Arizona Immigration Law: My take
Arizona SB-1070, the new immigration law, has people in an absolute furor. I have been unable to find any explanation of the law that isn’t hopelessly uninformative or laced with obnoxious propaganda and rhetoric. So I started from scratch and did my own research.
First off, here’s the actual law:
http://www.galactanet.com/sb1070s.pdf
The majority of the law is uncontroversial stuff. Mostly tightening laws against employing illegal immigrants, smuggling them in to the country, deliberately hiding them from authorities, etc. The critical section that has cause the uproar, however is Section 2, Subsection E, which states:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Because being in the country illegally is a public offense that makes you removable from the US, AZ officers can arrest anyone, without warrant, that they suspect of being an illegal alien. I’m not oversimplifying when I say that. It’s the overt, deliberate intent of the law, and self-evident from the text. No determinant or process is given in the law for what constitutes Probable Cause to suspect someone is an illegal alien.
On to the next bit: Driver’s Licenses. Many have pointed out that simply showing a driver’s license gets you out of suspicion. However, others have pointed out you don’t need to be a US citizen to have a driver’s license. Everyone talking about driver’s licenses is wasting their breath. The entire topic is pointless, but I’ll address it briefly:
First off, it’s true that you can get a driver’s license without being a US citizen. But you can’t get one if you are in the country illegally. Every state in the union requires you to prove legal residency in that state to get a driver’s license, and that includes proof that you are in the US legally. So certainly, a valid driver’s license proves that you are in the country legally.
But that’s irrelevant, because you don’t always have a driver’s license on you. The statute applies to people who aren’t driving, too. Many people don’t have a driver’s license at all. And, while it’s considered reasonable all over the world to require foreign residents and tourists to carry ID with them at all times, it is not required in America for citizens to carry ID. So being an American citizen, not driving, could land you in trouble if an officer arbitrarily decides you might be an illegal alien.
Unlike most of the people I see ranting about this issue, I honestly think the police have their hearts in the right place and truly want to enforce the law without trampling people’s rights. But if a law, through poor wording or vague language, allows even a tiny percentage of police officers to abuse it, then the law is flawed. Already we have had an example of this:
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7409929
The above article doesn’t mean it’s a police state over there or that people are Nazis. It was an isolated incident and the only such one reported thus far in the entire state. But it does mean the enforcement of the law is arbitrary and the wording is too vague.
My Conclusion: The law is incredibly broad and far too vague in its wording, giving police far too much leeway, which will inevitably lead to abuse by a small percentage of officers. I think it will be overturned shortly. If not by a federal judge, than by the US 9th District court (which covers AZ). And if, somehow, the 9th (which is the most liberal district of all time) fails to overturn it, the US Supreme Court will kill it 9-0.
To quote Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: “This Court will not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.”
-ATW
First off, here’s the actual law:
http://www.galactanet.com/sb1070s.pdf
The majority of the law is uncontroversial stuff. Mostly tightening laws against employing illegal immigrants, smuggling them in to the country, deliberately hiding them from authorities, etc. The critical section that has cause the uproar, however is Section 2, Subsection E, which states:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Because being in the country illegally is a public offense that makes you removable from the US, AZ officers can arrest anyone, without warrant, that they suspect of being an illegal alien. I’m not oversimplifying when I say that. It’s the overt, deliberate intent of the law, and self-evident from the text. No determinant or process is given in the law for what constitutes Probable Cause to suspect someone is an illegal alien.
On to the next bit: Driver’s Licenses. Many have pointed out that simply showing a driver’s license gets you out of suspicion. However, others have pointed out you don’t need to be a US citizen to have a driver’s license. Everyone talking about driver’s licenses is wasting their breath. The entire topic is pointless, but I’ll address it briefly:
First off, it’s true that you can get a driver’s license without being a US citizen. But you can’t get one if you are in the country illegally. Every state in the union requires you to prove legal residency in that state to get a driver’s license, and that includes proof that you are in the US legally. So certainly, a valid driver’s license proves that you are in the country legally.
But that’s irrelevant, because you don’t always have a driver’s license on you. The statute applies to people who aren’t driving, too. Many people don’t have a driver’s license at all. And, while it’s considered reasonable all over the world to require foreign residents and tourists to carry ID with them at all times, it is not required in America for citizens to carry ID. So being an American citizen, not driving, could land you in trouble if an officer arbitrarily decides you might be an illegal alien.
Unlike most of the people I see ranting about this issue, I honestly think the police have their hearts in the right place and truly want to enforce the law without trampling people’s rights. But if a law, through poor wording or vague language, allows even a tiny percentage of police officers to abuse it, then the law is flawed. Already we have had an example of this:
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7409929
The above article doesn’t mean it’s a police state over there or that people are Nazis. It was an isolated incident and the only such one reported thus far in the entire state. But it does mean the enforcement of the law is arbitrary and the wording is too vague.
My Conclusion: The law is incredibly broad and far too vague in its wording, giving police far too much leeway, which will inevitably lead to abuse by a small percentage of officers. I think it will be overturned shortly. If not by a federal judge, than by the US 9th District court (which covers AZ). And if, somehow, the 9th (which is the most liberal district of all time) fails to overturn it, the US Supreme Court will kill it 9-0.
To quote Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: “This Court will not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.”
-ATW