Arizona to DHS: No REAL ID, and we mean it!
Apr 26, 2010, 2:10 pm
#16
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
Why AZ governor Brewer hasn't signed into laws yet? I didn't hear it from AZ governor Jan Brewer does not have signed into the laws for called REAL ID Act. This is unacceptable for the behaviors in AZ does not have to required to get new ID. I can't commit to says anything about the restrictions. Why REAL ID isn't prohibited with the real identifiable.
Apr 26, 2010, 2:11 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,162
Arizona is obviously taking the term "police state" literally. Yes, it is pretty bizarre.
Apr 26, 2010, 2:16 pm
#19
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
Apr 26, 2010, 2:20 pm
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Apr 26, 2010, 2:25 pm
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,157
A government agent can ask - even demand you do something - but you can still refuse an order without any basis in law. Plenty of people have refused to identify themselves during these inland checks - the exchanges are often hostile, but in every case, the citizen ultimately prevails.
Apr 26, 2010, 2:28 pm
#22
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court authorized internal border patrol checkpoints up to 100 miles from the border to check the citizenship of everyone without even a requirement for reasonable suspicion. To me, that is a more important issue than the new Arizona law. Because of the constitutionality of internal border checkpoints, the constitutionality of the Arizona bill may not be the issue that some think.
And don't forget Brignoni-Ponce, in which the Supreme Court authorized roving patrols to stop vehicles just to question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status when the LEO has a reasonable suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. So the question is how does the Arizona law go beyond that?
And don't forget Brignoni-Ponce, in which the Supreme Court authorized roving patrols to stop vehicles just to question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status when the LEO has a reasonable suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. So the question is how does the Arizona law go beyond that?
Last edited by ND Sol; Apr 26, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Apr 26, 2010, 2:30 pm
#23
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
A government agent can ask - even demand you do something - but you can still refuse an order without any basis in law. Plenty of people have refused to identify themselves during these inland checks - the exchanges are often hostile, but in every case, the citizen ultimately prevails.
Apr 26, 2010, 2:36 pm
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
28-336. REAL ID act; implementation prohibited
This state shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302). The department shall not implement the REAL ID act of 2005 and shall report to the governor and the legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States department of homeland security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID act of 2005 through the operations of the United States department of homeland security.
This state shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302). The department shall not implement the REAL ID act of 2005 and shall report to the governor and the legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States department of homeland security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID act of 2005 through the operations of the United States department of homeland security.
Or maybe that's the idea...
Apr 26, 2010, 2:37 pm
#25
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu on Good Morning Arizona Sunday
Apr 26, 2010, 2:39 pm
#26
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
I'm sure they already thought of this, but supposing Rosco pulls over a, you know illegal immigrant looking gentleman. Well, if the person pulls out an Arizona ID, how will Rosco be sure the ID was not obtained by presenting fraudulent documents?
Or maybe that's the idea...
Or maybe that's the idea...
All I know is, first person that says "Eh (think hard A)" gets packed up and driven to Canada!
Apr 26, 2010, 2:41 pm
#27
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
There is no requirement that persons carry a physical identity document on their person. There is no allowance for local authorities to enforce immigration laws - that is for the federal government to do. The AZ law will most definitely allow for racial profiling - there is no possible way to enforce this law without profiling unless there is a mechanical method to stop and identify people (i.e. every Nth person).
The requirement to carry a physical identity document and show it to a representative of the government, and risk or arrest or detention if such document is not presented, is a gross violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
The requirement to carry a physical identity document and show it to a representative of the government, and risk or arrest or detention if such document is not presented, is a gross violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
For non-US citizens, there is a requirement to carry ID. Local authorities have the ability to take certain actions with respect to immigration laws pursuant to the Section 287(g) program.
Read the bill and one may see that it is not as strong as many are making it out to believe. The primary focus seems to ensure that local entities don't "adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."
As for the ID requirement, here is the crux of the bill:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this State or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this State where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. This person's immigration status shall be verified with the Federal Government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c)."
"This Section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Federal laws regulation immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."
As such, I don't see the Fourth Amendment issue given the bill's wording.
Apr 26, 2010, 2:47 pm
#28
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
As much as a big deal is of this law, I dont see it being a big change in the way things are done now.
Trying to get someone into federal custody simply because of their immigration status is frankly a pain in the neck and a huge time burner.
In this tough economic times I dont see any department focusing on this.
Before the bill, if a person is arrested for a crime and there was reason they were ont in the USA legally, then they get flagged for an interview with the feds at the county jail. The person takes care of the criminal charge then if they are not here legally, get sent back to their country of origin.
Trying to get someone into federal custody simply because of their immigration status is frankly a pain in the neck and a huge time burner.
In this tough economic times I dont see any department focusing on this.
Before the bill, if a person is arrested for a crime and there was reason they were ont in the USA legally, then they get flagged for an interview with the feds at the county jail. The person takes care of the criminal charge then if they are not here legally, get sent back to their country of origin.
Apr 26, 2010, 2:51 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Apr 26, 2010, 2:54 pm
#30
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Majority Opinion in US vs. Martinez-Fuerte: "Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning .... is confined to permanent checkpoints. "
That's local American dialect for native-born US citizens in some parts of the US that have been part of the US longer than Arizona has been part of the US. 
