these requirements about reporting movements et al, by these agents. Early on, before we got the permanent card, we had to carry our passport with the stamp on it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. I was naturalized at the age of 13.

You're telling me, that if I go to Arizona, I have to take my passport?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. If you have an accent

I'd do it. Hell tomorrow when I go vote, guess what I am carrying with me? No, it is not a legal requirement, but I've been challenged in the past. A passport stops that. And I am not even in AZ...

[blondeatlast]

15. If you have brown skin and/or an accent, probably. My ex is Asian Indian

but WAY often mistaken for "Mexican." (As in, suspected by authorities)

[pinboy3niner]

31. As in, UNreasonasble suspicion. nt

[blondeatlast]

56. Exactly. nt

[harkadog]

26. No you don't need a passport

That is just b.s. by people on this board who want to remain willfully ignorant about the law. But if you are just looking for something to be outraged about it is best you stay out of AZ anyway. Our economy doesn't really need you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Are you of hispanic descent?

I'm just wondering if you're talking from experience, or just academically.

[harkadog]

30. I speak as a criminal defense attorney in AZ who has actually read the law.

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. So we are free to roam Arizona with just a driver's license from another state.

On your word. Of course, there is already an example where this wasn't enough. Further down the thread.

[harkadog]

35. Yes you are free to roam.

1) I am not sure which post you refer to in the thread but it can't have anything to do with the new law since it hasn't gone into effect yet.

2) You have to break the some other law before this even comes into play. No one is going to walk up to you out of the blue and ask for proof of citizenship.

[Redstone]

37. What law do you have to break? Driving While Brown?

Redstone

[treestar]

41. If a driver's license will do it and you have to be stopped

what is the point of the law? If stopped, you have to show your license anyway.

So if an illegal alien gets stopped for a traffic violation and has no license, they are like anyone else driving without a license. Americans might do that, too.

Pointless, stupid law that changes nothing.

[harkadog]

46. The point of the law is that it allows state and local authorities

to enforce immigration status. The feds have primary responsibility but they are not doing the job at all in AZ. The don't have resources or apparently the will power to do it.

[treestar]

52. No it doesn't. Does it purport to allow the state officials to carry out a

deportation?

And how can the state officials enforce a law they don't understand? How do they know what defenses a person might have to their deportation? It sounds like they do not intend to enforce any federal law. They just intend to deport those THEY decide are illegal, without bothering with the very complex federal law.

What if the person makes a claim for asylum, for instance? Do they intend to hold asylum hearings in their state courts?

Idiots.

[harkadog]

57. The law says people would be turned over to federal immigration authorities.

The state is not going to deport anybody.

[Berserker]

42. Is it

so hard to make a copy of it. Most can with a printer now days.

[dmallind]

4. I-551

That is the designation for a green card (which is actually pink - or at least mine was)

I was advised I should carry it around though was not mandatory IIRC. I DID have to notify the (then) INS of out of state travel or moves etc.

Once naturalized you get a different certificate I can't recall the designation for. It's more of a "frameable" thing not something you'd want to carry around.

Of course a passport makes it much easier.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Why wouldn't a driver's license be enough for a naturalized citizen?

[CreekDog]

9. My license was given w/o any proof of legal residency, birth certificate, passport, etc.

so my license doesn't prove anything about my right to be in the USA.

[dmallind]

55. Two answers to that

Mainly the objection is that licenses are given out regardless of citizenship status, and often without verifying residency status.

Secondly is the idea that your citizenship/residency and DL are two entirely different things and it's not a good idea to tie the status of one to another.

Of course for a naturalized citizen in most cases a DL IS enough. I've never been asked to show anything more, and neither I suspect have most immigrants. That's why the AZ law ia a big deal in the first place because DL's DON'T show residency or citizenship status so something else is needed. Whether it would be needed by a pasty Anglo like me because of a slight remaining accent is questionable, but I'm pretty damn sure it's going to be needed a lot more by olive-skinned folks called Rodriguez.

[jmowreader]

24. The new green card really is green

The government recently redesigned the document to make it more secure (this is what it looks like..

)

and in the process decided to make it green. Which you'd think it would have been all along since everyone calls it that.

[pinboy3niner]

27. Thanks for posting that, jmowreader!

That's the first I've seen of one of the new, high-tech cards. Note that state driver's licenses have the same kinds of security features to thwart counterfeiters and those trying to pass phony I.D.s. Though I don't think they've gone as far as RFID yet. Seeing that is scary--reminds me of sci-fi films that show a hovering airship full of stormtroopers reading implanted chips in the citizens on the ground, below.

[dmallind]

53. That's cool - like it better now. NT

[CreekDog]

7. I'm a natural born citizen, however my CA driver's license was granted w/o birth cert. or passport

Same with my peer group at school.

It simply wasn't required then and hasn't been for any of us.

If an AZ cop were to ask me for something different (unlikely) I would be nervous about not complying, but I hope I would refuse.

[Vinca]

16. That's the problem with the stupid law. If you actually are a citizen,

you don't have to carry "papers." You could be locked up until someone comes to your rescue with a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers.

[Berserker]

43. I'm a natural born citizen

and I have to carry papers to prove I can fish in the state I reside in or if I am fishing in a state I am not a resident. Should we start a shit storm over that? Give me a fucking break. We all have to prove our citizenship every where we go.

[Vinca]

54. Then we should all have national ID cards.

Some of us don't fish. My husband is a naturalized citizen and he doesn't carry his passport around with him to prove his citizenship. I was born in Vermont, but I carry nothing in my wallet that indicates that. If I was stopped I'd be in jail until someone brought in my passport or birth certificate. In fact,there was an actual story in the news a couple of weeks ago about a guy who sat in jail for 4 days under those exact circumstances.

[pinboy3niner]

17. WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT I.D.:

The law spells out what the cops are required to accept as PRESUMPTIVE proof of legal presence in the United States. (This is not to suggest that no cop will ever violate this requirement--only to provide what the law requires).

This is the text of the law on this point (SB 1070, as amended by HB 2162):



A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

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

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


http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

[kctim]

18. Aw

you put an end to all the fear-mongering way to soon.

[donco6]

19. And then this happens:

http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate

[pinboy3niner]

20. Sheesh!!!

I tried to be very clear, taking care to state in my post:

"This is not to suggest that no cop will ever violate this requirement--only to provide what the law requires."


It is helpful to have factual information about what the law actually says. Especially when people doing online searches for the text turn up different, pre-enactment versions, which has resulted in some spinning of wheels in discussions here, with one poster citing an invalid version and another trying to discuss from the actual text as enacted.

You object to the posting of the actual, official text of the law because of the possibility of abuse by the cops? But that would mean there is no valid reason for discussing the text of ANY law--or the Constitution and its amendments, for that matter--because ANY of them may also be abused.

I believe it's worth having accurate, factual information, both for its own sake as well as for the sake of productive discussion here. Is there any objection to that?

[donco6]

21. And I'm just telling you that sometimes the facts are damned.

Sheesh!

[pinboy3niner]

23. So you're "telling" me something I acknowledged in my original post?

I don't see that we have any disagreement about the issue--in fact, it looks like we are on the same side of it. So I don't see any point in arguing. Agreed?

:hi:

[donco6]

25. Cool!

:hi:

[Confusious]

49. That guy was stopped by ICE/ immigration. FEDERAL.

That would be Obamas' FEDERAL. Had nothing to do with the state of Arizona.

Immigration officials can detain you without a warrant if they want to. But they can only do it near a border or on the sea.

[4lbs]

22. In essence, a passport if you are a US citizen.

I haven't used a passport since I was a little kid.

When I took my jaunts driving down into Mexico from San Diego, my Driver's License was often enough to get me back in. However, recently, they are now requiring full proof of US citizenship at the border stops. That's usually a passport.

So, it looks like I'll have to get a new one made, with a new photo of me, since my expired one has a baby picture of me. That's how long it's been since I used my passport.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

33. Harkadog, you calling him a liar?

:shrug:

Pretty uncool, man.

[harkadog]

34. The information he/she posted was not true.

Take it as you will.

[Vickers]

36. Then *that's* what you should have posted.

It might not have been deleted.

:rofl:

[harkadog]

39. I post what I think. If it gets deleted it gets deleted.

I have other things to think about in life.

[4lbs]

51. Really? Read this.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/17/1m17passport002938-many-hurry-get-travel-documents/?uniontrib


<snip>
When returning through land or sea ports of entry from Mexico, Canada, Bermuda and the Caribbean, U.S. citizens will be required to present a passport or one of a handful of accepted documents: a passport card, a “trusted traveler” card such as a SENTRI pass, or a driver's license enhanced with radio-frequency technology, issued in some states but not California.
<snip>

Well, since I don't have a SENTRI pass, because I'm not a frequent traveler, nor does my CA Driver's License have that radio-frequency technology, I need a passport to get back into the U.S. if I travel to Tijuana, Ensenada, or Rosarito.

Why would I get a passport card when a regular passport is just slightly more and works worldwide, instead of just North America and parts of the Caribbean? The wait time for each is also about the same.

[Retrograde]

38. And what if you've changed your name?

Many women in traditional marriages no longer use their birth names - do they have to carry around their marriage certificates as well? And what about couples who both decide to alter their names?

[harkadog]

40. It is a law in every state that if you change your name you must inform

the Dept of Motor Vehicles (usually in 10 days) to get a new license or State issued i.d. That is not a AZ thing.

[Retrograde]

44. true, but if AZ doesn't think a driver's license is good enough

you're still looking at carrying around two pieces of paper, at least.

[harkadog]

45. According to the law AZ does think a drivers license is good enough.

[pinboy3niner]

47. What if your DL is from one of the 4 states not meeting AZ's standards?

According to the law, a driver's license from any state is presumptive proof of legal presence ONLY "if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance."

The four states (recently reduced from five) that do NOT verify legal presence before DL issuance are Illinois, Utah, New Mexico, and Washington (WA verifies only for credentials labeled as "enhanced"). Two of those states border Arizona, so residents of those states driving in Arizona would be a common occurrence.

Since a home-state DL is NOT recognized by AZ in those cases (for purposes of SB 1070/HB 2162), what documentation do residents of those four states need to carry in Arizona? Will THEY need to carry a passport or a birth certificate?

[harkadog]

48. They would only be asked if there were reasonable suspicion they were in the country illegally.

The reasonable suspicion factors are taken from federal immigration law. The primary one is having no identification at all. So if they had any i.d. they would not fall under reasonable suspicion. Same as the federal boarder police.

[pinboy3niner]

50. Not falling under PRIMARY one doesn't rule out RS for OTHERS

Anyone in AZ may be subjected to reasonable suspicion, regardless of legal status. So the question remains as to what documentation is needed to prove legal presence in the case of residents of the four states identified above, should they fall under "reasonable suspicion".

(BTW, last I checked, AZ had not released enforcement guidelines. Are they out now, and do you have a link? I'd like to see what they adoopted.)

[harkadog]

58. You changing the order of the law and you can't do that.

No, not anyone in AZ can fall under reasonable suspicion. You have to break a law first. Then the reasonable suspicion standards -- which are the exact same standards federal immigration uses -- come into play. If you want to attack the AZ law you have to attack federal immigration law. There is no getting around that.

[pinboy3niner]

59. No, you don't "have to break a law first"

Besides the stop, detain or arrest criterion, the law allows enforcement of SB 1070 in the enforcement of any city or county law or ordinance. So if your neighbor calls the police because he thinks your dog is barking too loudly or your yard is too overgrown, and the cop who shows up at your door raises reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence--whether or not he or she finds any basis for the original complaint--you'll have to show your "papers."

AND, short of arrest for a law violation, if you're stopped or detained for investigation of a POSSIBLE crime or traffic infraction, that's enough to enforce SB 1070 on RS.

You still have not answered the question: What if your DL is from one of the 4 states not meeting AZ's standards? You could be stopped or detained for investigation of a possible violation. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you DID break the law--you got stopped for speeding and the officer thinks there's reasonable suspicion you're not in the country legally. Do you need to have your passport or birth certificate to prove your legal status?

[KonaKane]

60. Correct. All the law said is "reasonable suspicion".

And anyone with a brain in their head knows that "reasonable suspicion" in a state like Arizona, is brown skin.

[harkadog]

62. So how come you aren't complaining about the federal immigration police.

Who operate in AZ, use the reasonable suspicion standard, and are -- most horrible of horribles -- Arizonians!

[KonaKane]

64. Because the feds dont use the AZ papers please procedure.

and most of all, they don't use "driving while Brown" as a criterion.

[harkadog]

67. You are just plain wrong

And trying to be willfully ignorant. The feds do use the same reasonable suspicion standards as AZ would. 8 Code of Federal Regulations 287.8(b).

[harkadog]

61. Look you can continue to make up absurd scenarios

And you can do that with any law that is on the books in any state. So any law can be abused so we shall have no laws. That is anarchy and I am not an anarchist. If you are have at it. The point is the same exact standards are being used that are used in federal immigration law. So if you don't like the AZ law take on the federal law too.

[pinboy3niner]

63. Being stopped for speeding is not an "absurd scenario"

Nor is the fact that residents of the four states we've discussed--especially the two bordering states--will have to consider how the law may apply to them when they visit the state. Their DL still does not prove legal presence, and you've done nothing but repeatedly avoid the question with non-responsive replies and attempts to change the subject to federal enforcement on the border.

With your knowledge of law, you probably know the answers to the questions I posed, but you've been reluctant to supply them. Perhaps they are not helpful to your position as an advocate for the anti-immigrant law?

[harkadog]

68. I have been very responsive but you just don't want to hear the answers

because they don't fit into your pre-conceived ideas.

[pinboy3niner]

69. The documents question affecting residents of 4 states is a valid one

Under the AZ law, a DL from IL, UT, NM, and WA does not prove legal presence.

The question about what documents a person in that case needs to carry is a very real and practical one. This clearly is not a "gotcha" question.

You did NOT answer that question--depriving me of the opportunity to even find out whether or not it fits into my "pre-conceived ideas."

[JonLP24]

65. Just making a general comment

I don't carry my ID card when I leave the house (unless buying cigarettes) out of fear of losing it. I don't have anything to worry about though. Those defending the law probably never heard of Chandler roundup. I really can't believe anyone is supporting the law considering well known racist Russell Pierce wrote the bill.

[pinboy3niner]

66. Thanks for bringing up the Chandler Roundup. More here:

Arizona immigration law an unpleasant reminder of Chandler's past
Police and Border Patrol agents detained U.S. citizens and legal residents along with illegal immigrants in 1997. Many fear the new law will make history repeat itself.

By Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times
June 6, 2010

Reporting from Chandler, Ariz. — In late July 1997, police officers fanned out across this Phoenix suburb searching for illegal immigrants. Working side by side with Border Patrol agents, police demanded proof of citizenship from children walking home from school, grandmothers shopping at the market and employees driving to work.

At the end of what became known as the Chandler Roundup, 432 illegal immigrants had been arrested and deported. But during those five days, local police and federal officers also detained dozens of U.S. citizens and legal residents — often stopping them because they spoke Spanish or looked Mexican.

Read More:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chandler-20100606,0,2415717.story