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.
Merely an anti-sanctuary city provision. Let’s all enforce existing federal immigration laws.
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official
For starters, there has to be a “lawful contact” before ID is sought. Every lawful contact by law enforcement already results in ID’ing the person contacted whether it’s a traffic stop or upon exiting a 7-11 in a ski mask carrying a handgun!
where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien
The phrase “reasonable suspicion” is a term of art in criminal law. There are existing situations where an officer must have an “articulable reasonable suspicion” in order to, for example, detain an individual. Google the phrase and you’ll see a lot about it. What that means is that the officer has to be able to testify not simply “I had a reasonable suspicion” that party ‘A’ was doing ‘X’ in violation of the law; but rather must be able to articulate what that reasonable suspicion was based upon.
Applying that existing and well-litigated principle sets a clear legal standard for when and whether a person can be approached for proof of citizenship.
Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.
What can be wrong with that? How incompetent would it be to have a lawbreaker (illegal entry) in your grasp and just turn them out onto the streets?
[a cop or agency] may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
That’s an anti-racial profiling provision. Of course, the fairness of the implementation of this depends on the integrity of the officer, but then so does a lot of law enforcement. Add the “articulable reasonable suspicion” criteria and substantial limitations exist.
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.
That’s how one proves citizenship. Hardly a burden.
[officers or agencies can’t be precluded from ] exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.
Merely says to verify that the person is eligible to receive public benefits, i.e YOUR tax dollars.
That concludes my analysis of the portion of the bill that deals with the ID of a suspected illegal alien. The other parts deal with trespass by an alien, employment of aliens, and other items ancillary to the identification aspect.
CONCLUSION: the ID provisions having significant constitutional safeguards and are not unduly burdensome.