Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
In Texas, if you are pulled over, you have to have your driver’s license on you. If not, you may be ticketed, or even arrested. A better scenario will be where the darker citizen in question is a passenger or a pedestrian. However, as one poster noted in an update, the phrase “lawful contact” has been adjusted to something like “arrested or detained.”
Click to expand...
I think that the Church can deal with arrested or detained. Lawful contact was too ambiguous. Any law enforcement officer could define “lawful contact.” These are the little details that the bishops want law makers to notice and fix.

Obviously, if I’m arrested, they have to run some kind of check and it will show my place of birth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Can Illegal immigrants get a driver’s license?
Click to expand...
It varies from state to state. Licenses are not regulated by federal law, but by state law. Many states just ask for proof of age and identity. Your passport is enough for that. The state does not care where the passport is from.

This is true of many countries, not just some states. In Europe you can get an international license that allows you to drive in the entire European Union. You just present it and your passport to the police when you’re stopped.

In Chile you can drive with your passport and your home license for one year. They do this because they have many foreign students there and many medical doctors entering and leaving the country constantly. They are one of the medical hubs of the Americas. Some of these folks enter for a few days and others enter for a few months to do research or some special project. They do not require visas from the United States or Canada, because they are part of NAFTA. Don’t ask. That’s another thread and an embarrassment to our government.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
So there is a problem that the law is not addressing and the bishops did not notice either. I don’t travel with my US passport or birth certificate when going from one state to another. I simply have a wallet. In my case, I have a driver’s license. If I’m in AZ I can show a license that proves that I live in the USA, when I was born and so forth. But it does to prove citizenship.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to proof of citizenship, only proof of legal residence.

An Arizona State Driver’s License that is unexpired is proof of legal residence in the United States. By law, you may not obtain a valid AZ state ID card (license or otherwise) without providing proof of either U.S. citizenship or legal residence. All AZ IDs for non-citizens have an expiration date set to the expiration date of the legal residence proven by the documents presented.

Almost all other states in the Union have similar provisions for obtaining such ID - which is why such a furor was sparked when some states brought up the idea of issuing licenses to illegal immigrants.
If I’m not mistaken, driver’s licenses are not on a national database and cross–referenced with health departments, which are usually the keepers of vital statistics, such as births.
Click to expand...
Again, you don’t need proof of citizenship, only proof of lawful residence.

As far as I am aware, our states make their driver’s license information available to law enforcement officers across all states and the U.S. territories 24/7/365. When I was in a traffic stop in New Mexico at 11PM on a Friday night they had no problem at all running my AZ driver’s license through the system.
Nationalized citizens don’t even show up in our vital statistics. They were not born here. They are not issued an ID when they become citizens.
Click to expand...
They do have a permanent, verifiable record of their citizenship in a Federal database, however. They have full access to valid “foundation documents.”
While the burden is for the state to prove that I’m not a citizen, in the meantime, they are holding me. This raises a question that has to be better addressed. You should not be holding your citizens because you suspect that they are not.
Click to expand...
By the text of the law:
  • You can detain someone for questioning for a period of time with reasonable suspicion.
  • You can only be taken into custody and moved into a holding cell with probable cause.
Once a suspect is arrested for a crime they may only remain in custody arrest for a limited period of time before charges must be filed. If the department fails to file charges in that time and fails to release the suspect from custody they are breaking the law. Absent valid evidence from the State charges are dismissed by our legal system and the suspect must be released from custody. Again, failure to release the suspect is illegal. In fact, it is Unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause in the Bill of Rights which specifically limits the government’s power over “any person” - not just over the citizens.
  • Marty Lund
 
JReducation said:
It varies from state to state. Licenses are not regulated by federal law, but by state law. Many states just ask for proof of age and identity. Your passport is enough for that. The state does not care where the passport is from.

This is true of many countries, not just some states. In Europe you can get an international license that allows you to drive in the entire European Union. You just present it and your passport to the police when you’re stopped.

In Chile you can drive with your passport and your home license for one year. They do this because they have many foreign students there and many medical doctors entering and leaving the country constantly. They are one of the medical hubs of the Americas. Some of these folks enter for a few days and others enter for a few months to do research or some special project. They do not require visas from the United States or Canada, because they are part of NAFTA. Don’t ask. That’s another thread and an embarrassment to our government.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
In Canada, in order to get a driver’s license, you need to produce a birth certificate which would show citizenship. Is it not the same in the USA? In Canada driver’s licenses are regulated by provinces as well but birth certificates are federal. If the US asks proof of age and a passport is shown, then that would definitely show citizenship right?
 
mlund said:
You don’t need to proof of citizenship, only proof of legal residence.

An Arizona State Driver’s License that is unexpired is proof of legal residence in the United States. By law, you may not obtain a valid AZ state ID card (license or otherwise) without providing proof of either U.S. citizenship or legal residence. All AZ IDs for non-citizens have an expiration date set to the expiration date of the legal residence proven by the documents presented.

Almost all other states in the Union have similar provisions for obtaining such ID - which is why such a furor was sparked when some states brought up the idea of issuing licenses to illegal immigrants.

Again, you don’t need proof of citizenship, only proof of lawful residence.

As far as I am aware, our states make their driver’s license information available to law enforcement officers across all states and the U.S. territories 24/7/365. When I was in a traffic stop in New Mexico at 11PM on a Friday night they had no problem at all running my AZ driver’s license through the system.

They do have a permanent, verifiable record of their citizenship in a Federal database, however. They have full access to valid “foundation documents.”

By the text of the law:
  • You can detain someone for questioning for a period of time with reasonable suspicion.
  • You can only be taken into custody and moved into a holding cell with probable cause.
Once a suspect is arrested for a crime they may only remain in custody arrest for a limited period of time before charges must be filed. If the department fails to file charges in that time and fails to release the suspect from custody they are breaking the law. Absent valid evidence from the State charges are dismissed by our legal system and the suspect must be released from custody. Again, failure to release the suspect is illegal. In fact, it is Unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause in the Bill of Rights, and the Miranda Rights established under due process have been ruled to apply to anyone in police custody - citizen or trespasser.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
I understand these points. I was just wondering about someone like me who does not live in AZ and is just there for a few days or passing through and you’re stopped for any reason, do you have to prove citizenship.

Though I would like the laws to be more specific. Rather than words like “reasonable time” or “limited time” I would like to see actual numbers. I’m from VA and in our state the law says that you can only be held 24 hours and then you have to be charged or released. The law is very specific. I don’t live there anymore, but it’s my home state. The police are not allowed to ask you about your immirgation status. They can ask your name, age, date of birth and I believe address. They were not allowed to ask your citizenship.

It is the same for a driver’s license there. You have to prove identity and age, not citizenship. You can present a passport, baptism certificate, birth certificate or any other legal document that proves who you are and your age.

Florida changed that not long ago. They did not require proof citizenship, just proof of residency. They allowed you to bring in your electric and telephone bill as long as it had your name and address on it. Other than that any other document that proved your identity. The immigration status was adopted in FL in the last 10 years or less.

I was stationed here twice. The first time, I had just come back from Chile. I simply turned in my Chilean license, took the eye exam and was issued a Florida license.

The seond time I was transferred here from Washington, DC. I had to turn in my DC license and show something with my new address. I didn’t have anything. So they allowed me to bring a letter from the chancery. I had nothing with my name and address, because I had only been in the state for 10 days. I remember the question about citizenship on the form. But I was never asked to submit any proof of citizenship. I was only asked to submit proof of residing in FL. I’m not sure how the check out your citizenship. Maybe your social security number.

Since I became a religious, I’ve never been asked why I have one name on my passport and another on my birth certificate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
pnewton said:
Absolutely. Sometimes when you are stopped for speeding you get a citation, sometimes you get a warning and sometimes you get nothing. If you are intoxicated in public, sometimes you go to jail and sometimes you get told to go home. The difference may be some circumstance in the person, like a person going to an emergency, a recent change in speed zones, a drunk who lives down the street and has a driver, etc. The difference may be in the officer, like someone about to get off work, the only patrol unit in their district, etc. There are laws, in addition to common sense, that mandate police action in many instances, like a domestic violence, a drunk driver. This is because a threat is eminent.
Click to expand...
I thought of another example thanks to Catherina on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6587992#post6587992

If a police officer finds someone with drugs, or on drugs, sometimes they will not arrest them in order to gain information against a greater crime.
 
AZ governor “Jan” seems to be listening to the Bishops.

"Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state’s sweeping law against illegal immigration — changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.

The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The follow-on bill signed by Brewer makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.

“These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona,” she said in a statement.

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer’s stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a “contact” with police.

Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

Stephen Montoya, a Phoenix lawyer representing a police officer whose lawsuit was one of three filed Thursday to challenge the law, said the changes wouldn’t derail the lawsuit because the state is still unconstitutionally trying to regulate immigration, a federal responsibility.

… ."

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/28/national/a150736D30.DTL

Too little, too late, ‘Jan.’
 
JReducation said:
I think that the Church can deal with arrested or detained. Lawful contact was too ambiguous. Any law enforcement officer could define “lawful contact.”
Click to expand...
No. The definition of lawful contact is not in the hands of the law enforcement officer. It is defined under our common law and jurisprudence. If they violate those parameters their detention or arrest is unlawful and the police can be subject to a tort.

The real problem is that the definition of lawful contact can be interpreted to include any form of voluntary contact with the police. Unless the greater body of laws has a provision that exempts victims and witnesses from exposure in this way (many do) it creates a barrier to people being able to seek police protection from crime.

However, it appears that the law has been amended further to specify that only lawful stops, detention, and arrest will trigger this law’s provisions. Thanks be to God!

That fully eliminates the most grave and plausible of my bishop’s concerns. Of the last 2 concerns, one is fully a federal matter of the operation of ICE once Arizona has turned over custody to the feds. The other seems to be met by the “reasonable” and “practical” clauses retained in the law.
  • Marty Lund
 
catharina said:
AZ governor “Jan” seems to be listening to the Bishops.

"Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state’s sweeping law against illegal immigration — changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.

The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The follow-on bill signed by Brewer makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.

“These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona,” she said in a statement.

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer’s stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a “contact” with police.

Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

Stephen Montoya, a Phoenix lawyer representing a police officer whose lawsuit was one of three filed Thursday to challenge the law, said the changes wouldn’t derail the lawsuit because the state is still unconstitutionally trying to regulate immigration, a federal responsibility.

… ."

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/28/national/a150736D30.DTL

Too little, too late, ‘Jan.’
Click to expand...
Has the law come into affect and how many civil liberties have been denied?
 
mlund said:
No. The definition of lawful contact is not in the hands of the law enforcement officer. It is defined under our common law and jurisprudence. If they violate those parameters their detention or arrest is unlawful and the police can be subject to a tort.

The real problem is that the definition of lawful contact can be interpreted to include any form of voluntary contact with the police. Unless the greater body of laws has a provision that exempts victims and witnesses from exposure in this way (many do) it creates a barrier to people being able to seek police protection from crime.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
Hope you read the governor’s quick back-pedal.
(Post # 403.)
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Lose the sarcasm catharina. I thought we were adults. Do you honestly think I can contact the Governor and speak to her?
Click to expand...
Hey fella. You can read and write.
Go to AZ’s state site. Locate an email address.
Then ask the governor.

You feeling a little touchy?
Don’t aim your guns at me, man.
 
catharina said:
Hope you read the governor’s quick back-pedal.
(Post # 403.)
Click to expand...
I’m overjoyed to see the law improved and clarified to remove the possibility of confusion and unintended consequences.

Claiming that as a “back-pedal,” however, is unsubstantiated and uncharitable.
Maybe you should ask the governor.
Click to expand...
The answer to both question is “no.”

It is no secret that SB1070 can’t go into effect until 90 days after the close of the legislative session.

Staying informed is critical to having an informed opinion.
  • Marty Lund
 
mlund said:
No. The definition of lawful contact is not in the hands of the law enforcement officer. It is defined under our common law and jurisprudence. If they violate those parameters their detention or arrest is unlawful and the police can be subject to a tort.

The real problem is that the definition of lawful contact can be interpreted to include any form of voluntary contact with the police. Unless the greater body of laws has a provision that exempts victims and witnesses from exposure in this way (many do) it creates a barrier to people being able to seek police protection from crime.

However, it appears that the law has been amended further to specify that only lawful stops, detention, and arrest will trigger this law’s provisions. Thanks be to God!

That fully eliminates the most grave and plausible of my bishop’s concerns. Of the last 2 concerns, one is fully a federal matter of the operation of ICE once Arizona has turned over custody to the feds. The other seems to be met by the “reasonable” and “practical” clauses retained in the law.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
From what I read above, I don’t think that the bishops will be unhappy. We still don’t know about the Protestant leaders and the Rabbis who also wrote to the Governor. We have to hear if they’re happy with these changes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
catharina said:
Hey fella. You can read and write.
Go to AZ’s state site. Locate an email address.
Then ask the governor.

You feeling a little touchy?
Don’t aim your guns at me, man.
Click to expand...
Hey Catholic lady, if you make an allegation that the Governor’s adjustment to the law is too little too late, its your Catholic OBLIGATION to prove it as otherwise its calumny and gossip.

Instead you want me to substantiate your allegation.

Since you refuse to answer my question (is the law in effect and are you aware of people who had their civil liberties denied), then I would have to say no.

Perhaps you should run for political office since you seem to think you can do a better job.
 
mlund said:
I’m overjoyed to see the law improved and clarified to remove the possibility of confusion and unintended consequences.

Claiming that as a “back-pedal,” however, is unsubstantiated and uncharitable.

The answer to both question is “no.”

It is no secret that SB1070 can’t go into effect until 90 days after the close of the legislative session.

Staying informed is critical to having an informed opinion.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
So clearly you offer your unspoken thanks for the link. Oh good. You’re welcome.

Calling a back-pedal a back-pedal is a simple and reality-based call.
She thought her “law” was intact. It was not.
She learned that fact. Time to back-pedal.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Hey Catholic lady, if you make an allegation that the Governor’s adjustment to the law is too little too late, its your Catholic OBLIGATION to prove it as otherwise its calumny and gossip.

Instead you want me to substantiate your allegation.

Since you refuse to answer my question (is the law in effect and are you aware of people who had their civil liberties denied), then I would have to say no.

Perhaps you should run for political office since you seem to think you can do a better job.
Click to expand...
Hope you are able to soothe yourself soon.
I needn’t answer your questions when they should be directed to the governor.

My point?
Did the governor hear things the Bishops were stating.
Why yes, I do believe she did. You imagine otherwise? You prove it.

The governor’s unwise law passed and the ensuing upheaval was caused by her.
 
catharina said:
Hope you are able to soothe yourself soon.
I needn’t answer your questions when they should be directed to the governor.

My point?
Did the governor hear things the Bishops were stating.
Why yes, I do believe she did. You imagine otherwise? You prove it.

The governor’s unwise law passed and the ensuing upheaval was caused by her.
Click to expand...
But as I understand what I’m reading, the Governor now has to ammend the law or that’s what she’s trying to do. I’m I understanding correctly or am I missing something?

Thanks for the clarification.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top