Heads up: The new lie... AZ law only takes a Drivers License to comply.

[Mugsy]

Just wanted to alert people as to what my Conservative friends are saying. Be on the look out, and keep this info handy.

The new meme this morning is that "All it takes to comply with the new Arizona illegal immigration law is a valid drivers license. And people have been required to produce identification on command for decades."

Well, this is complete cr@p. The new law, 11-1051B, "requires" (thanks to creative wording, it is a mandate) officers to "determine the immigration status of the person", and you can't discern that from just a drivers license.

"dotCommonweal" has the full story.

ADDENDUM: To those claiming the text of the law cites "a DL as valid identification", THAT IS THE POINT. It is Creative Wording. Note the law does not say ALL you need is JUST a drivers license. That's the point the article is making.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Everything I have read says an ARIZONA drivers license

What about other states?

[onenote]

32. drivers license from other states is sufficient if

the proof of legal presence in the US is required to get a license. That is not and has not always been the case in all states, so its not clear how law enforcement will know.

[SargeUNN]

68. see my post above

I told how the Drivers License are done here and why it is easy for your license not to be helpful. I had to follow up on the post because honestly I did not make it clear, but it should also show you a way that they will get around such.

I live here and communicate with people of the latino community often and some have been harrassed by Arpaio so I am trying to give you information that you won't know about if you don't live here and follow it.

[newfie11]

2. didn't that trucker show his commercial license

and they did not accept it. Of course the law wasn't a law at that time either so go figure

[pinboy3niner]

10. He was detained by ICE--feds, not state or local

[aikoaiko]

3. An AZ newspaper is reporting that too.

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional...

These are the documents that would allow a police officer to presume someone is in this country legally:

-- a valid Arizona driver license

-- a valid nonoperating identification card

-- a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification

-- any other federal, state or local government issued identification -- but only if obtaining it requires the holder to first prove legal presence in the United States

-- Source: SB 1070

I think a DL counts if the DL requires that you are lawfully permitted in the US. If I understand correctly.

Having said that, I still don't understand how it is possible to ask about immigration without racial/cultural profiling without specific nonprofiling criteria being specified.

[sohndrsmith]

57. I just searched the full text of this law, and I certainly may have missed it,

but I could not find anything on this in the bill. The words "card" , "tribal" or "proof" don't seem to appear in the text at all. (As an aside, the term "birth certificate" isn't there either, so carrying one around would seem to be moot.)

I find it rather disturbing that there doesn't seem to be any sort of description or list detailing what an individual person can do in order to NOT be detained, regardless of legal status or citizenship. What it does seem to say is that a detaining or contacting officer cannot determine legal status - that can only be done by the federal government.

The term "driver license" appears 3 times, and only as it relates to impounding vehicles.

What would a pedestrian/passenger/non-driver provide to police?

From what I can tell, without "proof" (the definition of which I can't find in the bill) of legal status, you can be detained. Even with a driver's license, social security card....

Am I just not seeing it?

I couldn't prove my citizenship if walking my dog or driving to the store - right now, today. Until there's a legal definition as to what I need (a la the SSA's very specific, detailed list of documents) I still couldn't prove it.

Believing (cough, choke) that racial profiling has no part in this, this detention could happen to anyone, anywhere... (in this really annoying state)... ??

[pinboy3niner]

80. You may be looking at the wrong VERSION of the bill

There has been confusion because Google searches can turn up links to the text of the SENATE version of the bill, which was NOT the version adopted.

The House version, which was the one that was enacted and signed into law, is far more specific about what constitutes proof that an individual is present in the U.S. legally:

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/sb1070h.htm

(Note that this link is to the pdf of the law's text at the website of the Arizona State Legislature. This is THE authoritative source for the final text of the bill.)

[Saturday]

4. Please read the bill before you make statements like that.

Here is the bill. It clearly states on page 1 that a drivers license is sufficient.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

[Mugsy]

7. Yes, but no.

Yes, that is the scam.

As the article points out, the law says "determine the immigration status". So even though the law says a valid DL is acceptable identification, a DL is not sufficient.

[slackmaster]

48. Most state-issued DLs are sufficient to prove lawful presence

:hi:

[SargeUNN]

59. Here is the catch on DLs here in Arizona

You get a drivers license for a large number of years. I got mine when I moved here 3 years ago and it had the address I lived at then. I moved, changed my address on my license, moved to a temporary place so I didn't spend the 4 dollars to change it. I now live in another location I think I will be at for awhile and will be able to change it without fear of another $4 fee to get a new license. My license expire in 8 years so it was good for 11 years when I first got them. So since this is the case if a cop sees my address and ask if I live there now, which I don't, then he/she can turn around and ask for another form of ID. Also I have been told by those picked up on Arpaio's sweeps that a DL isn't good enough for him.

[SargeUNN]

62. I guess I didn't state that too good so here is a better one

I moved from my original location and changed my address, however it didn't work out so I moved to a couple of temp. places and decided not to spend the $4 each time and wait until I got a more likely place I would be for awhile then play the $4 once instead of always spending $4 time and again.

[dorktv]

87. Failure to update your address is a civil traffic violation.

Just an FYI.

http://www.servicearizona.com lets you update it.

[SargeUNN]

94. I don't drive since I can afford a car

so mostly I have it for ID stuff. I am going to get it updated at the first of the month when I can afford the $4 fee since the end of the month since I never have enough money to even take the bus anywhere I need I go.

Also if I were latino would be enough to get me asked for my birth certificate and if I didn't have it then go to jail.

[sohndrsmith]

69. This is page 1 of the bill (sorry, their CAPS, not mine). To which line do you refer?

S.B. 1070
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
12 adding article 8, to read:
13 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:

[pinboy3niner]

82. This is from the version of the bill that was NOT enacted

SEE POST # 80

[csziggy]

83. There seem to be two different versions of the bill on the official site

Daily Kos linked to version 's', you linked to version 'h'. Version 's' does NOT have the wording about the driver license, tribal ID, etc. sohndrsmithmay have searched version 's' - as I did - and not found the language quoted in the OP.

Normally I would presume version 's' to be a later version than 'h' but who knows for certain?
According to the Properties of the documents
Version 'h' was created on 04/13/2010 12:26:06 pm
Version 's' was created on 02/12/2010 01:55:33 pm

So the DL and ID language was added in the two months between the two versions, but I could find no obvious way in the text of the two documents to check when they were created or which was the one passed by Arizona Legislature and signed into law. In fact, there is no verification that the Apr. 13 version IS the one passed into law - that language could have been removed in the last two weeks.

Where can we find a verified version that is definitely the one that will become law?

[Lurks Often]

5. Not a lie, an AZ drivers license is proof of legal residency in the US

See the link to AZ DMV

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

[Mugsy]

8. No, it's creative wording.

Sorry, but is IS a lie. Note the law does not say ALL you need is JUST a valid drivers license alone.

[aikoaiko]

23. It does seem to suggest that one is presumed not to be an "alien" with a DL

:shrug:

Page 1
34 ....A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

[Mugsy]

26. Read the story.

Without repeating myself, a DL *alone* is not "proof" of legal residence, and how easy is it for a cop to claim your license is a fake as an excuse to throw you in jail?

This is about HARASSMENT.

[onenote]

35. I read the story and I'm not sure why you think it says what you think it says

I don't disagree that the law opens the door for harassment of people legally in the US. Just asking someone for a Drivers License when there is no legitimate basis for doing so is harassment.

And, sure, a cop could question whether the DL is legit. But its the initial stop and request standard that is the problem, not that cops can question whether the ID is legit. That can happen today if you get pulled over for running a red light.

[mwooldri]

39. My NC DL states quite clearly on the back that my...

... US Government Legal Presence Expires on 12/07/2016.

It shows that the NC DMV has looked at my Permanent Resident card and is stating on the DL that I am legally present in this country.

Therefore my NC DL is proof of legal residence in a round-about-way.

As for a cop claiming my license is a fake... well bad cop, no donuts for you! Possibly a nice fat lawsuit coming your way for false arrest.

[aikoaiko]

43. I read the story it is doesn't SHOW what you claim. It claims a DL is not enough

but it doesn't show it based on the text of the law.

You say it is easy for a cop to claim a DL is fake, but that is true at any time.

I don't like parts of this law, but making shit up is no way to argue against it.

[Confusious]

88. Because, we have scanners

Which read the magnetic strip on the card, which BTW, uses 128 bit encryption.

[sohndrsmith]

73. I seem to have a different version... here's the link:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Your link has an "h" in it, mine has an "s" after "sb1070"....

guessing the one you have is current? man, the format is identical... huh.
My apologies, folks.

[MajorChode]

64. Even if it is, since when is a DL required?

When I go out for a bike ride, I don't take my DL with me. Some people never get a DL for one reason or another. It still doesn't make it any less fascist.

[pinboy3niner]

6. DL is valid from all but 5 states: HI, IL, NM, UT, and WA

AZ recognizes out-of-state driver licenses IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

AZ driver licensing requirements identify 5 states "that do not verify lawful presence" in the U.S.: HI, IL, NM, UT, and WA (WA verifies only for credentials labeled as "enhanced").

(ED.: Sorry, forgot link: http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410 )

[BlooInBloo]

56. I never had to show any papers to get my WA drivers license.

[Major Hogwash]

71. Oh mein gott in himmel!! I alwaysh shuspected you vere un of dem! Ach du leiber!!

Alto!
Soprano!
Bass!

LoL

[dkf]

9. Well apparently your source is wrong.

You should correct your post.

[Mugsy]

11. Source is not wrong. You're missing the point.

Simply because the law considers a DL "valid ID", as the story points out, you can't determine immigration status from just a DL.

[pinboy3niner]

12. No, you're misreading

The law specifies what is acceptable proof of legal presence in the U.S.:

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.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Balbus]

16. When you find that you're surrounded by idiots,

maybe it's just one idiot that's being surrounded...

[Mugsy]

17. Proving my point?

Is that your way of arguing I'm NOT surround by children?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[lonestarnot]

19. Here here.

[pinboy3niner]

21. ROFL!!!! Balbus, you win best post

[Mugsy]

22. Yes, let us help the GOP.

By all means, lets help the GOP convince the public that the AZ law is simply "misunderstood" and not nearly as bad as we're making out to be.

Good job! :(

[AlphaCentauri]

37. Many DUer are not immigrants friendly

most likely some think that Mexicans immigrants are taking their toilet cleaning jobs.

[dkf]

51. I'm legal immigrant friendly. Illegal immigrants not so much.

I'm also against crooked and immoral wall street types. Hell I just can't stand lawbreakers period.

What I do admire are people who respect our laws and try their best to be good citizens. If you came here illegally in the first place you've already lost me unless you were a kid. On the other hand your parent really does lose me.

[AlphaCentauri]

93. H1B Friendly?

[pinboy3niner]

25. I will ignore the name-calling and the tantrum

You should know, for the record, that the "story" to which you refer does not involve Arizona law, or Arizona state or local authorities. It is about a man detained by officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)--FEDERAL authorities. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the new law in Arizona.

[Mugsy]

33. So the story citing the AZ law not about the AZ law?

Uh, look up... just over your head... that's "the point" you see going by.

[onenote]

38. if you are referring to the story about the trucker, that occurred before the AZ law was signed

So in fact that story is not about "the AZ law".
If you're referring to the piece that contains the link to the story about the trucker, it is about the AZ law but says nothing to explain your rather goofy theory that the law is written "creatively" to make a DL not presumptively valid proof even though that's what it says.

[Mugsy]

40. No, the story IN MY LINK.

The linked story in my post is NOT the story about the Trucker.

If you had bothered to read it before commenting/criticizing, you'd know that.

[onenote]

49. i referred to both the story in your link and the story about the trucker

that was linked in the story in your link. Neither one supports what you're saying.
I'll ask again -- where it the story in your link does it explain why a DL is not presumptive proof of legal presence.

[pinboy3niner]

50. Embedded in the article you link is a hyperlink labeled, "this story"

That is the story about the trucker detained by FEDERAL authorities.

The ARTICLE you link is wrong. It cites the vague language in a version of the bill that is different from the one that was signed into law.

Neither the article nor the "story" can be relied upon to support the argument you are trying to make.

See the applicable ACTUAL language of the law in Post # 12.

Then you may want to re-read your OP and this entire thread . . .

[slackmaster]

47. Mugsy, you've been proved wrong several times already

I'm giving your thread an Unrec for stubbornness.

[Major Hogwash]

72. No, he hasn't!

Yet, you have been!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Are you saying...

...AZ is going to start incarcerating truckloads of people and the paperwork they file will have officer's statements that read, "his DL looked fake to me" and the judges will look at those arrest affadavits and say, "According to the law that's good enough for me!"

I think it's a stupid law but you use nonsense to attack it you construct strawmen for the RWers to dismiss legitmate arguments.

[Obamanaut]

30. Does DU have a draft, or did you voluntarily sign up? nt

[Mugsy]

34. I've been here for years.

Years ago, this was a pretty cool place. Today, it is Kindergarten for political neophytes.

[Obamanaut]

42. Your profile shows how long you've been here. Surrounded by

idiots, and yet you stay.

[lonestarnot]

18. Now if employers would make a valid determination and be punished for not doing so instead

of tying up tax payer money with use of police in an area which they have no authority then AZ could avoid exposing itself as the bigot state. But there is no real interest in that, just discrimination and for that AZ sucks ass. Money better spent overhauling immigration and naturalization and shortening wait times to under 10 fucking years.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Illegal Immigration is "illegal" in that...

...it allows fat-cat business owners to new form of slavery. They can demand inhuman amounts of labor in exchange for subsistence wages.

You bring up a very good point. IIRC everytime I got a new job I had to present 2 forms of ID. Obviously the businesses using this newfound slave labor dispense with that requirement in order to gain their slaves.

Also IIRC Bush 43 made laws that encouraged migrant workers to sell themselves to his fat buddies.

[lonestarnot]

44. Absolutely, that and vote theft by GOP. Look at Greg Palast post in Latest Breaking News.

[sohndrsmith]

65. where is this in the law?? I'm not trying to be a nitwit, I'm truly curious.

I can't find it.... : (

[slackmaster]

46. You can determine lawful residence from the DLs of 45 states

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8223727&mesg_id=8224042

http://www.dmv.org/apply-license.php

[Confusious]

89. Arizona requires you to prove you are a legal resident

to get a driver's license.

[Dappleganger]

13. What difference does it make? They'll still be racial profiling

and intimidating brown people.

[Mugsy]

15. Their goal is Public Opinion.

They are trying to quell opposition to the law and rehabilitate the image of the GOP by making the law seem "reasonable".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. If the RWers were even half as smart as you make them out to be...

...they would be able to win wars and successfully run banks.

[TransitJohn]

24. Does the Arizona DL conform to the Federal Real ID?

If so, then it'd work, as well as other states' licenses that conform to the Real ID standards, I assume.

[pinboy3niner]

27. See Post # 6

A driver's license from all but five states is proof that a person is present legally in the U.S. The five states excluded are those that do not verify legal presence before the license is issued.

[UTUSN]

28. K&R #1 n/t

[JHB]

36. I don't doubt a DL will be enough...

...if you're white enough.

[slackmaster]

45. You haven't read the whole law, Mugsy - DLs from 45 states meet AZ's requirement.

Check out this reply by pinboy3niner on another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8223727&mesg_id=8224042

[pinboy3niner]

52. Thanks, slackmaster and all my fellow idiots

You've exercised patience and restraint (and in my case, I think, HEROIC restraint). I've tried to be polite and civil in the face of rudeness and name-calling.

The point here is to deal in facts, not hysteria. I had to laugh when I was accused of "trying to quell opposition to the law and rehabilitate the image of the GOP by making the law seem 'reasonable'."

The truth is that I see this law as an outrageous violation of the Fourth Amendment for the purpose of targeting and intimidating a minority. I believe it will be struck down by the courts, and certainly it will be enjoined from taking effect while legal challenges are adjudicated.

But there's no guarantee of that, and in the unlikely event that the law will go into effect, those likely to be profiled and targeted will need accurate information about its requirements. It does them no service to spread false information and create confusion.

[sohndrsmith]

60. What is the list of required forms of proof for in this DOT/DMV doc?

Gov't issue ID card?

I can't find anywhere in SB 1070 that says this or any other specific document means you get to go on your merry way.

I don't have one of those, and lots of people don't drive and therefor don't have a license.

The bill doesn't say what one needs to show, not that I can find. It just shows what happens to you if you're considered to be "reasonably suspected" of being in the US unlawfully. The law DOES specifically state that a law enforcement officer cannot determine your legal status, only the federal government can. So that implies (to my feeble brain) that no matter what documentation you have, if it "seems" that you could be in the US illegally, at the cop's discretion, all he can do is detain you...

That's wild, if I'm at all accurate. But I keep reading the bill, and I don't see anything that clears this up...

?

[sohndrsmith]

63. Huh. Curious the first 2 states AZ disqualifies are HI... and IL...

(even though I'm still not sure where this is in the text of the law)

Now, who do we know with ties to Hawaii and Illinois? Hm.....

...maybe it's just me...

[Confusious]

90. It probably is

Those two states, among others, don't require proof of "legal residence" to get a driver's license.

If their legislatures correct that, then NP in AZ.

[Mugsy]

53. Radio calls support claim.

I'm sitting here listening to callers to the Thom Hartmann radio show telling personal stories of how "a drivers license wasn't enough", while reading comments from people here tell me how "wrong" I am and how I've been "disproven" repeatedly.

Funny that.

[Igel]

54. Lots of things take a lot of proof.

Repeated, frequent proof.

Often enough, general opinion changes not so much because people are convinced that what they really, really believe is wrong but simply because enough time passes, younger people come along who are convinced by the proof, and the disbelievers die.

I personally knew a guy who was convinced that flying saucers were from Earth--that they were from a very advanced civilization that lived in the middle of the Earth, which was hollow, and had exists at either pole. He was a decent fellow, sometimes smarter than average but not always. He couldn't be persuaded.

The problem is that everybody is simplifying. I'll say it: You're absurdly wrong, adopting a generally counter-factual position. However, the correctness of others can easily be overstated because under some circumstances you're right.

For casual encounters, the law says that a driver's license, by itself, mandates presumption that the person is legally in the country. Nothing more is necessary if that's how the encounter ends. Yes, the license could be deemed fraudulent. That happens. But the law by itself doesn't make it so this, and as a result we're talking not a racist law but a racist cop. The cop would be racist regardless of the law, even for routine traffic stops, so we can get by with just saying "racist cop" to account for that data without further going to "and a racist law." Just "racist cop" handles the data, all the data so far, so we can leave it at that.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

"Any" means any one of the IDs cited. It doesn't say "any plus", just "any." Just one is enough for the person to be presumed not an alien unlawfully present in the US, barring anything else (some "anything elses" are listed later in the law). Anybody who says anything else is demonstrating ignorance of the law. It doesn't matter who it is, appeals to authority are pointless. Your great-aunt Myrtle could say the law doesn't include this passage, and she'd still be an ass. The problem is that this passage isn't the entirety of the law. However, what comes later doesn't eviscerate this provision by any means.

So there are cases when it is not enough:
"NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
7 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS
8 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO
9 A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO
10 FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
11 AGENCY."

That is, if Yurii Vladimirovich Putin has been identified as an illegal immigrant by ICE and the local police in Sedona are informed about it, only to pick him up for something else, it doesn't matter if he has what appears to be a valid driver's license. Perhaps he bribed somebody or slept with the clerk, so a court would have to pronounce it invalid. Nonetheless, the presumption fails.

Later, there is provision for anonymous complaints than an employer has illegally hired an undocumented worker. The law provides for verification of work eligibility. It's possible to have an AZ driver's license *and* not be authorized to work. However, in checking work eligibility if the enforcement officer finds that the person is not here legally, then he has "verification" that the person isn't here lawfully. Again, AZ DL doesn't cut it.

It goes on.

So you'll take away that in no circumstance is an AZ DL sufficient (note that it cannot both be sufficient *and* still require something else for confirmation, i.e., be both sufficient and insufficient in the same circumstance). There are circumstances in which an AZ DL *is* sufficient on its own. These are likely to be the most common cases; we can make assumptions otherwise, but some facts, or even a plausible default hypothesis, would be handy. Since the law hasn't gone into effect, there's no data on *this law*. There are, however, circumstances under which an AZ DL would *not* be sufficient.

Interestingly, I haven't heard much comment on the day-laborer provisions or employer provisions--which, when coupled with already existing AZ law, becomes a bit threatening. Good.

[BlooInBloo]

55. I've noticed many DUers enjoy this lie.

[underpants]

58. I heard that today on the local Richmond afternoon idiot

and I mean this guy is an IDIOT

[harkadog]

61. Untrue OP

A drivers license is all that is needed. Illegals can't get licenses. Why do people post these lies? http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[sohndrsmith]

66. do you know the section/part/pdf page no/doc page no/line for this?n/t

[sohndrsmith]

75. this is an old version (which is the one I've been looking at too).

If the link has sb1070s.pdf,

with an "s",

according to the document properties, it was created/modified on 2/12/10

However if the link has sb1070h.pdf,

with an "h",

the document date is 04/13/10

[harkadog]

78. This is fact sheet from the Senate for the final bill

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs_housechanges.doc.htm It gives the forms of i.d. where you are presumed to be legal.

[backscatter712]

67. That's the thing. The law is deliberately ambiguous as to what papers are sufficient.

I choose to read the ambiguity this way, as this is how it will be interpreted in real life.

If you're white and talk with an Anglo-American accent, a drivers license is plenty, and chances are the cop won't ask at all.

If you're brown and talk with a Latino-Spanish accent, a drivers license isn't enough, and you'll need a birth certificate, a passport, all sorts of stuff with you to keep one of Arpaio's thugs from throwing you in his tent jail.

[Better Believe It]

70. A drivers license only shows you are driving legally. It does not show your immigration status.

[SargeUNN]

74. see post 59 and 62 on Drivers License from someone IN Arizona

I live here in Arizona and so I hope maybe you see how the D.L. thing can be misleading as a form. Arpaio has been doing this on his sweeps I have been told by those who have been through it with Arpaio. Just because something looks one way on the surface don't accept it as clear cut. The real concerns about this law are that it says "reasonable suspecion" and there is already laws on the books that state when law enforcement is to challenge the citizenship. Also it has a provision that makes it where you can sue law enforcement if you think they are not enforcing the law well enough which brings up the question, what is each person going to consider enforcing it well enough? It is designed to open up these questions and it isn't vague just by accident.

[sohndrsmith]

76. Apologies to ALL - I have been working from the outdated bill.

Dated 02/12/10:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Dated 04/13/10:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

I knew I had something wrong, but take note - both are floating around...

[SargeUNN]

77. Understandable I live here in Arizona and cover it for my show

and if not for my contacts I would be unsure of what is up. Thankfully I am where I can contact the ones involved and get direct statements. I have talked to not only Brewer's office, but Goodard's, Pearce's office, House members that I know, leaders of different organizations affected and such as this.

[billh58]

79. All of the responses

to this OP which attempt to justify this Jim Crow "law," like their Republican counterparts, are tap dancing around the true intent of Sheriff Joe, Jan Brewer, and the white-supremacists who authored and passed this obscene bill: racial-profiling and the intimidation of Hispanics. That is the only reason that the specifics of the "impeding traffic while being picked up for work" scenario were included -- to give the Arizona Gestapo (Sheriff Joe and his good old boys) one more "reasonable suspicion" opportunity.

It makes absolutely no difference what kind of ID is "required," because the harm has already been done when the "reasonable suspicion" lame-assed excuse kicks in. Unless everyone who is stopped in Arizona, for ANY reason whatsoever, is asked to show their "proof of citizenship," the papers please "law" is racial-profiling pure and simple, and therefore un-Constitutional. A person can not immigrate to Arizona, but only to the United States of America. What's next for these faux-patriot asswipes -- going after suspected Hispanic Federal tax cheats, or suspected Hispanic military deserters?

Jim Crow DWB (driving while Black) traffic stops were proven to be illegal, and so will Jim Crow DWH (driving while Hispanic) traffic, or "work pickup" stops. Arizona has been rednecked territory for a long time, but the Hispanics are gaining ground, and the bigots can't stand that thought any more than they can the thought of an African-American POTUS and CIC.

The recent passage of their idiotic "Birther Bill" was no coincidence as a run up to this "papers please" piece-of-crap bigoted "law." The racists and rednecks currently running Arizona are sending a message to the rest of the United States of America: white supremacy forever.

[SargeUNN]

81. thank you Bill

That is what we who live here in arizona and some of us actually are well informed from sources involved in the happenings, have tried to get out, but since some choose to disagree with us and no matter what we say they know more than we do, some of us have started feeling it is a waste to try to give out correct information and what is happening under the surface. I have actually wondered if some posters think they are more knowledgeable of what is going on than we here are, and that is too bad because they are actually causing some to not give good information we have first hand because why bother telling people who don't know the information it when they refuse to do anything but disagree.

[csziggy]

84. OK, that link leads to a February version of the bill

DO you have a link to the law as passed and signed by the Arizona governor?

Your link leads to an article with a link to a story that has a link to an even older version of the bill than the two I posted about above. The version linked to in the newspaper story is version 'd' dated February 12, 2010.

So far I have not found a version on an Arizona government website that indicates it is the final version. Since there are discrepancies in the three versions I have found so far, I would like verification of WHICH version will actually become law. Still looking.

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. The House version is the one the Governor signed. Read this from Page 1, line 34...

From that version, starting at line 34 on Page 1 (emphasis mine):

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Here's a link:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

[csziggy]

86. Do you have a link to the signed law

Not whatever version might still be residual on theZ Senate website - it seems they have multiple versions there with no indication as to which was actually passed.

[pinboy3niner]

91. Here is the link to the final bill, as enacted and signed into law :

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm

Because of all the confusion, I had phoned the Legislature's legislative counsel, where they confirmed that the final bill enacted is the House Engrossed Senate Bill, and they directed me to the pdf at the link above.

Note that an authentic final version should have that specific language, "House Engrossed Senate Bill," on the front.

[csziggy]

95. Thank you for the confirmation

I had found this one but on the page it does not state what version it is, if it passed or that it was signed. Since more than one site had linked to the version without the language about the driver license or certain other identification being acceptable I wanted to be certain.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. Try this link:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070o.asp

If I read this right, it says the Senate passed the initial version on 2/15 and transmitted it to the House.

The House amended it and passed it on 4/13 and transmitted it back to the Senate.

The Senate concurred with the bill as written by the House and passed it on 4/19 and transmitted it to the Governor, who signed it on 4/23.

The House version of the bill is the one that passed and was signed.

This isn't "residual on theZ Senate website". It's from the Arizona Legislature's website.