Arizona Law Leading to Racial Profiling

The new Arizona law (SB 1070) would require local police to enforce federal-immigration laws. Here is the text of the bill. Do you feel this new law unfairly and/or unlawfully employs racial profiling (even if the detention is made through some other pretext)? Is there a way in which racial profiling could be legally exculpated in certain contexts and situations?

"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." [bold, mine]

Some have suggested that because "latino" is not a race per the U.S. 2010 Census, that it cannot possibly be racial profiling to stop someone on racial grounds, but as we see above it says the consideration can be on "race, color or national origin." Can it still be 'racial profiling' taking the other two elements into account or only the 'race' portion?

Thoughts?

Delgado may provide some Constitutional insight to what is permitted under the 4th AM.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/210/

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Delgado may provide some Constitutional insight to what is permitted under the 4th AM.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/210/

---

I'm curious, and maybe one of the legal eagles (not blue) could explain in more detail the provisions of the recently passed law with respect its, apparent I suppose, intent to enforce federal immigration laws through state agents. I'm not particularly sure how that would play out in the courts given that it's a state agent acting upon federal law by way of state authority. Where would one file suit? Would a state court be considered competent because its state action albeit through federal law?

Presumably, this could cause issue in a state supreme court because the decision no matter how restricted to state law would necessarily (or not?) be an enactment of federal law.

I'm just a little confused over who would be the competent original court and the appropriate line of appellate courts.

Also, the case to which you cite doesn't seem directly on point. The non-seizure of an entire workforce is a little different than the non-seizure of stopping someone and requiring of them to present immigration papers. Mightn't they be free to leave without presenting any papers? Perhaps. Would a legal immigrant reasonably think he's free to? I'm not so sure that decision of 1984 was realistic in that regard.

I am curious.

What is the constitutional basis for a case that says a community cannot enforce it's own law as long as those laws are not in direct violation of civil rights law?

The fact that most of the illegal immigrants in their jurisdiction happen to be Mexican is not going to be a successful bar assuming, of course, that they are equally vigilant in enforcing it on British, Irish, Russian, Japanese, etc immigrants as well.

Most rapists are men... is searching for a man as the perpetrator are the police profiling? Shouldn't they also be looking for women in case one had purchased some "extra equipment"?

From what I have read, the law does not write new immigration laws. It basically requires the immigration/residency status to be investigated. If the person is an illegal, they are given to the fed so they will do their job to prosecute. From what I understand, the immigration status is already checked for certain situations. This mandates it be checked.


As I read the concerns, the problem that is of concern is white folks will typically not be asked to prove their status and latinos will because they are latino; or that latinos will be targeted and confronted for what ever (legal) reason where the underlying justification is to check their status.



this is the section dealing with how the contact is made:

Quote:

---

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR 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,

---

I bet we see some arguments on what is considered reasonable suspicion.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

I am curious.

What is the constitutional basis for a case that says a community cannot enforce it's own law as long as those laws are not in direct violation of civil rights law?

---

I think this is a part of the question I'm asking. Yes, it's a state law. But it's a state law saying in essence there's a federal law which we're going to take it on ourselves to enforce. So, I don't know if I'm envisioning this the wrong way, but it's almost like it's state action qua federal government.

Quote:

---

The fact that most of the illegal immigrants in their jurisdiction happen to be Mexican is not going to be a successful bar assuming, of course, that they are equally vigilant in enforcing it on British, Irish, Russian, Japanese, etc immigrants as well.

---

I'm not even at the as applied, or as enforced issue yet. While this is an interesting component, I'm still thinking about the first cause issues: how the actual jurisprudence will play itself out.

Now, I can well imagine the law being stopped on the grounds that the police are habitually stopping people simply because they're Mexican-looking and demanding proof of citizenship. I doubt you'd have any success in arguing that the police are stopping white people asking for their citizenship papers.

Quote:

---

Most rapists are men... is searching for a man as the perpetrator are the police profiling? Shouldn't they also be looking for women in case one had purchased some "extra equipment"?

---

This isn't a like case. You might as well argue that most gang members are black men, therefore, the police are justified in stopping all black men to ask if they're gang members. Or that most mafia hitmen have been Italian, thus we can now stop all Italian men and ask if they commit murder for hire for the mafia.

Do you see the not so subtle difference here? It isn't that attribute x is ascribable to gender y; it's that attribute x is ascribable to gender y and race z. To somehow ignore the race component doesn't actually give the question any merit; indeed, ignoring the sine qua non of the matter indicates the question doesn't warrant attention. After all, if you are going to put no thought into asking the question, then no one should be expected to put any thought into answering it.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

From what I have read, the law does not write new immigration laws. It basically requires the immigration/residency status to be investigated. If the person is an illegal, they are given to the fed so they will do their job to prosecute. From what I understand, the immigration status is already checked for certain situations. This mandates it be checked.

---

So, would I be correct in reading that to mean something along the lines:

a.) there exists a law on this,
b.) contact is made for some independently legal reason,
c.) if in the course of b.) it is suspected that the person might be an illegal immigrant, the status will be checked as best as possible.
If as a result of c.), the person will be turned over to the federal authorities for prosecution, or not.

So, the ultimate determination of the matter won't actually be held in state courts?

so far, from what I have read, yes.

Personally, I think the law is intended to make the feds look bad. It is no secret Arizona has disagreed with how the feds were enforcing immigration laws. What this does is say "here, we have an illegal for you to deal with". If the feds refuse to prosecute and boot (if applicable) the feds look like the bad guys.

This just seems like an extraordinary waste of people's time and tax money. But hey, what with fighting two wars and this health care law coming into effect, we have tons of both to spare. Thankfully, America has never enjoyed a more robust financial state affairs, what with having record lows in unemployment, record highs in consumer confidence and a robust round of trading for such a long period on Wall Street and all . . .

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

This just seems like an extraordinary waste of people's time and tax money. .

---

Why would this be any more of a waste than checking drivers licenses or insurance when stopped in a car? They are attempting to enforce existing law. If the people do not want the immigrations laws enforced as they are, then the laws need to be changed. I don't think it is right to make the folks that demand laws be enforced to be the bad guys.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Why would this be any more of a waste than checking drivers licenses or insurance when stopped in a car? They are attempting to enforce existing law. If the people do not want the immigrations laws enforced as they are, then the laws need to be changed. I don't think it is right to make the folks that demand laws be enforced to be the bad guys.

---

I'm not making them the bad guys. I'm not saying the law shouldn't be enforced. I'm saying that this law is a waste of time and money.

Consider: we can devise a system to take account of the law and enforce it reasonably well by simply making the law not subject to discretion. Illegal immigrant a is stopped for some legally independent grounds and determine to be an illegal immigrant. After that point, the crime has been committed - the only defense to it is that the person is a legal resident/immigrant/citizen and some documentation somewhere has simply been mixed up. But that's an affirmative issue the defendant can raise somewhere along the way; the key point being that upon discovery of his status through further investigation resulting from an otherwise legal, independent contact, the case has to be taken to court and adjudicated.

Or, we we could devise a law that has most of the above with the exception that upon discovery of the person's status, we pawn it off to another branch of government to either act or not.

The law, for whatever intent it may have had, or may want to have, in its current form is wasteful. The condition is either that the person is here legally, or not. If not, and there is no legally excusable reason, the discretion in the system needn't be there. No papers, no legal excuse, no stay here. It shouldn't be no papers, no legal excuse, we'll hand it off and maybe something will be done.

Sure, some of the people might be removed, some of the cases might be tried, but some might not. This doesn't make a fair field having an expected result based on similar circumstance.

The corollary example you raise involves local governments deciding to build into their system some discretion about insurance papers and driver's licenses. While not entirely fair that some may be prosecuted and others not (which is an issue that I as a non-Arizona citizen don't get a vote on), it is the case that the people of Arizona are free to waste their time and money as they see fit. They are not, on the other hand, free to waste the time and money of the federal government.

This is my entire point.

Part of the problem this law is attempting to deal with is, in some (or if not all) localities, police have been prevented (by local politics or direction in some form) from attempting to check the citizenship status of a person being questioned or arrested in connection with a crime - if that person appears to be hispanic. Racial profiling, meaning questioning all hispanics requiring them to prove citizenship, I believe is wrong. However, stopping someone who happens to be hispanic and who is suspected of being involved in a burglery and attempting to establish positive identification, including citizenship, is part of the job police should be doing.

I'm not at all sure that the exact wording in the Arizona law is the right way to go. But, the problem is real and needs to be dealt with.

most everybody, including the president, is trying to make them out to be the bad guys. I didn't mean to imply you specifically.

Quote:

---

Consider: we can devise a system to take account of the law and enforce it reasonably well by simply making the law not subject to discretion.

---

the problem is: the immigration laws we do have are not being enforced. There are already laws in place that if enforced, would make the Arizona law redundant. Arizona should not have to resort to writing their own laws that demand the immigration laws be enforced.

Quote:

---

The law, for whatever intent it may have had, or may want to have, in its current form is wasteful. The condition is either that the person is here legally, or not. If not, and there is no legally excusable reason, the discretion in the system needn't be there. No papers, no legal excuse, no stay here. It shouldn't be no papers, no legal excuse, we'll hand it off and maybe something will be done.

---

as you suggested before; jurisdiction. The state can arrest for the breach but they ultimately do not have the jurisdiction to prosecute as it is a federal matter. What else are they to do with a person they discover is breaking the law? I believe the requirements of the state authorities are great enough that it is not simply a case of "we don't know if they are illegal". I believe it is more of a "they cannot prove they are legal therefore, they are presumed to be illegal." I think there is a requirement to attempt to ascertain the true status and only if their status cannot be confirmed to be legal would they be transferred to the feds.

Quote:

---

Sure, some of the people might be removed, some of the cases might be tried, but some might not.

---

and herein is why I believe Arizona enacted their law; put the focus on the feds to either act or justify the inaction.

Quote:

---

They are not, on the other hand, free to waste the time and money of the federal government.

---

and what do you suggest a state does when the fed refuses to enforce laws they already have in place that, by not enforcing them, have a negative effect on the state in so many ways?

I see this as nothing more than grieving the feds actions. or more accurately, lack of action.

arguing that it unjustly uses fed resources, well, one could make the same argument about the entire federal court system. Many, if not most, of the cases in the federal courts are based in one specific states problem. And if one state has a disproportionate amount of cases that rise to the federal level, well, they are just abusing the system and costing me money, right?Why should I have to pay to fund a court system that is not addressing only my issues? The same could be said for any federal action. If it doesn't directly involve me, why should I have to pay for it.

because that is how it works. If the feds want to not have to deal with Arizona, then they need to either enforce the laws in place so Arizona does not have to act as they intent or change the laws so Arizona'a laws become useless.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scott67

---

Racial profiling, meaning questioning all hispanics requiring them to prove citizenship, I believe is wrong.

---

Maybe not all hispanics, but what of those individuals who a) look hispanic and b) look undocumented. Would racial profiling in this regard be unfavorable even if it proves to be efficient and effective at cracking down illegal immigration?

how do you look "undocumented"?

. The requirement is reasonable suspicion which has a lot of definition via the courts already. They will need to fine tune it to this specific situation but I doubt claiming a person "looked undocumented" will fulfill the legal requirement of reasonable suspicion.

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

Maybe not all hispanics, but what of those individuals who a) look hispanic and b) look undocumented. Would racial profiling in this regard be unfavorable even if it proves to be efficient and effective at cracking down illegal immigration?

---

I agree.

If you go into court and defend a stop by saying "he/she LOOKED undocumented", you are going to really hate the rest of your day.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

most everybody, including the president, is trying to make them out to be the bad guys. I didn't mean to imply you specifically.

---

Ok, I just wanted to be clear that this is not my intent.

Quote:

---

the problem is: the immigration laws we do have are not being enforced. There are already laws in place that if enforced, would make the Arizona law redundant. Arizona should not have to resort to writing their own laws that demand the immigration laws be enforced.

---

Then you agree that it's a waste of time and money inasmuch as writing redundant laws serves no purpose. Surely, one law saying x is bad is sufficient; we needn't more laws saying the exact same thing.

Quote:

---

as you suggested before; jurisdiction. The state can arrest for the breach but they ultimately do not have the jurisdiction to prosecute as it is a federal matter. What else are they to do with a person they discover is breaking the law? I believe the requirements of the state authorities are great enough that it is not simply a case of "we don't know if they are illegal". I believe it is more of a "they cannot prove they are legal therefore, they are presumed to be illegal." I think there is a requirement to attempt to ascertain the true status and only if their status cannot be confirmed to be legal would they be transferred to the feds.

---

I can accept that.

Quote:

---

and herein is why I believe Arizona enacted their law; put the focus on the feds to either act or justify the inaction.

---

One would think they could it in a less wasteful way, alas, politics.

Quote:

---

and what do you suggest a state does when the fed refuses to enforce laws they already have in place that, by not enforcing them, have a negative effect on the state in so many ways?

---

Do what everyone else does when they have a gripe; file a lawsuit. If the federal government habitually is not enforcing the laws and Arizona feels like it's getting a bum rap because of that, then file a lawsuit to have the matter adjudicated as a public record that it's the federal government declining its responsibilities. I don't know, it just seems wasteful to have a whole bunch of instant cases to effectively say the same thing.

Quote:

---

I see this as nothing more than grieving the feds actions. or more accurately, lack of action.

---

I think the issues are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate consideration, but I can't outright say your thought is errant. I'll have to give this more thought as I grab a greater understanding of what exactly this law does.

Quote:

---

arguing that it unjustly uses fed resources, well, one could make the same argument about the entire federal court system.

---

I didn't say unjustly. They do have a legitimate gripe it would seem. I'm arguing the providence of their action. Specifically, I was arguing that your examples were entirely matters of state concern; nothing federal was implicated. In this case, those provincial examples aren't apt.

Quote:

---

Many, if not most, of the cases in the federal courts are based in one specific states problem.

---

Involving a federal issue of some kind or another. Remember, what you're referring to was my response to your examples of insurance and driver's licenses - entirely state issues.

Quote:

---

And if one state has a disproportionate amount of cases that rise to the federal level, well, they are just abusing the system and costing me money, right?Why should I have to pay to fund a court system that is not addressing only my issues?

---

Addressed above. To the extent that this has merit, it doesn't within the confines of the argument to which I was responding. Unless, of course you want to argue that you should be able to sue in federal court that a no parking sign you don't like is actually a federal issue. This case, whatever its merits or not, is unlike those types of cases you raised.

Quote:

---

The same could be said for any federal action. If it doesn't directly involve me, why should I have to pay for it.

---

I think it couldn't be said in good faith. It would seem to me that suing in a federal court over a federal matter is appropriate even if the case isn't important to you. Being able to sue in a federal court over an entirely state matter with no federal implications, which would be necessarily the case in the two examples to which I responded, wouldn't be.

Quote:

---

because that is how it works. If the feds want to not have to deal with Arizona, then they need to either enforce the laws in place so Arizona does not have to act as they intent or change the laws so Arizona'a laws become useless.

---

I suppose.
Again, my entire issue with this is that it seems like a waste of time and money. Perhaps it's the only solution available to Arizona, but somehow I doubt this is the only way they could get some resolution to the issue. I could be wrong, but it's far from demonstrated that the only method by which Arizona can get its view considered is this. /shrug

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

I agree.

If you go into court and defend a stop by saying "he/she LOOKED undocumented", you are going to really hate the rest of your day.

---

And rightly so.

It seems there is already a video about this. The guy in the trench coat represents Arizona.


the state of inaction of the federal government and Arizona's reply

Sometimes I really wonder where people just randomly find these things on youtube. Boy, do I know some strange people!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

how do you look "undocumented"?

---

Perhaps I should have used the word "appear" instead. One could appear, to a reasonable person, to be undocumented if, say, they're an adult who does not speak English as well as happen to look hispanic. So long as they take into account more than just "color, race, national origin" etc. I don't see why think would be unreasonable. It may not be politically correct, but unreasonable? I don't see it. I think it could be efficient and effective.

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

Perhaps I should have used the word "appear" instead. One could appear, to a reasonable person, to be undocumented if, say, they're an adult who does not speak English as well as happen to look hispanic. So long as they take into account more than just "color, race, national origin" etc. I don't see why think would be unreasonable. It may not be politically correct, but unreasonable? I don't see it. I think it could be efficient and effective.

---

And illegal.

There is no legal requirement to speak English or to look less Hispanic.

To grant the police the right and authority to stop people on the street for a nebulous set of parameters that cannot be explicitly defined is NOT the way to a country with LESS government.

How would you like to be accused of looking "too Hispanic" and be stopped and accosted?

Quote:

---

=anberlin32;414998]Perhaps I should have used the word "appear" instead. One could appear, to a reasonable person, to be undocumented if, say, they're an adult who does not speak English as well as happen to look hispanic

---

.wow, if that is all that it takes, there have been millions of immigrants from Europe that would fit the bill. A lot of the early immigrants never did learn English and most ethnicities have certain characteristics.


it takes a lot more than that to establish reasonable suspicion.

Shades of 1930's-1940's Europe. And we all know how well that turned out.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

And illegal.

There is no legal requirement to speak English or to look less Hispanic.

---

I never said not speaking English or being/looking Hispanic would be legally required. I merely suggested these as variables taken into consideration in an officer's reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal alien.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

To grant the police the right and authority to stop people on the street for a nebulous set of parameters that cannot be explicitly defined is NOT the way to a country with LESS government.

---

But this law doesn't allow for that. Again:

"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." [bold, mine]

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

How would you like to be accused of looking "too Hispanic" and be stopped and accosted?

---

I am Hispanic, indeed Mexican. I'm also not a malinchista (or if that term is too esoteric, "Uncle Tom") but if people are breaking the law and the government has to enforce it, I don't see that much of an issue in using it to build one's reasonable suspicion that someone may be an illegal immigrant (so long as the criteria isn't solely based on color/race/national origin).

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

I am Hispanic, indeed Mexican. I'm also not a malinchista (or if that term is too esoteric, "Uncle Tom") but if people are breaking the law and the government has to enforce it, I don't see that much of an issue in using it to build one's reasonable suspicion that someone may be an illegal immigrant (so long as the criteria isn't solely based on color/race/national origin).

---

Then trot your happy ass to one of the countries of the world where the rule of law is more implied than extant. What you propose, as has been pointed out, has already been tried; let's see if we can't devise some system to mark the illegal immigrants from the rest of us. I suppose instead of all the coy "looks imported" talk, let's just give them a shiny new star to wear. Then the cops won't have to ask, now will they?

Look, skip, there are myriad factors which go into making any given decision. whatever the acceptable style that might take could look like, it cannot look like "looks too Mexican" or "doesn't talk pretty enough". There are many perfectly legal immigrants to this country who enjoy all of the rights you and I do who don't speak a lick of English. And they don't look white. These citizens of ours are perfectly entitled to walk down the street without having to fear the kind of mentality we have fought hard to minimize.

These "variables" of which you speak only show that you are far too ignorant about this subject to be taken seriously. What you're in need of isn't a discussion, or a debate; you need an education.

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

I am Hispanic, indeed Mexican. I'm also not a malinchista (or if that term is too esoteric, "Uncle Tom") but if people are breaking the law and the government has to enforce it, I don't see that much of an issue in using it to build one's reasonable suspicion that someone may be an illegal immigrant (so long as the criteria isn't solely based on color/race/national origin).

---

And you are prepared to spend the rest of your life proving that you have a right to be here by every police officer that sees you?

You are prepared to be stopped on your way to work? At lunch? While shopping?

You are prepared to have not only yourself but your children have to prove everyday that they have the right to be here?

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Look, skip, there are myriad factors which go into making any given decision. whatever the acceptable style that might take could look like, it cannot look like "looks too Mexican" or "doesn't talk pretty enough". There are many perfectly legal immigrants to this country who enjoy all of the rights you and I do who don't speak a lick of English. And they don't look white. These citizens of ours are perfectly entitled to walk down the street without having to fear the kind of mentality we have fought hard to minimize.

These "variables" of which you speak only show that you are far too ignorant about this subject to be taken seriously. What you're in need of isn't a discussion, or a debate; you need an education.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

And you are prepared to spend the rest of your life proving that you have a right to be here by every police officer that sees you?

You are prepared to be stopped on your way to work? At lunch? While shopping?

You are prepared to have not only yourself but your children have to prove everyday that they have the right to be here?

---

"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." [bold, mine]

I get the feeling both of you are under the impression that only racial profiling will be used to accomplish this.

there is nothing involving the outward appearance of a person that would be considered reasonable suspicion that they are not legal residents. Because of that, race itself cannot be a basis for an investigation, period. There must be other factors that would allow the investigation. If there are none, it is obviously blatant illegal racial profiling.

I get the feeling you think that one's purported race, ethnicity or national origin somehow would provide anything in the way of evaluating whether the person is an illegal immigrant. It simply cannot factor into the equation.

What's one to say? Well, your honor, he clearly was latino; oh yeah, he was speeding? No, I think not. Whatever the reasoning might look like, it is not possible to consider one's race, ethnicity or presumed origin as a factor. Consider that we have many non-English speaking Mexicans of hispanic origins hailing from Mexico who are fully legal. If that's the case, then there can be no set of circumstance which could exist where an officer could remotely consider any of those criteria.

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

Some have suggested that because "latino" is not a race per the U.S. 2010 Census, that it cannot possibly be racial profiling to stop someone on racial grounds, but as we see above it says the consideration can be on "race, color or national origin."

Thoughts?

---

*Sigh..* here we go again. I'm going to have to quote myself from a heated debate on youtube i had about that term and the law and the census..

Basically the default representation of latino as we know it (i.e. Cheech Marin, George Lopez) is "non-white hispanic", leaving every race that we know as "races" represented on paper with the exception of South Asians (Kal Penn) and Arabs/North Afrikans (Hoda Kotby, Nasser, Ali Velshi). White hispanics (Vicente Fox, Linda Ronstadt, Camrin Diaz), and black Hispanics (Juelz Santana, Carlos Colon [Carlito Sr.]) are represented under White and Black/African-American respectively. I am not sure how a court of law handles de facto classifications and etc. I also wonder if a White hispanic illegal would be bothered even if they spoke spanish and fit all the other stereotypes or would they need to wear a sumbrero (see Eminem in "My Salsa") and colonial attire.

The issue is Mexico, the question is which Mexicans are bearing the brunt of profiling and public scorn.

Quote:

---

I'm not particularly sure how that would play out in the courts given that it's a state agent acting upon federal law by way of state authority. Where would one file suit? Would a state court be considered competent because its state action albeit through federal law?

---

I always thought that an officer could enforce any law withen his jurisdiction if it covered. A city cop enforcing county law not found in city ordinances, A state trooper enforcing laws in a city, a CHiP enforcing fed marijuana laws the state isn't against. I always thought the larger jurisdiction took precedence. County trumps city, state county, fed state. The fed laws are the states by default so the state should handle any court issues if the feds didn't take over in their courts.

Quote:

---

Part of the problem this law is attempting to deal with is, in some (or if not all) localities, police have been prevented (by local politics or direction in some form) from attempting to check the citizenship status of a person being questioned or arrested in connection with a crime - if that person appears to be hispanic. Racial profiling, meaning questioning all hispanics requiring them to prove citizenship, I believe is wrong. However, stopping someone who happens to be hispanic and who is suspected of being involved in a burglery and attempting to establish positive identification, including citizenship, is part of the job police should be doing

---

i was watching some panel debate on either MSNBC or CNN and they were saying officers not enforcing the new law could be opened up to lawsuits or maybe if they didn't enforce it enough. I'm not sure if anyone else saw that.
My question is if they don't have paper work or ID or real numbers how is that discrepency not addressed. If your SS card doesn't match you or the number is fake why is that not caught in a computer? At what point is it determined that the reason you can't answer questions or show proof is because you are an illegal and not just unfamiliar with your numbers (im 21 and still don't know my SS# by heart or have my old NC birth certificate anymore.) and other things. If your a homeless person whos never been booked and you can't remember things or have nothing to show in court are they to be deported? Our rights to be free Americans shouldn't be effected by whether or not we have our birth certificate, ss card, and/or drivers license on hand.

Quote:

---

the problem is: the immigration laws we do have are not being enforced. There are already laws in place that if enforced, would make the Arizona law redundant. Arizona should not have to resort to writing their own laws that demand the immigration laws be enforced.

---

What is the exact goal and purpose of the Arizona law and what good does Arizona assuming federal responsibilities do if New Mex., Cali, and Texas don't follow suit? This is akin to a sealing only one hole of a sinking ship going under due to four holes. How much does federal negligence hurt Arizona and how will Arizona handle the states bordering it that simply don't enforce it either? I have a huge problem with any state trying to usurp federal authority and i think no good can come of it and the results (my state of NC was the last to succeed, current residency East Tennessee was on the verge of being strangled for not) have historically proven disastrous.
No good can come of it. But if Texas, New Mexico and Cali can back Az with similiar laws ill be quiet and not question anything they do. I just don't think theres a point in Az doing it along and with no practical end result this amounts to the state blowing off steam.

Quote:

---

Perhaps I should have used the word "appear" instead. One could appear, to a reasonable person, to be undocumented if, say, they're an adult who does not speak English as well as happen to look hispanic.

---

if I was from Puerto Rico or the Panama Canal Zone it would be reasonable for me to only speak Spanish all day long, no nothing else, yet have the right to walk around Knoxville TN, Scottsdale Az, or St Louis Mo. Likewise I don't expect someone from American Samoa to not perhaps only speak Samoan or etc. There are plenty of people with no English skills what so ever that still have iron clad rights to be on U.S. soil. Add that to the fact that English isn't legally mandated for anyone. Now I guess the premise of the language arguement is when they came through IF they came through, they had to learn English to get through the system and someone not knowing any English might had bypassed that process.

Now I guess the premise of the language arguement is when they came through IF they came through, they had to learn English to get through the system and someone not knowing any English might had bypassed that process.

And they might not.

Quote:

---

Quoting Another Demise

---

I always thought that an officer could enforce any law withen his jurisdiction if it covered. A city cop enforcing county law not found in city ordinances, A state trooper enforcing laws in a city, a CHiP enforcing fed marijuana laws the state isn't against. I always thought the larger jurisdiction took precedence. County trumps city, state county, fed state.

---

Part of the law permits an officer to arrest a person who he has probable cause to believe is deportable, that is, he not only entered the US illegally, but violated AZ's sovereign in doing so also.

Your doctrine in one of pre-emption or to trump/supercede. This is not always the case.

There is rarely any federal criminal offense not codified on the state level, but federal immigration is another matter, hence the new Act.

For instance, here in Ohio, a municipality can make a traffic law more punitive than the state, as most are Minor Misdemeanors, but a city can elevate the offense to a Misdemeanor of the 4th degree or higher, so in that sense state law does NOT pre-empt city law.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

I get the feeling you think that one's purported race, ethnicity or national origin somehow would provide anything in the way of evaluating whether the person is an illegal immigrant. It simply cannot factor into the equation.

---

Surely it makes more sense to think someone may be illegal if they happen to be Hispanic than caucasian? I'm not saying that they should be interrogated solely on the basis of race, but I don't see why that factor shouldn't be taken into consideration among the other variables.

I get the impression that because speaking Spanish or being brown is not a crime, that it therefore cannot be used as reasonable suspicion.

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion).

Is it illegal to carry a wirehanger? No. And yet there is nothing unreasonable (after taking into account the totality of the circumstances) that there is reason to believe the person could be involved in criminal conduct.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

it is obviously blatant illegal racial profiling.

---

In what way is the way that this Arizona law permits for race to be a factor illegal? I'm not challenging you, just wondering.

By the way, why should I as a legal Mexican-American citizen worry if I've got nothing to hide? So long as I'm not stopped solely because I'm black, why should I fear giving the officer the proper identification to verify my residency in order to crack down on illegal immigration? Should political correctness trump criminal justice?

think of it this way;

if all drug dealers drive Cadillacs, but not all Cadillac drivers are drug dealers, it is not logical to believe that every Cadillac driver you contact will be a drug dealer. Now, obviously if you see a Cadillac, it is not illegal to consider the possibility the driver might be a drug dealer but that in itself is not reasonable suspicion to allow you to take actions against the driver. In fact, that suspicion alone does not allow you to take any actions not available to you in any other situation. It simply gives you a reason to be more alert to things that are typically present with a drug dealer that would allow you to take further action.

so, you cannot pull over a Cadillac simply because you know that all drug dealers drive Cadillacs but if you have justification to pull him over, it surely gives you reason to me more aware of signs he is a drug dealer. You still are required to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause (depending on the action) to take any restricted action.

Quote:

---

I get the impression that because speaking Spanish or being brown is not a crime, that it therefore cannot be used as reasonable suspicion.

---

right

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

By the way, why should I as a legal Mexican-American citizen worry if I've got nothing to hide? So long as I'm not stopped solely because I'm black, why should I fear giving the officer the proper identification to verify my residency in order to crack down on illegal immigration? Should political correctness trump criminal justice?

---

since when are Mexican Americans black?

you are free to give up any ID you want if you want. The situation is when can the police demand ID and when they can demand proof of legal status.

beyond that, freely giving up your rights usually leads to further erosion of your rights. You need to require your rights are respected or before too long, you will discover that your lack of claiming your rights is accepted as a loss of that right.

very often in the law, if you fail to make a claim for a period of time, you lose your right to make that claim. Statutes of limitations are an example.


Ben Franklin once said:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

And they might not.

---

im kinda asking though. if you go up to whatever replaced ellis island and your not escaping genocide and you ask to come here and you speak no language even understood widely and can't communicate with officials do they not simply turn you away? I really don't know but I do remember from the hist. channel docs they had to take tests and know history but i dont know what they must know in this day and age.

If your in a lumber yard or standing outside a home depot and you speak no english maybe that might be grounds to inquire as to why, idk.
not looking for stereotypes here just red flags.. theres a diff.

Quote:

---

if all drug dealers drive Cadillacs, but not all Cadillac drivers are drug dealers, it is not logical to believe that every Cadillac driver you contact will be a drug dealer. Now, obviously if you see a Cadillac, it is not illegal to consider the possibility the driver might be a drug dealer but that in itself is not reasonable suspicion to allow you to take actions against the driver.

---

no. Cadillac alone is not gonna cut it. Its a car anyone can buy yet not every drug dealer can afford yet to get one off the bat. Alot drive Chevy's with a butterfly door or crown vics (oh the irony), or impalas. Also what type of rims and add ons are we talking about, window tent, are we on 22s, and what year is it? You gotta do better then just a Cadillac.. Also could you then file conspiracy charges against Edward Whitacre Jr.? Could you file accesory after the fact charges against some random grease monkey from a Cadillac repair shop?

Although some Mexicans are illegals all illegals are Mexican? Was that your theory? If so fine, my question was though how this law effects White/European blooded Mexicans, black Mexicans, oriental mexicans, Arab Mexicans, and any other non "Latino" varieties.

Is it not save to assume Whites are clamoring to leave Mexico too? My question is would a deputy or a sheriff be more inclined to pick up Vicente Fox or George Lopez? Eddie Guerrero or Cesar Chavez...?

Quote:

---

By the way, why should I as a legal Mexican-American citizen worry if I've got nothing to hide? So long as I'm not stopped solely because I'm black, why should I fear giving the officer the proper identification to verify my residency in order to crack down on illegal immigration? Should political correctness trump criminal justice?

---

Why are Blacks always used in these examples? This makes no sense. And yes some Mexicans are black.. If your stopped solely because your black papers may be the least of your worries.......... Ideally your presence here should by default mean you belong here. PC has nothing to do with this, you could use that same logic in some hick town in W. Va. "Well if you aren't one of the moonshiners everyone on the block should allow us to inspect their barns and property just to prove that.." Random snooping isn't a right to be exorcised by police or anyone else. There are a hundred reasons under the sun to not won't to give information to the police and they aren't all illegal. If you aren't reporting a crime or taking part in one theres no reasonable reason to talk to the cops and that's how I like it. This isn't an issue of PC just because you played the PC card card either. Stop trying to create a straw man..

Quote:

---

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion).

---

Now your quoting rulings fresh off the "heel" of the Jim Crow Era.. Your example is ridiculous. A Mexican is more akin to a person holding a hanger in a clothes closet then one hovering over a car at 2am. What hour and setting is i okay to be a Mexican? Is esse gonna have to don a bad and policeman's uniform before the police accept he just might be American?! The description is gonna have to be better then a speedy gonzalez looking hooligan. You couldn't round up every Mexican. If he said he was wearing a wife beater and was bald that might be good enough to hold up in court. What would you had said if your local deputies had arrested Alberto Gonzalez when he was the AG?! And running away? I have walked away and been stopped... Turned directions and been stopped. Walk on the opposite side of a 4 lane high way and been stopped. Not everything cops do is right, not because they are corrupt but because they are people.. People who can't comprehend that run the risk of being called "malinchista."

Quote:

---

Part of the law permits an officer to arrest a person who he has probable cause to believe is deportable, that is, he not only entered the US illegally, but violated AZ's sovereign in doing so also.

---

Az has no sovereignty in this context. its not a commonwealth. If the state doesnt have laws running contrary to the federal law the federal laws are althought unwritten still by default on the books of the laws of states, counties, cities, w/e. Everyone falls under jurisdiction because it covers every state. I would think legal logic would dictate the state could compound the law breakers problems by adding to them but not undo them or reduce them. I would think their twist would only be confined to a 1 way street if they were permitted to have 1 at all. Either way county court probably shouldn't be able to handle the fed court's case. As far as the police are concerned, even though they supply county court with the counties law breakers they are still technically like federal marshals with maybe a limited geographical scope. Mybe like how a officer from a precinct would only handle things in certain neighborhoods only.
I guess basically the new law allows the local police to dedicate attention to an issue outright rather then tackle it after it has become an issue after a "normal" arrest. I guess its like saying special victims unit can now handle drug issues and homicide can now handle uh detainer warrants and computer hackers. They have a new "mandated priority". I guess idk..

This brings back some memories.

I'm a third generation Asian American Newe Yorker. I once worked closely with a Columbian born US citizen, who speaks with a beautiful Spanish accent, like actor Riccardo Monteban.

One day, my friend and I were trading stories about "racial profiling" and encounters with immigation because we travelled a lot at the time.

About 20 years or more ago, before passports were required to fly into Canada, I travelled there often on business and pleasure. At the time, the only ID required was a my NY State drivers license, as are most other REAL Americans.

However, on occasion, on vacation, to the Carribean and Canada, my wife insists on bringing her passport (she's native born too), and insists I do the same, because she felt uneasy otherwise (racial profiling). One time, I was at Toronto airport with her coming home, my wife showed her passport to go thru US immigation, and I took out my NY state license as I done many times before. The agent said "sorry, but are you a US citizen"?? I was taken aback since people always made fun of my "New York-ie" accent.

I recall thinking to myself "as Archie Bunker used to say, I don't look like a regular person".

So I said to the agent "sorry, the license is all I got". The agent gave me this look, shook his head and said "I don't know, this license doesn't prove anything, except maybe to drive".

I was calm and back then, a bit of a wiseguy. I said to my wife standing next to me" "honey, I can use another week's vacation up here in Toronto. You fly back home, call up our Congressman, and make a big fuss. Oh, you call one of the major news channels too, and I'm sure it'll make a nice news story".

Anyway, the agent smirked and said "it's OK, no problem, I just want to be sure".

Meanwhile my Columbian colleague told me about being confronted in Miami, right out of the blue, stopped by a US Immigration agent, as he was getting into a car. How they picked him out he can't explain, but the agent stopped him, flashed a badge, shouting: "Stop - I'm Joe ...., Immigration".

My colleague, a funny quick thinking fellow, flashed his business card, the same way the agent flashed his badge, shouted: "Stop, I'm Gus ....., Credit Manager". I laughed and I asked "what happened next"??

He said the agent replied "what?? are you a wise guy"??? to which he replied "No, you stopped me to tell me what you do, so I'm stopping you to tell you what I do. Are we even, or am I on Candid Camera?? ( a popular show back then) ".

What happened next was both he and the agent laughed it off, and the agent said "OK, I see you're legal here. No illegal is going to pull this crap on me".

From this AZ law, I can expect more of these encounters, some funny, some tragic.

Quote:

---

=Another Demise;415431]im kinda asking though. if you go up to whatever replaced ellis island and your not escaping genocide and you ask to come here and you speak no language even understood widely and can't communicate with officials do they not simply turn you away? I really don't know but I do remember from the hist. channel docs they had to take tests and know history but i dont know what they must know in this day and age.

---

Hmm, since we do not have an official language, it's kind of tough to require an immigrant learn some specific language. Heck, there is a federal mandate that requires a government to supply forms in a persons native language or provide an interpreter. There was a suit in, I believe, Oklahoma where the DMV refused to do so for a couple of folks that spoke Farsi.

Quote:

---

If your in a lumber yard or standing outside a home depot and you speak no english maybe that might be grounds to inquire as to why, idk.
not looking for stereotypes here just red flags.. theres a diff.

---

No, it isn't. We have no official legal language. We have a common language. The US has never adopted an official language.

Just as with the Cadillac analogy (that apparently went over your head), just because they drive a Cadillac (speak Mexican/Spanish), that does not give rise to the legal definition of reasonable suspicion. Your example IS a stereotype. It is somewhat accurate but that does not give rise to reasonable suspicion.

Quote:

---

no. Cadillac alone is not gonna cut it. Its a car anyone can buy yet not every drug dealer can afford yet to get one off the bat. Alot drive Chevy's with a butterfly door or crown vics (oh the irony), or impalas. Also what type of rims and add ons are we talking about, window tent, are we on 22s, and what year is it? You gotta do better then just a Cadillac.. Also could you then file conspiracy charges against Edward Whitacre Jr.? Could you file accesory after the fact charges against some random grease monkey from a Cadillac repair shop?

---

You really missed the meaning of the analogy.

Quote:

---

Although some Mexicans are illegals all illegals are Mexican? Was that your theory?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Is it not save to assume Whites are clamoring to leave Mexico too?

---

a Mexican is not a color, just as being an American is not a color.

Quote:

---

Ideally your presence here should by default mean you belong here.

---

What? That is such a ridiculous statement. By your statement, then all you have to do is get across the border and you are now legal. It just does not work like that.

Quote:

---

Random snooping isn't a right to be exorcised by police or anyone else.

---

That's my point. You are the one claiming simply not speaking English and looking Mexican somehow gives rise to reasonable suspicion. Don't start arguing the other side of your question now.

Quote:

---

There are a hundred reasons under the sun to not won't to give information to the police and they aren't all illegal

---

.there is only one important reason: they do not have to. In this country, there is very little the police can compel you to provide, in terms of personal information and it can only be compelled in certain situations.

Quote:

---

If you aren't reporting a crime or taking part in one theres no reasonable reason to talk to the cops and that's how I like it.

---

but a cop is allowed to speak to you anytime. There is nothing illegal, or even improper for a cop to walk up to you and start a conversation.

Quote:

---

This isn't an issue of PC just because you played the PC card card either. Stop trying to create a straw man

---

.Huh?

the courts have ruled that if a person is in a place where it is possible he could be breaking the law and he has a "tool of the trade" such as anybody being beside a car at 3 am with a coat hanger in hand, that is reasonable suspicion and it does allow further investigation.

Quote:

---

.Now your quoting rulings fresh off the "heel" of the Jim Crow Era..

---

1968 is fresh off the heels of the jim crow era? You might want to invest in a calender.

Quote:

---

You couldn't round up every Mexican.

---

that's not the intent. All we want to do is round up the Mexicans et al that are here illegally.

Quote:

---

I have walked away and been stopped... Turned directions and been stopped. Walk on the opposite side of a 4 lane high way and been stopped. Not everything cops do is right, not because they are corrupt but because they are people.. People who can't comprehend that run the risk of being called "malinchista."

---

and there is nothing illegal in them doing so. If you are not legally detained, you have the right to continue to walk. It is your duty to know your rights and utilize them. If you willingly stand there and talk to the cop, he can talk to you all day long.


.

Quote:

---

Either way county court probably shouldn't be able to handle the fed court's case.

---

they don't intend to. The law directs the suspect to be given to the federal authorities.

Quote:

---

I guess basically the new law allows the local police to dedicate attention to an issue outright rather then tackle it after it has become an issue after a "normal" arrest. I guess its like saying special victims unit can now handle drug issues and homicide can now handle uh detainer warrants and computer hackers. They have a new "mandated priority". I guess idk.

---

.priority? Not really. They simply have an added requirement to investigate the legality of status if they have the opportunity.

you seem to really misunderstand the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

I get the impression that because speaking Spanish or being brown is not a crime, that it therefore cannot be used as reasonable suspicion.

---

right

---

And what about what I wrote after that?

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion).

Is it illegal to carry a wirehanger? No. And yet there is nothing unreasonable (after taking into account the totality of the circumstances) that there is reason to believe the person could be involved in criminal conduct.

---

You also didn't answer this question:

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

If there are none, it is obviously blatant illegal racial profiling.

---

In what way is the way that this Arizona law permits for race to be a factor illegal? I'm not challenging you, just wondering.

---

Quote:

---

Heck, there is a federal mandate that requires a government to supply forms in a persons native language or provide an interpreter

---

To Americans though? I imagine if they aren't even Americans yet they might not have to honour that..

Quote:

---

I believe, Oklahoma where the DMV refused to do so for a couple of folks that spoke Farsi.

---

guess those Persians got pwn3d..

Quote:

---

Just as with the Cadillac analogy (that apparently went over your head), just because they drive a Cadillac (speak Mexican/Spanish),

---

it didn't go over my head, my point was that it didn't go far enough. Your stereotype is based on what IS mine is based on what is DONE. Mine is a behavior yours is a state of being.

Quote:

---

What? That is such a ridiculous statement. By your statement, then all you have to do is get across the border and you are now legal. It just does not work like that.

---

its no different then in a court house. Everyone coming in is checked, no one who leaves no matter what is checked. Its assumed that if you are simply going towards the exit it is your right to leave (as opposed to a defendant who has overpowered a deputy, taken his gun, and is fleeing the court room)... We have to reach a point where things become informal and lax. We are able to assume all is right because there are people working to prevent the contrary, i.e. we shouldn't have to worry about illegals when we have agencies to handle them..

Quote:

---

the courts have ruled that if a person is in a place where it is possible he could be breaking the law and he has a "tool of the trade" such as anybody being beside a car at 3 am with a coat hanger in hand, that is reasonable suspicion and it does allow further investigation.

---

And I completely respect the logic of that. But its better to arrest an individual for being in a place where illegals usually are or a place where a buisness usually finds illegals to use for labor who is Mexican then just a Mexican being his Mexican ass Mexican self at say radioshack..

Quote:

---

and there is nothing illegal in them doing so. If you are not legally detained, you have the right to continue to walk. It is your duty to know your rights and utilize them. If you willingly stand there and talk to the cop, he can talk to you all day long.

---

lmmfao rofl hahahahahaha now my right to do so has been known to me for years and years. Leaving them w/o incident though is easier said then done. I'm not saying I wouldn't but dont be naive..

Quote:

---

Why are Blacks always used in these examples? This makes no sense. And yes some Mexicans are black.. If your stopped solely because your black papers may be the least of your worries.......... Ideally your presence here should by default mean you belong here. PC has nothing to do with this, you could use that same logic in some hick town in W. Va. "Well if you aren't one of the moonshiners everyone on the block should allow us to inspect their barns and property just to prove that.." Random snooping isn't a right to be exorcised by police or anyone else. There are a hundred reasons under the sun to not won't to give information to the police and they aren't all illegal. If you aren't reporting a crime or taking part in one theres no reasonable reason to talk to the cops and that's how I like it. This isn't an issue of PC just because you played the PC card card either. Stop trying to create a straw man..

---

that wasn't a response to you jk

Quote:

---

you seem to really misunderstand the law.

---

damn right..

Quote:

---

And what about what I wrote after that?

---

what about it? Nothing you wrote addresses a racial/ethnic basis for an investigation and that in itself still cannot be used as the basis for the investigation. As I said long ago; that is illegal racial profiling.

look at it this way:

a coat hanger. if it's in your closet, there is no reason so suspect you are intent on breaking the law. If you are carrying it around at 3 am on a deserted street, it gives reasonable suspicion

Being Mexican; there is nothing to say. Being Mexican is never illegal so it can never provide reasonable suspicion for an investigation in itself. It can be an identifying fact if the cop is looking for a suspect that is Mexican. Two very different issues.

Quote:

---

In what way is the way that this Arizona law permits for race to be a factor illegal? I'm not challenging you, just wondering

---

Have you read the law?

Where does it address race at all?

here is the only section that truly addresses what we are speaking about:

Quote:

---

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR 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. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

---

race in itself is does not give reasonable suspicion to invoke this law. There must be other evidence to support or actually to create reasonable suspicion.

Existing law prevents the use of race to establish reasonable suspicion. That is illegal racial profiling.

so, again, where does the law address race and more specifically, allow it as a basis for reasonable suspicion?

In fact, later in the law where it addresses modifications to existing law, you will find this term, twice:

Quote:

---

The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

here is the only section that truly addresses what we are speaking about:

Quote:

---

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR 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. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

---

race in itself is does not give reasonable suspicion to invoke this law. There must be other evidence to support or actually to create reasonable suspicion.

Existing law prevents the use of race to establish reasonable suspicion. That is illegal racial profiling.

[...]

Quote:

---

The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.

---

---

A few things.

1) Your 1st quote speaks of reasonable suspicion of someone who is an "unlawfully present alien." What begs the question, of course, is how can you tell if someone is an alien?

2) You then claim right below that 1st quote that "race itself" does not give us said reasonable suspicion.

3) You end by quoting another excerpt (2nd quote) from the law where it says race, color or national origin cannot SOLELY be based on it. In my very first post in this thread I posted a similar excerpt where it says a law enforcement officer cannot SOLELY take race, color, or national origin into account. This means that it can be a factor, so long as it's not the ONLY factor.

My question is, why would it being a factor -- as opposed to being the only factor -- make it illegal?

_____

In any event, here is now MY relevant excerpt from the law:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Is the above really controversial?