Help power the National Parks Traveler’s coverage of national parks and protected areas.
The Grand Canyon, as viewed from Mohave Point. NPS photo.
Are you rethinking that trip to the Grand Canyon or Saguaro National Park due to the approach Arizona officials are taking towards illegal immigration?
Arizona's move to require police to check anyone's U.S. residency status if it might be in doubt is drawing quite a bit of criticism. Already there's some evidence that folks from outside Arizona who oppose the law are canceling trips to the Grand Canyon State.
Are you?
National Parks Traveler is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I don't usually go around divulging this, but I'm not Caucasian. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but one reason why I got and carry my US Passport Card was fear that I might one day get swept up in some immigration action by some strange happenstance.
However - for the purposes of this new Arizona law, an Arizona driver license is sufficient as proof of legal status. I'm not sure if LE is going to be carrying around lists of acceptable state DLs, although I'd think an Enhanced DL would probably fit the description. I think for an actual arrest with suspicion of being in this country illegally, it calls for final status adjudication by an authorized US government official.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb...
"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:
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."
The background is that several states now require some sort of documentation of legal status before issuing a first time driver license in the state. It could be a birth certificate, passport, greencard, etc that establishes one is in this country legally. Arizona's list of acceptable documents is something like that, or a driver license from a state that does a similar check for new DL applicants. I mentioned there is a huge loophole since one can renew an Arizona DL or use an out of state DL that was renewed without requiring redocumentation.
Personally I'm getting the suspicion that there might be a brisk business in forged documentation now.
I just tried to read the law and wonder if a somewhat important point is missing. How about aliens that are temporarily and legally in the United States? Let's take a British or German tourist visiting Grand Canyon National Park. He would have neither a Arizona driver license, nor any of the other documents listed in the law. But he would carry his British or German passport with a small green stub of his immigration form hefted in as well as a stamp how long he can stay. But obviously this is not mentioned in the new Arizona law. Didn't they think of international tourists? How will they be treated? The law only knows persons who can proof their citizenship or legal residence on the one hand and illegal aliens on the other.
My grand parents came to to this country the legal way.They learned the language and were proud to be U.S citizens.
I expect that this country allow other immigrants the same law full way to enter this country.
Our federal government has been lax on this because somebody making big money off this.It's all about the money folks.
So sad to see this once great nation go down the drain over the greed of money.
I travelled this February through southern AZ (Yuma to Organ Pipe to Tuscon, through Phoenix and up to Flagstaff and then down through Sedona, Prescott, Congress, Vicksburg and Quartzsite), visiting every national monument and park on the way. The police presence (local, state and federal homeland security) was over-whelming. It felt like a police state BEFORE this law was passed, and instead of feeling safer, I actually felt a bit paranoid. I carry a passport at all times but would definately feel intimidated and harassed if stopped under the new law. I will NOT be visiting Arizona again until this law is repealed, even though I spend every winter in southern California, and every autumn in Utah, New Mexico and Colorado.
MRC - I certainly understand your concerns. Personally I think that this law is going to have its hearing in federal court and many of its provisions are likely to be struck down as with California's Proposition 187. The ruling in that case was that the Federal government was the only entity with the authority to enforce immigration laws as a matter of law.
A significant portion of Arizona's economy comes from tourism. That the law didn't specifically address foreign tourism show me how sloppy they were in crafting this legislation. Police are given broad discretion (the only requirement is for "lawful contact") in the situations where they can detain someone for suspicion of being an illegal alien. I know some have claimed it only applies to someone being arrested for another violation, but that's not what the law indicates. While the law supposedly gives people the authority to press charges against law enforcement agencies with policies to relax enforcement of these provisions, these agencies will have to weigh the impact if they end up detaining Mexican or other Spanish-speaking tourists with valid visas, just because they left their passports/visas in their hotels.
If people really want to make a dent on illegal immigration, employers who hire illegal aliens need to be hit hard with fines and maybe even criminal sanctions. That's politically tricky, since a lot of those employers are the political base for the legislators who supported this law. What's needed is an actual check of initial employment eligibility documents with a federal database.
The premise of this article is absurd.
I support the Arizona law as do 70% of Americans and as do 60% of Hispanics IN ARIZONA, accoding to Rasmussen Reports polling agency.
No more politics of division! Stop trying to split America along ethnic lines!
Americans, as Ben Franklin said "Unite or die!"
I'm frankly rather curious as to what "suspicion of illegal status" will be given that the law supposedly doesn't allow for "race or national origin" to be the sole factor. What exactly is the grounds for suspicion? Does it require that someone go up to a cop and admit it? Maybe someone else making the claim?
My reading of the law is that it will either severely inconvenience a lot of people who have no reason to be suspected, or it will have no teeth because the most obvious reasons for suspicion (someone's accent) can't be used as grounds to check someone's legal status.
I think one can easily visit the Grand Canyon while minimizing expenses on local AZ businesses, thereby enjoying your precious national park vacation while supporting a financial boycott of the now blatantly racist state of Arizona.
What is now legal in Arizona is not far off from the initial treatment of Jews in Germany under the Third Reich. We are now sliding full speed down that slippery slope, whether we like it or not.
And if 70% of Americans agree with it, then 70% of Americans are burying their heads in the sand just as Germans did under Hitler. But hey, wasn't our country "discovered" and "civilized" through the best of imperialist intentions??