Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the new AZ immigration law?

I pride myself on being a pretty adept Google searcher, but I can't seem to find a copy of the law that isn't on a website loaded with viruses.

Any help out there?

It's the Senate version, but the one actually adopted was the HOUSE engrossed version.

See Post # 8. It links directly to the pdf of the law as enacted and signed by the Governor, directly from the Arizona State Legislature website.

:thumbsup:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Obtained from this google search (hit #2):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=arizona+immigration+law+full+text&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

There are a couple of different areas that call for identifying and arresting people who are here illegally. The section that Kos article referred to is not the most egregious, imo.

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

This is the HOUSE version, which is the one that was signed into law.

There is some confusion, as some are citing the SENATE version, which differs in important respects. The Senate bill's provisions on proof of legal presence in the U.S. were vague; the House bill's provisions were specific, and it was that version that was adopted.

Further explanation of the differences, and the confusion, here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/26/860946/-Which-version-of-Arizona-SB-1070-was-signed-UPDATED

Since when does a US citizen need papers of any sort at all.

There's a lot of confusion about the law because different versions are being cited. We've been spinning our wheels on at least a couple of threads here because people are bringing different sets of "facts" to the discussion. Some clarity is in order, and I've tried to contribute to that.

The following link will give you an idea of what all the confusion spawns. And if you are doubting my motives, see my Post #52 at the end.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8230616

The law does require law enforcement to establish the immigration status through the federal agencies in various situations. And it allows local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration papers laws.

The section you listed is in regards to routine interactions with police, which is a whole other constitutional issue.

Did you check the link I provided? There was some heated discussion based on false information about what, exactly, the law says in regard to what constitutes proof of being in the U.S. legally under the new AZ law.

Your section did not cover all situations where a person would need to prove they were legal to be here. And while a drivers license would suffice for a white person, you can bet they will hold people and require federal documentation for brown people. Don't kid yourself. And then there will be all the brown people stopped for suspicion of doing some obscure thing that isn't legal if you're an immigrant, won't have their papers on them and then will get a fine. It goes on and on. You can't cherry pick a couple of provisions, apply them the way you would for a white person, and then say everything is rosy. It's not.

The law specifies what constitutes proof of legal presence. If a cop doesn't accept valid proof, then he or she is violating the law--and I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of THAT lawsuit.

I think it's unlikely that the new law will actually go into effect. It will probably found unconstitutional on Fourth Amendment grounds.

"tests" required in the South for black voters, the aim is not the stated aim. For example, black voters were famously asked questions like "how many bubbles in a bar of soap" to which there is no answer. The "test" wasn't testing literacy, it was suppressing the black vote.

As the arrest last week of that "suspicious" truck driver shows, having a driver's license may or may not be sufficient in AZ. He had his with him and was still detained for questioning. The ID requirement may not be for the purposes of identification but for a political purpose. If that is the case, there may be no way for a brown person to meet the requirement, depending on who s/he is interacting with at the time.

It had nothing to do with Arizona law, or Arizona state or local police authorities. He was detained by FEDERAL officers of ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. They were federal, and not acting under Arizona law.

state and local collaboration and is expanding all over, including in AZ. So, that bright line that used to be there is getting less and less definite all the time.

I'm not claiming you are factually incorrect. I think what I'm getting at is that this law provides cover for all kinds of abuses.

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

This is the website of the Arizona State Legislature, and the page is the final, enacted and signed, version of the bill.

Because of all the confusion, I phoned their legislative counsel, who confirmed that the HOUSE engrossed version is the one that was adopted.

or can they only do it after they make a stop for something else?

at the complete discretion of the police officer.

they have all the discretion in the world.

A peace officer may, without a warrant, MAY arrest a person if
42 THE OFFICER has probable cause to believe:

5. THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT
MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

for actually going to a source document and reading it (or trying to)

that is SO rare on DU

The former are sometimes held accountable for what they write.
The latter...not so much. :D