# Legality of the new Arizona Immigration Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220 "2010-04-24T16:43:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Chicagojeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@Chicagojeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicagojeff)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/61 "2010-04-24T22:37:27Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Similar to how it’s depriving people of their right when I check that they have a ticket before letting them in to see a show? 😕 Okay.. so you can equate someone walking down the street possibly to their home with someone entering a movie theatre and is checked to see if they are a paying customer. You are the def of someone hijacking a thread.. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/62 "2010-04-24T22:38:40Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Now yes, technically, it is the government’s “duty” to show that the individual is not a citizen. But all that means is that they will ask him for his documentation. The end result is that it rests on him. No, a burden of proof means the exact opposite of that. If they ask him and HE SAYS NOTHING, they must prove he is from somewhere not the US, and has no right to be here. If they cannot do that, he stays. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/63 "2010-04-24T22:40:36Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > If police disproportionately target minorities then minorities will be disproportionately arrested. There is plenty of suburban drug use that goes on with less consequences than inner city drug use, all because no one considers a white woman in a nice neighborhood suspicious. > > Do you look Mexican? If you don’t, do you think you will be hassled by this law as much as Latino-Americans will be? No. And? Affecting people of a certain class disproportionately does not equate to it being a classist rule. If I ban the birth of children to unwed mothers, that will disproportionately effect black women. Without any reason to think that I am making the rule because I have an issue with black people or black women, it’s not a racist ban, it’s just happenstance of how the numbers line up. The numbers line up that a person who stays at a recognized day laborer site is probably an illegal immigrant. A person who works in a kitchen or on a farm and either appears Latino or doesn’t speak English is probably an illegal immigrant. If the great odds are on your side, it ceases being an ethnic issue and starts becoming one of reasonable suspicion. There is no reason to suspect a Latino person of being an illegal immigrant, but there is lots of reason once you add in a few more facts. ---
**Author:** ![Chicagojeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@Chicagojeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicagojeff)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/64 "2010-04-24T22:43:29Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Let’s say that I have a requirement that a person be at least 4’ tall to go on a ride. I even have a measuring stick. > > Now, in a world where it is not the individual’s duty to prove that they fill a set of requirements, I would have no right to require them to stand up next to the measuring stick. They have no duty to prove themselves, and hence I must simply allow them to ride. > > That makes zero sense and I don’t think any court would go for it. > > The Fourteenth Amendment lays out requirements. Implicitly, this means that there is some measuring stick. Specifically, that a person must either have either been born in the US or have been naturalized. If a person cannot demonstrate in any way that he fulfills these requirements, why would the natural assumption be that he’s a citizen? > > Now yes, technically, it is the government’s “duty” to show that the individual is not a citizen. But all that means is that they will ask him for his documentation. The end result is that it rests on him. Jesus.. okay NO your premise at the beginning is inane and WRONG. A person chooses to go to the movie theatre you mentioned earlier.. or CHOOSES to go on that aforementioned ride!! As an law enforcement officer I COULD pull reasonable circumstances out of my butt as you are suggesting.. but I’m telling you that that MIGHT not be something you want random officers doing. We cannot just walk up to people speaking a foreign language and demand to see their “papers”. This is not the Bourne Identity!! Any court in the world would see that as a chilling effect.. and that the pure “randomness” is not random actually at all. IE the reason the state pulled back our ability to do roadblocks. Because people were able to prove that they were usually done in certain neighborhoods. I wish I were in law enforcement in AZ.. i think I would sit outside a Starbucks in a fairly affluent area and demand to see papers from everyone exiting. First of all you would be surprised how many people don’t carry ID with them. I wonder how long I could do that?? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/65 "2010-04-24T22:44:18Z")
> [@Chicagojeff](#): > > Okay.. so you can equate someone walking down the street possibly to their home with someone entering a movie theatre and is checked to see if they are a paying customer. > > You are the def of someone hijacking a thread.. You’re ignoring the half dozen posts where [reasonable suspicion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion) was discussed and agreed to be a necessary measure. I can’t know how much of the thread you read before posting. I had presumed that you had read some and not just jumped to the end. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/66 "2010-04-24T22:47:54Z")
> [@Chicagojeff](#): > > Okay.. so you can equate someone walking down the street possibly to their home with someone entering a movie theatre and is checked to see if they are a paying customer. > > You are the def of someone hijacking a thread.. Sage Rat’s ears burst forth with steam at the very thought that we have to share this land with the brown people we stole it from, and he will jump through absolutely any logical or rhetorical hoops necessary to justify his position to himself. There’s really no point in arguing with him any further, because hate, divisiveness, and fear are relentless little feelings that will protect themselves from reason and logic every. single. time. Same goes for **magellan01** if/when he decides to rear his head in this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/67 "2010-04-24T22:53:18Z")
> [@Chicagojeff](#): > > As an law enforcement officer I COULD pull reasonable circumstances out of my butt as you are suggesting.. but I’m telling you that that MIGHT not be something you want random officers doing. We cannot just walk up to people speaking a foreign language and demand to see their “papers”. This is not the Bourne Identity!! Any court in the world would see that as a chilling effect.. and that the pure “randomness” is not random actually at all. IE the reason the state pulled back our ability to do roadblocks. Because people were able to prove that they were usually done in certain neighborhoods. Hey I’m not saying it doesn’t suck. And I definitely wouldn’t desire stringent measures to combat illegal immigration to continue after the problem had been dealt with. But the problem is, is that there is no non-invasive way of dealing with a question of identity. If you want to combat illegal immigration, there is no lovely solution where all the people who shouldn’t be here are magically conjured away. At some point you have to say, “Alright for anyone who fulfills X, Y, and Z, criteria there’s a 90% chance that they’re guilty, so it’s worth giving a harder look.” That _will_ inconvenience the 10% who are perfectly innocent, and I feel bad for them, particularly considering that either they or their parents did all the right paperwork and did everything legal. But, I can’t say that being asked to show your green card or some other item of evidence is all that onerous that deciding to simply not combat illegal immigration is worth it. Allowing anyone who simply refuses to try and prove themselves a citizen to be a citizen is foolhardy. Long term, that becomes non-viable. It’s non-sustainable to have no limits to immigration. Trying to solve it further down the road only means that even more stringent and unenviable measures will be taken. I’d rather not get to that point. Yes, we have to misbehave a little now. But, for the trade off of acting worse in a few generations, I’ll take it. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/68 "2010-04-24T23:14:05Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > No. And? Affecting people of a certain class disproportionately does not equate to it being a classist rule. If I ban the birth of children to unwed mothers, that will disproportionately effect black women. Without any reason to think that I am making the rule because I have an issue with black people or black women, it’s not a racist ban, it’s just happenstance of how the numbers line up. > > The numbers line up that a person who stays at a recognized day laborer site is probably an illegal immigrant. A person who works in a kitchen or on a farm and either appears Latino or doesn’t speak English is probably an illegal immigrant. If the great odds are on your side, it ceases being an ethnic issue and starts becoming one of reasonable suspicion. There is no reason to suspect a Latino person of being an illegal immigrant, but there is lots of reason once you add in a few more facts. The thing was that you were dismissing the problems this law would create. You were saying that it’s not a hassle to show your papers whenever asked. That’s not the extend of the law’s consequences. The people who will be forced to carry papers will be disproportionately Latino-Americans. The people pulled over and stopped by mistake will be disproportionately Latinos. The people arrested for other non-violent offenses because of increase police targeting will be disproportionately Latinos. The people denied their right to vote because of their status as felons will be disproportionately Latinos. You are creating a state where one class of people are treated with more police suspicion than the rest. Now you could argue that it’s an unintentional consequence of controlling immigration. But when you weight the two sides together, is it really worth hurting the Latino community so much just to fight immigration? Or can’t there be another way to fight immigration that doesn’t hurt Latinos so much? Doesn’t it bother you that a law with such unintentional negative consequences for white people would never be passed, but Latinos don’t have the political power to defeat the same kind of law when it affects them? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/69 "2010-04-24T23:28:54Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 1. What other alternative is there? [How about the actual system that’s used](http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-deportation/immigration-deportation-process.html)? > [@](#): > > If the DHS alleges a violation of immigration laws, it has the discretion to “serve” the alien with a charging document, known as a Notice to Appear. This document orders the individual to appear before an Immigration Judge, and advises him or her of, among other things: > > ``` > * Nature of the proceedings against the individual; > * Individual's alleged acts that violated the law; > * Individual's right to an attorney; and > * Consequences of failing to appear at scheduled hearings. > > ``` Another website I came across when I was looking at this earlier mentioned that the NTA states the individual’s alleged country of origin. [Edit: [here’s a PDF sample NTA](http://www.garfinkelimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/sample-nta.pdf) that shows the alleged country of origin line] It is absolutely the government’s job to prove noncitizenship, not the individual’s job to prove citizenship. This has nothing to do with amusement park rides, theater tickets, Japan, car insurance, or any other increasingly ridiculous analogy you’d like to use. If you’d confine yourself to the issues at hand instead of trying to argue by analogy, you’d have a little more clarity in your argument. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/70 "2010-04-25T02:15:26Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > True, but I suspect that most police officers would accept a drivers license from a white guy as sufficient evidence. That might be wrong, but it’s still reality. And this isn’t a problem for you is it? White people can get by with a drivers license. What if you are one of the 30% who isn’t white? Sucks to be you, eh? And thanks for your little caveat that it might be wrong but that’s the way it is statement. Yeah, racism is the way it is. Sucks to be you brown girl. Please, please tell me you were being ironic and I missed it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/71 "2010-04-25T02:31:15Z")
My jaw has been dropping farther open with each of **Sage Rat** ’s posts. I always thought you were a fairly reasonable guy. -RNATB, who won’t be visiting Arizona anytime soon, having a touch of the swarthy about him. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/72 "2010-04-25T02:53:42Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Sage Rat’s ears burst forth with steam at the very thought that we have to share this land with the brown people we stole it from, and he will jump through absolutely any logical or rhetorical hoops necessary to justify his position to himself. There’s really no point in arguing with him any further, because hate, divisiveness, and fear are relentless little feelings that will protect themselves from reason and logic every. single. time. Same goes for **magellan01** if/when he decides to rear his head in this discussion. I hope it gives you some kind of odd comfort to believe that all those in favor of the Arizona law are hateful and guilty of faulty logic, because it doesn’t have any real-world value. But if you’d like to point to my flaws in logic from the other thread (since I don’t think I’ve posted in this one), by all means… And just so you know, I haven’t posted in this one because it’s asking for a legal conclusion, and there are others more credentialed than I in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/73 "2010-04-25T03:33:02Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Sage Rat’s ears burst forth with steam at the very thought that we have to share this land with the brown people we stole it from, and he will jump through absolutely any logical or rhetorical hoops necessary to justify his position to himself. There’s really no point in arguing with him any further, because hate, divisiveness, and fear are relentless little feelings that will protect themselves from reason and logic every. single. time. Same goes for **magellan01** if/when he decides to rear his head in this discussion. Steady on… There’s a wider point to what **Sage Rat** is saying, and I certainly don’t see anything in it that’s automatically about hating brown people or anything like that. He is raising a valid point- that, as unpleasant as it may be, there _are_ circumstances when politically incorrect assumptions most likely are correct. At a basic level, asking someone- regardless of skin colour- to show proof that they’re legally entitled to be in the country doesn’t strike me as being any more onerous than requiring someone driving a car to prove they’re legally entitled to do so either. The sad thing is that the AZ law is going to end up unfairly targeting Hispanic US Citizens- because, let’s face it, a white Briton who’s overstayed their tourist visa by five or six years looks much like a white American who was born in the country- but the residents of Arizona have obviously had enough of something like one in six of the state’s population being illegal immigrants and want something done about it. Regardless of that, just because someone has a viewpoint you don’t like on a controversial subject, that doesn’t automatically make them a racist. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/74 "2010-04-25T03:55:54Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The sad thing is that the AZ law is going to end up unfairly targeting Hispanic US Citizens- because, let’s face it, a white Briton who’s overstayed their tourist visa by five or six years looks much like a white American who was born in the country- but the residents of Arizona have obviously had enough of something like one in six of the state’s population being illegal immigrants and want something done about it. Then why aren’t the people of Arizona demanding that their elected legislature pass laws criminalizing the _employment_ of illegal aliens? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/75 "2010-04-25T04:22:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Then why aren’t the people of Arizona demanding that their elected legislature pass laws criminalizing the _employment_ of illegal aliens? Bingo! If we’re expecting Arizonans to be able to readily document their legal status, why not document it to potential employers instead of to police? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/76 "2010-04-25T04:30:15Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Bingo! > > If we’re expecting Arizonans to be able to readily document their legal status, why not document it to potential employers instead of to police? Don’t that already have to do that? I know the feds have cracked down on businesses. In my o[inion the enforcement should be stricter. Businesses will start to get the message when either the finds are substantial enough to exceed the “cost of doing business”, risk of getting caught much greater, and business owners and managers being put in orange jumpsuits. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/77 "2010-04-25T05:23:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Businesses will start to get the message when either the finds are substantial enough to exceed the “cost of doing business”, risk of getting caught much greater, and business owners and managers being put in orange jumpsuits. Right, and doesn’t that seem like it would be easier than trying to stop people at the border, or hunt them down after they’ve crossed? And less likely to trample the rights of American citizens in the process? But too many business owners don’t _want_ illegal immigration stopped. They depend on the ability to hire illegal immigrants cheaply and not worry about them seeking recourse when their pay, terms of work, or working conditions don’t meet legal standards. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/78 "2010-04-25T06:52:27Z")
I don’t know who’s line it is, heard it in passing. There are two signs at the border, one says “Help Wanted!” and the other says “No Trespassing!”. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/79 "2010-04-25T09:28:56Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > You’re presuming that there is nothing between “arrest” and “let walk”. A person should, of course, have a reasonable chance to establish his citizenship (or that he otherwise has legal documents). If you think your status is in doubt and you know that you would be liable to be asked to prove your status, you would always attempt to carry your documentation with you. This is the way it is in Japan, for example. You have to carry your Foreigner’s Card with you. This is hardly a great onus. Now it is possible and likely that from time-to-time a person will forget to bring his card with him. One out of a thousand times this happens, he might get stopped by an officer. But in that case, the person cannot complain that he is missing out on work as the police drive him to his place of residence to certify his documentation. He forgot to bring his documentation with him. It’s his fault. He’s not being arrested. Nothing is being written down on his record. He’s being given a fair chance to prove himself. Oh come on, it’s a horrible law. Here’s how it plays out in practice: Officer: Gaijin cardo preese. Whitey: I don’t have one. I’m a Japanese citizen. Officer: Ha ha! Yes. [takes a step closer] Gaijin cardo preese! Whitey: I’m Japanese. Officer: You are from America? Whitey: Originally, yes, but I became a Japanese citizen. Officer: Can you prove that? Whitey: I’m not legally obligated to do so, as a Japanese citizen. Officer: But can’t you just show me some ID? Whitey: I don’t have to. Officer: I’m just trying to do my job here, OK? Whitey: But I’m not a foreigner, under the law. Officer: But how do I know that? You look like a foreigner. Whitey: I’m a naturalized Japanese and it is not legal for you to demand my ID. How do I know you are a police officer? Can I see your identification please. Officer: Yes. Here it is. Whitey: Thank you. But as I’m a Japanese citizen, I have no responsibility to show you my ID, unless you arrest me. Are you going to arrest me? ## Officer: Fuck. Just go, OK? What has been achieved here? Anyone? Bueller? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/80 "2010-04-25T10:35:16Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Sage Rat’s ears burst forth with steam at the very thought that we have to share this land with the brown people we stole it from, and he will jump through absolutely any logical or rhetorical hoops necessary to justify his position to himself. There’s really no point in arguing with him any further, because hate, divisiveness, and fear are relentless little feelings that will protect themselves from reason and logic every. single. time. Same goes for **magellan01** if/when he decides to rear his head in this discussion. Does this actually pass for debate where you come from? Sage Rat’s position is perfectly reasonable, calmly and logically explained. Reasonable people can disagree with whether the unavoidable impact on legal residents is worth it, but it’s hardly some racist screed. If someone who fits a reasonable description of an illegal alien (which is NOT the same as saying anyone Latino) is put through some minor inconvenience, that’s not unreasonable. Just as it sucks for Mideastern Muslims, it’s a damn shame that there are those who have created this circumstance. But that’s the real world. By the way, I say this as someone who does not have the passion for this issue that some seem to. All the “potential illegals” I see seem to be working their asses off. As the recent descendant of immigrants, I have sympathy for those who came here looking for a better way. I hope we can find some reasonable, non-Draconian way to correct this overall issue (e.g., porous borders, etc.). But I do think it needs correction of some kind, and I think it’s naive to think that we can somehow ignore the Latino element of this particular circumstance (e.g., let’s enforce immigration aw, but for God’s sake, don’t look askance at anyone Latino). And LHOD, do you see, oh, anything at all faulty in the existing method you suggest we follow for dealing with this? Any weak link in that chain of enforcement? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220.md?page=5)