Talk:Arizona SB 1070

Defining the legislation

I noted the fact that the legislation explicitly referenced the "attrition through enforcement" doctrine that conservative think tanks such as CIS have been pushing as a way to reduce the immigrant population in the U.S. I thought it was noteworthy that legislation would that explicitly pick up on a doctrinal idea. Tedperl (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for the other bits of historical context that you've added here. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The law was written based on neo-Nazi white-supremacist resources from John Tanton, the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement, who created the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and NumbersUSA. FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. CIS's reports, blogs, editorials, panels, and press conferences, call U. S. immigration practices unadulterated evil, and predict impending doom due to immigration. CIS has even blamed immigrants, both legal and undocumented, for terrorism and global warming(!). CIS manipulates data and statistics, and then applies faulty logic to come to their preordained conclusion that immigrants are bad. CIS studies have been debunked by the Immigration Policy Center http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, America's Voice, and so on. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance (United_States) website to supporters. Apparently the other Arizona Senators and the Arizona Governor are so full of fear that their gullibility is easily taken advantage of. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to put relevant background such as this into the main article? Thanks. --peterblaise (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The degree of association of those organizations with various fringe groups is best left to those articles, where it is already discussed. Ditto Pearce. At the end of the day it mostly doesn't matter who wrote a law, the law has to be judged on its own words and merits. And regardless of what anyone thinks of it, SB1070 has the support of majorities of both houses of Arizona's legislature, Arizona's governor, the majority of Arizona's citizens, and apparently the majority of America's citizens. It is thus hard to make a case that it's a 'fringe' law. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time that the discusison of the racist connecions of the groups should be mentioned in the articles about those groups. The guilt by association argument is generally weak and tendentious. It also means the people avoid taking the arguments that groups like FAIR and CIS make seriously. While I would agree with PeterBlaise that CIS analysis, particularly the way that they account for costs and benefits to states are biased, I think that the best thing to do is to point that out, and not try to exclude the argument on the racist connections of some of their supporters. One should bear in mind that the right has tried to that repeatedly to Obama. Not very edifying. Tedperl (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

More materials needed on reactions, including potential boycotts.Tedperl (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added something on possible boycotts. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

also needs material on reactions to detractors - at this point, although the article states that 60% of US voters and 70% of Arizona voters support the bill or something similar, almost all reactions listed are against the bill. (Radiumsoup (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

I've been trying, as have a couple of other editors. It's not easy, since the rhetoric is so unbalanced. Human nature: the "anti's" always get more worked up against something than the "pro's" do for it. Thus, proponents of SB1070 say it's a reasonable, carefully crafted measure that will help fix a problem. Opponents say it's hello, Nazi Germany. Just as proponents of Obamacare say it's a reasonable, carefully crafted measure that will help fix a problem, while opponents say it's hello, socialist tyranny. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there is something different going on--and that is that immigration politics are far more sharply felt, and more stringent legislation passed in Arizona, than in the rest of the country. So what appears reasonable to a majority of Arizona residents and politicians seems overly restrictionist and extremist elsewhere. If we could get some more context that explains this difference, that might be a good thing as well. (And kudos for your editing, Wasted Time)

A partisan but attentive analysis of earlier politics can be found at:

"Anti-Immigrant Legislation in Arizona Leads to Calls for a State Boycott" Tedperl (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No doubt the issue is more strongly felt in border states, but even states in the middle of the country have felt the demographic and economic effects of immigration, and polls on SB1070 are showing people in favor of on a national basis as well as in Arizona. Although as the article states, poll questions tend to oversimplify complex issues of immigration law, and as with all polls, results are very sensitive to question formulation. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Effect on climate change legislation

[copied here from user talk page]

Hi, I contributed to [this] article. I saw that you removed its effect on delaying the climate change bill citing that it tangentially mentions the immigration law. I just wanted to point out that there are close to 800 stories [1] covering the fallout on climate-change bill and the majority if not all of them mention the immigration law as one of the reason, Sen. lindsay graham has been cited as one of the main detractors with his quote already mentioned. Just in case, here are some relevant links - [2] [3] [4] [5]. All of them mention immigration as one of the primary reasons for the fallout. Thank you. --Theo10011 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The federal immigration debate and possible legislation, yes. The question is whether the Arizona law has been more than a tangential factor in this. The sources you've shown so far only mention it in passing. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you would look at the links I posted above, 5 of them, they are all from reputed news sources who mention Sen. lindsay graham, even quote him on why he's chosen to back out on the climate change bill-“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,’’ Graham said. “I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy, and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress.’’, all of the news stories prominently mention him and the immigration law as the primary reasons for the failure of the bill.--Theo10011 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been a simmering debate within the Dem leadership of Congress over what to give higher priority to, immigration reform or climate change. This has been going on since health care passed and since financial reform mostly got done. See for example this CBS News story in March or this The Hill story earlier in April, neither of which mention the Arizona law. Now SB1070 comes along, and from the Dem perspective gives a little more urgency to doing immigration reform first. And maybe that triggers Graham's reaction. That's your case, but it's a second-order effect, and the same decision about placing immigration reform might have happened for electoral reasons anyway (to help Harry Reid get re-elected, for example). That's why I'm leery of mentioning this here. We'll see what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the text of Graham's letter. It doesn't mention the Arizona law explicitly. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Because the bill requires people wishing to run for President to present proof of being born in the United States, I linked Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

Can someone with more legal knowledge elaborate on the precise ways that the AZ government requires birth certificates? For example, under this law, what constitutes proof of being born in the United States? [21:02, April 25, 2010 67.121.155.70]

You're thinking of a different Arizona bill, not yet passed, that has nothing to do with this one. See this Fox News story. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

ref-ing

When explaining the law, should we just give a general link to the law or specifically give notes on what section, subsection, and paragraph we're referring to? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better to be specific. I coalesced them earlier to make the cite template usage easier, but they should probably be split back out again. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now redone the references to the law the same way book references are done: one base cite at the bottom with the full information, then a bunch of short-form cites in the article text that reference particular sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. The adopted house-version changes my stance on this law tremendously. Wiki can actually be educational :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title

This probably should be moved to the best known description of the bill. What do the reliable sources call it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The three most common names on Google News are Arizona SB1070, Arizona SB 1070 (space between the two), and Arizona Senate Bill 1070, in that order. On plain Google, the order is reversed, but all are roughly in the same ballpark. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It does have a name, though: "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added that name to the article and given it a redirect. But it gets a lot fewer Google or Google News hits than any of the above forms, so it shouldn't be used as the article title. Not to mention that it's singularly uninformative about what the law is or does. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The arizona state legislature page doesn't put a seperation between SB and 1070. They list it as just SB1070.Chhe (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits of 29–30 April 2010

I've changed the section Provisions to reflect that the bill doesn't specifically require proof of immigration status. A legal alien not in possession of a registration card would be in violation, but a citizen incorrectly suspected of being an alien would not. Presumably, lack of documentation would be a factor that might elevate reasonable suspicion to probable cause, but would not in itself be cause for arrest.

I also changed one ref from a news report to the bill itself, added WLs to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and added a link to the bill text (there's also an HTML version if it's thought that should also be included.

I believe an encounter might go something like this:

1. If a peace officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a crime, the officer may briefly detain the person for further investigation. SB1070/HB2162 do nothing to change this.
2. Under the new A.R.S 11-1051 created by SB1070, the officer must attempt to determine the person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person detained is an illegal alien.
3. Arizona has a “stop and identify” law that requires a person detained on reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to provide the person's true full name (but nothing else) to the peace officer. Failure to provide the name is a crime in itself, and provides probable cause to arrest.
4. If the person provides a name (and possibly additional information), and that leads to probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents, the person can be arrested under the new A.R.S 13-1509 created by SB1070.

The courts will obviously need to determine how this actually goes, and in particular, the meanings of reasonable suspicion and probable cause in this context.

I've revised the scenario above to reflect HB2162. JeffConrad (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon further thought, what I'd suggested above is far too simplistic, and going further would be inappropriate here. Accordingly, I've struck the entire scenario. JeffConrad (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth adding some of this to the article, though I think we should be very careful to stick to the letter of the law and identify opinion as such. Perhaps we should add a WL to Stop and identify statutes. JeffConrad (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Point 1 is the crux here: refusing to answer questions will constitute reasonable suspicion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to answer questions generally does, not by itself, give reasonable suspicion to detain; rather, a peace officer must have specific and articulable facts that the person to be stopped is involved in a crime—see Terry v. Ohio for the basics. Subsequent jurisprudence has made it clear that “reasonable suspicion” depends on the totality of circumstances, and is almost addressed on a case-by-case basis. Arizona's “stop and identify” law, A.R.S. 13-2412, may be instructive, requiring a person detained to state his true full name but nothing else, and there must already be reasonable suspicion to detain for the obligation for a person to state his name to even apply. But as I said, the courts may need to sort out what reasonable suspicion means in this context.

There's apparently another significant issue to be sorted out. Reading Byron York's op-ed in the Washington examiner, Kris Kobach, who apparently was the bill's actual author, claims that “lawful contact” means detention under circumstances of Terry. But that's not what the law says, and it's obvious from A.R.S 13-2412 that the legislature understand what a detention is. So this is yet another key thing for the courts to sort out (or for the legislature to correct if detention is what was really intended). Even if the law is amended to apply only to detentions, refusal to answer questions other than a request for the person's true full name might not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion. JeffConrad (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"might not". Indeed... but as per WP:FORUM, we're getting off track here. We'll see what happens ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't start the speculation on reasonable suspicion ...

One issue has already been addressed by the legislature: HB2162, signed last night by the governor, replaces “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention, or arrest”, so there must already be reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. I'm not quite sure of the distinction between stop and detention, so the courts may still have something to sort out. Presumably, a person so detained would be required to state his true full name, and refusing to do so would automatically be cause for arrest. We'll need to see how the courts interpret anything else.

In any event, the law now reads as Kris Kobach claimed. JeffConrad (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

If anyone lives in Phoenix or anywhere else that's seeing a demonstration against and/or for the law, a photo of it would be a great addition to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Audience and terminology

This article is for a general audience rather than a group of attorneys; does a term like sine die really improve it? JeffConrad (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When it's wikilinked I think it's okay. But I see someone else changed it. Electroshoxcure (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's still in the article, linked and in parens, and I think it's fine. Lots of WP articles are written in technical language – see Streptococcus or Fundamental theorem of calculus for a couple of examples picked at random. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

A big issue with the bill is whether it encourages racial profiling. What exactly is meant by reasonable suspicion? Is it spelled out anywhere? I looked for a link to the actual bill, but I couldn't find one (and of course my reading of the bill would be original research...). Can people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants be stopped for that alone? Or is the investigation of immigration status in the bill limited in some way? Electroshoxcure (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

you realize these are two different questions, right?

are you asking about racial profiling or about immigration status?

people cannot be stopped at random; the bill says "lawful contact". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawful contact. Like asking a cop for directions while being brown

TruthHurts235 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The change from “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” probably addressed the major constitutional infirmity. Time will tell how the police and the courts interpret “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the United States illegally. We can't prejudge here. JeffConrad (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Profiling

I think I managed to get the wording right, the truth is still there but i have given slack to the idealogically bent to air their viewponts on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

TruthHurts235 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You generally cannot write bald statements like "The legislation encourages racial profiling", when proponents of the legislation and the governor who signed it say that it won't. You have to write that people A, B, and C say it will encourage racial profiling (cite 1, 2, 3) and people D and E say it will not (cite 4, 5). Yes, this may be tedious, and yes, this may cloud the truth as you see it, but that's how it's done around here. If, after a year or three of the law being in effect, all or nearly all news sources say that the law has in practice led to racial profiling, then yes a bald statement would be supportable. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So they say it wont therefore it isnt true. Boy, I wish my wife would give me that deal. There is this thing called lying might want to check it out.

What constitutes “reasonable suspicion” usually depends on the totality of the circumstances, and the courts will need to develop guidelines for what it means in this context. It's not the prerogative of WP editors to speculate. JeffConrad (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the last time this was tried they rounded up everyone who was part of the Hispanic racial group. So I guess there is already a guideline.

I only came to the discussion page to give props for the balance in this article; having been a part of a number of editing efforts on contentious emerging issues I know that it's not easy. I've read the actual law and I'm proud that Wikipedia features a fairer overview of the issue than any of the MSM accounts I've seen. Kudos. 96.251.96.102 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Praise comes only rarely in this biz ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree that "reasonable suspicion" is dependent upon a number of different factors surrounding the circumstance. Great point. While I support the Arizona Senate bill it cannot be denied that it allows law officers more freedom to racially profile hispanics and other minorities. But isn't that their job in the first place? Police officer's job description entails profiling suspicious people who they suspect are breaking the law? These men and women heavily rely on racial profiling and stereotypes because it is necessary in logically estimating who is a threat and who is not. This practice can essentially save their life. In the case of this Senate Bill, Police Officers will have an excuse for pulling over hard working, legal immigrants who are simply going about their business. This is unfair but we must realize that the bill does not truly change anything. If a police officer suspects you might be illegal at this moment he can ask you for ID for any number of reasons. While I am by no means a judicial expert, if a police officer wants to see your ID he will come up with a number of valid reason why. The Arizona Senate Bill is an edgy matter which teeters on the fence of racial profiling but at its core it will not change the status quo. Illegals will still enter the country and find jobs. this is inevitable. The debate over the bill has become a huge media debachle which has served as excellent dinner discussion. The truth is that the bill won't drastically change anything except for wating the time of legal ID carrying hispanics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjharris119 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tjharris- You are absolutely right that the Arizona Senate bill will allow policeofficers more freedom to racially profile people. It gives them freedom for almost anything. The fact is that the bill is a violation of human right, plain and simple. It's preposterous. What's next apartheid in California. You're wrong in the fact that the bill won't change anything. This bill is inherently racist and promotes inequality. This bill sets the precedent for law abiding citizens minorities to be treated as a lesser breed. This bill must not pass or it will be the beginning of a trend for minorities losing more civil rights.

Um, the bill has already been passed and signed into law by Gov. Brewer. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A.R.S. 13-2412 is very clear about when a peace officer can require a person to identify himself: it's only when the peace officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in a crime. And even then, all the peace officer can require is that the suspect state his true full name; the law specifically precludes requiring any other information, so there is no requirement to present identification. Note that this reasonable suspicion does not apply to suspicion that a person may be in the country illegally because that's a civil offense rather than a crime; moreover, the courts have held that states cannot enforce civil provisions of federal immigration law. Now the new Arizona law requires peace officer who has detained a person under circumstances of 13-2112 to make a reasonable attempt to determine the person's immigration status, but imposes no requirement on the person to respond, so there obviously are some issues for the courts to resolve.

A traffic stop is a special case. A driver lawfully stopped is required to present a valid license to a peace officer, and failure to do so entails its own penalties. How that per se will affect reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally, and probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents also remains to be determined. But suspicions related to immigration status alone don't justify a stop; there must be some other reason. It doesn't need to be much: a burned-out tail light, failure to signal a lane change, etc., but there must be some reason other than immigration status to stop the vehicle.

Again, it's going to hinge on the interpretation of “reasonable suspicion”. We don't do hypotheticals here, so we need see what actually happens rather than speculate on what might happen. JeffConrad (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hits, stats, but not in the news

This article's page view stats show a steady climb in readership since it was first created. It would be even higher if it showed up on the first page of Google hits, but for most formulations it's not appearing until the second or third page.

The 14,300 hits on its main page partial day as a DYK would normally qualify it for inclusion in WP:DYKSTATS, but "rule 3" there may preclude it. I'll see what the readership looks like in the next couple of days.

Attempts were made here and here to get this article into the Wikipedia:In the news main page feature, but the powers that be decided it was only a "local story" and thus not significant enough for inclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre sentence

When I read this sentence:

Republican opposition to the law gives short-term political benefits by energizing their base and independents, but longer term carries the potential of alienating the growing Hispanic population from the party

I am completely baffled. It seems totally backward. It might make sense if instead the word "opposition" was changed to "support", but am I the only one confused? 98.82.34.167 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Boromir123 for confirming my sanity. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, I'm the one who got that reversed. And then rewrote other parts of it upon getting a complaint, but kept it reversed! Just one of those embarrassing thinkos ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Your credit is good with me. :-) 98.82.34.167 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Draconian

Nazi and Gestapo tactics are not the only disparaging comparisons made in reference to AZ's SB1070. When calling for a travel boycott to Arizona, Mayor Chris Coleman, of St Paul, pronounced the bill "Draconian." --P6274

source/link? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added it. I was able to use the same source to put St. Paul in the list of cities banning travel to Arizona, which someone had tried to add without a source earlier. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbers as words

I don't see the applicability of either comparable quantities or adjacency for the number of illegal immigrants or the number of days after the end of the session. In particular, it's uncommon to use ninety, and almost no other account of SB1070 that I've seen does so. And for good reason—it's a lot harder to read. If we insist on ninety, we should also use twenty and thirty for the jail time, as does the text of HB2162. Again, though, this just makes it harder to read.

Practice does vary—Chicago use words for whole numbers up to one hundred. But the default rule from WP:ORDINAL would seem to apply here. JeffConrad (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the opening paragraph of WP:ORDINAL blesses either numerals or words for one- or two-word numbers, such as sixteen, eighty-four, and two hundred. I've used the word forms of these in articles that have reached FA and GA status, so it's certainly acceptable usage. As for the particulars in this article: "... on July 28, 2010, 90 days ..." is visually confusing, as the numeral 90 tends to get jumbled with the other two numbers. So the word form is better here (this is a form of the adjacent quantities exception). Same with the sentence having the class 1 and class 6 crimes; the numeral 10 would get visually mixed up with these, whereas in word form it's distinct. In the sentence "with all but one Republican voting for the bill, 10 Democrats voting against the bill, and two Democrats not voting", the 10 is better written in word form per the comparable quantities rule (same as their example of not writing "five cats and 32 dogs"). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree on the comparable quantities; much of the rest is a matter of opinion. But it's not worth arguing. JeffConrad (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that it's not worth arguing, you can change back the ones you disagree with if you like. It doesn't really matter until an article is taken to GAN or FAC and that's a long way off for this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, a case can be made either way. Not a big issue compared with accuracy and reasonable NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

HB2162

maybe I am the only confused person by now, but except for the footnotes, there is no mention of HB2162, which, as it dawns to me right now, made some crucial changes to the law. It should be mentioned somewhere. First off, I'll make a redirect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The week-after modification to the law is mention in several places, including the lead, but naming it as HB2162 would probably make things clearer. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also states: failure of government agency employees and supervisors to report violations is a "... class 2 misdemeanor ..." (HB2162 Section E), and "... Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court ..." (HB2162 page 2, lines 8-10), and it changes proof of legitimacy to Arizona MVD ID card or Tribal Enrollment Card (HB2162 page 5 lines 12-18). Presumably US Citizens from other states and US Citizens with no proof or need for ID will be jailed. --peterblaise (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You're reading the section pertaining to elgibility for public benefits and welfare. The "stop, arrest, detention"-section also lists any US driver license or ID. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, even incident to a detention, police need reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien to inquire about immigration status, and probable cause that a person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents to arrest. Certainly, there are concerns about how these standards of proof will be interpreted, but to say that people “will be jailed” seems to overstate the case, especially since the law doesn't take effect until August. Absent some actual history, we really can't comment here on the law's implementation. JeffConrad (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories

I put in a link of South Africa under apartheid and the Nuremberg Laws. Too me its hard to even consider that these arent relatied. However, I guess there is some debate about it. Should I provide 50 links or so that to prove it? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you or using the talk page. The fact that the comparisons have been brought up is already mentioned in the article's text. Putting the link into the "see also"-section would say that this is true, rather than stating that other people have made these claims. Doing so is against WP:NPOV. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I do see your logic. However, I would like to point out that in that very same section in question there is a mention of a large scale hispanic immigrant roundup. This law is supposedly race nuetral and yet that hispanic roundup is mentioned in the same context? Obivously, we all know who this law is intended to be used against. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we do. However, the wording of this law and the Nuremberg/Apartheid laws are extremely different; I live in AZ, and I lived in SA. Absolutely no comparison between the two. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pass laws of south africa

"The Pass Laws Act 1952 made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry a "pass book" at all times. The law stipulated where, when, and for how long a person could remain. This pass was also known as a dompas.

The document was similar to an internal passport, containing details on the bearer such as their fingerprints, photograph, the name of his/her employer, his/her address, how long the bearer had been employed, as well as other identification information. Employers often entered a behavioural evaluation, on the conduct of the pass holder.

An employer was defined under the law and could be only a white person. The pass also documented permission requested and denied or granted to be in a certain region and the reason for seeking such permission. Under the terms of the law, any governmental employee could strike out such entries, basically canceling the permission to remain in the area.

A pass book without a valid entry then allowed officials to arrest and imprison the bearer of the pass."

Replace the word black with immigrant and tell me how different it is.

As for the relation to the Nuremberg laws I would like to point out that your state has passed laws to lower the funding they get medically, to attempt to deny them access to all public services, to stamp out Mexican-American study programs in school rooms. We always said never again, I just never thought I would have to say it about the heartland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.188.7 (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of these laws, as I hinted at above. In the United States, however, the requirement for immigrants to carry their papers with them always existed and this new law does not change it in any way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The new law criminalizes giving shelter to an jew illegal. Remember reading what happened to the people that hide Anne Frank? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This debate is interesting, but beyond the scope of this talkpage per WP:FORUM. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am sorry if i lost my temper a bit. Maybe tomorrow we talk about adding a section comparing and contrasting the Pass Laws and Nuremberg Laws? Since this seems to becoming very popular online. There should be many many sources. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bold Text

I made the alias names all bold. To give the page consistency, thank you for pointing out the error. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The “alias” names are nothing of the sort—they have nothing to do with the page title, so bold face is accordingly inappropriate. The number of citations is also absurdly excessive, to the point of non-NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The other "alias" names are bold as well. I dont see anyone complaining about that. The number of sources is very appropriate due to the large amount of debate on its inclusion. Can you really have too many sources? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The other “aliases” actually are synonyms for the article title; the “aliases” you cite aren't. You might want to review WP:MOS to get a better idea of what belongs in the lead section. And yes, you really can have too many sources—you clearly are pushing an agenda here. JeffConrad (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

acussing someone of pushing an agenda doesn't make your own argument right. Please be polite68.171.233.131 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits such as this make it reasonable to believe the ip address is pushing an agenda. Truthsort (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand by my comment based on this wording and similar edits by the same person. What really governs here is WP rules for use of bold text in the lead section, which I've addressed under Living While Brown below. I think common sense also suggests a reasonable balance between citations for and against. And I'd say that eight citations either way is excessive, if for no other reason than aesthetics. JeffConrad (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuremberg and Pass laws section (purposed)

I am considering putting together a section comparing this law and the Nuremberg Laws and Pass Laws. There seems to be a great deal of articles on the subject. Considering this to be a useful addition to the article. Please any thoughts or comments 98.118.188.7 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unrelated and inappropriate. JeffConrad (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, I concur. Bad idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

well, we might think it inappropiate but reddit, facebook, dailykos, editories in the denver post, and a hunk of the blogsphere think its worth talking about. Look, on the bright side with multiple groups yelling about we can hope to get a neutral view. So let him right the section and scream and yell to remove all bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.233.131 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

photo request

Anyone in the state could you get a photo of a police checkpoint or a person geTing arrested for not having their papers. It would make a great addition 68.171.233.131 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The law doesn't even take effect for 90 days ... JeffConrad (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, we have 90 days to get ready to fulfill the request. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Living while brown

The use of this phrase and the others in bold in the introduction. Is prejudical to the reading. Of the rest of the page. Why is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.250.91.216 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is way over the top, for several reasons:

1. The relevant words have no direct relation to the title of this article, and should not be bolded whether or not POV.
2. The bolded words show a distinct bias, by repetition as well as bolding.
3. The number of citations is simply absurd, and is POV for this reason alone.

This is almost an invitation for an editor with the opposite agenda to add similarly biased comments supported by an equally absurd number of citations. This doesn't make for a good article.

I think we should clean this up so that we have at least arguable NPOV. If this is a problem, I'm inclined to tag the article. JeffConrad (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrases are Bold just like all the other phrases in the opening paragraph. If we are going to use the name that some random poltician called it and bold it then we should use the names that journalists and social commentators use. What makes one example of spin more appropiate then another? 76.180.115.242 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This language is highly POV and doesn't belong on a balanced article such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.53.253 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling it the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is NPOV 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV requirement applies to Wikipedia, not the Arizona Legislature. JeffConrad (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I read once that one of Kim Jong ill's title was inventor of the airplane. Perhaps we should add that too his page. A lie told by the government is still a lie.98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The veracity of a bill title is not the concern of Wikipedia editors. JeffConrad (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of bold text in the lead section is covered in WP:BOLDTITLE; it applies to first mention of the article title or a reasonable synonym. It's not reasonable to treat any of the secondary names by which the bill has been called as reasonable synonyms for the title of this article, especially because Wikipedia already has articles matching Driving While Black and Driving While Brown (the latter is a redirect to the first). The title of a bill is usually spin, but that's legislator's prerogative, whether or not we think the title makes any sense. What governs here is the WP:MOS. JeffConrad (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Two people does not a consesnse make. Tommorow I can bring three people in to argue the opposite way. A consense is made when the parties find common ground or the argument is exhausted. This section was removed knowing full well the three revort rule. So I will wait 24 hours. I would like to hope that this large majority that opposes it by that time tommorow has a better series of arguments. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think that if this had broad support, the reverts would quickly have been overridden by others. The essence of the material remains, supported by a couple of the more cogent references.. This is an encyclopedia article, not personal blog, and accordingly requires a balanced presentation. I think the lead section currently does a reasonable job of it. Including language that's jarringly NPOV does nothing but impair the article's credibility. JeffConrad (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The result of a revert war shouldnt determine poll numbers. Unless this is a wikipedia policy I am not aware of. In which case I was foolish to stop doing it when I was warned to stop. Now, I myself moved the sentences in question down the article. I did this because the very simple argument was made to me that it was worth including but not in that place. So, I made a judgement call and moved them in the section that seemed logical. I still stand by what I say that it is worth including in this page. This is what the common man and intellectual are calling this law. A 5 minute google search with those phrases will show a large number of links to the Arizona law. Like it or not a large percent of people are calling it by those names. As I said I play by the rules and will wait my 24 hours, I doubt anyone else will. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do what you will, but this is asking for a vandalism warning. It's not so much a matter of the 3-revert rule as continually adding material that's obviously NPOV. You do your case no favors when you use over-the-top language as in the last edit, and continually don't bother with details like spelling or when you include essentially the same reference twice.

You may recall that I simply unbolded the various names, though I did express reservations about their suitability. Other editors apparently felt the names weren't appropriate, and removed them. And including eight references for anything is simply absurd. Moreover, it was clear that some of the op-ed writers either didn't understand the law or simply hadn't read it, which is why I didn't include them in the refs that I retained. JeffConrad (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I gave it a few days to calm down. Listen we are some of the only guys editing this article. It shouldnt be too hard for two guys to work something out. Now as such the following points I am willing to concede:

• It shouldnt be in the lead section. It makes that section to long among other reasons
• It shouldnt be in bold even if the other aliases are
• the number of references is too many

What I want:

• Somewhere in the article a mention of this

What I purpose:

• I put it in the article already, you decided where it goes in the article
• We got through the footnotes one-by-one until we agree.

Does this work for you? I think this will also make the article neutral. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the material up in the "Protests" section. I have reduced the number of cites to three, and formatted them properly (not just bare URLs). I have also added in a mention to Driving While Black, which is the origin of all these phrases. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

SB1070 or SB 1070?

We're somewhat inconsistent in referring to this bill as well as HB 2162. Normal practice is to use a space between the house designator and the bill number; I think we should make the article read accordingly, perhaps using a nonbreaking space. JeffConrad (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the two External links and the links within them, you'll see that the Arizona legislature refers to both SB1070 and HB2162 without any embedded space. I only found one instance that had the space in the article, and changed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's how they do it on the web site, but I don't think that's the official way. If you look at the actual documents, the bills are indicated as “S.B. 1070” and “H.B. 2162”. I believe The Bluebook omits the periods, but I'm relying on Chicago rather than The Bluebook itself. Someone who has a copy of The Bluebook could confirm which is correct.

In any event, I think the space is required. JeffConrad (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the spaces, without the periods. As noted, Arizona (as well as THOMAS) include the periods, but CMoS (15th ed.) 17.309 shows U.S. bills without the periods, so at least one good source supports omitting them. Including the periods would also seem acceptable, but at least to me, they add a lot of visual clutter. JeffConrad (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I see "illegal immigrants." and the term "illegal aliens" used in this article. It occurs to me that some would phrase it "illegal migrants" or something of the sort. Any thoughts of picking one term and making the whole article consistent? I vote for "illegal immigrant" If there is no object in a day or so I will change them all to that term, grammar providing of course. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Alien is the term used in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, so it's probably the safest default and the least presumptive. In this context, alien simply means someone who isn't a U.S. resident, whereas immigrant implies someone who has taken up residence. SB 1070 doesn't even mention the latter. JeffConrad (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So we go with "illegal alien" or "illegal aliens" then? 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we go with alien and use illegal alien very sparingly. JeffConrad (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agh this is what I want to avoid. I really want a netural term. Believe me in my politcal mode I would call them migrants but if we are going to be neutral I am more then happy to help. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not, alien is what's used in both U.S. and Arizona law. We can't change it just because we don't like it. Migrant is a euphemism that's simply wrong. JeffConrad (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say my likes have anything to do with. I just admited that i am human and have my own opionions but am willing to try to work to be nuetral. Calling them Aliens doesnt indicate that there citizenship is in question. Saying illegal immigrants implies that they will immigrate here eventually but now its not working out. Saying illegal aliens seems to work the best. However, a portion of this law deals with non-illegal aliens. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alien indeed refers to a noncitizen. There remains a distinction between alien and illegal alien. A legal alien is required by federal law to carry a registration card, and failure to carry the required registration is the only cause for arrest under 13-1509. An illegal alien is presumably one who is in the United States unlawfully; such status is not cause for arrest under 13-1509. Indeed it cannot be, because unlawful presence in the United States is a civil rather than criminal issue. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that only the federal government can enforce the civil provisions of U.S. immigration law. So the distinction is important. JeffConrad (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede that to some extent, we're playing semantical games here. This may be one of several things the courts will need to sort out. JeffConrad (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alien and immigrant

To coalesce and condense what's above: there have been several instances of editors replacing terms such as alien and immigrant with other terms that the editors apparently consider less offensive. We really can't reasonably do this. Both alien and immigrant are defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101: the former is a noncitizen of the United States and the latter is essentially an alien who has taken up or may be considering residence in the United States (see 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15) for a more precise description). This section also distinguishes between an immigrant alien and a nonimmigrant alien, so alien and immigrant are not synonymous. The same terms are used in the new Arizona law, so this article is consistent with both U.S. and Arizona law—as I think it should be. A migrant is a person who frequently moves, often to find employment, so the term isn't a substitute for immigrant.

The use of illegal or unlawful is somewhat more problematic, because under U.S. law, illegal presence in the United States is a civil rather than a criminal matter, and Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983) appears to disallow enforcement of civil violations of U.S. immigration law by state LE personnel. But that's not really an offense under the new Arizona law; rather, the offense is presence of an alien in Arizona without having registered or without being in possession of the required registration documents. At the federal level, this is a criminal matter, and apparently is enforceable by state LE under Gonzales. Perhaps Arizona would have been better served if they had defined “undocumented alien” to refer to an alien present in Arizona and not in possession of required registration documents, but they did not do so, and I don't think we should do so here. In attempt to keep things simple, I indicated that an unlawful alien was subject to arrest. In retrospect, this was a mistake; I've revised the article so that the description of the arrestable offense is strictly correct. JeffConrad (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all good and nice and well-explained; but to me, the "probable cause"-thing doesn't make logical sense anymore. You don't need probable cause to see whether or not there are documents. Either X has them ("here they are officer") or X does not have them. What does that still have to do with "probable cause"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To make an arrest, a peace officer must have probable cause to believe that

1. The person is an alien
2. who is required to register under 8 U.S.C. 1302, and
3. is not in possession of the required registration documents.

If the person is not an alien or is an alien not required to register, no registration documents are needed. What constitutes probable cause that a person is an alien? I don't know, and don't think anyone else does, either. The same holds for reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien; I don't think anyone has the answer to that, either. Of course, if a person admits to being an alien and can't produce the required documents, probable cause is pretty obviously provided.

In this op-ed for the New York Times, Kris Kobach, who assisted in drafting SB 1070, described a possible scenario:

“For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.”

Simple enough, right? I agree that this might suffice to provide reasonable suspicion, and it finds support in Estrada v. Rhode Island (1st Cir. 2010). But only the driver is required to present identification, and absent additional circumstances, the passengers aren't even required to answer any questions. Under those circumstances, the lack of identification would not be established. Estrada considered a situation in which passengers complied with a request for identification (and most could not provide much), so the consequences of refusing to answer questions were not considered. From R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1, it would appear that a person cannot be required to provide a name or anything else unless the person is reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime, and even then, it does not require presentation of written identification. Is this the final word? Absent a case in which passengers refuse to cooperate, I don't think we know.

This is precisely why the meanings of “reasonable suspicion” (and presumably “probable cause”) in the context of immigration status are the crux of the new Arizona law. Perhaps some clarification will emerge from AZPOST in response to Gov. Brewer's executive order, but I suspect that ultimately, the courts will need to sort it out.

Sorry for such a long answer, but I just don't think there's a simple one, and I think anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed. In the meantime, I think we should stick to what we know for sure rather than fanning the hysteria of those who pontificate without even having read the law. That many others do this is no excuse. JeffConrad (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't taking sides, I was trying go by (probably "mathematical") logic; maybe that doesn't help much in this case... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks "nomenclature" should be spelled "nomanculture" probably has no business editing Wikipedia.—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just use the term resident aliens? Or we could use Alienents. :) kidding on the last one.

Lilly (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resident Alien is defined by law as a legal immigrant (holder of a Resident Alien Card). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

We need one (or perhaps a few) sources that support the specific claim made here—that critics claim it encourages racial profiling “based on wording, enforcement, and historical precedent”. The plethora of previous citations didn't do this; perhaps Ralph E. Stone came the closest, though his same op-ed by appeared in in two different publications and shouldn't have been cited twice. JeffConrad (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The easiest (and probably the best) approach would be to simply eliminate this language, which doesn't really add much to the basic statement. JeffConrad (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the language and included two of the more cogent (at least to me) of the previous refs. We probably should add a ref or two for the supporters. JeffConrad (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther King

Twice the reference to the earlier boycott has been removed. Any thoughts on why? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It may have been seen as getting a bit off track, but it may have gotten lost in some other material that clearly did not belong. Moreover, it wasn't very well written. I personally see no problem with including a concise, factual, well-written mention. JeffConrad (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it, but it's definitely worth one mention for historical background. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Vivek Malhotra op-ed

Vivek Malhotra's op-ed in the New York Times addressed a serious deficiency in the SB 1070 that was fixed in HB 2162; police now cannot stop a person solely on reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. If the material remains, it needs to be made clear that the comment was made prior to HB 2162, both to avoid confusing the reader and to avoid making Malhotra look foolish. I think it would be far better just to remove it. JeffConrad (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a qualifier, but I think the entry now looks a bit silly. Again, I'd remove it. JeffConrad (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed it. It was a weak forum to draw a source from in the first place. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title and move

I was busy for a couple of days and not monitoring the article, so I'm not complaining, but I disagree with the decision to rename it from "Arizona SB1070" to "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act", which seems to have made with little discussion.

The rationale given was "Standard convention is to call the law by its enacted name", which is largely true, but not always: Category:California statutes shows some articles with 'legislative number' names.

In this case, various forms of "Arizona SB1070" and "Arizona Senate Bill 1070" get about 552,000 Google hits combined, while "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" gets only 47,000 hits. That's more than a 10:1 ratio and seems to fly in the face of WP:COMMONNAME.

The reason for the usage disparity is probably that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is singularly uninformative about what the law is or does. It never mentions "immigration" or "alien" or "illegal" or anything that has to do with these issues and instead sounds like a local ordinance that establishes citizen block patrols. Going back to the California laws examples, California Public Records Act, California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, Red Light Abatement Act, etc. all describe the areas that those pieces of legislation applies to, and thus are reasonable names. This one does not. I realize that there's a trend to name laws in a way that pitches their benefits, but at least for example Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sounds like it has something to do with health care.

Also, I'm not even convinced that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is really an official name of this law; it doesn't appear on the top legislature page on it and only appears at the very bottom of the House Engrossed Version as a note. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with all these points; moreover, I can assure you that all of the local television stations refer to it as "SB1070" ("es-bee-ten-seventy"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a "state bill" when it's an enacted law is both misleading and inaccurate. It was a state bill; it's now a state act. Sources preceding the passage of the bill will, of course, refer to it as a bill, but that is now out of date. There are plenty of recent sources which refer to the act by its name [6]. As for not being a descriptive title, that's not a relevant concern; this is the formal title of the law, it's how it will be referred to in litigation and in future legislation referencing it. Compare for instance the USA PATRIOT Act, which says nothing about what the law actually covers. As long as the old title of SB1070 or State Senate Bill 2070 still exists as a redirect (which it does), the move won't cause any problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO's argument belowabove is faulty. Look at text of HB2162 it talks about modifying SB1070 not the so-called act name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.60.62.122 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The title is given in Section 13. of SB1070h. It may be silly and uninformative, but that's hardly out of the norm. I agree with including the common name, but also agree with ChrisO that it's now enacted law. There's another problem referring to the law simply as SB 1070, because the law comprises SB 1070 and HB 2162, and looking only at the former leads to a very erroneous interpretation, of which we've seen several examples and are likely to see more. A good recent example is the San Diego City Council, which on Monday May 3 voted 7–1 to condemn SB 1070. But the resolution considered only SB 1070, and for that reason Councilman Carl DeMaio voted against the resolution, stating, “I cannot support the resolution as introduced, as it does not accurately reflect the Arizona state law as amended under HB 2162.” I'm sure any minute now someone will add the resolution to this article, and overlook the issue that DeMaio raised.

Incidentally, it's Senate Bill 1070, not State Bill 1070. JeffConrad (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess my problem with the current name is that it gives a slant to the article. Instead of being an immigration law it is now pitched, as has been previously mentioned, something that sounds like it has to do with making neighborhood watches. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As several of us have mentioned, the title of this bill, as so often is the case, is ridiculous and misleading. But that's the title the Arizona legislature chose, and I'm not sure what options we have. As discussed, “SB 1070” would be very misleading because the final legislation was significantly modified by HB 2162. I suppose something like “Arizona immigration law” would be a possibility, though it seems a bit vague. The more I think of it, though, “Arizona” should be somewhere in the title, probably at the beginning. JeffConrad (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I didnt bookmark this page and have been using the google search phrase "arizona immigration law wikipedia" to find it. I tried it with three different ip addresses and got the same result. I cast my vote for Arizona Immigration Law. Are we going to set a time frame for this. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It can't be just "Arizona Immigration Law" because Arizona's had several immigration-related laws over the years. It would have to be qualified by year, such as Arizona immigration law (2010) or Arizona immigration law, 2010 or Arizona 2010 immigration law or 2010 Arizona immigration law. (This assumes this is the only immigration law of any significance to be passed in the state this year.) The 'immigration law' wouldn't be capitalized because it isn't the formal title of anything. This name would be the most informative and easiest to find of any of the alternatives discussed so far, if the least precise. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the ordering. Ok how about 2010 Arizona immigration law? Can we set a time limit on this? 67.246.175.103 (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the title should begin, “Arizona immigration law ...” so we don't start a title with a number. I'd vote for “Arizona immigration law (2010)”, with possible redirects from the others. In all, we'd have a lot of redirects (including Arizona SB1070, SB10710 and the current title), but I agree that the article could be hard to find for someone who doesn't already know where to look. As long as there isn't a clash with some other possible article title, I don't see a problem. JeffConrad (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've pinged User:ChrisO (the leading advocate for the current name) again. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be another obvious issue here: I think the Arizona Legislature have at least one other regular session this year; what if they pass another immigration bill? JeffConrad (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly.

I'm afraid 67.246.175.103's reasons for wanting to rename this article simply aren't allowed in terms of Wikipedia policy. Yes, "the title of this bill is ridiculous and misleading". But as JeffConrad rightly said earlier, that's the title of the bill. There are plenty of other examples of legislation titled in similar "slanted" ways: No Child Left Behind Act, No-FEAR Act, PROTECT Act of 2003, America COMPETES Act and so on. Note that - as I said earlier - as a matter of course we use the official title of legislation in article titles. It's not up to us as editors to decide that we dislike the title and won't use it because we consider it to be "slanted". It's a basic issue of editorial neutrality; everyone can agree that the act has a particular title, regardless of whether or not we like that title, but rejecting that title for reasons of personal dislike is an imposition of a personal point of view. Original research is also an issue: the official is verifiable and precise. Other alternative names are not. There's no reason why we can't create alternative names which redirect here, which I've done for all of the alternatives suggested above by Wasted Time R. The bottom line is that as long as people are able to find the article, no matter how ridiculous its title might be, there's no problem. Type "Arizona immigration law" into the search box and you get this article. Problem solved? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific WP policy that requires (or suggests) a bill's official title be used as the article title? Though the title is the title, and using it allows us to say, “Talk to the Arizona Legislature if you don't like it”, I'd question the claim that it's “precise”. In any event, it would seem to me that we should prepend Arizona to the title to make the context clear; at first glance, a reader who has reached the article via a redirect may wonder what happened. The title is already so unwieldy that another word won't make much of a difference. JeffConrad (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search for the official bill title took me to the Minnesota House of Representatives, where a similar immigration bill has just been introduced. The bill is titled ... you guessed it, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. That bill may not pass, but I think we still should prepend Arizona to the title here.

Regarding ChrisO's argument (I deserve some credit for my notifications to him on this, since I know he always opposes my position ;-), yes WP search using that phrase finds the article under this name, but Bing puts it at the bottom of their first page of results and Google doesn't find it at all. That's probably what's accounting for the lower readership the article has gotten since the renaming. If we can't give it a good name, I'd also be in favor of prepending "Arizona" to the current name. There is a lot of existing practice on this, as about half the articles in Category:California statutes and Category:Massachusetts statutes have their state's name prepending to the act or law name. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you searching for? When I looked for "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act", Bing put it at the top (interestingly, under Arizona HB2162) and Google put it at #5. In any event, it would seem that we need to distinguish Arizona's law from at least one similar bill. JeffConrad (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was doing this Google search for arizona immigration law, which as ChrisO said will be the most common one done. The WP article is a no-show in the results. Only if you change it to to search for arizona immigration law sb1070 does the WP article show up, at the bottom of the first page of results. But not many will do that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the redirects haven't yet been indexed by Google. Bottom line seems to be that people think of it as “SB1070”, and that's how it's listed as the first item in the FAQ on the Arizona Legislature web site (no wonder some people still think the law allows police to stop those the police suspect of being illegal aliens). In any event, I think something like Arizona Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is the right choice for the article title. JeffConrad (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping the title as it is for now, then if another state passes a law with the same name it can be moved to "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona)" with the same convention followed for the other state law. As for what "people think of", that simply isn't relevant from our point of view. It isn't "SB1070" any more, it's an enacted law that's already been modified by another bill. In other words, it's different from the original SB1070. It's simply wrong to refer to an enacted law as a "senate bill" when it's nothing of the sort. Verifiability isn't a license to introduce blatant inaccuracies into articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call it "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona immigration law)" or something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilly granger (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Limitation on number of notes for one statement

As I suggested, I think it's possible to get carried away with the number of notes supporting any single statement; if nothing else, the visual impact detracts from the article. But I also think it's unreasonable to impose an arbitrary limit on one particular statement and not on others. At present, we seem to go up to five notes, which I think is pushing it; perhaps we could agree on some reasonable limit and try to adhere to it. If that's done and some notes are accordingly removed, the removal should be done with care because some of the sources are more solid than others. JeffConrad (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Two. Three if contentious. Four if a rhubarb.no five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.239.222.218 (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. 3 if it is controversial 2 otherwise. Is there a wikipedia policy on this? 67.246.175.103 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This rule isnt being enforced anymore.It seems that sentences that support the bill have multiple references but those that criticizes it have exactly 3. Starting to wonder if this is an accident. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention of criticism and support in lead section

I've moved the brief mention of the criticism and the counter by the bill's supporters back to the lead section. A lead section summarizes the entire article, so mention of the major points is indicated. And the reaction by the bill's critics and supporters is indeed a key point; were it not for the reactions, this bill, like most of the thousands of others that are passed in state legislatures every year, would not be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia.

We've seemingly already run the gamut of how the reaction is treated in the lead section, and what remains seems succinct and balanced. I don't think it should be moved without a convincing argument. JeffConrad (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, it's also essential that HB 2162 be mentioned early on, because the effect of SB 1070 alone would be quite different from how the law now stands. Much of the reaction to the bill has overlooked the changes brought by HB 2162, even after its enactment, and for this article to follow that lead would be a grave disservice to its readers. JeffConrad (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In the ideal world, the lead summarizes the entire article and doesn't need any footnoting, since every statement made is also stated in the article body and footnoted there. For a hot-button, in-the-news topic like this one, citing in the lead becomes a temporary necessity and only the brave attempt to include the most contentious points.

As for HB2162, whatever the merits, the facts remains that opponents of the law have largely ignored it, and have kept on going with their protests. I've included this in the article now. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this edit, and that most people have ignored HB 2162 (which speaks volumes on their credibility). My comment about which sources are “authoritative” remains. Jonathan Cooper's piece for the AP simply says, “Civil rights advocates vowed to challenge the law in court, saying it would lead to racial profiling despite the governor's assurances.” I hardly see this as solid support, and think it's inferior to the guest op-ed in the Arizona Republic, so I'm inclined to restore it. I'll concede that BeyondChron doesn't have the cred of AP or the Arizona Republic. JeffConrad (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondary Offense?

The article says this is a secondary offense (during a police stop for some other offense) and points to Arizona HB 2162, Section 3. While this is a fine job citing it is still a little vague and the news continues to argue that it is not a secondary offense but that anyone can be stopped and questioned at any time. Can we get a little more info or back up? I read section 3 there and I see no clear wording, granted I am no law professor and I do agree it reads similar to a secondary offense the words here on wiki are very clear while the law seems less so... AndrewHorne (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Those news sources are simply wrong :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we correctly describe it in this article. Whenever possible, look to what the law actually says rather than what someone says the law says. Indeed, SB 1070 stated that immigration status be questioned for any “lawful contact”, which by most definitions would mean that a peace officer could simply walk up to a person and ask immigration status. HB 2162, which many secondary sources apparently have not read, changed that. The new A.R.S. 11-1501 will now read, in relevant part,

“B. for any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the united states, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.” [emphasis added]

It would seem clear that it's a “secondary” offense.

Many secondary sources have claimed that a person stopped must “show papers” or face arrest. This isn't necessarily true. For example, though the law will impose an obligation for a peace officer to investigate immigration status, it will not impose a corresponding obligation on a person so queried to respond; in general, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination allows a person to remain silent. Another Arizona law, A.R.S. 13-2412, requires a person detained on reasonable suspicion of involvement of a crime to give his “true full name” to a peace officer on demand. And of course, the driver of a vehicle must present a driver license to a peace officer on demand. Aside from those specific requirements, it's not yet clear that a person queried about immigration status would need to present documentation or even respond to any questions—that's something the courts will need to sort out, in addition to what constitutes reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien illegally present in the United States.

It is not the prerogative of Wikipedia editors to speculate on such matters, and accordingly, we've not done so. I think the same approach would serve many ordinarily presumptively reliable sources equally well. Again, look to the law or an authoritative interpreter such as a court rather than to Joe's Blog. JeffConrad (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations for racial profiling in lead section.

I agree that the alternative sources weren't the most stellar, and I included them with some hesitation. But I'm not sure the AP source is really any better, especially as it describes Joe Arpaio's take

“He said it gives him new authority to detain undocumented migrants who aren't accused of committing any other crimes.

‘Now if we show they're illegal, we can actually arrest them and put them in our jails,’ Arpaio said.”

Presumably, from the April 24 date the astute reader will conclude that Arpaio's comments were made prior to the enactment of HB 2162. If the astute reader is aware of HB 2162. And bothers to note the date.

Offhand, I don't know what to suggest, other than that supporting sources need to be carefully examined for content and sometimes the date as well as for a presumptively reliable pedigree. The safe approach would of course be to always state it as “So-and-so says ...”, and perhaps qualify statements that appear to have been made before the law was revised (which of course gives the benefit of the doubt that the speaker would have apprised himself of the changes). But this would quickly render the article nearly unreadable. JeffConrad (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-read, I see that I may have conflated two issues: the presumptive authority of a source, and the pre/post HB 2162 timing of a comment. Both are relevant to this article, but they should be recognized as distinct. JeffConrad (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading Archibald's May 3 piece (cited in support of several statements) raises the same questions, leading me to wonder how carefully he read HB 2162, if he read it at all. Is a Times columnist always better than a guest editorial in the Arizona Republic? I'd guess the same issues would arise with many of the other sources. Who decides which are “weak”? JeffConrad (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what you're referring to here. Archibold isn't a columnist, he's a NYT reporter. Straight news stories (such as the ones he files) are given much more weight than anybody's op-ed pieces. The point with the May 3 Archibold story was that HB2162 hasn't mollified the opponents of the law (maybe it should have, maybe it shouldn't have, but it's a fact that it hasn't). The opponents of the law have said that it would lead to racial profiling all along: before it was passed, after it was passed, after it was signed, after Brewer's executive order, after HB2162. It should be easy to cite this using straight news sources, not op-ed pieces. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong term (as well as wrong spelling). The days when all opinion was confined to the editorial page have long passed, and perhaps I treated questionable interpretation of the facts as opinion; it's sometimes hard to tell the difference. The question then is mainly one of credibility; Archibold and Thee-Brenan state, “The Arizona law gives local police officers broad power to detain people they suspect are in the country illegally ...”, which is a questionable statement in light oft the fact that a person must already be detained for the question of immigration status. The authors continue, “But the new immigration law also now includes civil violations of municipal codes as grounds to check papers,” [emphasis added]. This makes it sound like a civil violation wasn't previously needed to inquire about immigration status; that simply wasn't true, because SB 1070 mandated an inquiry without any violation. Perhaps I'm being too fussy here. I normally consider Archibold very credible but when I see statements that seem clearly wrong, my sense of credibility diminishes considerably. To be fair, even if the authors are guilty, they're no worse than most others. One of my long-standing gripes with most news writers is that they often misdescribe the law and fail to cite specific law so the reader can make up his own mind. Perhaps more succinctly: a name and publisher's pedigree to not ensure reliability, especially if the content seems at odds with the facts.

The other issue, which as I've mentioned is really separate, is the timing of a source, and that's the main issue with Cooper's piece. His article certainly isn't wrong, but it might easily mislead or confuse the average reader. One could easily get the impression that Joe Arpaio's an idiot if he made the statement quoted above after the signing of HB 2162.

In this particular context, as I think we would agree, so many have ignored or misinterpreted the facts that it's essential for this article to at least not promote further misunderstanding. As I've mentioned, though I don't have a magic method for determining who's “reliable” and who isn't, and I don't have an elegant method for indicating that a comment was made prior to HB 2162.

Hopefully, I've also made it clear that my concerns aren't limited to this particular citation. JeffConrad (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Archibold's April 23 comment that “the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano” is yet another example of the sometimes fine line between news and opinion (though here the line really isn't so fine). It's tough to suggest that Archibold is nuts here, but I think it's also unreasonable to interject similar opinion into this article without qualification. I guess it's possible to say something like, “According to New York Times writer Randal Archibold, ...” but this would make for messy reading if done very often. JeffConrad (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nazi-stuff (rebound)

People were asked to give a justification for excluding this. I don't think that's the way it works. In this case, please make a case for including it. This article is not a collection of random quotes and comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I pulled it because it of WP:Undue weight problems. Given that the law passed and was signed and enjoys popular support in both the state and the nation, the article can't be an endless list of the most hyperbolic statements against it. That opponents are comparing the law to Nazi Germany is already included in the article, as well as reactions to such claims. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The quote disturbs the balance of the article and does nothing to help the debate. The law has since been amended to prevent law enforcement from asking for legal documents except during an arrest for committing a crime. The comparison to Nazi Germany no longer holds any water. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - -

Oh comparison to Nazi practices holds water all right:

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, page 1, lines 37-39,

"... A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States ..."

... and page 2, lines 27-33:

"... A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer's agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith ..."

Warrantless arrest, search, and seizure, and protection of warrantless arrest, search, and seizure = Nazi practices ... versus United States Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment:

"... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized ..."

Now, some may say they've amended Arizona SB 1070 with Arizona HB 2162 so that asking for Federal ID papers only applies after arrest for another crime, but careful reading of both bills together shows that Police can do whatever they want with impunity and indemnification, so it probably will only be a formality what the first accusation of a crime will be before asking for Federal ID. Lemme guess, J-walking. No, vagrancy. No, resisting arrest. No ... oh, does it matter?

Also, the Nazi reference is apt since Arizona SB 1070 was written based on neo-Nazi white-supremacist resources from Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance (United_States) website to supporters.

Nazi is all over this legislation, and "Nazi" should be all over any accurate reporting on it, too. It is NOT liberal reactionary invention to call this Nazi, it is accurate historical reporting on the source of this specific legislation -- neo-Nazi white-supremacists wrote Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Include this information in the main article page.

One reference? http://splcenter.org/get-informed/news/arizona-immigration-law-violates-constitution-guarantees-racial-profiling. Everyone, please dig and find more ... but since one reference is enough for most Wikipedia entries ...

--peterblaise (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - -

See my response in #Defining the legislation above regarding including the fringe associations in some of these groups. In the end, it doesn't really matter, the law stands on its merits regardless of who wrote it or who they hung out with or who they were funded by. As for the Nazi comparison, it's simple. Let's wait five years. If by then most of Arizona's illegal immigrants and their political sympathizers have been rounded up and sent to concentration camps and then death camps, I'll be all for the parallel. Until then, it's as stupid and historically ignorant as all the conservative radio talk show guys who call Obama a Stalinist. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, warrantless arrest is long established, finding support in the common law dating back to something like the 14th century—so it's nothing new to this legislation. Like arrest with a warrant, it falls under the Fourth Amendment, so it must be based on probable cause. I think many of the concerns with this law are well founded, but I think problems will arise more with its application than on its face. As I've said here repeatedly, it will hinge on how “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are interpreted in the context of immigration status. As Wasted Time R says, we'll need to see what happens, and I don't think it will take five years.

In general, I have great respect for the SPLC. But Ms. Bauer badly hurts her credibility with statements like, “By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the country illegally”. Reasonable suspicion obligates an inquiry, but arrest requires probable cause, as I mentioned above. I'm sure Ms. Bauer actually knows this, but the statement reads as it reads. JeffConrad (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Governor Brewer's political stance

Although she hasn't been known as an outspoken advocate of such a measure in the past, she has written "numerous" letters of concern to the Administration about securing the borders. In 2004, she supported a measure that required proof of citizenship to vote in the state of Arizona. These are actions that seem to go against the notion that Brewer was bending to the will of her conservative competition to get a leg up in the upcoming primaries. There are no sources that I've seen that seem to suggest she was ever against this bill. In the end, we should keep this article as neutral as possible without injecting our own speculation about her motives. To make it more objective, I've removed lines in "Background and Passage" to reflect that. Thoughts? Issues? Let me know...--GoneIn60 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You were right to be concerned originally that the article was making too strong a link between her primary challenge and her decision to sign the bill. But I rewrote that material last night to indicate there were multiple factors here, of which the primary challenge is only one. You cannot just eliminate the primary challenge; I can list a dozen sources that mention it in conjunction with her decision, especially in light of her unpopularity with conservatives for supporting Arizona Proposition 100 (2010). It's simply not tenable to completely omit the political context of her decision. If you have additional sources for her positions on immigration prior to having become governor, or other factors in her decision, then great, by all means add that in. But since she had become governor, she had not said much about the topic, including no mention of it during her inaugural address. And there are sources that say she was genuinely struggling with her decision on the bill (if not ever publicly against it). We can't just omit all this. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You could have a 100 sources that mention the primary as a factor in her decision, but that doesn't make it a fact. All of those sources are stating an opinion. I understand your desire to include the political context of her decision, but it is my position that political analysis should probably have its own section. In "Background and Passage", we should only be citing the course of events without involving politics. Inserting politics here disturbs the goal of neutrality and can be a turnoff to those from both sides of the aisle seeking an unbiased account of events. I'm going to make another edit here, but I am going to remain open to further discussion and further editing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a fact that she's in a primary fight, and it's a fact that reliable sources mention that in the context of her decision, in addition to half a dozen other factors that they mention. We aren't saying this is the only factor that was at play in her decision, we're saying it was one of them. For you to claim that this whole process doesn't involve "politics" is silly; it's a law passed by an elected legislature and signed by a governor up for election, of course it involves politics. Every law passed by every political body does. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

When did I claim the process doesn't involve politics? My suggestion was to merely "separate" politics from the description of the bill's passage and signing. Having it here is not necessary. You can describe political events with dates, vote counts, and other stats without describing "possible" factors and motivations at play. Doing so turns what should be a small paragraph into a distracting conversation. Having that distraction in a section that is dedicated to it makes more sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I ended up removing such language as "unorthodox" and rephrased several items so that it seemed more objective. But overall, most of the content you added remains. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes, modulo a couple of style guide tweaks and the addition of a link to Arizona Proposition 100 (2010) (the one percent sales tax increase). I restored two things you cut, however. One is the mention of her past support for Arizona Proposition 200 (2004), which I had added based on your previous argument above that it should be included. It does seem at least somewhat relevant to me, but if you've changed your mind on it, I'm okay with removing it too. The other is the quote from her aides that "she agonizes over these things," making reference to the signing decision. Your edit summary comment didn't really explain why you thought it should go. Given all the flak that Brewer has caught for signing the bill, I think it's fair to include direct language from her side about how seriously she took the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we've finally hit a good compromise. Looks good to me! --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

public officials

yeah the wording seemed funny. Any grammar experts want to fix it? It sounded like the whole state was considering changing the laws rather then a bill being introduced into the assemblies. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning other recent Arizona actions

This discussion began on my Talk page; because this articl should reflect consensus among the various editors, I've copied the relevant parts here. 67.246.175.103 proposed the following:

For critics that believe that the law is racially biased they have pointed out other perceived bills that have been introduced in the same time period. These bills were considered by them to be anti-Hispanic (insert source from article).

I replied:

The source [ThinkProgress.org] is secondary and possibly not WP:RS; the Wall Street Journal should be cited directly, and an indisputably more NPOV source (perhaps such as this report on Fox News or this op-ed in the Arizona Republic) found for HB 2281. But I'm hardly the steward of this article; we need consensus among the various editors, and accordingly, the discussion belongs on the article's Talk page.

Though I'd like to see somewhat smoother and more neutral wording, I have no objection to including the material above; I might briefly mention the specifics of each action in this article just so the reader isn't forced to follow the links to see what the actions are. But I'd like to see what others think. JeffConrad (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than the general material in the "Background and passage" section, I'm leery of including other legislative bills here. If HB 2281 is important, someone can create a separate article about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

see also

might not be the place to put nazi analogies. However, there have been several other race based roundups in history67.246.175.103 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review your concept of a "roundup". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

boycott

time to add a section on the boycott and anti-boycott? Some groups are already announcing numbers, several websites have been started.67.246.175.103 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article already includes the only hard figure I've seen: "By early May, the state had lost a projected $6–10 million in business revenue, according to the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association.[80]" Do you know of more? If the boycotts achieve the same level of seriousness that the MLK Day ones did, then yes there should be a separate section on them. Right now, they are mostly just another form of verbal protest. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No I meant re-arranging it so the article was easier to read. I did see something the other day on the total estimated economic damage due to conventions already canceled. I will try to find it again.67.246.175.103 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed my view on this, and have now created a separate "Boycotts" subsection. The existing "Protests ..." section was getting very long, and this additional subsection gives the article better structure. And boycotts, realized or not, are a more serious level of protest than many other forms. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the large number of people that have started using Arizona products as an anti-boycott, perhaps some info to that regard should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.165.3 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. I've added some material on "buycotts" at the end of that section. If you have any sources that better quantify this effort, please bring them forward. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearer, please?

I might just be an idiot, but I still don't really get what the complaints against the law are. Well, I get what they ARE, but could you make it clearer as to their concerns, and specific mentions of why they have concerns? Like, state that so-and-so feels 'this' will happen because of such-and-such in the law. I would put it underneath 'Reactions.' Like I said, it could already be in the article, but it isn't clear to me. All I see is people either believing it will lead to racial profiling or it's Nazi legislation, without really giving reasons WHY it would lead to racial profiling or that it's 'Nazi' legislation. And then replies to that, and then replies to THAT, if I make sense. Thanks.Masternachos (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question—you don't “get it” but then you do get it.

I think the main issue is what will constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an alien in the US illegally (required to inquire about immigration status) and what will constitute probable cause that a person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents (required for arrest). The concern is quite likely that it will be tough to establish either level of proof without racial profiling. Unfortunately, many of the sources have been pretty sloppy in citing specifics, so it may not be possible to include what you seem to be asking for. The section-by-section analysis of SB 1070 by the Arizona ACLU is quite specific, though it was made before the enactment of HB 2162, so some of the comments are no longer applicable. JeffConrad (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That actually helps a lot, thanks. I was just wondering why people were getting upset, if you just need a drivers license and that you had to be arrested to be asked. But, then I found out the ambiguities of the law, and the whole HB 2162 thing. I think I get it now.Masternachos (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that including the full text of the Arizona law as of today in this Wikipedia article, or as a linked sub-page of the article would help. I've combed through the references, and I was unable to find any links to the text of the law. So far, the article is just beating around the bush, with lots of heated opinions, i.e., lots of smoke and heat, but no light. As I heard on the radio this morning, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who has been blasting the Arizona law for the last two weeks, publicly admitted still hot having read the actual text of the law. Wikipedia can do better.—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The links to the text of the law are right there as two bulleted items at the bottom of the "References" section:

• Arizona SB 1070: "State of Arizona: 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 113, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session: Senate Bill 1070: House Engrossed Senate Bill: immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods (NOW: safe neighborhoods; immigration; law enforcement)". Arizona State Legislature. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
• Arizona HB 2162: "State of Arizona: Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session 2010: Session Laws, Chapter 211, House Bill 2162: Conference Version". Arizona State Legislature. Retrieved May 4, 2010.

The "External links" section's links will also take you there, along with the official record regarding the bills' passage. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the misrepresentation by the obama adminstration?

Eric holder criticized the billed, even suggesting the feds might bring a suit against arizona, yet he never even read the bill. Obama said cops could harrass someone having ice cream with their kids, when that is complete lie according to how to law is written. Due to the widesperead misrepresntation of the bill, it probably deserves its own section on "myths" about the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.31.229 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now Janet Nepalitano says that the act is " a law she wouldn't have signed", and litterally within a a minute of that statement she, too, said she hasn't even read the bill. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add this, it needs to be given as NPOV (e.g., the word even probably doesn't belong). The heading you added here suggests a strong POV, which isn't acceptable to Wikipedia, so you would need to tread very carefully. Whatever is added must be supported by a reliable source. JeffConrad (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of politicians and office holders don't actually read bills or laws or other source documents. They rely on members of their staff to do that and distill for them what's in it. And sometimes they don't even do that, and just echo the conventional or partisan wisdom about something. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Having said this, a lot of news sources did cover Holder's admission that he hadn't read it yet, so I'm okay with that being in the article. I've also briefly mentioned the same for Napolitano. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned?

In Mexico City there's going to be a concert for the opposition of this law. Should this be mentioned in the "protests" section of the article or not at all. Here's an article about it's in spanish though. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/680466.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Better would be an article that reported on the concert after it was held, so as to gauge its level of significance. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a story on it. Given that it drew 85,000 people and had some fairly major Mexican artists performing, I included it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying legal documents" -Wikipedia

I don't think this is an accurate reading of the law.

In fact, Section 3 Letter F says:

F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. 26

This line does not say that the person is guilty of a misdemeanor simply for not carrying legal documents - it only applies to people who actually are here without permission (which is determined by the federal agency).

If a legal alien or tourist loses his or her papers, the Federal government can verify that when reviewing the person's status. The law says that Arizona officials will not make that determination.

Further, the phrase "carrying legal documents" is charged. It connotes a strong police state (yes, reminiscent of Nazi Germany) and has no place in an encyclopedic venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.172.191 (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... the section you are quoting simple means charges are waived upon permission by the federal government. It has been and remains the law that foreign citizens are obligated to carry their papers with them at all times and present them upon being asked to do so. Whether or not that makes it a "police state" is up to your own interpretation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've slightly revised the lead section so that it matches the corresponding statement under Provisions; hopefully, it addresses the bulk of the objection. Whether it still connotes a strong police state is a matter of opinion, but I think the wording is now strictly correct, so I think it's suitable for an encyclopedic venue. JeffConrad (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on my reading there's still a problem here. Section 3-F implies that a legal alien is excluded from this provision, even if he doesn't have identification on his person. It's a federal crime for a legal alien not to carry proof of immigration status but failing to do so doesn't nullify permission to stay in the country, and so such a person "MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES." Therefore "The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien..." should be "The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an illegal alien..."

Mforg (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. The Act does not make it a crime for an alien to be in the country illegally; under federal law, that's a civil offense, and in Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that only the federal government can enforce the civil provisions of U.S. immigration law. Failure to be in possession of required registration documents is a criminal offense, and Gonzales held that nothing prohibited a state from enforcing federal criminal offenses. This law apparently made the federal crime a state crime as well for added measure.

Item A(5) added to A.R.S. 13-3883,

“The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”

appears to be a separate issue. In any event, I think the article correctly describes the state offense of being in the U.S. without required registration documents. JeffConrad (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But how does the current text account for the exception in Section F? The text in the article says the law makes it a state crime for an alien--a group that includes legal and illegal aliens--not to carry registration documents. But part F quoted above says that the relevant part of the law doesn't apply to people who have authorization to be in the country, i.e. citizens, legal aliens, etc. Therefore under the new law it's not a state crime for a legal alien to not carry registration documents. Mforg (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your last sentence. But the current wording of the article refers only to failure to carry registration documents required by federal law. There is no crime for failure to carry documents that aren't required. JeffConrad (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

protests, criticism, and boycotts

I think the wording in this section is problematic:

"In fact, however, section K..." "...but failed to note that the bill"

it takes on a structure of argument and rebuttal that, while minor, still seems intent on demeaning those who criticize the law. In content, I realize that this sort of back-and-forth is typical of wikipedia on contentious issues, and I even recognize that putting relevant points and counterpoints adjacent makes a certain sense. But I still think the end result fails to pass the neutrality test. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.58.62 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those additions were inappropriate and I've removed them. It is not the purpose of the "Protests" section to argue the merits of the law, but merely to describe people's reactions against it. The "Provisions" section earlier on describes in an objective way what the law actually does. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

70 cities and neutrality

Paragraph 4, sentence 3 says "There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities,[14] including calls for a boycott of Arizona.". I somewhat question the neutrality of that statement. I'm certain (sorry, no cites) that there are possibly 70 thousand cities that are in protest of this law as well as 70,000 who are supporters.

The calls for a boycott is however a factual statement meriting representation in this article. Perhaps rephrasing the sentiment as "Supporters and detractors of this bill have been equally ardent leading to a significant number of calls for a boycott". Perhaps a bit cumbersome of a sentence but I'll endeavor to improve upon that.

DeadboltSecurity (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-18

Possibly is the operative word; without a source, it doesn't fly. The current statement is accurate and sourced; moreover, I think the article makes it pretty clear that the law has many supporters, so I don't really see the bias. To me, the proposed wording doesn't make sense; how would ardent supporters in many cities lead to calls for boycotts? If it is still felt necessary to balance this statement, a sourced statement about cities that oppose a boycott would seem the right approach. JeffConrad (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

70,000 cities is a ridiculous number. For there to even be 70,000 cities in the U.S. then there would have to be 1,400 cities in each state. That's way more then would ever fit. Ink Falls 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead used to say "many cities". Then editors complained about this, so I gave a more focused number. I'd be happy to go back to "many". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

“Many” is a meaningless weasel word; I think the article is fine as it stands. JeffConrad (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My error for leaving a sentence unpolished. "The bill has rallied numerous supporters as well as detractors, some of who have called for a boycott of the bill." Now the 'action' part of the sentence, boycott grammatically belongs to the detractors and not the supporters. My own admission that the proposed sentence was cumbersome was a weak excuse that I will forever endeavor to avoid.

JeffConrad - my point was not that the reference was not sourced but rather that it was not neutral. As stated, the sentence leads (not states... but leads) one to infer that entire cities... 70 of them... have called for a boycott... the whole city. The quantification of 70 furthers the strength of that inference without balancing the supporter's sentiment. That was all the point I was making.

In exactly the statement you said, "The current statement is accurate and sourced", it is (or was) not. I question whether anyone actually counted "70 cities".

InkFalls - The 70 thousand was obvious alliteration. Had I a said 70 hundred, well that would sound kind of odd, wouldn't it? But if you want to go down the twisty, windy path of critical thinking... I didn't say there was 70,000 cities in the US, did I? Sure, the original quote did but I did not.

There's somewhere north of, excuse me, my bad, somewhere greater than 19,000 cities in the US. From watching the news I see that austere leaders from Mexico, China, France and Germany have weighed in on the topic as well but we delve into the asinine to start counting cities because it's not really the point, is it?

All a moot point as Wasted Time R has rewritten the section and it looks marvelous... regardless of whether the word "many" is a "weasel word" (?) or not. I'll have to look that one up in my "Strunk and White". Good job, Wasted, it really DOES look very good.

The point is, all three of you are accomplished writers and impassioned that Wikipedia is critically reviewed and maintained. I thank all of you for that but as this was my first time contribution, having taken the time to read WP:DONTBITE... I might add, "don't bite the newcomers, sometimes they bite back." This only serves to make me loath to step into the middle of this ever again... I already have a 6-year old.

DeadboltSecurity (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-19

After re-reading the sources, I stand partially corrected—the sources mention 70 protests, not 70 boycotts, so the sources didn't support the earlier statement. Wasted Time R's new wording correctly reflects what the sources say. But the issue is one of accuracy, not neutrality; if a reliable source had actually said that 70 cities had called for boycotts, so stating would not have violated neutrality. Now of course the question, “did the source really count 70 (protests or boycotts)?” probably is a reasonable one; short of verifying a listing every (protest or boycott), it's probably tough to answer. Ultimately, it goes back to “What's a reliable source?”, a question I've posed several times here and elsewhere. But that's a topic for another time in another venue.

In retrospect, I may have reacted a bit too quickly to the claim of NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

... and I may have been a bit to sensitive. Guess I didn't realize how much you have to put on your hip waders sometimes to get involved with this. The passion, time and critical observation that one must have is to be respected.

DeadboltSecurity (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-20

FAIR and Pearce background relevancy

We're having a bit of an edit war over these additions by User:Azdarin:

Incidentally, in 2007, FAIR was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center to its list of hate groups.

Russell, a Mormon from Mesa, Arizona, has stated that "his efforts to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and them from coming here is based on the Mormon Church's 13th Article of Faith, which includes obeying the law." Interestingly enough, Russell was fired from his position as Director of the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division in 1999 for tampering with state driving records. In order to gain support from the rest of the US, Senator Pearce appeared on CNN as well as a local Phoenix newstation and lied to the American public regarding facts and figures that would push his agenda. Senator Pearce, has appeared arm in arm with well known white supremacy leader JT Ready at anti-immigration rallies.

These additions, regardless of how well they are sourced (and it is variable here) or written (even if the wording wasn't this slanted), are not relevant to this article. Considerations of the background of FAIR and Russell Pearce belong, not surprisingly, in the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Russell Pearce article. This is an article about the law, and at the end of the day the law stands on its own, regardless of the background of those who pushed for it. As a final observation, material introduced in WP articles by "Incidentally, ..." or "Interestingly enough, ..." is almost invariably off-topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

^^Agreed Ink Falls 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. “Incidentally, ...” or “Interestingly enough, ...” don't cut it even if the material they introduce is on topic. In this case, the material isn't, and the comments are op-eds. JeffConrad (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkmark. Completely irrelevant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd that it is irrelevant but that whole lecture on the background of the law isnt. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone cares about this, but the statement from Russell on the Article of Faith was incorrect. It's the 12th Article of Faith that says, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."68.155.23.62 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've found some good sources that indicate that the LDS Church has been caught in some backlash due to Pearce's association with it and his use of the 12th Article of Faith to motivate SB1070. (The Church itself has taken no position on the law and says that Pearce doesn't speak for it.) I've added material, since unlike Pearce's past background, fallout from his role in pushing the law is relevant to this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Borderline at best. WP:UNDUE in my view. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually like to expand the coverage of how various churches have responded to the law. The only Catholic reaction in the article is the rather extreme one by the LA cardinal, which I doubt is fully representative. Once expanded, I hope the Mormon material will not seem out of weighting to you. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone speak Spanish?

Well if you do the corresponding page in Spanish Wikipedia is appallingly stubbish, especially when you consider that the law targets Mexicans and that Mexicans will be the victims of the racial profiling. So, si se habla espanol, puede ayudar con el articulo. Hell even feed it through Google translate. Lilly (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't target Mexicans, and we don't have anything to do with Spanish wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does target Mexicans. This law was drafted, written, and voted for by people with ties to various hate groups. The largest fraction of illegals in the state are from Mexico. The class action suit being brought against it was from a mexican guy who was pulled over multiple times and asked for papers. The law was passed within weeks of a law banning a mexican ethnic study class and re-assignment of Spanish speaking teachers. On nearly every internet site with open comments on this law you see a never ending parade of people mocking mexican culture. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

On nearly every Internet site with open comments on any political topic you will find the lowest dregs of humanity. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And my other 5 points? 67.246.175.103 (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait until the law goes into effect and see what actually happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if they said that in south africa or germany.67.246.175.103 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Feeding it through google translate is a terrible idea, they don't give nearly an accurate translation. Besides, last I check most Mexicans here speak English, it would be just the illegals who uld need that page. Ink Falls 18:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that feeding it through Google Translate is an ugly idea. Is there any data on who reads the Spanish-language version? Tedperl (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can get readership stats. The English version is being read by about 2,500 – 5,000 people a day under this name, with another 500 – 1,000 people a day under its old name (the readership stats tool doesn't coalesce redirects). In comparison, the Spanish version is being read by about 150 – 200 people a day, a lot less. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it is important and anyone who wishes to help me would be an uber-good person (not that you guys who don't aren't) and the whole thing about the law targeting Latinos was my opinion and let me point out that in response to someone's comment that it would be just the illegals who need it: THE ILLEGALS ARE THE ONES BEING TARGETED SO THEY SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW AND BE ALERT! (Not yelling there I just don't know how to do bold/underline).Lilly (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, why do they have the right to be told there is a law targeting them? They're breaking the law. That's like saying drug dealers have a right to be told there is a law that is targeting them. :P Ink Falls 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazing we can have this discussion and yet there are people still claiming it is not targeted against Mexicans.67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and made a rough translation of the opening paragraph. I would encourage editors who are better at Spanish than I to correct and expand upon the present version. Whatever your political views, it is obvious that the law is of interest to Spanish speakers, and I think we can all agree that spreading the information is a good goal. Lesgles (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert to previous name of the article

I would propose that we revert the name of the article back to SB 1070. My primary reason is that I think that calling the legislation the "Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" is tendentious and misleading. I know that laws are often given strange names to give them greater legitimacy, but this one strikes me as a particular reach.

My secondary reason is that most sources do not refer to it this way. A quick Google search on SB 1070 revealed 4 million; while a similar search on "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" pulls in about 120,000 results. If we revert back, I think this article would rise to the top of results when people search for information on this topic. Tedperl (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SB 1070 already redirects here, and I don't think the laws name is a reach. Would Racial Profiling Act be more appropriate to you? I don't see any reason to change, laws in Wikipedia are typically given the name of the act (such as the Health care law and the clean power act) instead of their legal code. This in my opinion seems like a shallow attempt to dehumanize the law by going against Wikipedia policy to name it after it's legal code instead of it's name. Ink Falls 18:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ink Falls.Boromir123 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect covers it. The name isn't a reach; it's just ridiculous. But the Arizona Legislature called what they called it, as is their prerogative. We can't change it just because we may think it's misleading. Be assured that the Arizona Legislature have no exclusive on silly naming. I think it's far better to stick with Wikipedia convention. Moreover, most legislatures reset bill numbering, sometimes for every session, so there could be another Arizona SB 1070 in the near future that covered an entirely different topic.

I'd still like to see Arizona prepended to the title (keeping the redirect from the current title) to provide better context. As I mentioned earlier, a measure with the same title has been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature. Given the makeup of that legislature, I doubt the measure will get anywhere, but we'll need to see what happens. And others states considering similar action may take it, if they haven't already done so. JeffConrad (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was for moving it back to SB1070 until someone brought up the Clean Air Actand the USA PATRIOT Act (that one takes the cake). Just get used to fact that some laws have names that are weird at best. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was and am in favor of changing the title, but lost the discussion above at #Article title and move and am losing it again. As for redirects, they help you find the article if you're doing a search within Wikipedia, but don't help finding it within outside search engines like Google. This simple Google search still isn't finding the article. As for other names being meaningful, Clean Air Act is a good name (it tells you the law is intended to reduce air pollution) and PATRIOT Act is a so-so name (it tells you the law is something about defending the country). Both law names also became the common name by which everyone refers to those laws, which per WP:COMMONNAME is supposed to be the guiding policy of naming. In constrast, in actual practice few if any people refer to this thing as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, as it's too long and has zilch to do with what the law does. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that SB1070 should be the title but maybe we call the page Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB1070). And I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment here and say that although Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act says nothing about what the law is on, neither does SB1070. =) Lilly (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a WP policy stating that the citable name for an act must be the article title, we would seem free to defer to practicality. The PATRIOT Act actually is short for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001”, so the full title is arguably related to what the Act does. But silly bill titles aren't uncommon; the greater problem with the current title is its length. There still would be a couple of minor issues with reverting to the original name. The short version of the bill is properly S.B. 1070 or perhaps SB 1070, as is shown in the actual bill text, and as we have it in this article. But the media commonly refer to SB1070 (the situation is the same with California bills). I'd suggest that perhaps the page title use the more common form, and the proper form be retained in the article text. As I've said, there is a small risk of using a bill number that's in scope only for a particular legislative session, but I suppose the chance of another bill with the same number in a future session that's similarly noteworthy is probably fairly small. JeffConrad (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing of boycotts

One or more editors have apparently been removing all mention of ACTUAL boycotts against Arizona as a direct result of the bill. The article now says only that "boycotts were proposed" in both the lead section and in the boycott section. Whether or not the editors agree with the boycott by the City of Los Angeles and others, to remove all mention of it is very deceptive. I shall now try to restore it. Facts707 (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to measure actual boycotts, capitalized or otherwise, at this point. Will the resolutions by SF, LA, and the other city governments actually result in any significant reduction in employee travel to Arizona? Or in measurably less business by those cities with companies based in Arizona? Talk is one thing, results always another. If you see any future stories in the media that point to actual numbers, please include them. In the meantime, it made no sense to have the city government actions split in two different places in the section, so I've coalesced them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Undue Weight

The large majority of this article doesn't discuss the Act, rather reaction to the Act (primarily opposition to it). This creates an imbalanced article. The article should be primarily about the Act itself and the part which is focused on reaction should be balanced between opposition and support. -23:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

The Act is discussed in depth in the first section, "Provisions". Several editors have put a lot of effort into getting that section as objective and accurate as possible. But the law isn't very long and so that section doesn't need to be that long. Once the law goes into effect, there will be a new section called something like "Implementation and results", which will discuss how the law has been enforced, and what effect (good bad or indifferent) it has had. Any citizen lawsuits to force the law to be followed will be covered as well. As for the large amount of material dealing with reaction, most state laws don't generate much attention and their articles deal primarily with the law's provisions; see Category:California statutes for some examples. But this law has been very different from the norm and has generated a ton of public reaction. This article necessarily reflects that. As for most of the reaction being negative; that's human nature. People always get more riled up about something they don't like than something they support. Same thing is true of Obamacare, for example. Again, the article has to reflect reality, not an artificially-imposed "balance" constraint. That said, if you know of pro-law perspectives that aren't included in this article, by all means bring them forward. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not my desire to get into an argument over what the article needs to look like to "reflect reality". It is my desire to ensure that Wikipedia policy - here we are discussing the policy regarding undue weight - is enforced.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Wasted Time R. I see no problem here with WP:WEIGHT; the article seems to reflect a reasonable weight of pro and con sources. As has been stated, most of the reaction has been in opposition. Compared to most sources, I think we've tried very hard to make this article accurate, especially under Provisions. We're just the messengers; please don't shoot us. JeffConrad (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

The ACLU et al are not sources on the Constitutionality of this Act. They are protesters. SCOTUS is who decides Constitutionality and, as they haven't ruled one way or the other, there is no source on Constitutionality. So, if you wish to keep this section labelled "Constitutionality", then you must use relevant sources - which the ACLU (and Maldef and others) are -not-. If, on the other hand, you want to relabel this section to "Opposition", then the ACLU et al are relevant. I'm a pretty flexible editor. You can decide which direction you want to go - relabel the section or remove links to sources which aren't sources on Constitutionality. -69.143.48.114 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Reaction" section, and especially the "Protests and criticism" subsection and the "Boycotts" subsection, is the one that already covers general opposition to the law. The "Constitutionality" section is intended to cover the history of legal challenges to the law, and report on the ultimate result – was the law upheld by the courts or were parts or all of it struck down by the courts? The stance of the ACLU, the legal defensive arguments of Kobach, and the lawsuits that have been filed so far, are all part of this history. I'm open to changes to the section title to make this clearer – I've renamed it to "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" – but it can't just be called "Opposition", as you've changed it to twice, because it's much more specific than that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I support your rename of the section to "Challenges to legality and constitutionality". I recommend under that section that a short intro paragraph be made that the constitutionality of the act remains an open question and under that intro paragraph, each of the talking points on the issue (1. Concurrent Enforcement vs. the Supremacy clause and 2. racial profiling) have it's own section. As currently written, the section makes broad sweeping statements which make it very difficult to decipher what exactly the legality issues actually are.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the ACLU (or any other legally credible organization, pro or con) as a source on constitutionality; I do agree that, like anyone other than the Courts, they aren't dispositive. But I think that's pretty obvious to most readers. JeffConrad (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Heavy subsectioning

User:69.143.48.114 is attempting to introduce heavy subsectioning of the article, as evidenced by this revision here and later ones. I do not think this structure is warranted; it makes for short, choppy sections and a convoluted table of contents. The article is supposed to have a smooth prose flow, which this eliminates; see Wikipedia:Layout#Headings and sections for guidelines on this.

The content organization with these changes is also suspect: not all the lawsuits so far have been solely on racial profiling grounds, protests by entertainment celebrities is not a form of religious activism, and the comparisons to Nazi Germany have nothing to do with the suits against the law.

I tried reverting this mess, but just got reverted back. Would appreciate the views of the other experienced editors here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I find the subsectioning to make the discussion on protests much more easier to read. When I first read this section, I was struck by the lack of structure and the sense that it was being used as a dumping ground for a bunch of disorganized links. It was difficult to figure out what went where and, if you look at the overall article, you will find in the original version that there were multiple references in disjointed locations throughout the article to the same basic content - a clear sign that the disorganization was working against the article's quality.

While subsectioning as I've done might be unwarranted in a traditional newspaper or college paper style structure, the requirements of an open-ended, multiple editor, organic structure (ie. Wikipedia) are different from the requirements of a newspaper article or college paper style format (which typically have one writer/editor and, thus, are much more easily kept from spinning out of control). Again, I made the change because the lack of structure made for difficult reading, was already showing signs of being harmed from disorganization, and is an article format which leads to disintegration of structure. In my opinion, adding structure to a Wikipedia article is a good thing. -12:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

You made one change that improved things, which was to move the initial Holder and other interest groups comments out of the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" section and into relevant parts of the "Reaction" section. That made sense, as it focused the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" material on the actual constitutional arguments and lawsuits that have been filed (with court results to come). But then you dumped the Nazi comparisons into this section. That made no sense at all, since that is all just wild talk that has no relevance to the actual court cases that will be taking place. As for the deep sectioning style, Wikipedia style practice generally frowns on this, but we'll see what others have to say. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ Wasted Time R. This becomes too choppy. Moreover, as was pointed out, the way the individuals parts were sorted into those small sections was probleatic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"But then you dumped the Nazi comparisons into this section. That made no sense at all, since that is all just wild talk that has no relevance to the actual court cases that will be taking place" I look forward to you providing a source which actually backs up your claim that the "wild talk" has given no extra publicity/popular support/incentive to the ACLU et al to make these court cases.-12:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Err? that's not the way it works. You cannot say blue strawberries grow on the moon and then demand others provide sources to prove they don't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. We know, as a general rule, that sociodynamics and law interact - there's like a bazillion academic papers discussing the relationship between culture/popular media/and law. If Wasted Time wants to insist that the SB1070 issue is an exception to that well known social fact, he should provide a source. Just like anyone who wants to insist there is an exception to the well known biological fact that plants don't grow on the moon needs to provide a source.-12:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Are you deaf now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

When you aren't making sense and the person you are in discussion with points out that you aren't making sense, the appropriate action is not to accuse the other person of being deaf. The appropriate action is to acknowledge that you aren't making sense. You should keep that in mind. Discussion in the talk page will go a lot smoother for you in the future if you do.-12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems your only motivation for this stunt is to have Nazi Germany as a bold section-header somewhere... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a substantial, lengthy amount of content in this article on comparisons to Nazi Germany. I didn't add that content, someone else did. But I think it's valid and points out one of the big problems with opposition to SB1070 - namely that many people are over reacting (forex. not reading the law before commenting on it - such as Holder has done and making insane comparisons to Nazi Germany) and trying to make arguments that SB1070 is unconstitutional without even knowing what SB1070 is or looking at it rationally.

That being said, any block of content which is lengthy, valid, and substantial should be highlighted. -13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Is there a way we can work towards consensus or are you simply intent on edit warring? The reason I made the edit to racial profiling that I did is that the ADL's comment was hanging on at the end of the section and, thus, likely not to be read. By grouping the "pro" parts together and grouping the "cons" parts together, the ADL section is less likely to be missed. You seem intent on simply reverting everything and anything you disagree with. That's article ownership. I believe it's possible to work with you to build consensus, but it's going to require you to meet me half way. Part of meeting me half way is to not simply revert everything and anything you disagree with, but to look for common ground. Are you capable of that? -13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

You don't need a section-header for this. You know very well that it takes two to war, and you're at it as well. I will now let you do as you please, since I have no time for your almost obsessive insistence to have "Nazi" in bold somewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You will find that working collaboratively on Wikipedia articles will be much less stressful if you Assume good faith-13:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Why Montenegro's race is important

Because the topic is alleged anti-Hispanic racism, a Hispanic Representative who says that there is no racism is relevant.-17:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

wrong. His race is not important because no one can claim to represent a race. He represents his district not his race. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

wrong. Politicians are elected for many reasons including their race - look, for example, at the role of race in the Obama election.-02:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Ok provide a scientifically accurate poll showing that race was the dominate or near dominate factor of his election and add it to his wikipedia page. The fact that he has brown skin doesnt mean anything in this debate. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The general view in the U.S. is that if you are a minority, and you're well educated, that you have a say on what is being racist towards your race, more so then somebody who is not in your race. You don't like it, go to Spanish wiki, where I'm sure being Spanish doesn't matter. Ink Falls 04:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide detailed references for you assertion, or is this original research? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to finesse this dispute/edit war by adding this text: "Montenegro, who legally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador with his family when he was four, stated, "I am saying if you here illegally, get in line, come in the right way."[88]" This should get across the idea without doing the ethnic labelling that was being objected to. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree to this compromise.I really didnt want to go through this entire article and attach a race label to every single person involved. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

State of the article

69.143.48.114 has moved stuff around so much that I can't follow the changes that have been made or know what's been added or deleted. The new organization makes no sense to me at all. It lumps what should be a description of the actual court cases filed so far in with several paragraphs of legal original research and with all the stupid Nazi stuff. 69.143.48.114's justification of this arrangement – that without the Nazi nonsense, no one would be filing suits against the law – is unsupported by a single source. (In fact, this is what organizations like the ACLU and MALDEF do – they see laws and governmental actions they don't like, and they take legal action against them, even if the general public is largely unaware of them.) I'm also having trouble accepting 69.143.48.114 in good faith. He or she shows too much knowledge of WP jargon to be a real newcomer; it's probably an experienced editor slumming with an IP address and knowing how to game the system. (Real editors can't edit war because their reputations will get tarnished; IP addresses don't care, because even if they get blocked, they just move to another computer.) Like Seb az86556, I think 69.143.48.114's real goal is to discredit sane legal opposition to the law my mashing it up with the Nazi morons. Unless there's a consensus among the established editors here to revert the article back to the pre-69.143.48.114 state, and then look at 69.143.48.114's suggestions on a case by case basis, I'm outta here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond to anything else in your statement above, in the interest of assuming good faith, I'd like you to point out the specific place in the article where you feel I have discredited sane legal opposition to SB1070. Please be as precise and detailed as you can. Because while I am aware of having covered the fact that some critics of the Act didn't read it before criticizing it and while I am aware of covering the fact that some opponents of the act have compared it to Nazi Germany, I am not aware of discrediting sane legal opposition to the Act. If you point out where I've done so, then we've got something we can talk about, but if you don't point out where you feel I've done so, then you are road blocking our ability to reach consensus.-02:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

I'm the original contributor to most of the article (other than the "Provisions" section). I added the Nazi material, I added the ADF response, I added Napolitano and Holder not reading it first. All of this merits being in the article, but not highlighted at the section header / table of contents level and not combined with the legal challenges to the law. It's a sideshow. There are a few things that will really matter in the end: what the law says, how it is implemented and what effect it has on illegal immigration (to be determined), the effectiveness of any boycotts against the state (in early stages), and whether all or part of the law is struck down by the courts (in early stages). Each of the sections dealing with those matters should be unpolluted by the sideshow. You actually were proceeding in that direction with your first talk comments and your first edit, which moved the Holder comments out of the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality", but then you did a 180 and made that section a hundred times worse. Put it this way: none of the suits filed against the law have claimed that it is in violation of the "America shall not be Nazi Germany" statute. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what sane, legal opposition you feel I'm discrediting. Here's my take on it.. "Naziism" is being invoked as part of the "alleged racial profiling" attack on the act. Therefore, it should be in the same part of the article which covers that alleged "racial profiling". You've made no real argument that it is separate - that is, your argument that it should be treated separately seems based on original research (namely, your opinion that the "Naziism" thing is sideshow and that the "racial profiling" thing is not). If we're to move forward towards consensus on this issue, I really need you to provide a source to back up your claim that the "Naziism" thing is sideshow and that the "racial profiling" thing is not. -03:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

(ec)The article only includes general coverage of racial profiling charges in the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" section because you moved it there. That material belongs in the "Reactions" section, where I originally had it. The only mentions of racial profiling or racism or Nazism in the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" section should be if they are mentioned in the claims of the actual lawsuits against the law. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read the Nazi section and think that it presents the facts in a totally logical succession and while I can understand the fears of the Nazi claims and claims of racial profiling being conflated with one another I do not feel that that has happened in this case. (by the way I am not a sockpuppet of 69.143.48.114 :P) Ink Falls 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the most important of the lawsuits (the ACLU/NAACP/MALDEF one) claims are (from the ACLU press release):
That the Arizona law

• unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
• invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and
• infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.

This is what I mean by "sane opposition": no mentions of racism in general, or of Nazis or Apartheid or anything like that. You may or may not agree with the merit of the suit, and it may or may not win, but the article's section on the lawsuits should be addressing it at this level of seriousness, and leave all the other blather for the general "Reactions" section. What's more, the subsectioning as it stands gives the impression that no one has filed suit on the supremacy clause basis and everyone has filed on the racial profiling basis, which as this shows is false. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should the ACLU be granted authority in this article to decide what is and what is not "sane legal opposition"?-10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And here's what the City of Tucson lawsuit's claims are (from the Courthouse News Service):

• That Tucson lacks the money and resources to enforce the state law, which it says conflicts with "federal law, policies and priorities for enforcement."
• Tucson demands a declaration that the law, SB 1070, is unconstitutional in order to avoid being disciplined for not enforcing it.
• The city claims SB 1070 "mandates the detention and verification of the immigration status of arrestees without any reasonable suspicion, probable cause or other independent legal basis for continued detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
• The law "seeks to control and regulate immigration" in a way that allegedly conflicts with federal law and will force the city to "implement an unconstitutional law."
• The law also pulls police officers away from pursuing urgent duties and more violent or pressing crimes, the cross-complaint claims.

Again, a sane legal action that you may or may not agree with and that may or may not win. No wild charges of racism, no Nazis or Jim Crow. This is what that section of the article should be about. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with Wasted Time R. Racial profiling and the Nazi stuff are really separate issues. Given the subsectioning (on which I don't have a strong opinion), I think that if the Nazi stuff (which is on the fringe) remains, it should go in its own subsection to avoid conflating unrelated issues, as well as justifying the use of subsections to guide the reader. I don't know if I'd go so far as “Nazi morons”, but I say that most of those folks have engaged mouth before starting mind.

The paragraph on Gonzales, though strictly accurate, is misleading. The stated holding is correct, but the case also held that

1. State law enforcement cannot enforce civil provisions of federal immigration law.
2. Violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 occur only at the time of actual illegal entry, and are not continuing violations for which state LEOs can arrest.

I honestly think that entire subsection should be carefully reviewed.

Though I'm not sure I question 69.143.48.114's good faith, I do sense a POV. I share the perception that that user is awfully familiar with WP jargon for a newbie, and is an obvious SPA.

I'd like to point out that I originally did use subsectioning to separate the Nazi stuff from other cries of racial profiling. Wasted Time insisted that I remove that subsectioning. If that subsectioning had remained in the article, then the Nazi stuff (which, again, is undeniably part of racial profiling concerns) would be with the racial profiling stuff (where it belongs), yet be demarcated at the same time. There are a lot of problems with Wasted Time's structure of this article. It's very arbitrary and disjointed and seems largely based on Wasted Time's opinion rather than any logical structure. Who decides what is and what is not a legitimate criticism of the constitutionality of the Act? The ACLU? Why? In the real world, it is SCOTUS who makes the decision. One problem with this article is that Wasted Time has put the cart before the horse and attempted to create a constitutionality section of the article before there is any content to put in that section and then he followed it up with arbitrarily guidelines on what content belongs in that section. Doing that is part of why his structure ends up being disjointed and lacking flow.

Ideally, since there is no non-arbitrary way to separate what is and what is not a legitimate criticism of the constitutionality of the Act, subsectioning of the article shouldn't be based on random whim. All criticisms of the Act should be treated as being on equal footing. After SCOTUS makes a ruling, -then- we'll have content to put in the constitutionality section. To meet you half way on that, while removing the constitutionality section, we can add a section called "Court Cases".

And as I am not on topic (the discussion page should be used to discuss the article, not editors), I won't comment on the ad hominem of what or who I am.-10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your recent last edit because you capriciously discarded accepted format for citing cases; I have absolutely no idea why you did this, and can envision no justification for it. Some of the other changes weren't necessarily bad, but I'm not going to repeat the effort I made in cleaning up the citations—you appear to have undone them simply as an act of defiance. Like Wasted Time R, I'm more than open to discussion, but not for off-the-wall edits.

Please do us all a favor and sign your comments with four tildes. JeffConrad (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't capricious discarding of accepted format for citing cases. It was new content with a new source. Lazily reverting content is counter productive. In the future, don't revert content just because you don't like what was done. Try to work towards consensus and moving forward.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It may not have been just capricious discarding of format, but that certainly was an element. I'm not going to be bothered cleaning up something that I've just fixed after someone has undone it for no reason. The material I cleaned up was poorly written, sloppy, and improperly formatted, primarily because you just copied it from another site and were too lazy to properly format. The case format is still wrong; please see WP:MOSLEGAL if you don't understand why.

There are a host of other problems with the section on Constitutionality. The cases are thrown in without any context, and there is far too much emphasis on courts (e.g., the Tenth Circuit and California) that have no jurisdiction in Arizona. Again, this is what happens with blind copying from other sites. I'd be willing to be that you haven't read any of the cases, so you're really using someone else's work without any attribution. As far as I'm concerned, there still is a serious violation of WP policy here.

I assume good faith up to a point. But your pointless belligerence makes it increasingly difficult. JeffConrad (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I could and probably should defend myself here, but the fact is that the discussion page is for discussing the article, not other editors. Are you capable of using the discussion page for the purposes it exists or are you intent on making ad hominems? I've made every attempt to meet you half way. I still am making such an attempt. If you feel the court cases have been thrown in without relevant context, then what context do you feel should be added? If you feel policy is being violated (in the article, again, the discussion page is not about editors), then what policy do you feel is being violated? Until you identify specifically what your problems are, we can't work towards building consensus.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you're still in violation of copyright. You're not allowed to verbatim copy one sentence (unless presented as a direct quotation), much less whole paragraphs, such as you do with the People v. Barajas and United States v. Salinas-Calderon ones (and possibly more, I didn't check all of it). Everything has to be rewritten in your own words. Furthermore, as JeffConrad states, this material is of dubious relevance and the formatting is a disaster. Before your arrival, this article had GA-level form and style, something that you are quickly wrecking. You clearly don't know what you are doing ... or you do know and wrecking the article is your goal. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please reference the appropriate Wikipedia policy which states that we are not allowed to copy one sentence from a source. I'm more than happy to make further changes, I just want a source so that I can be sure that my next change will be sufficient. "this material is of dubious relevance" the expert source I used and referenced indicates otherwise. What's your source for saying that it is of dubious relevance - more original research? "the formatting is a disaster" I certainly agree that more work can be done on the formatting. "Before your arrival, this article had GA-level form and style, something that you're quickly wrecking" source? or is this more of your baseless opinion? What i saw in this article was a mess which I'm cleaning up.-01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

You accuse the ACLU of simply being opponents, but your “expert” source is hardly NPOV, either. Statements made by others, including the ACLU and Kris Kobach, have at least been identified as such. You've added Coppolo's material (and some of it is still verbatim) without attribution, as if it were your own. You cannot cite sources that you haven't actually consulted yourself (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), so the cases are indirect sources, and Coppolo would need to be cited as a direct source.

Much of the material from Coppolo's article is of dubious relevance because only the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court bind in Arizona. See my further comment below.

If you think that your edits are cleaning up a mess, all I can say is that you have a very different take than just about everyone else. JeffConrad (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You aren't making sense. Is your contention that the ACLU aren't opponents? Is your contention that I've said that Coppolo isn't a proponent? How can I add content as if it were my own when I've clearly provided a reference to Coppolo and not myself? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what your problems are so that we can move forward, but you simply are making no sense at all.-01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we identified the ACLU and Kobach as the makers of the statements rather than presenting the statements as unquestioned facts. What reference to Coppolo? You don't even mention him as the source of what you added, so you present the cited cases as if you had consulted them (again, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). And in any event, even if the material were attributed, Coppolo isn't of sufficient notability to justify the amount of his material included here.

Once again, please sign your comments with four tildes. JeffConrad (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to make a similar comment but Wasted Time R beat me to it. I agree with everything just said, on copyright, substance, and form. This article was reasonably well written until just recently, and is now a mess (there's even an unclosed font switch to italics; do you even bother to check what you've added?)

If you make sloppy edits that someone cleans up (even while possibly disagreeing with the content), and you then paste over the corrections with similarly sloppy material that you've copied verbatim from another web site, leave it for someone else to clean up once again, and accuse a person removing the copyrighted material of vandalism, you're bound to meet with objection. To call that ad hominem is to duck the issue.

I think it's fair to cite precedent for enforcement of criminal provisions of federal immigration law by state law enforcement personnel. Gonzales covers this (the law appears to have been written with this case in mind), and because Arizona appeals to the Ninth Circuit, that case is apposite. Perhaps a brief mention that other circuits have similarly held is OK, but hardly to the extent in Coppolo's article, and not without some indication that decisions of the Ninth Circuit bind (not every reader is familiar with how the courts work). Some of Gonzales’s other holdings (most important, the prohibition against enforcement of civil provisions) should be included for NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree that the formatting can be fixed. The problem wouldn't have happened in the first place if you hadn't been so intent on blindly reverting all edits you disagree with. But that's water under the bridge. -01:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Your accusation is absurd; I reverted one edit and explained why. The revert wasn't “blind”; I simply did not feel it was my job to repeat my cleanup that you overwrote. JeffConrad (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use

A handful of sentences picked out of an article falls well within Wikipedia:Non-free content.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, what you did is a straight out copyvio. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the line between what is fair use and what is not can be subjective. I, also, acknowledge that you and I disagree as to where that line is. Once more, I feel the need to remind you to assume good faith and to focus on pushing the article forward (reverts are pushing the article backward and are generally a bad practice). I encourage you to focus on working collaboratively and to focus on the article, not other editors.

That having been said, I will reexamine the edit and work towards using fewer words from the source article. -20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Concurrent enforcement and the Supremacy Clause

The links for Miller and Gonzales go to the DOJ and not to the original cases. Most of the material has been copied and pasted almost verbatim; though I don't see a copyright issue, the statements are those of the DOJ and should be so attributed. I think it would be better to link to the actual cases, but they would obviously need to be examined directly by whomever made the change, and the editor's own conclusions stated (or the material restricted to direct quotes). Most of the U.S. Code citations in the Gonzales material are irrelevant because those sections aren't at issue with the Arizona law.

The material for Marsh v. U.S. was copied almost verbatim from Kris Kobach's article at the Center for Immigration Studies, so I there's still a copyright violation. Even if paraphrased, attribution would be needed absent some credible indication that the original case material had actually been consulted by the editor.

I also think the bolding should be removed and the cases mentioned in ordinary narrative (which is needed anyway), but it's probably best to resolve the other issues first. JeffConrad (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

copyvios removed. 69.143.48.114‎ blocked. article semi-ed. Nazi-section renamed to "Concerns over potential civil rights violations" (rationale: there are many concerns mentioned not just Nazi Germany (South Africa, constituional issues, Japenese internment...)... boiling it down to "Nazi" doesn't do it justice, mentioning everything will be too much) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I think you whacked the wrong material ... the stuff from DOJ is public domain as far as I can tell, but the material on Learned Hand is WP:COPYVIO. I think we should include Gonzales, for points both pro and con, because that's the most applicable decision, and I think it will figure prominently in any facial challenges, so I think we should get it right as well. I've examined that case personally, so I'll take it as an assignment to add a brief discussion of it that's relevant to this article. I'll restore the material and attempt a quick cleanup, but getting it right may take a few tries. I don't necessarily have a problem including Kobach's comment about Learned Hand with proper attribution to Kobach, but as you noted with the Nazi stuff, there just isn't room for everything, so I'll remove the reference for now. JeffConrad (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even check the Learned Hand-thing. whatever you think meets WP:COPYVIO has to go of course. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So many violations, so little time ... I've added some material on Gonzales, but kept it brief. I'm not sure we need much more—this isn't a law review. The Justia site doesn't provide page numbers, but I honestly think anyone who wants to check the source should read the entire case. The wording could probably be improved a bit to better blend it into the rest of the section. The last paragraph (if we even need it) could also stand some better wording. But I think for now, the section is at least acceptable. JeffConrad (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to clean this up a bit by rearranging to present related ideas together. To remove some of the clutter, I moved the long direct quote from 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) to a note; a consequence, of course, is that there is now one substantive footnote in what's otherwise a list of references. If others think that a simple link to the cited section would suffice, I'm fine with removing the note; I kept it mainly to retain some of the material added by 69.143.48.114. JeffConrad (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If the article ends up having multiple substantive or explanatory footnotes, you can put those in a separate "Notes" section, akin to what George McGovern and Mitt Romney do for example. That distinguishes them visually from the pure-reference footnotes. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected

well i guess it finally happened. An admin decided she/he didnt like the fact that the article didnt reflect their views so they froze it to end all debate. I guess they will start banning people who disagree with there political slant next. Another sad moment for wikipedia. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins will always do this when they see lots of edit warring. Often, they don't look at the content dispute closely, but just impose actions to halt or slow down the warring. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Structure adjustments

I've tried to restore some sanity to the article's structure, while still honoring some of 69.143.48.114's objections to the previous structure. His/her new "Impact" section remains, but is now located after the "Reactions" section, since one feeds the other. The long "Protests and criticisms" subsection is now broken into three subsections, "Religious organizations and perspectives", "Concerns over potential civil rights violations", and "Protests". This gives the material some better organization than it did in the pre-69.143.48.114 stage, I think. The second of those contains all of the non-legal-case material that was in "Challenges to legality and constitutionality", which majority opinion on Talk held didn't belong there. "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" continues to have "Concurrent enforcement and the Supremacy Clause", which discusses the major constitutional question regarding the law, and also now "Court actions filed against the Act", which will discuss in detail the various suits that have been filed so far (I need to start expanding this coverage, along the lines of the sources I presented on them above).

I'm not wedded to the precise wording of any of these subsection titles, I'm just trying to get across the idea of what they cover.

As part of all this, I'm also trying to locate any material that got dropped during 69.143.48.114's shuffle, and trying to better cite any material that got added by various IPs or other infrequent editors. I'm still in progress on this task. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm more or less done with what I had in mind here. I'm sure there are still some rough patches. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumed not to be an alien

The referenced source (Arizona Senate Bill 1070) does not contain the phrase "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" along the list of four acceptable forms of identification. I am really wondering where the whole paragraph comes from. pivovarov (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for catching this. It's in the final version that was actually signed. We need to fix that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This problem apparently arose when Facts707 changed the reference format to what Facts707 described as “standard”, despite the fact that {{rp}} isn't even mentioned in WP:CITE, and is very uncommon in practice elsewhere. It's also the only use of {{rp}} in this article. I'm for going back to the more conventional format and having only a single link at the end of the references. JeffConrad (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, I never liked that " [1]:§ 3 " compound footnote style. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)