New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Riverica]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

The problem comes from the fact that racial profiling is the only method available for them to find illegals.

MSNBC interviewed an Arizona sheriff last night -- I don't remember which one, but he's in charge of the county that includes Tuscon -- and he pointed to this problem of the law being unenforceable and unavoidable at the same time. He pointed out that the language of the bill gives lip service against racial profiling, but leaves no way for officers to enforce it except by racial profiling. And at the same time, it provides for any citizen of Arizona to sue the police if they (the private citizen) thinks they're not enforcing the law enough. The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

The sheriff on MSLSD is just convoluting things. I'll simplify.

Have you ever been pulled over, or involved in a Terry stop? What is the very first thing that a law enforcement officer will generally ask for?

Picture this: You are a law enforcement officer who has just stopped a van because it had a brake light out. The time is about 1:15 a.m. You are on a known drug/human trafficking route, the driver's demeanor is evasive, and he cannot produce identification. There are 8 passengers in the vehicle who are also acting evasive, crouched down in the rear of the vehicle. The passengers appear to be prepared for a long-distance journey.

Considering that you are a reasonable person, would this scenario lead you to ask a few more questions? Keep in mind, that at no point did I mention anything about race, creed, color, national origin, etc. This combination of facts, even though each is individual fact is innocuous, can form a basis for reasonable suspicion that the driver and passengers of this vehicle may be in the country illegally, and thus cause an LEO to investigate further.

Furthermore, the law states that there must be legal contact between the subject and the LEO. Just stopping someone on the street because they're Hispanic doesn't cut it. Morever, it wouldn't even be effective due to the high volume of Hispanic-Americans in the region.

Please keep in mind that LEOs must undergo extensive training in the the laws that they have been sworn to uphold. In most academies, new police officers will graduate just a few college credits shy of a bachelor's degree. Other agencies require a candidate to possess at least a bachelor's degree to even be considered for the job.

I like the way you have to post almost a text book in order to "simplify." All you've done above is reiterate what the sheriff was saying. The law cannot work unless they use racial profiling. How's that for simple?

In other words, you have no retort, and must therefore view simple facts through the prism of race and identity politics. Conversation over.

[Gift-of-god]

The sheriff on MSLSD is just convoluting things. I'll simplify.

Have you ever been pulled over, or involved in a Terry stop? What is the very first thing that a law enforcement officer will generally ask for?

Picture this: You are a law enforcement officer who has just stopped a van because it had a brake light out. The time is about 1:15 a.m. You are on a known drug/human trafficking route, the driver's demeanor is evasive, and he cannot produce identification. There are 8 passengers in the vehicle who are also acting evasive, crouched down in the rear of the vehicle. The passengers appear to be prepared for a long-distance journey.

Considering that you are a reasonable person, would this scenario lead you to ask a few more questions? Keep in mind, that at no point did I mention anything about race, creed, color, national origin, etc. This combination of facts, even though each is individual fact is innocuous, can form a basis for reasonable suspicion that the driver and passengers of this vehicle may be in the country illegally, and thus cause an LEO to investigate further.

The laws, as they currently stand without SB1070, would allow the LEO to investigate this scenario as a violation of immigration law. SB1070 would be irrelevant in this case.

Furthermore, the law states that there must be legal contact between the subject and the LEO. Just stopping someone on the street because they're Hispanic doesn't cut it.

Unless you can show a police officer approaching someone on the street is unlawful contact, the second sentence does not logically follow from the first.

Morever, it wouldn't even be effective due to the high volume of Hispanic-Americans in the region.

The effectiveness of this law is definitely questionable. I completely agree with that.

Please keep in mind that LEOs must undergo extensive training in the the laws that they have been sworn to uphold. In most academies, new police officers will graduate just a few college credits shy of a bachelor's degree. Other agencies require a candidate to possess at least a bachelor's degree to even be considered for the job.

If you are trying to argue that LEOs are too educated to racially profile, I would just have to say that educated people are not immune to racism.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Haven't even read the thread have you?

Yeah, but when you filter out the demagoguery, ignorance, and stupidity, there just isn't much left.

[Nordicus]

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Are you saying it wouldn't have been necessary for Arizona to pass a grossly racist and unconstitutional law if only the federal government had scrapped the Constitution and deported all the darkies?

You were saying something about flame wars, and about reading just what was written? Seriously, how in the HELL do you get "deportation" out of "secure the border"? Securing the border means preventing people from crossing illegally in the first place. That's not exactly something that even a strong spin can twist; the dictionary definition of "secure" has two entries that would support the intended meaning, and none that would support the deportation meaning you drew.

The "it's this or nothing" argument is false dichotomy. There is no reason whatsoever Arizona could not have passed a law that was not grossly racist. There is no reason Arizona could not have unilaterally stepped up enforcement of federal laws and thus forced the fed to scramble to catch up. There is no excuse for the provisions they have created.

Look at what he said a little more carefully. He didn't say any "this or nothing" argument, he asked if the people against this bill would even consider less intrusive anti-illegal-immigration bills, or if they are automatically opposed to such legislation. In other words, if the goal of a bill is to reduce illegal immigration and/or deport illegal immigrants, are you automatically opposed, or would you give fair consideration to the bill before passing judgment?

I'm not even thinking of you running for office. I'm thinking of doing our best to see that no candidate you might support gets elected, no law you might agree with gets passed, etc. People like you are the standard for how not to run a country, in my opinion. You're the litmus test -- if you think something is a good idea, there must be something wrong with it. I won't compromise with people like you, just like I won't compromise with termites and let them eat away at only part of my house.

Yes, because disagreeing with you on one thing automatically makes him a baby-eating devil-worshiping puppy-kicking atheist fasco-commie religious-extremist terrorist hellbent on destroying the nation in the quickest way possible, and therefore he's incapable of agreeing with a single good idea. So that means if he is in favor of murder being illegal, you'll just have to go on a killing spree to spite him.

You don't need people to come up with a non-racist way to do this because we already have that in the already existing laws, both state and federal.

Ah, you mean the terribly ineffective laws which have let millions upon millions of illegal immigrants into the nation, and which businesses who illegally employ said illegal immigrants are routinely *not* prosecuted under? Yes, why not simply abolish the borders and declare everyone in the world U.S. citizens and save ourselves the trouble.

All you've done above is reiterate what the sheriff was saying. The law cannot work unless they use racial profiling.

And all you've done is shown that you are either trolling or not reading a single thing others post. He was quite clear about the factors that led to the suspicion, and not a damn one of them was race or even language, but they certainly paint a very likely picture of illegal immigration. Of course, you'd rather sit there and try to drown out everyone else with your screams of "RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!" rather than have an honest debate. You wouldn't happen to have visited any of those town hall meetings to stand up and scream "MY VOICE WILL BE HEARD!" over everyone else, without addressing a single one of the points that were being discussed, would you?

EDIT: Explain to me again, someone, please

Just commenting, but it's often hard to summarize things in a small enough sentence that you don't skip over it... (Yes, I am rather irritated that you have yet to reply to anything over a third of one of my posts. No, I don't believe that you will actually read this far.)

Haven't even read the thread have you?

Yeah, but when you filter out the demagoguery, ignorance, and stupidity, there just isn't much left.

This. Gift of God and a couple of other people have raised some decent points that would certainly make a revision (at the least) a good idea, but I haven't seen much else of substance. And some of the people being the most vocal in opposing this legislation have had the least to add to the conversation...

[Dododecapod]

Sigh. This is an example of too much information. Or perhaps too much editing.

Your first version of this was reasonable - you claimed to be attacking my arguments, and I was willing to countenance that possibility. In that case, your inference would simply have been a by-blow, unintended.
But to deny the inference? This merely shows your unwillingness to accept what you yourself have done. In this case, I have no choicebut to consider it plainly untruthful.

Yeah, denying the inference. If I want to call you a racist, I'll do so, flat out with no gray areas. Nothing to infer. If I say that your argument is supporting racism and that if people don't like being connected to racism, they should avoid supporting racist laws, then that's what I mean. Again, no gray areas. Just what I said. Period.

Oh, now that's just silly. You're too good a communicator to miss the power of inference, implication and tone in what's said. How something is said is just as important, sometimes MORE important, than mere verbiage content.

"Nothing to Infer?" Ha. You said - and inferred - precisely what you meant to.

[Dododecapod]

I will repeat, for the hard of reading: The law is not racist. As to your determining the credibility of another, the thought is merely amusing.

You're not very good at this not trying to start flame wars thing, are you?

If you mean I will state my opinion of what you call into question, I suppose not. But then, I'm not as good at tap-dancing around the facts, either.

[Shrubsville]

I will repeat, for the hard of reading: The law is not racist. As to your determining the credibility of another, the thought is merely amusing.

You're not very good at this not trying to start flame wars thing, are you?

If you mean I will state my opinion of what you call into question, I suppose not. But then, I'm not as good at tap-dancing around the facts, either.

Wow. nice reply. that was about the equilivant of saying 'NO U!' didnt we leave the 'I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I' debate doctrine back in elementary school?

[Dododecapod]

I will repeat, for the hard of reading: The law is not racist. As to your determining the credibility of another, the thought is merely amusing.

You're not very good at this not trying to start flame wars thing, are you?

If you mean I will state my opinion of what you call into question, I suppose not. But then, I'm not as good at tap-dancing around the facts, either.

Wow. nice reply. that was about the equilivant of saying 'NO U!' didnt we leave the 'I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I' debate doctrine back in elementary school?

It probably would have made more sense if you went back and took a look at the entire discourse. Muryavits has been quite free with his opinion regarding people's "credibility" while studiously avoiding certain inconvenient facts, such as the one I state above. He doesn't seem to like beng called on it.

[Birnadia]

What has the world come to?

[Muravyets]

In other words, you have no retort, and must therefore view simple facts through the prism of race and identity politics. Conversation over.

My post was a retort.

[Muravyets]

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Are you saying it wouldn't have been necessary for Arizona to pass a grossly racist and unconstitutional law if only the federal government had scrapped the Constitution and deported all the darkies?

You were saying something about flame wars, and about reading just what was written? Seriously, how in the HELL do you get "deportation" out of "secure the border"? <snip>

It is really impossible to discuss anything with you if you are just not going to read what you respond to. I'm going to walk you through this one and then you're on ignore because I'm tired of your bs:

Poster #1 says: This law sounds like "let's deport all the darkies."

Poster #2 says: It wouldn't have been necessary if the fed did their job.

Poster #3 says: It "wouldn't have been necessary" to "deport all the darkies"? This points Poster #2 back to the salient part of Poster #1's point, which is the flaws in the Arizona law.

Since you are so involved with pursuing personal attacks and fights against me that you can't even keep track of a string of three whole posts, I'm turning off from my screen. I'm especially going to do that since you have added nothing to your own arguments which have already been debunked by more people than me in this thread indicating you have nothing more to offer. So, bye.

[Muravyets]

Sigh. This is an example of too much information. Or perhaps too much editing.

Your first version of this was reasonable - you claimed to be attacking my arguments, and I was willing to countenance that possibility. In that case, your inference would simply have been a by-blow, unintended.
But to deny the inference? This merely shows your unwillingness to accept what you yourself have done. In this case, I have no choicebut to consider it plainly untruthful.

Yeah, denying the inference. If I want to call you a racist, I'll do so, flat out with no gray areas. Nothing to infer. If I say that your argument is supporting racism and that if people don't like being connected to racism, they should avoid supporting racist laws, then that's what I mean. Again, no gray areas. Just what I said. Period.

Oh, now that's just silly. You're too good a communicator to miss the power of inference, implication and tone in what's said. How something is said is just as important, sometimes MORE important, than mere verbiage content.

"Nothing to Infer?" Ha. You said - and inferred - precisely what you meant to.

Bullshit^^. Infer whatever you want from that.

[Muravyets]

I will repeat, for the hard of reading: The law is not racist. As to your determining the credibility of another, the thought is merely amusing.

You're not very good at this not trying to start flame wars thing, are you?

If you mean I will state my opinion of what you call into question, I suppose not. But then, I'm not as good at tap-dancing around the facts, either.

That's true. You just keep tripping over them.

[Muravyets]

I will repeat, for the hard of reading: The law is not racist. As to your determining the credibility of another, the thought is merely amusing.

You're not very good at this not trying to start flame wars thing, are you?

If you mean I will state my opinion of what you call into question, I suppose not. But then, I'm not as good at tap-dancing around the facts, either.

Wow. nice reply. that was about the equilivant of saying 'NO U!' didnt we leave the 'I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I' debate doctrine back in elementary school?

It probably would have made more sense if you went back and took a look at the entire discourse. Muryavits has been quite free with his opinion regarding people's "credibility" while studiously avoiding certain inconvenient facts, such as the one I state above. He doesn't seem to like beng called on it.

She. Get at least that much right. You know, for the novelty.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Are you saying it wouldn't have been necessary for Arizona to pass a grossly racist and unconstitutional law if only the federal government had scrapped the Constitution and deported all the darkies?

You were saying something about flame wars, and about reading just what was written? Seriously, how in the HELL do you get "deportation" out of "secure the border"? <snip>

It is really impossible to discuss anything with you if you are just not going to read what you respond to. I'm going to walk you through this one and then you're on ignore because I'm tired of your bs:

Poster #1 says: This law sounds like "let's deport all the darkies."

Poster #2 says: It wouldn't have been necessary if the fed did their job.

Poster #3 says: It "wouldn't have been necessary" to "deport all the darkies"? This points Poster #2 back to the salient part of Poster #1's point, which is the flaws in the Arizona law.

Since you are so involved with pursuing personal attacks and fights against me that you can't even keep track of a string of three whole posts, I'm turning off from my screen. I'm especially going to do that since you have added nothing to your own arguments which have already been debunked by more people than me in this thread indicating you have nothing more to offer. So, bye.

Okay, let's go with this on the assumption that it makes sense to someone.

So the AZ law is flawed. Big deal, so are lots of other laws, but my point was that it wouldn't have even been needed if the federal government had controlled immigration. That means that we only let in those that we want in this country. Not anyone that wants to live here. The government can decide in any way that it wants to, which applicants get it.

There are two important points here -- a request has to be made to live in the U.S. and that request has to be granted. That doesn't mean that anyone who can walk across the border is here with permission. They are trespassing in simple terms. If the alien doesn't have permission to be here, they are here illegally. The federal government has the responsibility to prevent illegal immigration and to deport illegal aliens. That's the biggest flaw with the AZ law, it makes the State of Arizona assume federal duties that the federal government won't fulfill.

[Dododecapod]

I will repeat, for the hard of reading: The law is not racist. As to your determining the credibility of another, the thought is merely amusing.

You're not very good at this not trying to start flame wars thing, are you?

If you mean I will state my opinion of what you call into question, I suppose not. But then, I'm not as good at tap-dancing around the facts, either.

Wow. nice reply. that was about the equilivant of saying 'NO U!' didnt we leave the 'I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I' debate doctrine back in elementary school?

It probably would have made more sense if you went back and took a look at the entire discourse. Muryavits has been quite free with his opinion regarding people's "credibility" while studiously avoiding certain inconvenient facts, such as the one I state above. He doesn't seem to like beng called on it.

She. Get at least that much right. You know, for the novelty.

My apologies. I was unaware of your gender.

[Dododecapod]

Sigh. This is an example of too much information. Or perhaps too much editing.

Your first version of this was reasonable - you claimed to be attacking my arguments, and I was willing to countenance that possibility. In that case, your inference would simply have been a by-blow, unintended.
But to deny the inference? This merely shows your unwillingness to accept what you yourself have done. In this case, I have no choicebut to consider it plainly untruthful.

Yeah, denying the inference. If I want to call you a racist, I'll do so, flat out with no gray areas. Nothing to infer. If I say that your argument is supporting racism and that if people don't like being connected to racism, they should avoid supporting racist laws, then that's what I mean. Again, no gray areas. Just what I said. Period.

Oh, now that's just silly. You're too good a communicator to miss the power of inference, implication and tone in what's said. How something is said is just as important, sometimes MORE important, than mere verbiage content.

"Nothing to Infer?" Ha. You said - and inferred - precisely what you meant to.

Bullshit^^. Infer whatever you want from that.

Your erudition amazes me.

[Muravyets]

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Are you saying it wouldn't have been necessary for Arizona to pass a grossly racist and unconstitutional law if only the federal government had scrapped the Constitution and deported all the darkies?

You were saying something about flame wars, and about reading just what was written? Seriously, how in the HELL do you get "deportation" out of "secure the border"? <snip>

It is really impossible to discuss anything with you if you are just not going to read what you respond to. I'm going to walk you through this one and then you're on ignore because I'm tired of your bs:

Poster #1 says: This law sounds like "let's deport all the darkies."

Poster #2 says: It wouldn't have been necessary if the fed did their job.

Poster #3 says: It "wouldn't have been necessary" to "deport all the darkies"? This points Poster #2 back to the salient part of Poster #1's point, which is the flaws in the Arizona law.

Since you are so involved with pursuing personal attacks and fights against me that you can't even keep track of a string of three whole posts, I'm turning off from my screen. I'm especially going to do that since you have added nothing to your own arguments which have already been debunked by more people than me in this thread indicating you have nothing more to offer. So, bye.

Okay, let's go with this on the assumption that it makes sense to someone.

So the AZ law is flawed. Big deal, so are lots of other laws, but my point was that it wouldn't have even been needed if the federal government had controlled immigration. That means that we only let in those that we want in this country. Not anyone that wants to live here. The government can decide in any way that it wants to, which applicants get it.

There are two important points here -- a request has to be made to live in the U.S. and that request has to be granted. That doesn't mean that anyone who can walk across the border is here with permission. They are trespassing in simple terms. If the alien doesn't have permission to be here, they are here illegally. The federal government has the responsibility to prevent illegal immigration and to deport illegal aliens. That's the biggest flaw with the AZ law, it makes the State of Arizona assume federal duties that the federal government won't fulfill.

I know what your point was. And if you've read the thread, you know what my view is of what's wrong with the AZ law, and it's not the same as yours. I maintain that the AZ law is unconstitutional, racist and abusive and, more than that, worse than that, it didn't have to be those things. It could have been a good law, a fair law, a law that would have lit a fire under the federal government. But instead, it actually is little more than a "deport the darkies" law, and I believe that's because that's the kind of law the people in AZ whom I have described as "racist jackasses" wanted. Nothing you have said throughout the thread so far has changed my opinion.

[Muravyets]

My apologies. I was unaware of your gender.

Why should that be different from anything else? Do you have anything more to add to the, you know, topic?

[Dyakovo]

So the AZ law is flawed. Big deal, so are lots of other laws,

So, because there are other flawed laws on the books it is ok to pass even more flawed laws?

but my point was that it wouldn't have even been needed if the federal government had controlled immigration.

The law isn't necessary. It is never necessary to harass law abiding citizens.

That means that we only let in those that we want in this country. Not anyone that wants to live here. The government can decide in any way that it wants to, which applicants get it.

If the immigration laws weren't such a mess than fewer people would feel it was necessary to risk breaking the laws.

There are two important points here -- a request has to be made to live in the U.S. and that request has to be granted.

And the person has to be fairly wealthy.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Are you saying it wouldn't have been necessary for Arizona to pass a grossly racist and unconstitutional law if only the federal government had scrapped the Constitution and deported all the darkies?

You were saying something about flame wars, and about reading just what was written? Seriously, how in the HELL do you get "deportation" out of "secure the border"? <snip>

It is really impossible to discuss anything with you if you are just not going to read what you respond to. I'm going to walk you through this one and then you're on ignore because I'm tired of your bs:

Poster #1 says: This law sounds like "let's deport all the darkies."

Poster #2 says: It wouldn't have been necessary if the fed did their job.

Poster #3 says: It "wouldn't have been necessary" to "deport all the darkies"? This points Poster #2 back to the salient part of Poster #1's point, which is the flaws in the Arizona law.

Since you are so involved with pursuing personal attacks and fights against me that you can't even keep track of a string of three whole posts, I'm turning off from my screen. I'm especially going to do that since you have added nothing to your own arguments which have already been debunked by more people than me in this thread indicating you have nothing more to offer. So, bye.

Okay, let's go with this on the assumption that it makes sense to someone.

So the AZ law is flawed. Big deal, so are lots of other laws, but my point was that it wouldn't have even been needed if the federal government had controlled immigration. That means that we only let in those that we want in this country. Not anyone that wants to live here. The government can decide in any way that it wants to, which applicants get it.

There are two important points here -- a request has to be made to live in the U.S. and that request has to be granted. That doesn't mean that anyone who can walk across the border is here with permission. They are trespassing in simple terms. If the alien doesn't have permission to be here, they are here illegally. The federal government has the responsibility to prevent illegal immigration and to deport illegal aliens. That's the biggest flaw with the AZ law, it makes the State of Arizona assume federal duties that the federal government won't fulfill.

I know what your point was. And if you've read the thread, you know what my view is of what's wrong with the AZ law, and it's not the same as yours. I maintain that the AZ law is unconstitutional, racist and abusive and, more than that, worse than that, it didn't have to be those things. It could have been a good law, a fair law, a law that would have lit a fire under the federal government. But instead, it actually is little more than a "deport the darkies" law, and I believe that's because that's the kind of law the people in AZ whom I have described as "racist jackasses" wanted. Nothing you have said throughout the thread so far has changed my opinion.

Instead of exuding contrariness, why not suggest how the law could be made fair and good and one to fire up the federal government? Am I supposed to be changing your mind on the issue? I'd rather see a discussion on how our government could work better than to see everyone called stupid, ignorant, racist, etc.

[Gravlen]

If the immigration laws weren't such a mess than fewer people would feel it was necessary to risk breaking the laws.

Can you back up that assertion?

[The Corparation]

There are two important points here -- a request has to be made to live in the U.S. and that request has to be granted.

And the person has to be fairly wealthy.

A person does not have to be wealthy to leagaly inmmagrate to the US, they only have to be patient, it takes years to get a greencard even longer for citizenship. Unless your from Cuba, since Cuba is communist, the minute a Cuban touches US soil there here legaly.

[Muravyets]

Instead of exuding contrariness, why not suggest how the law could be made fair and good and one to fire up the federal government? Am I supposed to be changing your mind on the issue? I'd rather see a discussion on how our government could work better than to see everyone called stupid, ignorant, racist, etc.

Instead of just asking the same questions over and over, why don't you read what's been posted? I already said in another post what would have made for a better law, namely unilateral increased enforcement of their existing laws, with no need for this new one. There's more to the point than that, but I'm not going to type it over again for you now. I'm really tired of having to repeat myself for people who are more interested in putting words in other people's mouths and picking personal fights than in reading.

[Whole Conviction]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

Oh please, it totally allows racial profiling. Sure, you can't just go 'hey, they look hispanic' and check their IDs. But as has been stated by officials, you can take dress into account. So apparently It's NOT solely racial in basis if you go 'they dress like Mexicans and speak in thick Mexican accents'. Not solely based on race, but still 100% racial profiling.