Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-09 07:39 AM: > Reading the text of the bill: > http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf > I see no statute that entitles a "show me your papers" demand unless it is in > the course of investigation of a crime. The straw man argument that police > in > Arizona (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) will harass people because > they > don't like the way they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical.
The trick is that you have to _look_ for the logic others use. This often requires listening with empathy. The logic is there. Just because _you_ don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. ;-) Now, whether it's _valid_ or sound is another matter. But it is logical, as is your position. Here's an excellent post on the subject: http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2010/04/28/new-arizona-immigration-law-and-id-demands/ If you read the comments, you'll see the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Checkpoint USA Says: April 30th, 2010 at 12:06 am Microsoft Bob said: “Arizona is one of a few states with a “Stop and Identify” law: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS This new law establishes criminal penalties. So if the officer suspects you are violating this law, they can use the stop-and-identify statue to require you to produce ID (see Hiibel). I believe if you refused to provide any ID you would simply be detained under the stop and identify statue that has been on the books for 5+ years. Thus it is technically correct there is no “papers please” in this law, but the effect of this law with others already on the books still leads to that situation for all practical purposes, as far as I can tell.” I’ll be writing about this in more detail on my blog but the Arizona Legislature has effectively shot itself in the foot with this one. In Hiibel v Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in pertinent part that stop and identify statutes based upon reasonable suspicion were only Constitutional when the individual being compelled to provide his name doesn’t have a reasonable belief that his name will be used to incriminate himself or assist in his prosecution: “In this case petitioner’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute” him” With the advent of this new Arizona law designed to identify aliens so as to prosecute them for not carrying their immigration papers, seeking employment in violation of the law or trespassing, a person’s name will indeed be used to incriminate or furnish a link in the chain of evidence necessary to prosecute. As such, the Hiibel ruling doesn’t apply and the stop and identify statute must be ruled unconstitutional in such circumstances. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Arizona bill provides for a fascinating study in emergence to anyone > interested in complexity theory in the sociologic context. So, if we're to believe this post, it is precisely that laws (and the systems they govern) are _complex_ that constitutes the logic you don't see. The LEOs already have the legal right to detain anyone who refuses to show ID when asked. This new law, despite the modifications made later, just puts more _focus_ on brown people. Now, it's true that IF (big if) the subject has her legal chops, has read the law with wisdom, has had long conversations like the one we're having now, or has some lawyer friends, THEN she can refuse to show ID when the LEO demands it. She'll be detained; but even if she's here illegally, the application of that law in that circumstance will be deemed unconstitutional. And IF (another big if) she has the finances or gets the attention of the ACLU, then she can pursue it all the way to the supreme court or whatever path it takes through the courts. But how many subjects of this law... we _reasonably_ suppose are here illegally... have the time, money, and privilege to gain this intimate understanding of the law and law enforcement? My guess is pretty close to zero. So, who's the _REAL_ target of this law? The poor and uneducated. They are the effective target. This law is a perfect example of treating the symptoms and not the cause. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
