I had a diary on Friday discussing the details of the terrible new Arizona anti-Mexican law: http://www.dailykos.com/...
That diary quoted from the engrossed version of the Senate version of the bill. An engrossed version is supposed to be a legislative chamber's very last version after all debate and amendment.
Here is my link, which is authoritative, from the Arizona legislature:
http://www.azleg.gov/...
(On Friday, I got that link from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, but I have taken this today from the Arizona legislature's website.)
Everybody has been treating that as the authoritative version of the law. For instance, I found materials where the American Immigration Lawyers Association cites to that.
But earlier today, Kossack pragprogress posted a diary (which he deleted after I raised some questions: I'd only asked him to clarify, not to delete).
It turns out he was posting to the engrossed House version of the same bill. Here is a link to the Arizona legislature's copy of that version:
http://www.azleg.gov/...
Why is this important? Well, some critical text is different!
In the Senate version, as quoted by me on Friday, a crucial passage is as follows:
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a country, 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. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
[I was quoting the entire section.]
Sec. 2, Title 11, Chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, new section 11-1051(B). Emphasis added: note that the two duties set forth in this section apply to all government officials in the state, and they are both MANDATORY. This is really radical. [this is my citation from Friday]
But the House version quoted by pragprogress today quotes the crucial section as follows:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF 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, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
- A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
- A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
- A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION.
- 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.
[my emphasis added]
The law is awful in both versions. But if it is the House version that was actually signed by the governor and enacted into law, then it is not quite as awful as I have been assuming.
The Wiki page on the law claims that the House amendment there was added after the original Senate bill was passed.
I've researched this for about half an hour, and I can't find a clear answer so far, and I need to get some work down.
Does anybody know for sure which version was actually enacted into law? Can you please give me a link to that if you find it?
It it turns out it actually was the House version, then an awful lot of commentaries need to be revised.
[UPDATE: From DWG's post below, it seems pretty clear that it was actually the House version that was enacted, so an awful lot of commentaries do need to be revised. The bill is very, very awful. I think it is still unconstitutional. But it got watered down more than I had realized. I present this here just in the interest of accuracy.]