May I see your papers, citizen?

Arizona's new law does apply to everyone and anyone that is not in their state legally. The law is color blind, but the same can not be said about its opponents.

Just curious, but how is Arizona demonizing a race? I truly don't get this.

but anyone in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant, in my mind this should be a federal responsibility not a state one and it should apply to all people who are here illegally

Arizona's new law does apply to everyone and anyone that is not in their state legally. The law is color blind,

Look, I don't know if the law is constituional or not, but the bottom line is that people in Arizona are fed up with the problem and with a federal government that seems to turn a blind eye toward it for political reasons (regardless of party it seems).

All power to them.

Debating Arizona [Cesar Conda]

Ramesh, perhaps it is you who have been misled about the new Arizona law. According to some very smart lawyers and immigration policy experts I've consulted, proponents of the new law are wrong in asserting that "lawful contact" means lawful detention. According to former assistant U.S. attorney Bill Otis: "As Justice White said in concurrence in Terry v. Ohio: 'There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets.' What limitations there are come almost exclusively from 'reasonable suspicion.'"

Byron York says, by the way, that "The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion." Actually, that's not what the law says. It says that an Arizona license creates this presumption, but it definitely does not say that any "other state-issued identification" does so. Other government-issued identifications only have this effect "[if the [issuing] entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance . . ." (Art. 8 11-1051 B. 4).

Many states have no such requirement, and therefore many out-of-state licenses won't work. Moreover, the police officers are going to need a list of all the federal, state, and local identifications that do and don't have such a prerequisite in order to know whether an I.D. creates the presumption. Indulging in the fantasy that officers actually will be provided such lists, that they will be accurate, and that the officers will use them, at a minimum anyone with a license from a state that doesn't require such proof will need to carry something that does prove that he or she is here legally. I'm not even sure what this would be for Americans " a birth certificate, perhaps?

The bottom line is that this new law places enormous discretion in the hands of local police officers, since there are any number of circumstances in which an interaction between a police officer and a private individual is "lawful contact"; indeed, there are very few in which it is anything other than lawful contact, according to Mr. Otis.

This is why conservatives like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Tunku Varadarajan, David Boaz of the Cato Institute, Bob Barr, and others have raised concerns about the Arizona law, and specifically that this "reasonable suspicion" standard could lead police officers to unreasonably single out legal immigrants and American citizens. Some proponents of the new law contend that the only likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop. But what appears to be a speeding van filled with illegal immigrants could also be an American family of ethnic origin driving through Arizona on vacation and going a little over the speed limit.

We all want to stop illegal immigration, but I'm afraid the Arizona law will cause more problems than it solves, and it certainly should not be used as a model for other illegal immigration control legislation.

Coastal Rat wrote:

All power to them.

How do you get from "look, I don't know if the law is constitutional or not" to "all power to them?"

Being fed up does not justify anyone (including democratic majorities) in violating the constitutional rights of anybody else (including unpopular minorities). Being fed up also doesn't justify a state in usurping powers that the US constitution has delegated to the federal government.

How is someone's constitutional rights being violated? If an officer stops you for a valid reason (the way I read the bill, they cannot just walk up and stop people for no reason, but I'm sure you'll tell me if I am mistaken) the officer has a right to ask for id. If legal id is produced, no problem. If none can be produced, you can be detained on suspicion of being in the country illegally (which is a crime you know). How is any of that a constitutional violation?

I think the ramifications of this are going to be a nightmare for the State, however well-intentioned they seem; and a lot of Conservatives seem to agree with me.

I guess I'm just confused. The state law is simply restating the federal law that makes being in this country illegally a crime, thus allowing state enforcement of what is already a federal law. It seems to me the people who are objecting the loudest are simply upset that a state is going to begin enforcing a federal law that our federal government has been unable or unwilling to enforce.

Quote:

I think the ramifications of this are going to be a nightmare for the State, however well-intentioned they seem; and a lot of Conservatives seem to agree with me.

kinda blows the whole argument that this law is a result of Republican group think now doesn't it...The vast majority of Arizona citizens agree with this law.... citizens of all political types, and a minority disagree....of all political types.

. It certainly is riling up a lot of anger against them, not only in AZ but across the country.

I don't think there will be any problem in Arizona. Afterall, by all accounts, a vast majority, including republicans and democrats, support the passage of this law.

I think Arizona is hoping to have consequences. They are hoping illegal immigrants will bypass their state and head elsewhere. They won't mind that kind of boycott at all.