jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

Arizona now requires anyone passing through or living in their state to carry papers proving citizenship that can be produced at the command of any law enforcement officers. Do you approve or disapprove of this requirement?

Whites support this requirement 58-35. Latinos, 9-81. Blacks, 4-83

Here is sb1070

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
S.B. 1070
- 2 -
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.

Here is federal law


(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.




Doesn't quite sound like the poll question, does it?

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

Arizona now requires anyone passing through or living in their state to carry papers proving citizenship that can be produced at the command of any law enforcement officers. Do you approve or disapprove of this requirement?

Whites support this requirement 58-35. Latinos, 9-81. Blacks, 4-83

That's a truly awful poll question

That's not really an accurate description of the law is it?

In practice, where does the burden of proof fall? If I get detained in AZ because I don't currently have any of the documents required to prove I am in the US legally, do the police have to prove I'm not a US citizen before they can prosecute me under the statute, or does my failure to produce such documents suffice for probably cause to detain me?

TenuredVulture wrote:In practice, where does the burden of proof fall? If I get detained in AZ because I don't currently have any of the documents required to prove I am in the US legally, do the police have to prove I'm not a US citizen before they can prosecute me under the statute, or does my failure to produce such documents suffice for probably cause to detain me?

do you carry a driver's license on you?

azrider wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:In practice, where does the burden of proof fall? If I get detained in AZ because I don't currently have any of the documents required to prove I am in the US legally, do the police have to prove I'm not a US citizen before they can prosecute me under the statute, or does my failure to produce such documents suffice for probably cause to detain me?

do you carry a driver's license on you?

I don't think I want to live in a place where not having one on my person is a crime, especially if I'm not driving.

TenuredVulture wrote:

azrider wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:In practice, where does the burden of proof fall? If I get detained in AZ because I don't currently have any of the documents required to prove I am in the US legally, do the police have to prove I'm not a US citizen before they can prosecute me under the statute, or does my failure to produce such documents suffice for probably cause to detain me?

do you carry a driver's license on you?

I don't think I want to live in a place where not having one on my person is a crime, especially if I'm not driving.

It's not a crime. you will not be asked for identification if you do not break the law. just as in any other state if you break the law without identification you will most likely get booked than issued a citation on the spot if such an offense would call for that.

seriously... read the bill!

Do legislative bodies write laws in all caps just so people get annoyed and stop reading them after the first sentence or two?

So what is the difference in post-bill AZ and other states, exactly?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:So what is the difference in post-bill AZ and other states, exactly?

the state of arizona has took it upon itself to enforce federal immigration law.

jerseyhoya wrote:Do legislative bodies write laws in all caps just so people get annoyed and stop reading them after the first sentence or two?

Arkansas doesn't use all caps. But a lot of stuff gets underlined.

azrider wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:So what is the difference in post-bill AZ and other states, exactly?

the state of arizona has took it upon itself to enforce federal immigration law.

If that is indeed the intention, then someone in the Arizona state government needs to look up the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

no comment

National ID card, huh?

I hate Harry Reid.

Bob Bennett loses his battle to be renominated in Utah's effed up convention system

jerseyhoya wrote:Bob Bennett loses his battle to be renominated in Utah's effed up convention system

good.

unless he runs as a write in (possible) and allows the democrat to squeak through and win

Seriously though is there a coherent argument out there in support of the National ID card system? Because I haven't heard one granted I'm not looking all that hard.

This makes me want the Republicans to take as many seats as possible. I'd prefer the government be in complete a stale mate and grind to a halt than shit like this to be passed.

jerseyhoya wrote:Bob Bennett loses his battle to be renominated in Utah's effed up convention system

Serves him right for occasionally trying to legislate rather than mindlessly screaming LIBBURLS ARE POOPYHEDZ at all times.

I mean, it's democracy and it's their system. But at some point, someone has to govern, which means compromise. Especially in the Senate, which doesn't really work unless the legislators maintain a baseline regard for each other as well-intentioned Americans first, rather than partisans first last and always. With the likes of DeMint setting the tone, that's gone.

I think Nightman's gonna get his wish for total stalemate, but won't be happy about it.

Yeah probably not.

A national ID card really pisses me off though. I'm emailing Rob Andrews as we speak.

Do you have a bill number or any links on the national id card? I know there was some stuff kicked around about 3-5 years ago on this, but it went nowhere. Is it back?

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bob Bennett loses his battle to be renominated in Utah's effed up convention system

Serves him right for occasionally trying to legislate rather than mindlessly screaming LIBBURLS ARE POOPYHEDZ at all times.

I mean, it's democracy and it's their system. But at some point, someone has to govern, which means compromise. Especially in the Senate, which doesn't really work unless the legislators maintain a baseline regard for each other as well-intentioned Americans first, rather than partisans first last and always. With the likes of DeMint setting the tone, that's gone.

I think Nightman's gonna get his wish for total stalemate, but won't be happy about it.

Utah's Democratic congressman, who represents an R+15 congressional district, managed 55% of the vote today at this convention.

Basically this guy represents Oklahoma, and almost lost renomination because he voted against health care reform.

So, like, drawing big lessons from its convention/primary system seems like a fool's errand.