Re: AZ (Or, "A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing.")

Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

“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) of this section. 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."

What are those racists in Arizona thinking? Imprisonment for not carrying identification? That’s insane! Wait a second… that’s FEDERAL law. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e).

The term “Nazi” seems to roll so easily off of the tongues of those who are foaming at the mouth over the Arizona law. [Please notice how I didn’t refer to the law as “new” because you’ll see soon that there’s nothing new about it.] After all, aren’t all of the Hollywood elites reminding us how Nazi-esque it is to demand papers from a person? Imagine the poor, poor soul merely taking his kids out for ice cream who does not have papers. He could actually face thirty days of jail time? Well, maybe only thirty days…

Willful failure to register:

“Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

There we go… Now we’ve got those Arizona Nazis right where we want them. How can it be fair that the Federal law only gives thirty days to someone who isn’t carrying their identification but Arizona can lock them up for six months if they never got their identification? That has got to be unfair, right? WRONG! Once again, the above is FEDERAL law. 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a).

One of the most interesting tidbits of Federal law – a tidbit that especially undermines the outrage from our administration officials – is 8 U.S.C. § 1644 which reads:

“Nothwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.”

So, in case you joined late: Per Federal law, an alien can be locked up for thirty days for not carrying their papers. Bump that up to six months if they never got their papers (making them illegal or “undocumented”). Further it is against Federal law to restrict in any way a government entity from inquiring as to the immigration status of a person. That’s the law regardless of anything Arizona has enacted.

Since the Arizona law has gotten everybody’s panties in a wad, there must be something new and especially cruel in it that is vastly different from the law we’ve all be living under for nearly fifty years, right? Well, unlike those who hold a position of trust (see Holder, Napolitano), I’ve actually read the law. I won’t address the sections of the law that deal with human trafficking and smuggling because I hope we can all agree those are bad things and worthy of prevention/enforcement. The gist of the Arizona law is spelled out beautifully in Article 8, 11-1051(A):

“No official or agency of this State or a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this State may limit or restrict the enforcement of Federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by Federal law.”

Basically, the law of Arizona is now to require enforcement of the law. It is sad that even needs to be said.

The rest of the whopper of a law (ten pages on my printer) refers directly to Federal law, much as I’ve cited above. It even goes as far as to cite which section of Federal law it is referencing in case there’s any doubt.

The Arizona law explicitly prohibits inquiries based solely on race, color, or national origin and appears to recognize longstanding case law. For example, in Terry v. Ohio (1968) the United States Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits an officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate. Per Terry, a reasonable suspicion needs to be based on merely “specific and articulable” facts. In other words, something as simple as speeding, weaving in the traffic lane, or (as in Terry) walking suspiciously past a store too many times, is enough to warrant a stop by police.

Once a valid stop has been made, a check of identification is also allowed. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court reinforced this idea in Hiibel v. Humboldt County, Nevada. The Court said, “…questions concerning a suspect’s identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops.” Then the Court restated holdings from other decisions, “[T]he ability to briefly stop [a suspect], ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice.”

The point of this rant is not to get into a heated Constitutional debate, merely to point out that there is nothing new or extremely heinous about the Arizona law. What terrifies me the most about it is that those who should know American law better than all of us put together (like the AG and POTUS) seem blind to the above. I guess I would much rather it was willful blindness in an attempt to score political points with soundbites than a true ignorance of the facts. As much as I despise pure political posturing, it is preferable to the alternative.

But Lesley, you just can’t have a post without pointing out some HYPOCRISY:

Hey, California! You know how you are all outraged that the Arizona Nazis are actually going to make people show their identification? Remember how you’re all about a boycott of your neighbor? Well, I suggest you take a look at your own California Vehicle Code Section 40302(a) which allows for the arrest of a traffic violator who fails to present a driver’s license or other “satisfactory evidence of his identity” for examination. That’s right, a person on the roads in Cali can be hauled in front of a magistrate for failing to provide satisfactory identification after a traffic stop.

Just sayin’.