Discussion: Rogaining in Arizona
in: Orienteering; Off-Course;
So, with the new news, it looks like there's a bit of an addition to the list of required equipment for rogaines in the sunny state of Arizona. After all, small groups of people? moving through desert and woodland? after dark with headlamps and hydration packs? Sheriff Joe says, that's pretty damn suspicious. Better throw them miscreants into county jail and figure out what they been up to when that girl who knows how to operate that federal verify system shows up on Monday. If she does.
* If you are an American citizen, carry a passport. If you don't have a passport, carry a birth certificate, preferably one that looks authentic to Sheriff Joe. Any old driver's license won't do. Driver's licenses don't prove citizenship.
* If you have a misfortune of being born in another country, see passport. You aren't getting out of the county jail for a while with a foreign birth certificate.
* If you are American but don't have a passport nor a birth certificate, well, I guess you're out of luck as far as rogaining legally in Arizona.
* If you are a legal immigrant, carry the green card. This one is easy. If you don't have your green card with you on the course, and Sheriff Joe catches you, it's a misdemeanor, up to 6 months in jail. And it's immigration-related, so good luck with renewing that green card when time's up for that.
* If you are a visitor, then a passport with a valid I-94 will work. Also easy. If you don't carry that, it looks like automatic deportation come Monday morning. Keep everything wrapped nicely in triple ziplocs, so that the visa don't get all soaked with sweat, which will prompt Sheriff Joe to cancel it on the spot, given all that new authority.
* Here's where it gets really interesting. Suppose you're a foreign student. Then a passport with an I-94 won't do. The I-94 is most likely stamped for the duration of status, and how's Sheriff Joe going to know if you're taking them courses you're supposed to, or been at say a flight school instead? To avoid any misunderstanding, carry your evidence of course registration from the school. Also, all transcripts from all years you've been going to the school, or else how's Joe going to make sure there've been no gaps in status? A gap in the past would most likely make you illegal in the present, and that's what Joe is getting paid for nowdays, catching illegals. A copy of the Immigration and Naturalization Act would be handy, too, since Sheriff Joe's not going to go into the fine details as to what constituted acceptable gaps in status for that O-vacation break you took last summer. And a business card from your lawyer.
* And if you're are on a work visa, well, that gets to be one heavy stack of paperwork! It looks like you'd need an employment offer and all the paychecks from the employer, for the whole period since you started on the work visa, so that Joe can be sure there've been none of them gaps. The employer's most recent tax return, too, since who knows if it's a sham company. That's a briefcase you're gotta have to have in addition to the light and the whistle, and the water and the gels.
* And the most select treatment is reserved to the guest workers from up north on those Treaty National visas. It would seem logical, to me at least, that the list of documents Sheriff Joe would want to make triple sure that them Canucks haven't been insiduously stealing jobs that by birthright belong to native Arizonans is at least as long as the list required for initial admission. A visa and an I-94 won't do; who knows if you've been, say, curling instead of your duly authorized employment as an apiculturist?
And what a list it is. A letter of employment; "Proof of professional qualifications such as college/university transcripts, licenses, certificates, degrees and employment records which establish qualification for the prospective job"; "Evidence of compliance with DHS regulations, and/or state laws"; and proof of ability to meet any license requirements. In addition, those paychecks sure won't hurt, and the employer's tax return. And you will have to show to Sheriff Joe that your intent to stay is still temporary and you don't have emerging hopes of becoming a paid rogaine professional, or else you have materially misrepresented yourself upon initial entry, and that invalidates your present status, and away go all these dreams of pro rogaining, or curling if it will be, off and away past the barred windows of the ICE van that's rolling through the desert and the woodland, along the beautiful highways of the State of Arizona.
Sorry to ask - but is this for real?or is it some April 1 joke?
It's all fo reals
. People who voted on it didn't seem to exactly understand what constututes proof of legal immigration status in the United States.
From the article:
While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
They sure check the papers in France, and in Russia, and in other places. They don't throw people in jail for 6 months, or deport them, for not having papers on them at the very moment, yet this is precisely the intent of the Arizona law (U.S. citizens exempted). The U.S. federal law does not carry this penalty, either. While the feds always had the requirement to carry the papers, this requirement was infrequently enforced, and certainly not in my hypothetical situation, during a rogaine—the feds simply don't have the people.
But this is different. This means any
duly deputized local law enforcement agent in Arizona can ask for documents, and arrest and detain people for not having them. And there is almost always some enforcement agent present within close reach of a rogaine or an O-meet.
I'm going to have a hard time organizing an A-meet in Arizona while also encouraging a tourist boycott (as supported by my congresscritter).
If you do organize it, make sure everyone knows about the requirements. Last thing you'd want is everyone who has a non-Arizonan accent to end in jail.
and that is exactly why I'm not orienteering in the US :P
Right Colm, because the farmers in Ireland are so incredibly friendly when they see orienteers run through their land.
The key is not to be spotted...you'd only get yelled at - or get the dog set on you.. not arrested
It's only a single state. So far.
I'm really curious how this is going to play out. Do they really want everyone who goes out for a run, a bike ride, or to shoot hoops at the playground to carry their PASSPORT with them? If you're running around your neighborhood at night because it's 110 degrees during the day, is that suspicious enough to get carded? For a state that elite runners move to for training, they're sure making it hard to get out the door.
Next step: citizens will be implanted with microchips with citizenship status and all required paperwork. Get stopped? Just get scanned, and you're on your way!
bct, no idea how the local authorities will handle the law. I have a feeling that a lot of cops aren't going to go out and ask random people for papers. Maybe not so in Sheriff Joe's county... but the whole thing is so ludicrous that I can't imagine it will last long.
I have a feeling that a lot of cops aren't going to go out and ask random people for papers
If that happens, then according to the law the citizenry has the full right to sue law enforcement for not doing their jobs. The intent of the law is that they do go out and harrass people.
@kupackman: I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but I guarantee you it's coming. My dog already has a chip.
Eventually some will agitate for it personal chips so they don't have to carry papers. Perhaps citizens with suspicious minority appearances? tell me when this reaches New York and its a risk at Harriman. Alternatively, tell me when a map in Arizona appears in the 101 maps list.
* If you're a meet organizer, contact the local law enforcement authorities and let them know what's going to be going on. They might realize that this is not going to be a fruitful place to be send out patrols (since most of the suspcious looking people are in fact going to be legit US citizens), or they might not. In doing so, you may get a sense as to what their feelings are on the matter, and be able to perhaps additionally warn the participants if the sheriff appears to take a dim view of such activities.
Probably much ado about nothing. I'm surprised a federal district court hasn't already put an injunction on the enforcement of the law. Would imagine this will happen soon.
just finished 2 days of map running and setting practice courses for my son here in Arizona... didn't run into Sheriff Joe, the Border Patrol, or any other law enforcement... only had to worry about the real dangers of dehydration, heat stroke, twisted ankles, and snake bite....
The law takes effect in 90 days.
Before anyone jumps to too many conclusions, read the law. The national media (including conservative Fox News) has reported it with a lot of embellishment and inaccuracy. This is unlikely to result in any hassles for orienteers or rogainers, proably less hassle than the already existing federal border patrol checkpoints which require all persons to stop, even though they are entirely within US territory tens of miles from the border.
Contrary to what has been reported, you're not being required to carry ID at all times, nor are you going to be stopped unless there is suspicion or probable cause. When a law is proposed to require ID on demand within the US I'll be among the first to oppose it.
If anyone wants to organize boycotts, please save it for federal and state actions which legitimately threaten our personal freedoms. I can think of plenty of recent legislation far more noxious and restrictive than this (inclduing the afforementioned existing checkpoints).
The law won't take efffect until July and it is already being challenged and won't take effect until challenges clear, but it appears to be very well thought out to avoid being overturned on constitutional grounds.
The federal government does need to take steps to make legal visits and legal immigration easier. But in the meantime, AZ has taken a laudable step to stem the tide of illegal and undocumented persons which is overwhelming medical, educational, prison, and other services within the state.
"a law is proposed to require ID on demand within the US..." greencard holders are already supposed to carry that document with them at all times.
Let me rephrase - a law to require citizens to produce ID on demand. Exactly like the way the media has reported the proposed AZ law, I am guilty of poor / incomplete phrasing.
but the point is that if you're a citizen in a demographic that also contains a fair number of non-citizens, the law basically requires you to be able to prove you're legal or you risk deportation. Who defines "reasonable" belief? "the guy spoke with a funny accent so I had a reasonable belief that he might be from Latvia and overstayed his tourist visa..." Certainly not SB 1070, which also requires the law enforcement officials to enact the law fully, and to share and obtain immigration data from other jurisdictions. so much for everyone being equal. (oh yeah, also the law seems to require drivers to check the immigration status of all their passengers, or they risk being charged with people smuggling, 13-2929).
Hi Mike! SB 1070 is on the Arizona website
Contrary to what has been reported, you're not being required to carry ID at all times,
True for citizens. Untrue for non-citizens. Untrue for legal visitors, temporary workers, or foreign students. And as a citizen you are indeed not required to carry ID. But you can be detained and questioned if you don't.
nor are you going to be stopped unless there is suspicion or probable cause.
The probable cause includes a foreign accent. The original says "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". Obviously a law enforcement officer is not doing to discern your accent if you are driving around, but if you are, say, the winning team of the 2009 North American Rogaine Champs walking on a public highway and talking loudly, I'd say you'd be well within the reasonable suspicion as defined by this law.
it appears to be very well thought out to avoid being overturned on constitutional grounds
That may well be. It wasn't thought out to gel with the realities of immigration paperwork. It makes references to federal statutes that seemingly haven't been updated since 1940, and tries to enforce them.
IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
8 USC 1304(e) says
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section
and subsection (d), in turn, says
Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General
There is an issue here. The text of the federal statute readily applies to LPRs (resident aliens), but doesn't apply literally to visitors and other nonimmigrants. There are other statutes that preempt it in that area. If you are a Canadian just driving in for a visit, you won't be fingerprinted and you won't get any sort of "alien registration card". If you come from Europe, you will get fingerprinted and will get an I-94 Departure Record, but it is not the "alien registration card" as understood by 8 USC 1304. Other statutes say you aren't required to have an alien registration card. In other words, you aren't "an alien ... who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions". You are some other kind of alien.
Now, suppose on that dark highway in the middle of a rogaine we've got an Arizona enforcement official trying to apply SB 1070, and in his custody we have a Latvian citizen with a current (or, worse, expired or duration-of-status) I-94. (There can be a multitude of reasons why the I-94 would expire and the alien would still be in legal status; conversely, a multitude of reasons under which the I-94 would be current and the alien, illegal.) The official is under obligation to determine, in a short time and under pressure of citizen lawsuit in case of inaction, whether 8 USC 1304 applies or not, and what other federal requirements would take place. My money is on that the Latvian citizen will be in jail until the officer obtains tjhe information that is necessary for his full education in the exact details of the Latvian national's particular immigration circumstances.
It is exactly for this reason that I think the bill is misguided, not because Arizona is trying to deal with a serious and real problem. This bill isn't the right tool. It places ample authority to cause trouble in the hands of people who know very little about the immigration system.
Again for the record, I have no political axe to grind here. My main concern is that people, mostly non-citizens, who are in the U.S. legally, will be subject to adventures they wouldn't have if the bill weren't passed. This specifically applies to someone taking part in a rogaine.
I keep writing comments in frustration and then deleting them, because I'd like to avoid a political discussion here. Apologies.
It could be worse. If you're in Texas, don't give the governor's dog a threatening look.
I think this law needs a logo.
I think this law needs a logo.
I think it already has one.
The requirement to carry identification is controversial, for sure but it is a good reminder to all orienteering Americans to get yourself an up-to-date passport so you can participate in what promises to be two of the best orienteering meets of the decade - The North American Championships and Festival in British Columbia in July and The Canadian Championships on Ottawa, Ontario in August.
For ever Canadian and US citizens have not needed a passport to travel betwen our two countries. However this is one of the freedoms we have had to sacrifice in the face of governments needing to be seen to do something about the threat of terrorists.
Ahh, now I know what the arrow in front of the funny-looking person in logo C means. "You! Out!"
Ah, the silent "H". Sometimes I should keep my mouth shut as well. But this particular discussion did seem to have a distinctly political bent from the very beginning.
Lou dobbs was just on good morning America this morning saying that the cops aren't allowed to racial profile. that was funny, cause robin/robyn asked him "what does an illegal immigrant look like?" and he never answered, she asked him several times.
The federal judge who heard legal challenges to the law blocked the exact portion of it that was the source of my complaints above, and on exactly the grounds I mentioned (the matter that just about all parties to the debate seemed to happily skirt for their political gain, redirecting the debate towards things far more polarizing). A key part of the law was found to "impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden"
immigrants and legal
visitors, regardless of the broader dispute about immigration and race. Other parts of the Arizona bill have been left in force.
Perhaps Arizona can now come up with something a bit more appropriate as a tool to deal with its very real problem. And, I again look forward to visiting the great state and rogaining there without fear of indefinite detention.
There should be an event called Rogaining Arizona, with a baby doll at each checkpoint location.
Actually, it would make more sense if all teams were required to take a baby doll with them.
So what does the Supreme Court decision
mean for rogainers (with or without an accent)?
A bit of a background: The show-me-your-papers provision of SB 1070 was so controversial that Arizona's House amended the original bill shortly after it was challenged in courts, and blocked in part because of
the difficulties it would create for legal visitors to the state. Here
is the amended bill. As of the amended version, you can (Section 2B) still be detained for as long as it's necessary for the officer to find out your legal status, and (Section 3) it's still an Arizona crime to not carry your papers while you are out on the course. However, you can't be detained simply because you are speaking Latvian and the officer hears it, which the original version enabled; you must have broken, in the officer's opinion, "any ... law or ordinance of a county, city, or town in this state".
In today's ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated Section 3 and let (the amended) Section 2B stand. (Other provisions of the law were either not challenged in court, or don't readily apply to rogainers.) So hurrah—a Canadian TN national, for example, is as of now spared the requirement to carry at all times the whole stack of papers proving her legal right to be in the country, or face jail time!
It seems to me entirely reasonable for an esteemed state to verify the status of someone if it suspects that its laws have been broken. So, I think that most would agree now that rogaining in Arizona after today will no longer subject competitors to undue risk much in excess of what they would face in other states. Just, when speaking Latvian, make sure you obey that traffic light in the little town... or...
I am safe for two reasons:
- Majority Americans mistake my accent as Russian that I don't even get upset about it.
- I am not into Score-O formant orienteering and there is zero to nil chances that you might see me rogaining in Arizona from all the possibilities.
Please login to add a message.