# 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:** 7
**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 26, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/121 "2010-04-26T00:32:31Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But I find it hard to believe that illegal aliens are invulnerable to reasonable suspicion with regard to their immigration status. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. We cannot answer this question before we define “reasonable suspicion” unambiguously. ---
**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 26, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/122 "2010-04-26T00:35:16Z")
[Reasonable suspicion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion) is already pretty well-defined, but the definitions of all legal standards are pretty ambiguous. ---
**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 26, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/123 "2010-04-26T00:38:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Reasonable suspicion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion) is already pretty well-defined, but the definitions of all legal standards are pretty ambiguous. Not in terms of this law. That definition does nothing to suggest what constitutes reasonable suspicion of undocumented status. ---
**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 26, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/124 "2010-04-26T00:49:12Z")
True enough. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/125 "2010-04-26T00:49:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Reasonable suspicion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion) is already pretty well-defined, but the definitions of all legal standards are pretty ambiguous. Well, if Arizona cops utilizing this law have to follow the rules that govern Terry stops, that’s at least a definition, and better than no definition at all. I may assume then, that reasonable suspicion will be founded on this sort of thing? “Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion).” (From your cite.) I have no objection to that. ---
**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 26, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/126 "2010-04-26T00:59:23Z")
Well, yes and no. I’m not sure what the illegal-immigrant equivalent of a 2am coat hanger is. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/127 "2010-04-26T01:07:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, yes and no. I’m not sure what the illegal-immigrant equivalent of a 2am coat hanger is. Nobody is. In my opinion, it’s impossible to define. That is what makes this law so dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/128 "2010-04-26T01:30:07Z")
Can you be an american citizen without speaking a lick of english? check Can you be an american citizen without being white? check Can you be an american citizen speaking English with the heaviest-of-sounding accents? check Are american citizens required by any law or regulation to carry identity documents when in the borders of the United states? nope people need to re-read Isamu’s post #79 to better understand how asinine this law is. and as for the reasonable suspicion malarkey you gotta understand that reasonable suspicion was a standard carved by the courts to permit further, non-voluntary detention of a suspect where a cop has a reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime. nowhere in “reasonable suspicion” land is a suspect required to cooperate with the cop or cough up documentation that one is not required to possess. but, no matter, what “specific and articulable facts” can anyone point to that sheds light on someone’s, and this is a kind of important point, mutable, abstract status? anyone? yeah, you can’t. basically, they use “reasonable suspicion” to make this law sound constitutional because they know that without the patina of constituionality slapped on to this pile of shit, everyone would recognize it for what is: a gestapo-like powergrab for fuckheads like Joe Arpaio to jack off to. ---
**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 26, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/129 "2010-04-26T01:37:12Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > but, no matter, what “specific and articulable facts” can anyone point to that sheds light on someone’s, and this is a kind of important point, mutable, abstract status? anyone? yeah, you can’t. Well, I suppose the Arizona legislature might have passed the bill in light of a recent rash of illegal immigrants walking by peace officers while loudly announcing their residency status. ---
**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 26, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/130 "2010-04-26T01:41:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > My error. The correct erm of course is a lawful presence state > [However, Yavapai County does accept an AZL as proof of citizenship.](http://www.co.yavapai.az.us/Content.aspx?id=18466) > > As for Frank’s claim that an alien may be overstaying their visa, this law is directed towards those that ENTER the country illegally. No. it’s directed at anybody with brown skin. You don’t have to be in the country illegally to be harrassed and arretsed under this law. That’s the point – not what it does to undocumented residents, but what it does to legal residents and _actual American citizens_. The law says that if you have brown skin, you must carry papers or be arrested. ---
**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 26, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/131 "2010-04-26T01:43:22Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Dunno. But I find it hard to believe that illegal aliens are invulnerable to reasonable suspicion with regard to their immigration status. The issue is whether American citizens are entitled to a presumption of innocence and free travel without having to carry papers. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/132 "2010-04-26T01:45:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, I suppose the Arizona legislature might have passed the bill in light of a recent rash of illegal immigrants walking by peace officers while loudly announcing their residency status. well apparently according to this law’s proponents, the cops knew (sorry, had a reasonable suspicion of) that fact already - so why get all butthurt just because the illegals were telling them something they already knew? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/133 "2010-04-26T02:27:07Z")
Who was the female official that I saw at a news conference who awkwardly muttered something about recognizing aliens by their “suspicious hair” and their shoes? ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/134 "2010-04-26T02:27:09Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Not in terms of this law. That definition does nothing to suggest what constitutes reasonable suspicion of undocumented status. Does anyone know if there is a standard under federal law? INS must have some procedure for suspecting when someone is an illegal immigrant. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/135 "2010-04-26T02:32:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > This is already the state of things. Few of us carry around proof of citizenship because few of us feel any need to prove it until we apply for a job, a credit card, a driver’s license, or some other private or national service. Few of us feel like our nationality is in question. > > If, when I lived in Japan, I was carded by every police officer who saw me because Canadians kept sneaking into the country illegally, I’d be angry at the Canadians not the Japanese government nor the police. They are the ones at fault and they are the ones putting me in this position. I’d hope that by doing this due diligence that the number of illegal Canadians would shrink and everyone left would be a legal resident who had followed the fully publicized laws of the land and I’d be left free. I certainly don’t mind being treated “unfairly” when it is indeed people of my social and ethnic background who are the ones misbehaving disproportionately, just the same as I didn’t complain as a teen for teens being charged more for car insurance. It was our own damn fault. WOW! That sums it up pretty well there. I’m a Hispanic in Texas. Born here. 4th generation. I have no more of a tie to Mexico than most American Anglos have to England. Love the food. Do the right thing. Period. That’s how to live life. America doesn’t want people sneaking in undocumented. Do the right thing and don’t do it. We are not to blame for having to establish or enforce laws that address this issue. I’ve been strip searched at the airport(1997)for looking Arabic and buying a one way ticket. No problem. I’m not a terrorist. I just went along on my merry way. I blame the terroists. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/136 "2010-04-26T02:38:52Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Does anyone know if there is a standard under federal law? INS must have some procedure for suspecting when someone is an illegal immigrant. The USCIS is not allowed to stop people on the street due to a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien. Why wonder about this now? Why not wonder about how to define “reasonable suspicion” before passing this law? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/137 "2010-04-26T03:05:12Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Who was the female official that I saw at a news conference who awkwardly muttered something about recognizing aliens by their “suspicious hair” and their shoes? The Governor of Arizona. No lie. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/138 "2010-04-26T03:31:11Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Even in Arizona, A DRIVER’S LICENSE DOES NOT PROVE CITIZENSHIP! Legal resident aliens may acquire an Arizona driver’s license, but even then, the possession of such a license does not prove that they have not overstayed their visa. Does Arizona keep track of the citizenship? That is, if the officer calls in your license, can the Arizona department of driver licensing (whatever it may be called) say, “Yes, we issued license number such-and-so to a legal resident,” vs. “…to a citizen?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/139 "2010-04-26T03:39:01Z")
OK, this thread has a lot of hysteria and ill-founded speculation. Much of it relates to indignant challenges about how unfairly and in what racially-baised a ways the law is applied. These seem a bit premature, since it’s unclear how the law will be applied, and what guidelines the police will use to apply it. Other objections relate to the law as written, with claims that it’s violative of the federal constitution in some way. Finally, there’s a slough of objections that boil down to, “It’s just wrong.” I am going to decline the opportunity to venture into the third area for the moment, because I see very little likelihood that oposing viewpoints will sway each other. So that leaves the second. As I said in the Pit thread on this subject, I suppose the federal preemption argument might fly, but I doubt it, especially in view of the fact that at least two federal cirvuits have found that local law enforcement officers have “inherent authority” to enforce federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220/140 "2010-04-26T04:04:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, this thread has a lot of hysteria and ill-founded speculation. > > Much of it relates to indignant challenges about how unfairly and in what racially-baised a ways the law is applied. These seem a bit premature, since it’s unclear how the law will be applied, and what guidelines the police will use to apply it. I don’t think the speculation is ill-founded. A page of history is worth a thousand pages of logic. If the application of race neutral laws has been overwhelmingly racist then I don’t see how police can do better with this law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/537220.md?page=8)