# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/81 "2010-04-25T11:50:56Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > 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. Is it unreasonable to [arrest a US citizen and detain him](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc) (news story at :40) until his wife can produce his birth certificate? He already supplied his driver’s license and social security card, but that was not enough for Arizona police. He was detained for several hours, which goes far beyond a “minor inconvenience”. If he was a white Tea Bagger, this would be decried as Obama’s Nazi policy to deny liberty to patriots. The only reason anyone could consider this a “minor inconvenience” is because the victim looked Latino and spoke with a Spanish accent. ---
**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, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/82 "2010-04-25T12:27:45Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Is it unreasonable to [arrest a US citizen and detain him](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc) (news story at :40) until his wife can produce his birth certificate? He already supplied his driver’s license and social security card, but that was not enough for Arizona police. He was detained for several hours, which goes far beyond a “minor inconvenience”. If he was a white Tea Bagger, this would be decried as Obama’s Nazi policy to deny liberty to patriots. The only reason anyone could consider this a “minor inconvenience” is because the victim looked Latino and spoke with a Spanish accent. I don’t know enough about the law, frankly. Did this follow the guidelines appropriately? It seems to me an SS # and commercial driver’s license should have been enough to dispel any “reasonable suspicion” that existed. The facts as presented here don’t seem reasonable (though I couldn’t sit through that entire screed, and they seemed to have cut off the news report–not sure). I would also like to see some additional facts, from a less-biased source, to see if this is cherry-picking or more common. I personally don’t require of any law “no possibility whatsoever of abuse” for the law to take effect. So, my opinion only: targeting that fellow at a truck stop solely because he’s Latino? Not reasonable. If there were other factors that led the officer to have reasonable suspicion, also reasonable to ask a few questions and for some documentation. IMO, what the guy provided should have settled the matter, and everyone should have been able to move on. So, if the law allows for this, and this was not a rare abuse, then it’s a bad law. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/83 "2010-04-25T12:39:49Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Not if they were hanging out on a street corner known for being a location where prostitutes offer their goods, no. Why would I? Because that may not be your community, but the street corners where prostitutes offer their goods are the street corners outside of a lot of people’s _ **homes** _. They’re the street corners where they wait for friends, relatives and dates to pick them up, where they wait for buses, where they wait for their children to be dropped off. Which means that simply presuming that any woman dressed “like a prostitute” (which is in the eye of the beholder, especially since there’s no uniform) spending time on a street corner in a high-pros area is a prostitute means that you’ve put every poor woman living in that sort of ghetto in the position of either staying indoors or living with suspicion for going about the everyday activities of their lives. > [@](#): > > Mistakes happen. Getting questioned for a few moments by someone trying to protect the law when he has suitable reason to ask those questions is hardly a great horror. The hell it isn’t. The only person who could say that is someone who has the privilege of not living somewhere that simply existing makes you a suspect. > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > 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. Driving a car is a legal privilege for which one must meet certain qualifications on an initial and ongoing basis. Existing in the country of your birth or legal residency is not a legal privilege and there is no qualification required to do so. Driving a car is a manifest action. Existing in your place of residence is not. > [@](#): > > 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. It’s 1 in 11, and that may well be an overstatement. And the ratio of hispanic to non-hispanic residents is 3 in 10. The fact that they’re now all subject to police harassment does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration, to remove illegal immigrants from Arizona, or make it easier to deport illegal immigrants from Arizona. Additionally, this law, because it puts all illegal immigrants in a position where they _cannot_ interact with the police at all, will make it harder to solve crimes, because witnesses aren’t going to talk to police. It will also mean that it’s open season to commit crimes\* against\* illegal immigrants, and whatever you think about someone’s immigration status, no one deserves to be victimized and unable to seek justice because of it. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > 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. Okay, if that’s what you believe, then do tell, what _ **is** _ the “reasonable description” of an illegal alien? If you had five people in a room, one of whom was undocumented, how would you pick which one that was? What traits are common amongst illegal aliens and specifically illegal aliens such that those who are legally present and/or citizens might not be mistaken? Also, what is a minor inconvenience? If you’re arrested because you don’t have ID on you when you walk into a convenience store robbery and the police come and want your statement then go, hey, you may be illegal, prove you aren’t, is that a minor inconvenience? An Arizona driver’s license should be sufficient proof, given the documentation required to get one, but as noted, a New Mexico driver’s license wouldn’t be, as they don’t require citizenship proof. So you’re driving through AZ from NM with your NM driver’s license and you’re pulled over by police. Is it a minor inconvenience to be kept in a holding cell until someone from home (hope you live with someone or someone has keys) can go in and find your NM birth certificate and bring it (or courier/overnight it) to AZ to prove your citizenship? Is it a minor inconvenience to be raped and not be able to report it because you’re undocumented, and know that interacting with the police could see you both victimized _and_ deported, perhaps without your family or any resources to aid you, once ICE dumps you on the other side of the border, perhaps hundreds of miles away form any home or family in Mexico you may have once had (if you’re even Mexican to begin with)? Somehow it seems that the people who are willing to suggest that always having to be careful to carry around just the right documentation and being stopped and questioned and always under suspicion are perfectly “reasonable” are the people who are never, ever going to have to face any of that. ---
**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, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/84 "2010-04-25T13:07:41Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Okay, if that’s what you believe, then do tell, what _ **is** _ the “reasonable description” of an illegal alien? If you had five people in a room, one of whom was undocumented, how would you pick which one that was? What traits are common amongst illegal aliens and specifically illegal aliens such that those who are legally present and/or citizens might not be mistaken? So, let me turn that around for a second: Do you believe that it’s impossible to enforce these laws because there is simply no circumstance where an office could reasonably suspect someone is an illegal alien? Once someone is within the borders, they’re off limits because there is just no reasonable suspicion, not for anyone, not under any conditions or set of circumstances? Or do you just want to see me, someone who is not an officer of the law, try to take a stab at it so you can throw rocks at whatever I come up with? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/85 "2010-04-25T13:25:31Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, let me turn that around for a second: Do you believe that it’s impossible to enforce these laws because there is simply no circumstance where an office could reasonably suspect someone is an illegal alien? I think it is sufficiently difficult with respect to the rights of legal citizens to conclude that arresting the undocumented is not a productive solution to illegal immigration. Many of those arrested have been arrested before, and just come back over the border, because the attraction of US jobs is greater than the inconvenience of deportation. The only way we are going to cut down the number of illegal aliens in this country is to prosecute the businesses that employ them. If there are no jobs, they will deport themselves; we saw this when the economy tanked, and many returned to Mexico simply because there was no work any more. Why should we abuse the rights of legal residents and citizens in a futile effort? If we had meaningful prosecution of businesses break the law, we would not have to harass Americans who obey the law. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/86 "2010-04-25T13:58:22Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > The only time you have to affirmatively prove you are a citizen or have the right to enter the US, is when you are standing at the border asking to be let in. It is my understanding that this law is targetting those who skipped this part – the legal entry. Now, does opposition to this law mean that if someone was able to skip this part at the border they get to enjoy same privileges as those who proved the right to enter US? Is it far fetched to say that the law as known up to this point assumed – in high probability – that the only way to enter the US is by legal entry? Assuming the answer is yes, these days there is a reasonable belief that conditions have changed (i.e. there is a high probability that people skip legal entry at the border) a new law may need to be enacted to do the same thing: prove legal entry/stay to/in US beyond border. Am I missing something or why the importance of border if we all know border means nothing? ---
**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, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/87 "2010-04-25T14:10:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. No. Current federal law only requires employers to view and record certain documents (ie., the list on USCIS form I-9). The form doesn’t get submitted to USCIS; it’s just kept on file to cover the employer’s ass. Most illegal aliens provide the employer with a fake or stolen Social Security card and a fake or real driver’s license, and they’re done. The employer _can_ verify whether an employee is legal using USCIS’ e-Verify system, but most don’t bother, as it’s not a legal requirement. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/88 "2010-04-25T14:17:02Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 1. Who else’s duty would it be? > 2. What other alternative is there? There is no such duty. The alternative is freedom. ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/89 "2010-04-25T15:22:43Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I think it is sufficiently difficult with respect to the rights of legal citizens to conclude that arresting the undocumented is not a productive solution to illegal immigration. Many of those arrested have been arrested before, and just come back over the border, because the attraction of US jobs is greater than the inconvenience of deportation. The only way we are going to cut down the number of illegal aliens in this country is to prosecute the businesses that employ them. If there are no jobs, they will deport themselves; we saw this when the economy tanked, and many returned to Mexico simply because there was no work any more. > > Why should we abuse the rights of legal residents and citizens in a futile effort? If we had meaningful prosecution of businesses break the law, we would not have to harass Americans who obey the law. I concede that if the effect if negligible, it’s not worth the inconvenience. I’m not sure that’s the case, though. All of us citizens need to make _reasonable_ concessions to society, concessions that are practical and to some extent restrict our civil liberties–and I say that as a guy who has an extreme bias toward protecting individual rights. The government needs to demonstrate a robust level of due diligence in making sure that citizens can be left alone, as much as is possible. Using the example provided above, a guy providing a license and an SSN has done enough, IMO. The officer should be able to confirm, at the scene, that this guy is okay with the info provided. If he can’t, too bad, the guy walks. It’s not that guy’s problem to do the cop’s job. But that is NOT the same as saying that a cop can’t under the right circumstances ask questions or request ID. I also fully agree that this is a complex issue, and it requires broader, more-thoughtful solutions than “let’s arrest all the illegals.” ---
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/90 "2010-04-25T15:50:57Z")
I don’t really believe that the authors of this travesty are attempting a “solution”, I think they are grandstanding. They know, or ought to know, that this probably won’t pass Constitutional muster unless the Scalia-Alito-Thomass wing is willing to twist itself into knots to provide some rationale. Of course, if they do, well, that’s a total win for them. But even if they don’t, they get the approval of their fellow troglodytes and secure the knuckle-walking vote. I can only hope that the reaction of latino voters and and decent anglos is sufficient to give them the electoral spanking they so richly deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/91 "2010-04-25T16:03:48Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, let me turn that around for a second: Do you believe that it’s impossible to enforce these laws because there is simply no circumstance where an office could reasonably suspect someone is an illegal alien? Once someone is within the borders, they’re off limits because there is just no reasonable suspicion, not for anyone, not under any conditions or set of circumstances? Or do you just want to see me, someone who is not an officer of the law, try to take a stab at it so you can throw rocks at whatever I come up with? The issues are with how the law affects American citizens and legal residents, not how it affects undocumented residents. Demanding that American citizens with brown skin carry around their birth certificates and produce them on demand, and then arrest them if they can’t is the issue. It’s funny that the teabaggers keep calling Obama a totalitarian and say he’s taking away their rights, but something as patently fascist as “where are your papers, boy” is perfectly ok with them because it doesn’t affect white people. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/92 "2010-04-25T16:39:04Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, let me turn that around for a second: Do you believe that it’s impossible to enforce these laws because there is simply no circumstance where an office could reasonably suspect someone is an illegal alien? Unless someone can legitimately explain – which no one seems to be able to do – what makes someone suspect other than being Hispanic, then yes, I do believe that it’s impossible. > [@](#): > > Once someone is within the borders, they’re off limits because there is just no reasonable suspicion, not for anyone, not under any conditions or set of circumstances? Obviously not. If someone is suspected of having committed some actual criminal offense and is arrested for that, it’s reasonable to check into their immigration status. If someone is pulled over for going 45 in a 35, it’s not. (And less so if they’re a passenger in that car.) If someone is _reporting_ a crime they’ve witnessed or that’s been committed against them, it’s absolutely not. But it’s hard to see how this law won’t end up coming into play in all those situations, and how that “reasonable suspicion” can be anything other than “Hispanic and not seeming to be the right kind of Hispanic” (the kind in a business suit without an accent, like the governor of NM). > [@newcomer](#): > > It is my understanding that this law is targeting those who skipped this part – the legal entry. Now, does opposition to this law mean that if someone was able to skip this part at the border they get to enjoy same privileges as those who proved the right to enter US? Obviously not. One can oppose illegal immigration without being in favor of a law that will open citizens and legal residents to harassment and potential detention or worse, and on grounds that are next to impossible to define (“reasonable suspicion” of something that has no definable observable traits). > [@Stratocaster](#): > > I concede that if the effect if negligible, it’s not worth the inconvenience. It’s not so much that the “positive” effect (that is: the number of illegal aliens who might be apprehended, such that this is actually a goal) is negligible as much as the negative effect, the chilling effect this will have on law enforcement in Hispanic neighborhoods, the bar to justice for victims of crime who happen to be illegal, the time that this enforcement can and will take from pursuit of violent crime, is so overwhelming. ---
**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/93 "2010-04-25T17:09:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The issues are with how the law affects American citizens and legal residents, not how it affects undocumented residents. Demanding that American citizens with brown skin carry around their birth certificates and produce them on demand, and then arrest them if they can’t is the issue. > > It’s funny that the teabaggers keep calling Obama a totalitarian and say he’s taking away their rights, but something as patently fascist as “where are your papers, boy” is perfectly ok with them because it doesn’t affect white people. But you’d concede, I assume, that there are positions in the middle, even if you don’t agree with them. One needn’t believe Obama a tyrant, nor wish that all brown-skinned people be forced to carry birth certificates, to believe that it’s possible to have reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal. Just like any other crime, it’s incumbent on the officer to have reasonable suspicion. If he abuses his authority, or exercises poor judgment, than innocent citizens will suffer that effect–just as they do relative to any other law on the books. We don’t restrict officers from questioning people with probable cause for any other circumstance, even though it’s possible an innocent will experience some harm as a result. Again, I’m far from decided on this law, and acknowledge it could be inherently abusive depending upon the real-life execution. But I don’t think it’s a given that this is an unreasonable abuse of governmental power, any more than the enforcement of any number of laws could be. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/94 "2010-04-25T17:30:24Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > 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. Nobody has argued that cops puling over the pool of dark skinned people in Arizona are more likely to yield illegals. It is that all dark skinned people would lose a bit of their freedoms because of a higher probability. The law biding ,legal dark skinned people would be harassed . Why should they be happy with that? Perhaps the cops should set up road blocks and ask the person to read something. If they have an accent ,they have to prove their immigration status. That way they would get the illegals that are not from Mexico too. Why should anybody object? It is just cops doing their job. A little inconvenience in the name of making Arizona pure. ---
**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 25, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/95 "2010-04-25T17:35:35Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But you’d concede, I assume, that there are positions in the middle, even if you don’t agree with them. One needn’t believe Obama a tyrant, nor wish that all brown-skinned people be forced to carry birth certificates, to believe that it’s possible to have reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal. It’s absolutely reasonable under some circumstances The solution, however, isn’t to arrest the person if they lack proof of citizenship. When you have reasonable suspicion, it’s incumbent on you to investigate. Maybe the cop needs to ask around. Maybe they need to find out where the person works. Maybe they need to get a search warrant. It’s not my job to prove I’m innocent of a crime. It’s the police’s job to find enough evidence to charge me. Look again at the NTA I linked to. DHS (INS no longer exists, by the way) has to suspect your country of origin before they can begin deportation proceedings. Surely local police should have at least the same burden of proof as the federal government when it comes to carrying out duties that constitutionally are reserved for the federal government? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/96 "2010-04-25T17:36:20Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Does this actually pass for debate where you come from? Debate has failed long before a person begins advocating that every person of a certain race carry registration papers with them at all times to prove their presence in the Fatherland is legitimate. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > Sage Rat’s position is perfectly reasonable, calmly and logically explained. It’s nothing of the sort. It’s sick, hateful, anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-western, anti-American, racist, totalitarian, and incredibly xenophobic. It’s only “reasonable” to the extent that the opponents of the Civil Rights era were “reasonable,” and on some levels less so. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/97 "2010-04-25T17:44:41Z")
> [@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? The bill does do that. Reading it before debating it’s merits might be a good idea. ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/98 "2010-04-25T18:55:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s absolutely reasonable under some circumstances The solution, however, isn’t to arrest the person if they lack proof of citizenship. When you have reasonable suspicion, it’s incumbent on you to investigate. Maybe the cop needs to ask around. Maybe they need to find out where the person works. Maybe they need to get a search warrant. If someone can be reasonably suspected of a crime, and there is nothing exculpatory at the scene, don’t the authorities detain suspects of other crimes while they confirm the details? Why is this different? ---
**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 25, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/99 "2010-04-25T19:09:27Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > If someone can be reasonably suspected of a crime, and there is nothing exculpatory at the scene, don’t the authorities detain suspects of other crimes while they confirm the details? Why is this different? It’s different because there’s a standard defense against it of carrying identification papers, and that’s not something we want to mandate in our society. I don’t know where you’re from, maybe requiring ID papers is cool there, but we have a long tradition of not requiring the carrying of ID papers here. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/100 "2010-04-25T19:56:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t really believe that the authors of this travesty are attempting a “solution”, I think they are grandstanding. They know, or ought to know, that this probably won’t pass Constitutional muster unless the Scalia-Alito-Thomass wing is willing to twist itself into knots to provide some rationale. Of course, if they do, well, that’s a total win for them… I wonder what the reaction would be if the Supreme Court _of Arizona_ strikes down this law instead of the US Supreme Court. Can’t state supreme courts stike down state laws because they violate the US Constitiution? I’m sure there’d still be cries of “judicial activism”, but they won’t be directed at the feds. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220.md?page=6)