...wow. Just... wow.

I have no idea what to say about this at all. What a breathtaking example of group racism.

If I was one of the artists who got told to repaint them white I'd tell them to stick the paint where the sun don't shine.

What a bunch of innocence defiling,  neolithic brained,  bible thumping,  xenophobic,  SUB F'ING HUMAN,  *#$HOLES!

I just... I can't...  ARGH.   Can't we use the interstate commerce act or the clear and present danger laws to deport these troglodytes? 

~Toby

These four words might help, just go %$#@ yourself.

EDIT:  CENSOR FAIL

Wow... I got no words for this group of stupid people...

http://wonkette.com/41580...ural-be-changed-to-white

*facepalm* Uuuuggghhh.

I mean, Arizona was already
really terrible with the whole immigration law that was passed.

Actually, not really. The law (SB1070) is simply a state version of current federal immigration law (i.e. this isn't new); it stipulates that any checking of documentation will occur if and only if it's done during a law-enforcement action. So it's not like you can have a cop just walk up to any random stranger and ask for papers; it has to be during the middle of a routine police procedure like say, stopping a person for speeding, reckless driving, and so on. Papers (that all aliens must carry with them under federal law) can only be asked for documentation under reasonable suspicion (which is a legal concept that's been defined in various federal cases over the past several decades). As stipulated in Section 2.b, race, ethnicity, and national origin are not to be the sole factors in asking for documentation.

Seriously, unlike everyone else who's heralding Arizona as the next coming of the KKK because of this bill, read it first and see what it says. It's been blown out of proportion, and doing so is only going to exacerbate the racial tension that already exists (as seen in the first link).

I mean, Arizona was already
really terrible with the whole immigration law that was passed.

Actually, not really. The law (SB1070) is simply a state version of current federal immigration law (i.e. this isn't new); it stipulates that any checking of documentation will occur if and only if it's done during a law-enforcement action. So it's not like you can have a cop just walk up to any random stranger and ask for papers; it has to be during the middle of a routine police procedure like say, stopping a person for speeding, reckless driving, and so on. Papers (that all aliens must carry with them under federal law) can only be asked for documentation under reasonable suspicion (which is a legal concept that's been defined in various federal cases over the past several decades). As stipulated in Section 2.b, race, ethnicity, and national origin are not to be the sole factors in asking for documentation.

Seriously, unlike everyone else who's heralding Arizona as the next coming of the KKK because of this bill, read it first and see what it says. It's been blown out of proportion, and doing so is only going to exacerbate the racial tension that already exists (as seen in the first link).

Its bad because, there is no way to enforce that law without targeting Latinos that are perfectly legal as well. "Reasonable Suspicion" is total BS and you know it. If they look like they're from mexico, they'll be targeted, simple as that. You can be perfectly legal and yet you're required to show your papers when you shouldn't have to. That's why its bad.

Hukos, he did mention that it was only during normal police proceedings. I imagine in any trials brought up, the arresting officer will need to cite the reason the search was conducted, and "to check if he was illegal" is not a legitimate or legal responce.

If this is bad, your problem is with the law ENFORCEMENT not the law itself. Saying "the law can be abused" is actually saying "the law can be BROKEN" and it should be Arizona's responsibility to make sure the police are kept in line, if abuse were to happen. Let's not pre-emptively blow a gasket without precident. This is the same thing most liberals accuse republicans of when it comes to change and progression.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding why everyone is so bent out of shape about it. I carry my green card with me everywhere, and if I were in a traffic violation or such, my state ID, green card and (when I have it) drivers license will be at hand. It's arrestable to be driving without the license, and the green card is just about as thick and heavy, so what harm is it to carry a second piece of card in your wallet?

Back on topic... while this is some messed up s, I think the guy's a *ing hypocrite. I mean, here he is complaining about racism towards blacks and latinos, while being a racist towards white people. I mean, he has a right to be f***ing mad, but he doesnt have to neccisarilly take it out on white people.

Hukos, he did mention that it was only during normal police proceedings. I imagine in any trials brought up, the arresting officer will need to cite the reason the search was conducted, and "to check if he was illegal" is not a legitimate or legal responce.

If this is bad, your problem is with the law ENFORCEMENT not the law itself. Saying "the law can be abused" is actually saying "the law can be BROKEN" and it should be Arizona's responsibility to make sure the police are kept in line, if abuse were to happen. Let's not pre-emptively blow a gasket without precident. This is the same thing most liberals accuse republicans of when it comes to change and progression.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding why everyone is so bent out of shape about it. I carry my green card with me everywhere, and if I were in a traffic violation or such, my state ID, green card and (when I have it) drivers license will be at hand. It's arrestable to be driving without the license, and the green card is just about as thick and heavy, so what harm is it to carry a second piece of card in your wallet?

That's not the point. The point is, is that is promotes racism. Consider the fact that the local police force is already weary of this whole thing, and a large majority of them are corrupt as well, and this simply put, isn't going to be a good thing. Its promoting an already corrupt law enforcement agency to go and say "Okay, let's round up as many Mexicans as we can!". When making/creating laws like this, things like social environment HAVE to be taken into account. The intent may not to be racist (Well, this is Arizona so that might just be the case) but it does promote racism given that the cops now have the authority to go up to anyone with "Reasonable Suspicion" (Basically you look brown) and harass them. You can be legal and still be harassed by the cops now.

Episonic: I don't want to be rude, but anyone complaining about racism against white people needs to shut up. The amount of people actually racist against white people is MICROSCOPIC compared to the amount that harbor hatred for people that aren't white (Or anyone that isn't Christian, or a Republican, or basically doesn't think/look/act like they do). He's only angry at those that are racist, and not all white people in general. Stop victimizing yourself, there isn't any kind of "Anti-White" propoganda being thrown around and you know it.

Hukos, he did mention that it was only during normal police proceedings. I imagine in any trials brought up, the arresting officer will need to cite the reason the search was conducted, and "to check if he was illegal" is not a legitimate or legal responce.

If this is bad, your problem is with the law ENFORCEMENT not the law itself. Saying "the law can be abused" is actually saying "the law can be BROKEN" and it should be Arizona's responsibility to make sure the police are kept in line, if abuse were to happen. Let's not pre-emptively blow a gasket without precident. This is the same thing most liberals accuse republicans of when it comes to change and progression.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding why everyone is so bent out of shape about it. I carry my green card with me everywhere, and if I were in a traffic violation or such, my state ID, green card and (when I have it) drivers license will be at hand. It's arrestable to be driving without the license, and the green card is just about as thick and heavy, so what harm is it to carry a second piece of card in your wallet?

That's not the point. The point is, is that is promotes racism. Consider the fact that the local police force is already weary of this whole thing, and a large majority of them are corrupt as well, and this simply put, isn't going to be a good thing. Its promoting an already corrupt law enforcement agency to go and say "Okay, let's round up as many Mexicans as we can!". When making/creating laws like this, things like social environment HAVE to be taken into account. The intent may not to be racist (Well, this is Arizona so that might just be the case) but it does promote racism given that the cops now have the authority to go up to anyone with "Reasonable Suspicion" (Basically you look brown) and harass them. You can be legal and still be harassed by the cops now.

You do realize that the Arizona government considered this matter, when drafting the law, right? Consider this amendment recently signed by the Arizona governor more specifically emphasizing the conditions under which one may verify an alien's status (HB 2162). Fact of the matter is, 'looking brown' =/= 'illegal alien', given that, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, as of March 2005, the estimated 11.1 million illegals in America broke down as follows: 56% Mexico, 22% other Latin American countries, and 22% Asia, Europe, and Africa.

Here's a NY Times op-ed from one of the guys who drafted the law, Kris Kobach.

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB
1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a
state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes.
It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or
other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a
person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with
the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed
enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties
Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist
the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided”
and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the
government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its
critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it
either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who
helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms
individually:

It is unfair to demand that
aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the
Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain
documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re
going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to
go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such
registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a
state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone
who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation
requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a
meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the
past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions
defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept:
Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable
suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances”
that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been
committed.

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.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling.
Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color
or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration
status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against
profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually
reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police
officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable
when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting
them make arrests on their own assessment.

It
is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license.
Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a
driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass
if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only
lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that
someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in
immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that
Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court
since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage
illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as
Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the
statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced
all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s
2007 law making it illegal
to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the
Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured,
reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they
come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law
enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the
ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human
smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240
incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police
associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken
care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a
few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration
laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking
many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the
laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama
administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown
it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any
wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration
issue, sees things differently?

Kris
W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas
City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration
law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding why everyone is so
bent out of shape about it. I carry my green card with me everywhere,
and if I were in a traffic violation or such, my state ID, green card
and (when I have it) drivers license will be at hand. It's arrestable to
be driving without the license, and the green card is just about as
thick and heavy, so what harm is it to carry a second piece of card in
your wallet?

The problem some people have with this law was expressed by Justice Douglas in his dissent in Terry v. Ohio: "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long
step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to
cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be
the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

On an on-topic note, from the original article from AZ Central:

I mean, Arizona was already
really terrible with the whole immigration law that was passed.

Actually, not really. The law (SB1070) is simply a state version of current federal immigration law (i.e. this isn't new); it stipulates that any checking of documentation will occur if and only if it's done during a law-enforcement action. So it's not like you can have a cop just walk up to any random stranger and ask for papers; it has to be during the middle of a routine police procedure like say, stopping a person for speeding, reckless driving, and so on. Papers (that all aliens must carry with them under federal law) can only be asked for documentation under reasonable suspicion (which is a legal concept that's been defined in various federal cases over the past several decades). As stipulated in Section 2.b, race, ethnicity, and national origin are not to be the sole factors in asking for documentation.

Seriously, unlike everyone else who's heralding Arizona as the next coming of the KKK because of this bill, read it first and see what it says. It's been blown out of proportion, and doing so is only going to exacerbate the racial tension that already exists (as seen in the first link).

"Reasonable Suspicion" is total BS and you know it. If they look like they're from mexico, they'll be targeted, simple as that. You can be perfectly legal and yet you're required to show your papers when you shouldn't have to. That's why its bad.

Pretty much this. I'm all for tighter immigration laws, believe me, if my father sold everything he owned, fought and worked his way to become a legal US citizen the right way, and thus allowing my bro and mom to do so as well, everyone should be able to and just stop being lazy. You can get a Visa to work here legally and travel back and forth until you're finally accepted if dropping everything isn't an option.

BUT, when you throw laws like these out there, that's the problem. Ultra, I really applaud you for trying to defend that Arizona law, but just how you did a ginormous face-palm at that Arizona school, you too must know that this law was written in very, very poor tastes. We know, based on history, that there are bad people in law enforcement, and have used the vagueness of certain written laws to their advantage and as an abuse of their power. "Reasonable suspicion" will mean, by logic, "reasonable suspicion", just as it says, but it just can't work like that. Will you catch a couple of illegals? More than likely. Will you also catch a couple of legal citizens, born here or not, on a bad day and automatically attempt to send them packing? Yep.

There used to be a gas station right across the street from me where I used to live, that I used to walk across for quick drinks and such late at night (cuz I'm just a night owl, and if I demand another energy drink or a Snickers at 2am, then by god, I want one), and plenty of times I just grab my debit card or a couple of bucks and out the door I went. No ID. Me, being born here, but being of South American background, could have been stopped very many times by any cop holding a grudge against "my kind", just how any one of those people driving by that school yelling "@*%+@@" or "spic" could also very well be employed by police dept. It's a crappy situation for sure.

Pretty much this. I'm all for tighter immigration laws, believe me, if my father sold everything he owned, fought and worked his way to become a legal US citizen the right way, and thus allowing my bro and mom to do so as well, everyone should be able to and just stop being lazy. You can get a Visa to work here legally and travel back and forth until you're finally accepted if dropping everything isn't an option.

BUT, when you throw laws like these out there, that's the problem. Ultra, I really applaud you for trying to defend that Arizona law, but just how you did a ginormous face-palm at that Arizona school, you too must know that this law was written in very, very poor tastes. We know, based on history, that there are bad people in law enforcement, and have used the vagueness of certain written laws to their advantage and as an abuse of their power. "Reasonable suspicion" will mean, by logic, "reasonable suspicion", just as it says, but it just can't work like that. Will you catch a couple of illegals? More than likely. Will you also catch a couple of legal citizens, born here or not, on a bad day and automatically attempt to send them packing? Yep.

It's a shame that the situation has devolved to this point, given that the federal government's really dropped the ball on proper enforcement over the past several administrations. If we had enforced the laws on the books as is, we wouldn't be in this mess (a proper border fence to keep out the traffickers and border hoppers would've been nice too, forcing all but the most determined to go through the legal entry points).

With regards to the notion of legal citizens being caught on a bad day and sent packing? It's possible that they'd be thought of as suspicious if they and/or the cops had a bad day, but the cops, following lawful contact, have to investigate any claims of legal residence here in America according to the law (Section 2, Subsection E.2). At the moment, the law's only been on the books for about a month, so we'll have to wait and see if it's implemented in good faith or not.

^That's assuming cops follow the rules. Its been shown time and again that isn't the case and many bend them to their liking. Of course, the Atlanta Police Department is known for being extremely corrupt, so it may be a case where your area doesn't have law enforcement that's as corrupt. But my experiences with cops have been to say.... abysmal.

But if we're assuming the cops won't follow the rules anyway, which appears to be the view here (my interpretation, anyhow - and is there any evidence that Arizona police departments are more or less "corrupt" than any other?), then the argument is futile. Whatever laws you draft, the police will ignore and / or bend to their interests. If that's the view you hold, then why bother with laws?

I must admit, it's been *counts* 16 years since I went to Phoenix, but at the time it didn't strike me as Gotham City.

Personally, I think the law, like any new law, will get tried & tested in the court system. If you don't have faith in your police and you don't have faith in your courts to uphold the law, then you're in a pretty hard place. Having said that, I can't say I don't grumble about the courts in the UK (them more than the police - police do their job, courts don't always seem to).

As to the mural, it's interesting to see the other details that are coming out. Did someone leap to a conclusion, or did those who wanted changes to it make some pretty rapid backtracks?

DW

^Laws that are passed need to have social ramifications in mind, especially laws such as pseudo-immigration (*CoughracistCough) reform. Also, its not something relating to leaping to a conclusion. There's a mural with a kid that isn't white (*le gasp*) and the racists are yelling all sorts of names because of it. The school gives in, hoping to paint it white so the racists will shut up. But that's only appeasing them, which isn't going to make the issue go away, and painting it white only say to those of other races "If you're not white, you suck." and demoralizes them.

Immigration reform is needed but one thing that needs to be fixed is how insanely difficult it is to become legal and how long it takes to do it. Some people just don't have that long, the process needs to be simplified. That way, these people can become legal, and start paying taxes like the rest of us, and with that governments will have a bit more cash on hand which will help out with the economy and all that jazz.

Seconding Craig and Jin on the immigration law being BS. This is what you get in states that don't even have the right to stop and search you for not being white.

As far as the mural story goes: at least, looking at the scrolling stories along the top of the page, someone's taken enough action to get that knuckle-dragging twit of a councilman off his radio show. Shame someone can't go the whole hog and get him off the council yet.

And Sam has returned once more! >.>

I never left.

She's like the eye of Sauron. X3

Uh, Craig and Jin said rather different things.

I'm pretty much ambivalent about it. The law does not sound unreasonable, but this is the most compelling argument I've read:

The problem some people have with this law was expressed by Justice Douglas in his dissent in Terry v. Ohio: "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

However, I don't get what actually makes it greater power than a magistrate. Could you explain?

What I want to ask is this. It says that it becomes a misdemeanor for an alien not to carry proof. So, let's say I get asked for such proof. Obviously I would not have it, since I am not an immigrant. But how would they know that? The way it's been worded here suggests an assumption that the person questioned is an alien and that non-aliens won't be asked.

Seconding Craig and Jin on the immigration law being BS. This is what you get in states that don't even have the right to stop and search you for not being white.

Given that the AZ immigration law specifically addresses this (race, ethnicity, and/or nationality are not enough; presentation of valid documents to AZ police automatically ends any further investigation into your legal status by law), doesn't this say more about Illinois than it does about Arizona?

Also, its not something relating to leaping to a conclusion. There's a mural with a kid that isn't white (*le gasp*) and the racists are yelling all sorts of names because of it. The school gives in, hoping to paint it white so the racists will shut up.

But this is my point: first iteration of story says "paint the kids white".  Second iteration apparently says "actually we meant lighten them up a bit, make it look like they're standing in Arizona sunlight".  If that is true, then there was a potential leaping to conclusion.  If it's not, then there's a potential rapid backtracking.  We don't know which.  If it's backtracking, then you're right, it's appalling (and the comments by the passing motorists, if true, are also appalling regardless).  If it's leaping to conclusion, then people need to learn not to clear a large conclusion from a standing start - and others need to be a little more careful how they communicate, to avoid such an issue arising again (and to avoid making it so easy to come to the conclusion in the first place). 

As for the law, all laws have social ramifications.  That's why they're made - they're pretty useless if they have no social impact.

DW

well luckly its just a school doing it so far, it hasnt reached too wide. there's a chance to correct it, and i hope they do.

the reason why i'm not too angry about it is cause i'm used to such stupidity from schools, schools are like tiny countries you'd find laws and ideas only in its administration system, i personally went to a horrible school with a nut for a princeable giving crazy rules. and not long ago i read an article that some school in america banned elistics from its school just so the kids wont get distracted by wearing them on their wraists. they can call it what they want its obvious "control".

the person who made that racist idea of changing the student's skin color had two things "the ability to do it" and "the sick mind to think of it"... what i dont get is how he/she were confiedent enough to make a clear racial discrimenation act... its like he has the law in his pocket or something and that's the worrying point.

Vector: Its unreasonable, because of the fact cops have "Reasonable Suspicion" to harass anyone they might think is illegal. That is like shoving the cookie jar in a child's face and spanking them when they take a cookie out of the jar. With this "Reasonable Suspicion" clause, cops can harass someone for essentially looking brown (Since the cops logic will be "All illegals are Mexican so let's round up as many as we can!!!!!"). Which of itself, is racial profiling. So that's my problem with this law, it essentially promotes racism.

Vector: Its unreasonable, because of the fact cops have "Reasonable Suspicion" to harass anyone they might think is illegal. That is like shoving the cookie jar in a child's face and spanking them when they take a cookie out of the jar. With this "Reasonable Suspicion" clause, cops can harass someone for essentially looking brown (Since the cops logic will be "All illegals are Mexican so let's round up as many as we can!!!!!"). Which of itself, is racial profiling. So that's my problem with this law, it essentially promotes racism.

Um...no. That's not what 'reasonable suspicion' means at all. An example is given by one of the bill's authors in the op-ed I linked:

“Reasonable suspicion”
is a
meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the
past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions
defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept:
Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable
suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances”
that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been
committed.

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.

I know that the words 'reasonable suspicion' are easy to snark at ("Hm, a brownie? Cuff him!") because of how easy it seems abuse, but there's a lot more to it than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
http://searchandseizure.org/reasonablesuspicion.html

Again, I want to know what happens if a citizen is suspected and has no immigration documents.  There are 2 arguments I read: profiling, and unreasonable detention.  Profiling I'm ambivalent about because it's more of an enforcement issue than what the law itself states, but would this lead to those who are merely suspected being detained until documentation is researched?  That could lead to a bloated, expensive, and oppressive carding culture.

Again, I want to know what happens if a citizen is suspected and has no immigration documents.  There are 2 arguments I read: profiling, and unreasonable detention.  Profiling I'm ambivalent about because it's more of an enforcement issue than what the law itself states, but would this lead to those who are merely suspected being detained until documentation is researched?  That could lead to a bloated, expensive, and oppressive carding culture.

I sent a specific question about this to the office of the Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer.

Dear Governor Brewer,

I have a question regarding SB1070.

Hypothetically, suppose an American citizen meets enough criteria to merit 'reasonable suspicion' that he/she is an illegal alien. Now, if in the course of lawful contact (is approached due to being suspected of some unrelated crime, for example), suppose they are asked for documentation proving their legal status.

If this American citizen does not have valid documentation on their person (no driver's license and so forth), what happens?

Are they arrested/detained?

Are they given opportunities to obtain documents to validate their claims with regards to their citizenship?

Sincerely,

[REDACTED]

It's been a while since I tried to correspond with a politician, so we'll see how long it takes to get a reply.

In the mean time, this fact sheet from the AZ legislature about SB1070 says the following:

1.     
Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the
immigration
status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or
agency
of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political
subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien
who is
unlawfully present in the U.S.

2.     
Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the
federal
government pursuant to federal law.

*snip*

6.     
Prohibits officials or agencies of the state and political
subdivisions
from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or
maintaining an
individual’s immigration status information or exchanging that
information with
any other governmental entity for the following official purposes:

a)     
determining eligibility for
any
public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local
or
other political subdivision of this state;

b)     
verifying any claim of
residence
or domicile if that verification is required under state law or a
judicial
order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in the state;

c)     
confirming a detainee’s
identity;
and

d)    
if the person is an alien,
determining whether the person is in compliance with federal alien
registration
laws.

*snip*

33.  Stipulates
that the terms of the act regarding immigration have the meanings given
to them
under federal immigration law.

34.  Requires
the act to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws
regulating
immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting
the
privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.

As is, without specifics, I can only speculate. Here's an article with an alternative viewpoint from the Examiner (with which I agree at some points, particularly the final paragraph):

Some time should be dedicated to analyzing arguments that were
presented at Monday's Pasadena City Council meeting in favor of and in
opposition to the resolution denouncing Arizona's SB 1070. The meeting
ended in a 5-2 vote in favor of a resolution denouncing SB 1070 and a
unanimous vote for a resolution calling for the US Congress to pursue
immigration reform.

The first dispute to be examined is the
argument over what SB 1070 would mean on the ground. At this point, it
is impossible to know for sure since the law will not go into effect
until August at the earliest. The contention in opposition of the law is
that SB 1070 will lead to racial profiling and require American
Latinos, even those who are citizens or legal residents, to carry
verification of immigration status at all times in case they are stopped
by police.

Before diving into the opposition's counters to the
above claims, it is beneficial to clarify the following. According to
the text of SB 1070, Sec. 2 Article B:20-24, the law
applies not only in "...any lawful stop, detention, or arrest made by a
law enforcement official," but also, "In the enforcement of any other
law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state." Therefore,
the widely distributed assurance that arrests can only occur in
situations where a person would usually be carrying identification is
not necessarily true since not all eligible interactions are of a
traffic-violation nature.

 Moving on, supporters of the law claim
that fears of racial profiling are overplayed. They point to several
safeguards added to the law that prevent race from being the only
deciding factor in building "reasonable suspicion" and stipulate
training programs to help police avoid this pitfall.

This may be
somewhat reassuring, but it overlooks a simple fact that was pointed out
at the Pasadena City Council meeting by a member of the public named
Lance Charles. As an African American, Mr. Charles explained that he had
experienced racial profiling even though it is already illegal and
there have already been several attempts to increase Police Departments'
awareness of it in the Los Angeles area. He argued that it is unlikely
to be any different with SB 1070 in Arizona.

Another popular
argument in support of SB 1070 is that United States immigration law has already required
that legal residents carry identifying documents since 1940. While this
may be true, federal law also states (on the same page) that failure to
do so is considered a misdemeanor and penalties shall not surpass $100
and/or 30 days of imprisonment. Furthermore federal law stipulates that
immigration records would only be available to agencies designated by
the Attorney General. This means that if the Arizona police encounter a
legal resident alien who does not have these documents, he or she may be
arrested and imprisoned before their identity is secured by ICE.
Immigrants usually do not usually carry these documents when
travelling domestically.

One could ask why it is that legal
immigrants do not usually carry their documents as outlined in federal
law. The answer is best illustrated through an analogy. Most legal
immigrants consider carrying one's papers on their person akin to
keeping one's vehicle registration form in their car: if the car is
stolen, the thief has the very record of ownership that could could be
used to recover it, the victim is more or less at a loss. Similarly, if a
legal immigrant's wallet and green card is stolen (something at least
as likely as a car-jacking) then they have no easy defense against
identity theft or proof that they belong in the country. If their green
card is safely at home, on the other hand, they can have a family member
or a friend help them out of the situation, much like people who carry
only a copy of their pink slip in their car. The cost-benefit
calculation should be clear.

But even if we excuse the plight of
the legal resident immigrants, that still leaves us with the Citizens
that may be mistaken for undocumented immigrants. Assuming the citizen
has not forgotten it at home, as illustrated in Councilman Gordo's
explanation, one would think that they could simply show their ID or
drivers license and all doubt would be dissipated. This, however is not
the case under SB 1070. The text of the law indicates

A
PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE
UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR
AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A
VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

This may seem
easy enough so far. However, the fourth category of documents can cause
severe problems for out-of-state drivers because some states do not
require proof of legal presence in the United States to obtain a
license. This means that a Latino American Citizen from out of state,
who may have raised "reasonable suspicion" by perhaps having his whole
family with him in the car, could legally be arrested after changing
lanes without signaling and be kept in custody until a birth certificate
or passport is obtained.

This is compounded by the fact that
only about 68 million Americans or 22% even have passports. Probably fewer than 30% have certified birth certificates.
Therefore, Arizona SB 1070 may even lead to the legal long-term
imprisonment and deportation of an American citizen. That is to say, if
police were to make such a grievous error, they would be protected from
repercussions.

Taking these factors into account, a modified
opposition to SB 1070 could read as follows: Arizona SB 1070 creates an
environment where racial profiling is extremely likely. Although it
attempts to address these issues, it is unclear that racial profiling
can ever be controlled without changing the underlying system. It may be
that the best defense against racial profiling is to require all
Arizonans to carry their proof of citizenship or legal residency and
that the requirement of "reasonable suspicion" be abandoned. A national
identification card would also need to be created in order to account
for out-of-state visitors. This would be the fairest method to proceed.
It would also be the most authoritarian.

Given that there's a lot of time before the law actually gets implemented, there's still time to amend it in the face of certain questions.

Given that the AZ immigration law specifically addresses this (race, ethnicity, and/or nationality are not enough; presentation of valid documents to AZ police automatically ends any further investigation into your legal status by law), doesn't this say more about Illinois than it does about Arizona?

Uhm, no Ultra, it's an EXAMPLE that if a state with no law like this still pulls off a stunt like detaining a natural born US citizen even WITH proof of ID, social security, AND birth certificate, imagine how much worse off it will be in Arizona. One would be lucky to be detained for 3 days.

I understand that you want this law to be "just", Ultra. I know that you are constantly on the side of the law, and the government, always White Knighting them, but god damn it, just because the law is written a certain way does not mean that all law enforcement will abide by its every rule and will interpret the law in which they see fit, as history knows this, the people know this, other politicians in other states know this, you know this. It is a terrible idea. I'm all for stronger, smarter, immigration laws. This is five steps back.

Given that the AZ immigration law specifically addresses this (race, ethnicity, and/or nationality are not enough; presentation of valid documents to AZ police automatically ends any further investigation into your legal status by law), doesn't this say more about Illinois than it does about Arizona?

Uhm, no Ultra, it's an EXAMPLE that if a state with no law like this still pulls off a stunt like detaining a natural born US citizen even WITH proof of ID, social security, AND birth certificate, imagine how much worse off it will be in Arizona. One would be lucky to be detained for 3 days.

I understand that you want this law to be "just", Ultra. I know that you are constantly on the side of the law, and the government, always White Knighting them, but god damn it, just because the law is written a certain way does not mean that all law enforcement will abide by its every rule and will interpret the law in which they see fit, as history knows this, the people know this, other politicians in other states know this, you know this. It is a terrible idea. I'm all for stronger, smarter, immigration laws. This is five steps back.

This x100000000000

This is what I was trying to say the entire freaking time, just couldn't word it correctly XD
There's a reason why a lot of people (Myself included) largely distrust law enforcement and isn't because those pretty flashing lights on their cars.

Given that the AZ immigration law specifically addresses this (race, ethnicity, and/or nationality are not enough; presentation of valid documents to AZ police automatically ends any further investigation into your legal status by law), doesn't this say more about Illinois than it does about Arizona?

Uhm, no Ultra, it's an EXAMPLE that if a state with no law like this still pulls off a stunt like detaining a natural born US citizen even WITH proof of ID, social security, AND birth certificate, imagine how much worse off it will be in Arizona. One would be lucky to be detained for 3 days.

Oh. Yeah.

Erm.

Good point.

(Though in retrospect, the issue in IL is less with the state itself and more with the federal officials involved, but your point stands.)

Uh, Craig and Jin said rather different things.

I'm pretty much ambivalent about it. The law does not sound unreasonable, but this is the most compelling argument I've read:

The problem some people have with this law was expressed by Justice Douglas in his dissent in Terry v. Ohio: "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

However, I don't get what actually makes it greater power than a magistrate. Could you explain?

What Douglas was saying is that when the authority of the police is broadened, that does not necessarily correspond to an expansion of judicial activity. In other words, it is possible that the police will be making more stops and arrests because of this law. Judges don't have that kind of immediate presence on the streets and are only able to act when a case is brought to them. Not every arrest will be brought to trial, the only venue in which judges can check the police if they begin to overstep their bounds.