![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
More materials needed on reactions, including potential boycotts. Tedperl ( talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
[copied here from user talk page]
Hi, I contributed to [this] article. I saw that you removed its effect on delaying the climate change bill citing that it tangentially mentions the immigration law. I just wanted to point out that there are close to 800 stories [1] covering the fallout on climate-change bill and the majority if not all of them mention the immigration law as one of the reason, Sen. lindsay graham has been cited as one of the main detractors with his quote already mentioned. Just in case, here are some relevant links - [2] [3] [4] [5]. All of them mention immigration as one of the primary reasons for the fallout. Thank you. -- Theo10011 ( talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Because the bill requires people wishing to run for President to present proof of being born in the United States, I linked Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
Can someone with more legal knowledge elaborate on the precise ways that the AZ government requires birth certificates? For example, under this law, what constitutes proof of being born in the United States? [21:02, April 25, 2010 67.121.155.70]
When explaining the law, should we just give a general link to the law or specifically give notes on what section, subsection, and paragraph we're referring to? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This probably should be moved to the best known description of the bill. What do the reliable sources call it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the section Provisions to reflect that the bill doesn't specifically require proof of immigration status. A legal alien not in possession of a registration card would be in violation, but a citizen incorrectly suspected of being an alien would not. Presumably, lack of documentation would be a factor that might elevate reasonable suspicion to probable cause, but would not in itself be cause for arrest.
I also changed one ref from a news report to the bill itself, added WLs to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and added a link to the bill text (there's also an HTML version if it's thought that should also be included.
I believe an encounter might go something like this:
The courts will obviously need to determine how this actually goes, and in particular, the meanings of reasonable suspicion and probable cause in this context.
It might be worth adding some of this to the article, though I think we should be very careful to stick to the letter of the law and identify opinion as such. Perhaps we should add a WL to Stop and identify statutes. JeffConrad ( talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone lives in Phoenix or anywhere else that's seeing a demonstration against and/or for the law, a photo of it would be a great addition to the article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is for a general audience rather than a group of attorneys; does a term like sine die really improve it? JeffConrad ( talk) 19:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A big issue with the bill is whether it encourages racial profiling. What exactly is meant by reasonable suspicion? Is it spelled out anywhere? I looked for a link to the actual bill, but I couldn't find one (and of course my reading of the bill would be original research...). Can people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants be stopped for that alone? Or is the investigation of immigration status in the bill limited in some way? Electroshoxcure ( talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
TruthHurts235 ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This article's page view stats show a steady climb in readership since it was first created. It would be even higher if it showed up on the first page of Google hits, but for most formulations it's not appearing until the second or third page.
The 14,300 hits on its main page partial day as a DYK would normally qualify it for inclusion in WP:DYKSTATS, but "rule 3" there may preclude it. I'll see what the readership looks like in the next couple of days.
Attempts were made here and here to get this article into the Wikipedia:In the news main page feature, but the powers that be decided it was only a "local story" and thus not significant enough for inclusion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
When I read this sentence:
I am completely baffled. It seems totally backward. It might make sense if instead the word "opposition" was changed to "support", but am I the only one confused? 98.82.34.167 ( talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Nazi and Gestapo tactics are not the only disparaging comparisons made in reference to AZ's SB1070. When calling for a travel boycott to Arizona, Mayor Chris Coleman, of St Paul, pronounced the bill "Draconian." --P6274
I don't see the applicability of either comparable quantities or adjacency for the number of illegal immigrants or the number of days after the end of the session. In particular, it's uncommon to use ninety, and almost no other account of SB1070 that I've seen does so. And for good reason—it's a lot harder to read. If we insist on ninety, we should also use twenty and thirty for the jail time, as does the text of HB2162. Again, though, this just makes it harder to read.
Practice does vary—Chicago use words for whole numbers up to one hundred. But the default rule from WP:ORDINAL would seem to apply here. JeffConrad ( talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
maybe I am the only confused person by now, but except for the footnotes, there is no mention of HB2162, which, as it dawns to me right now, made some crucial changes to the law. It should be mentioned somewhere. First off, I'll make a redirect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Also states: failure of government agency employees and supervisors to report violations is a "... class 2 misdemeanor ..." (HB2162 Section E), and "... Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court ..." (HB2162 page 2, lines 8-10), and it changes proof of legitimacy to Arizona MVD ID card or Tribal Enrollment Card (HB2162 page 5 lines 12-18). Presumably US Citizens from other states and US Citizens with no proof or need for ID will be jailed. -- peterblaise ( talk) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I put in a link of South Africa under apartheid and the Nuremberg Laws. Too me its hard to even consider that these arent relatied. However, I guess there is some debate about it. Should I provide 50 links or so that to prove it? 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 06:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"The Pass Laws Act 1952 made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry a "pass book" at all times. The law stipulated where, when, and for how long a person could remain. This pass was also known as a dompas.
The document was similar to an internal passport, containing details on the bearer such as their fingerprints, photograph, the name of his/her employer, his/her address, how long the bearer had been employed, as well as other identification information. Employers often entered a behavioural evaluation, on the conduct of the pass holder.
An employer was defined under the law and could be only a white person. The pass also documented permission requested and denied or granted to be in a certain region and the reason for seeking such permission. Under the terms of the law, any governmental employee could strike out such entries, basically canceling the permission to remain in the area.
A pass book without a valid entry then allowed officials to arrest and imprison the bearer of the pass."
Replace the word black with immigrant and tell me how different it is.
As for the relation to the Nuremberg laws I would like to point out that your state has passed laws to lower the funding they get medically, to attempt to deny them access to all public services, to stamp out Mexican-American study programs in school rooms. We always said never again, I just never thought I would have to say it about the heartland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 06:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I made the alias names all bold. To give the page consistency, thank you for pointing out the error. 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I am considering putting together a section comparing this law and the Nuremberg Laws and Pass Laws. There seems to be a great deal of articles on the subject. Considering this to be a useful addition to the article. Please any thoughts or comments 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 07:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone in the state could you get a photo of a police checkpoint or a person geTing arrested for not having their papers. It would make a great addition 68.171.233.131 ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We're somewhat inconsistent in referring to this bill as well as HB 2162. Normal practice is to use a space between the house designator and the bill number; I think we should make the article read accordingly, perhaps using a nonbreaking space. JeffConrad ( talk) 18:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We need one (or perhaps a few) sources that support the specific claim made here—that critics claim it encourages racial profiling “based on wording, enforcement, and historical precedent”. The plethora of previous citations didn't do this; perhaps Ralph E. Stone came the closest, though his same op-ed by appeared in in two different publications and shouldn't have been cited twice. JeffConrad ( talk) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The easiest (and probably the best) approach would be to simply eliminate this language, which doesn't really add much to the basic statement. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the language and included two of the more cogent (at least to me) of the previous refs. We probably should add a ref or two for the supporters. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Twice the reference to the earlier boycott has been removed. Any thoughts on why? 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Vivek Malhotra's op-ed in the New York Times addressed a serious deficiency in the SB 1070 that was fixed in HB 2162; police now cannot stop a person solely on reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. If the material remains, it needs to be made clear that the comment was made prior to HB 2162, both to avoid confusing the reader and to avoid making Malhotra look foolish. I think it would be far better just to remove it. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a qualifier, but I think the entry now looks a bit silly. Again, I'd remove it. JeffConrad ( talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the brief mention of the criticism and the counter by the bill's supporters back to the lead section. A lead section summarizes the entire article, so mention of the major points is indicated. And the reaction by the bill's critics and supporters is indeed a key point; were it not for the reactions, this bill, like most of the thousands of others that are passed in state legislatures every year, would not be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia.
We've seemingly already run the gamut of how the reaction is treated in the lead section, and what remains seems succinct and balanced. I don't think it should be moved without a convincing argument. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, it's also essential that HB 2162 be mentioned early on, because the effect of SB 1070 alone would be quite different from how the law now stands. Much of the reaction to the bill has overlooked the changes brought by HB 2162, even after its enactment, and for this article to follow that lead would be a grave disservice to its readers. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The article says this is a secondary offense (during a police stop for some other offense) and points to Arizona HB 2162, Section 3. While this is a fine job citing it is still a little vague and the news continues to argue that it is not a secondary offense but that anyone can be stopped and questioned at any time. Can we get a little more info or back up? I read section 3 there and I see no clear wording, granted I am no law professor and I do agree it reads similar to a secondary offense the words here on wiki are very clear while the law seems less so... AndrewHorne ( talk) 01:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the alternative sources weren't the most stellar, and I included them with some hesitation. But I'm not sure the AP source is really any better, especially as it describes Joe Arpaio's take
Presumably, from the April 24 date the astute reader will conclude that Arpaio's comments were made prior to the enactment of HB 2162. If the astute reader is aware of HB 2162. And bothers to note the date.
Offhand, I don't know what to suggest, other than that supporting sources need to be carefully examined for content and sometimes the date as well as for a presumptively reliable pedigree. The safe approach would of course be to always state it as “So-and-so says ...”, and perhaps qualify statements that appear to have been made before the law was revised (which of course gives the benefit of the doubt that the speaker would have apprised himself of the changes). But this would quickly render the article nearly unreadable. JeffConrad ( talk) 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Upon re-read, I see that I may have conflated two issues: the presumptive authority of a source, and the pre/post HB 2162 timing of a comment. Both are relevant to this article, but they should be recognized as distinct. JeffConrad ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading Archibald's May 3 piece (cited in support of several statements) raises the same questions, leading me to wonder how carefully he read HB 2162, if he read it at all. Is a Times columnist always better than a guest editorial in the Arizona Republic? I'd guess the same issues would arise with many of the other sources. Who decides which are “weak”? JeffConrad ( talk) 04:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Archibold's April 23 comment that “the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano” is yet another example of the sometimes fine line between news and opinion (though here the line really isn't so fine). It's tough to suggest that Archibold is nuts here, but I think it's also unreasonable to interject similar opinion into this article without qualification. I guess it's possible to say something like, “According to New York Times writer Randal Archibold, ...” but this would make for messy reading if done very often. JeffConrad ( talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
People were asked to give a justification for excluding this. I don't think that's the way it works. In this case, please make a case for including it. This article is not a collection of random quotes and comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - -
Oh comparison to Nazi practices holds water all right:
Arizona Senate Bill 1070, page 1, lines 37-39,
... and page 2, lines 27-33:
Warrantless arrest, search, and seizure, and protection of warrantless arrest, search, and seizure = Nazi practices ... versus United States Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment:
Now, some may say they've amended Arizona SB 1070 with Arizona HB 2162 so that asking for Federal ID papers only applies after arrest for another crime, but careful reading of both bills together shows that Police can do whatever they want with impunity and indemnification, so it probably will only be a formality what the first accusation of a crime will be before asking for Federal ID. Lemme guess, J-walking. No, vagrancy. No, resisting arrest. No ... oh, does it matter?
Also, the Nazi reference is apt since Arizona SB 1070 was written based on neo-Nazi white-supremacist resources from Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance (United_States) website to supporters.
Nazi is all over this legislation, and "Nazi" should be all over any accurate reporting on it, too. It is NOT liberal reactionary invention to call this Nazi, it is accurate historical reporting on the source of this specific legislation -- neo-Nazi white-supremacists wrote Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Include this information in the main article page.
One reference? http://splcenter.org/get-informed/news/arizona-immigration-law-violates-constitution-guarantees-racial-profiling. Everyone, please dig and find more ... but since one reference is enough for most Wikipedia entries ...
- - - - - - - - - -
See my response in #Defining the legislation above regarding including the fringe associations in some of these groups. In the end, it doesn't really matter, the law stands on its merits regardless of who wrote it or who they hung out with or who they were funded by. As for the Nazi comparison, it's simple. Let's wait five years. If by then most of Arizona's illegal immigrants and their political sympathizers have been rounded up and sent to concentration camps and then death camps, I'll be all for the parallel. Until then, it's as stupid and historically ignorant as all the conservative radio talk show guys who call Obama a Stalinist. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Peter, warrantless arrest is long established, finding support in the common law dating back to something like the 14th century—so it's nothing new to this legislation. Like arrest with a warrant, it falls under the Fourth Amendment, so it must be based on probable cause. I think many of the concerns with this law are well founded, but I think problems will arise more with its application than on its face. As I've said here repeatedly, it will hinge on how “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are interpreted in the context of immigration status. As Wasted Time R says, we'll need to see what happens, and I don't think it will take five years.
In general, I have great respect for the SPLC. But Ms. Bauer badly hurts her credibility with statements like, “By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the country illegally”. Reasonable suspicion obligates an inquiry, but arrest requires probable cause, as I mentioned above. I'm sure Ms. Bauer actually knows this, but the statement reads as it reads. JeffConrad ( talk) 08:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Although she hasn't been known as an outspoken advocate of such a measure in the past, she has written "numerous" letters of concern to the Administration about securing the borders. In 2004, she supported a measure that required proof of citizenship to vote in the state of Arizona. These are actions that seem to go against the notion that Brewer was bending to the will of her conservative competition to get a leg up in the upcoming primaries. There are no sources that I've seen that seem to suggest she was ever against this bill. In the end, we should keep this article as neutral as possible without injecting our own speculation about her motives. To make it more objective, I've removed lines in "Background and Passage" to reflect that. Thoughts? Issues? Let me know...-- GoneIn60 ( talk) 07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I ended up removing such language as "unorthodox" and rephrased several items so that it seemed more objective. But overall, most of the content you added remains. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
yeah the wording seemed funny. Any grammar experts want to fix it? It sounded like the whole state was considering changing the laws rather then a bill being introduced into the assemblies. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of this phrase and the others in bold in the introduction. Is prejudical to the reading. Of the rest of the page. Why is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.250.91.216 ( talk) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This language is highly POV and doesn't belong on a balanced article such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.53.253 ( talk) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of bold text in the lead section is covered in WP:BOLDTITLE; it applies to first mention of the article title or a reasonable synonym. It's not reasonable to treat any of the secondary names by which the bill has been called as reasonable synonyms for the title of this article, especially because Wikipedia already has articles matching Driving While Black and Driving While Brown (the latter is a redirect to the first). The title of a bill is usually spin, but that's legislator's prerogative, whether or not we think the title makes any sense. What governs here is the WP:MOS. JeffConrad ( talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok I gave it a few days to calm down. Listen we are some of the only guys editing this article. It shouldnt be too hard for two guys to work something out. Now as such the following points I am willing to concede:
What I want:
What I purpose:
Does this work for you? I think this will also make the article neutral. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion began on my Talk page; because this articl should reflect consensus among the various editors, I've copied the relevant parts here. 67.246.175.103 proposed the following:
I replied:
Though I'd like to see somewhat smoother and more neutral wording, I have no objection to including the material above; I might briefly mention the specifics of each action in this article just so the reader isn't forced to follow the links to see what the actions are. But I'd like to see what others think. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
might not be the place to put nazi analogies. However, there have been several other race based roundups in history 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I managed to get the wording right, the truth is still there but i have given slack to the idealogically bent to air their viewponts on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
TruthHurts235 ( talk) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree that "reasonable suspicion" is dependent upon a number of different factors surrounding the circumstance. Great point. While I support the Arizona Senate bill it cannot be denied that it allows law officers more freedom to racially profile hispanics and other minorities. But isn't that their job in the first place? Police officer's job description entails profiling suspicious people who they suspect are breaking the law? These men and women heavily rely on racial profiling and stereotypes because it is necessary in logically estimating who is a threat and who is not. This practice can essentially save their life. In the case of this Senate Bill, Police Officers will have an excuse for pulling over hard working, legal immigrants who are simply going about their business. This is unfair but we must realize that the bill does not truly change anything. If a police officer suspects you might be illegal at this moment he can ask you for ID for any number of reasons. While I am by no means a judicial expert, if a police officer wants to see your ID he will come up with a number of valid reason why. The Arizona Senate Bill is an edgy matter which teeters on the fence of racial profiling but at its core it will not change the status quo. Illegals will still enter the country and find jobs. this is inevitable. The debate over the bill has become a huge media debachle which has served as excellent dinner discussion. The truth is that the bill won't drastically change anything except for wating the time of legal ID carrying hispanics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjharris119 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is an accurate reading of the law.
In fact, Section 3 Letter F says:
F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. 26
This line does not say that the person is guilty of a misdemeanor simply for not carrying legal documents - it only applies to people who actually are here without permission (which is determined by the federal agency).
If a legal alien or tourist loses his or her papers, the Federal government can verify that when reviewing the person's status. The law says that Arizona officials will not make that determination.
Further, the phrase "carrying legal documents" is charged. It connotes a strong police state (yes, reminiscent of Nazi Germany) and has no place in an encyclopedic venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.172.191 ( talk) 06:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the wording in this section is problematic:
"In fact, however, section K..." "...but failed to note that the bill"
it takes on a structure of argument and rebuttal that, while minor, still seems intent on demeaning those who criticize the law. In content, I realize that this sort of back-and-forth is typical of wikipedia on contentious issues, and I even recognize that putting relevant points and counterpoints adjacent makes a certain sense. But I still think the end result fails to pass the neutrality test. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.58.62 ( talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I noted the fact that the legislation explicitly referenced the "attrition through enforcement" doctrine that conservative think tanks such as CIS have been pushing as a way to reduce the immigrant population in the U.S. I thought it was noteworthy that legislation would that explicitly pick up on a doctrinal idea. Tedperl ( talk) 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I see "illegal immigrants." and the term "illegal aliens" used in this article. It occurs to me that some would phrase it "illegal migrants" or something of the sort. Any thoughts of picking one term and making the whole article consistent? I vote for "illegal immigrant" If there is no object in a day or so I will change them all to that term, grammar providing of course. 76.180.115.242 ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
To coalesce and condense what's above: there have been several instances of editors replacing terms such as alien and immigrant with other terms that the editors apparently consider less offensive. We really can't reasonably do this. Both alien and immigrant are defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101: the former is a noncitizen of the United States and the latter is essentially an alien who has taken up or may be considering residence in the United States (see 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15) for a more precise description). This section also distinguishes between an immigrant alien and a nonimmigrant alien, so alien and immigrant are not synonymous. The same terms are used in the new Arizona law, so this article is consistent with both U.S. and Arizona law—as I think it should be. A migrant is a person who frequently moves, often to find employment, so the term isn't a substitute for immigrant.
The use of illegal or unlawful is somewhat more problematic, because under U.S. law, illegal presence in the United States is a civil rather than a criminal matter, and Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983) appears to disallow enforcement of civil violations of U.S. immigration law by state LE personnel. But that's not really an offense under the new Arizona law; rather, the offense is presence of an alien in Arizona without having registered or without being in possession of the required registration documents. At the federal level, this is a criminal matter, and apparently is enforceable by state LE under Gonzales. Perhaps Arizona would have been better served if they had defined “undocumented alien” to refer to an alien present in Arizona and not in possession of required registration documents, but they did not do so, and I don't think we should do so here. In attempt to keep things simple, I indicated that an unlawful alien was subject to arrest. In retrospect, this was a mistake; I've revised the article so that the description of the arrestable offense is strictly correct. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was busy for a couple of days and not monitoring the article, so I'm not complaining, but I disagree with the decision to rename it from "Arizona SB1070" to "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act", which seems to have made with little discussion.
The rationale given was "Standard convention is to call the law by its enacted name", which is largely true, but not always: Category:California statutes shows some articles with 'legislative number' names.
In this case, various forms of "Arizona SB1070" and "Arizona Senate Bill 1070" get about 552,000 Google hits combined, while "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" gets only 47,000 hits. That's more than a 10:1 ratio and seems to fly in the face of WP:COMMONNAME.
The reason for the usage disparity is probably that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is singularly uninformative about what the law is or does. It never mentions "immigration" or "alien" or "illegal" or anything that has to do with these issues and instead sounds like a local ordinance that establishes citizen block patrols. Going back to the California laws examples, California Public Records Act, California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, Red Light Abatement Act, etc. all describe the areas that those pieces of legislation applies to, and thus are reasonable names. This one does not. I realize that there's a trend to name laws in a way that pitches their benefits, but at least for example Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sounds like it has something to do with health care.
Also, I'm not even convinced that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is really an official name of this law; it doesn't appear on the top legislature page on it and only appears at the very bottom of the House Engrossed Version as a note. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess my problem with the current name is that it gives a slant to the article. Instead of being an immigration law it is now pitched, as has been previously mentioned, something that sounds like it has to do with making neighborhood watches. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 01:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It can't be just "Arizona Immigration Law" because Arizona's had several immigration-related laws over the years. It would have to be qualified by year, such as Arizona immigration law (2010) or Arizona immigration law, 2010 or Arizona 2010 immigration law or 2010 Arizona immigration law. (This assumes this is the only immigration law of any significance to be passed in the state this year.) The 'immigration law' wouldn't be capitalized because it isn't the formal title of anything. This name would be the most informative and easiest to find of any of the alternatives discussed so far, if the least precise. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act"
, Bing put it at the top (interestingly, under Arizona HB2162) and Google put it at #5. In any event, it would seem that we need to distinguish Arizona's law from at least one similar bill.
JeffConrad (
talk)
01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
More materials needed on reactions, including potential boycotts. Tedperl ( talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
[copied here from user talk page]
Hi, I contributed to [this] article. I saw that you removed its effect on delaying the climate change bill citing that it tangentially mentions the immigration law. I just wanted to point out that there are close to 800 stories [1] covering the fallout on climate-change bill and the majority if not all of them mention the immigration law as one of the reason, Sen. lindsay graham has been cited as one of the main detractors with his quote already mentioned. Just in case, here are some relevant links - [2] [3] [4] [5]. All of them mention immigration as one of the primary reasons for the fallout. Thank you. -- Theo10011 ( talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Because the bill requires people wishing to run for President to present proof of being born in the United States, I linked Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
Can someone with more legal knowledge elaborate on the precise ways that the AZ government requires birth certificates? For example, under this law, what constitutes proof of being born in the United States? [21:02, April 25, 2010 67.121.155.70]
When explaining the law, should we just give a general link to the law or specifically give notes on what section, subsection, and paragraph we're referring to? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This probably should be moved to the best known description of the bill. What do the reliable sources call it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the section Provisions to reflect that the bill doesn't specifically require proof of immigration status. A legal alien not in possession of a registration card would be in violation, but a citizen incorrectly suspected of being an alien would not. Presumably, lack of documentation would be a factor that might elevate reasonable suspicion to probable cause, but would not in itself be cause for arrest.
I also changed one ref from a news report to the bill itself, added WLs to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and added a link to the bill text (there's also an HTML version if it's thought that should also be included.
I believe an encounter might go something like this:
The courts will obviously need to determine how this actually goes, and in particular, the meanings of reasonable suspicion and probable cause in this context.
It might be worth adding some of this to the article, though I think we should be very careful to stick to the letter of the law and identify opinion as such. Perhaps we should add a WL to Stop and identify statutes. JeffConrad ( talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone lives in Phoenix or anywhere else that's seeing a demonstration against and/or for the law, a photo of it would be a great addition to the article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is for a general audience rather than a group of attorneys; does a term like sine die really improve it? JeffConrad ( talk) 19:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A big issue with the bill is whether it encourages racial profiling. What exactly is meant by reasonable suspicion? Is it spelled out anywhere? I looked for a link to the actual bill, but I couldn't find one (and of course my reading of the bill would be original research...). Can people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants be stopped for that alone? Or is the investigation of immigration status in the bill limited in some way? Electroshoxcure ( talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
TruthHurts235 ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This article's page view stats show a steady climb in readership since it was first created. It would be even higher if it showed up on the first page of Google hits, but for most formulations it's not appearing until the second or third page.
The 14,300 hits on its main page partial day as a DYK would normally qualify it for inclusion in WP:DYKSTATS, but "rule 3" there may preclude it. I'll see what the readership looks like in the next couple of days.
Attempts were made here and here to get this article into the Wikipedia:In the news main page feature, but the powers that be decided it was only a "local story" and thus not significant enough for inclusion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
When I read this sentence:
I am completely baffled. It seems totally backward. It might make sense if instead the word "opposition" was changed to "support", but am I the only one confused? 98.82.34.167 ( talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Nazi and Gestapo tactics are not the only disparaging comparisons made in reference to AZ's SB1070. When calling for a travel boycott to Arizona, Mayor Chris Coleman, of St Paul, pronounced the bill "Draconian." --P6274
I don't see the applicability of either comparable quantities or adjacency for the number of illegal immigrants or the number of days after the end of the session. In particular, it's uncommon to use ninety, and almost no other account of SB1070 that I've seen does so. And for good reason—it's a lot harder to read. If we insist on ninety, we should also use twenty and thirty for the jail time, as does the text of HB2162. Again, though, this just makes it harder to read.
Practice does vary—Chicago use words for whole numbers up to one hundred. But the default rule from WP:ORDINAL would seem to apply here. JeffConrad ( talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
maybe I am the only confused person by now, but except for the footnotes, there is no mention of HB2162, which, as it dawns to me right now, made some crucial changes to the law. It should be mentioned somewhere. First off, I'll make a redirect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Also states: failure of government agency employees and supervisors to report violations is a "... class 2 misdemeanor ..." (HB2162 Section E), and "... Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court ..." (HB2162 page 2, lines 8-10), and it changes proof of legitimacy to Arizona MVD ID card or Tribal Enrollment Card (HB2162 page 5 lines 12-18). Presumably US Citizens from other states and US Citizens with no proof or need for ID will be jailed. -- peterblaise ( talk) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I put in a link of South Africa under apartheid and the Nuremberg Laws. Too me its hard to even consider that these arent relatied. However, I guess there is some debate about it. Should I provide 50 links or so that to prove it? 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 06:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"The Pass Laws Act 1952 made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry a "pass book" at all times. The law stipulated where, when, and for how long a person could remain. This pass was also known as a dompas.
The document was similar to an internal passport, containing details on the bearer such as their fingerprints, photograph, the name of his/her employer, his/her address, how long the bearer had been employed, as well as other identification information. Employers often entered a behavioural evaluation, on the conduct of the pass holder.
An employer was defined under the law and could be only a white person. The pass also documented permission requested and denied or granted to be in a certain region and the reason for seeking such permission. Under the terms of the law, any governmental employee could strike out such entries, basically canceling the permission to remain in the area.
A pass book without a valid entry then allowed officials to arrest and imprison the bearer of the pass."
Replace the word black with immigrant and tell me how different it is.
As for the relation to the Nuremberg laws I would like to point out that your state has passed laws to lower the funding they get medically, to attempt to deny them access to all public services, to stamp out Mexican-American study programs in school rooms. We always said never again, I just never thought I would have to say it about the heartland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 06:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I made the alias names all bold. To give the page consistency, thank you for pointing out the error. 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I am considering putting together a section comparing this law and the Nuremberg Laws and Pass Laws. There seems to be a great deal of articles on the subject. Considering this to be a useful addition to the article. Please any thoughts or comments 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 07:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone in the state could you get a photo of a police checkpoint or a person geTing arrested for not having their papers. It would make a great addition 68.171.233.131 ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We're somewhat inconsistent in referring to this bill as well as HB 2162. Normal practice is to use a space between the house designator and the bill number; I think we should make the article read accordingly, perhaps using a nonbreaking space. JeffConrad ( talk) 18:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We need one (or perhaps a few) sources that support the specific claim made here—that critics claim it encourages racial profiling “based on wording, enforcement, and historical precedent”. The plethora of previous citations didn't do this; perhaps Ralph E. Stone came the closest, though his same op-ed by appeared in in two different publications and shouldn't have been cited twice. JeffConrad ( talk) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The easiest (and probably the best) approach would be to simply eliminate this language, which doesn't really add much to the basic statement. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the language and included two of the more cogent (at least to me) of the previous refs. We probably should add a ref or two for the supporters. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Twice the reference to the earlier boycott has been removed. Any thoughts on why? 98.118.188.7 ( talk) 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Vivek Malhotra's op-ed in the New York Times addressed a serious deficiency in the SB 1070 that was fixed in HB 2162; police now cannot stop a person solely on reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. If the material remains, it needs to be made clear that the comment was made prior to HB 2162, both to avoid confusing the reader and to avoid making Malhotra look foolish. I think it would be far better just to remove it. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a qualifier, but I think the entry now looks a bit silly. Again, I'd remove it. JeffConrad ( talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the brief mention of the criticism and the counter by the bill's supporters back to the lead section. A lead section summarizes the entire article, so mention of the major points is indicated. And the reaction by the bill's critics and supporters is indeed a key point; were it not for the reactions, this bill, like most of the thousands of others that are passed in state legislatures every year, would not be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia.
We've seemingly already run the gamut of how the reaction is treated in the lead section, and what remains seems succinct and balanced. I don't think it should be moved without a convincing argument. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, it's also essential that HB 2162 be mentioned early on, because the effect of SB 1070 alone would be quite different from how the law now stands. Much of the reaction to the bill has overlooked the changes brought by HB 2162, even after its enactment, and for this article to follow that lead would be a grave disservice to its readers. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The article says this is a secondary offense (during a police stop for some other offense) and points to Arizona HB 2162, Section 3. While this is a fine job citing it is still a little vague and the news continues to argue that it is not a secondary offense but that anyone can be stopped and questioned at any time. Can we get a little more info or back up? I read section 3 there and I see no clear wording, granted I am no law professor and I do agree it reads similar to a secondary offense the words here on wiki are very clear while the law seems less so... AndrewHorne ( talk) 01:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the alternative sources weren't the most stellar, and I included them with some hesitation. But I'm not sure the AP source is really any better, especially as it describes Joe Arpaio's take
Presumably, from the April 24 date the astute reader will conclude that Arpaio's comments were made prior to the enactment of HB 2162. If the astute reader is aware of HB 2162. And bothers to note the date.
Offhand, I don't know what to suggest, other than that supporting sources need to be carefully examined for content and sometimes the date as well as for a presumptively reliable pedigree. The safe approach would of course be to always state it as “So-and-so says ...”, and perhaps qualify statements that appear to have been made before the law was revised (which of course gives the benefit of the doubt that the speaker would have apprised himself of the changes). But this would quickly render the article nearly unreadable. JeffConrad ( talk) 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Upon re-read, I see that I may have conflated two issues: the presumptive authority of a source, and the pre/post HB 2162 timing of a comment. Both are relevant to this article, but they should be recognized as distinct. JeffConrad ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading Archibald's May 3 piece (cited in support of several statements) raises the same questions, leading me to wonder how carefully he read HB 2162, if he read it at all. Is a Times columnist always better than a guest editorial in the Arizona Republic? I'd guess the same issues would arise with many of the other sources. Who decides which are “weak”? JeffConrad ( talk) 04:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Archibold's April 23 comment that “the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano” is yet another example of the sometimes fine line between news and opinion (though here the line really isn't so fine). It's tough to suggest that Archibold is nuts here, but I think it's also unreasonable to interject similar opinion into this article without qualification. I guess it's possible to say something like, “According to New York Times writer Randal Archibold, ...” but this would make for messy reading if done very often. JeffConrad ( talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
People were asked to give a justification for excluding this. I don't think that's the way it works. In this case, please make a case for including it. This article is not a collection of random quotes and comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - -
Oh comparison to Nazi practices holds water all right:
Arizona Senate Bill 1070, page 1, lines 37-39,
... and page 2, lines 27-33:
Warrantless arrest, search, and seizure, and protection of warrantless arrest, search, and seizure = Nazi practices ... versus United States Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment:
Now, some may say they've amended Arizona SB 1070 with Arizona HB 2162 so that asking for Federal ID papers only applies after arrest for another crime, but careful reading of both bills together shows that Police can do whatever they want with impunity and indemnification, so it probably will only be a formality what the first accusation of a crime will be before asking for Federal ID. Lemme guess, J-walking. No, vagrancy. No, resisting arrest. No ... oh, does it matter?
Also, the Nazi reference is apt since Arizona SB 1070 was written based on neo-Nazi white-supremacist resources from Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance (United_States) website to supporters.
Nazi is all over this legislation, and "Nazi" should be all over any accurate reporting on it, too. It is NOT liberal reactionary invention to call this Nazi, it is accurate historical reporting on the source of this specific legislation -- neo-Nazi white-supremacists wrote Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Include this information in the main article page.
One reference? http://splcenter.org/get-informed/news/arizona-immigration-law-violates-constitution-guarantees-racial-profiling. Everyone, please dig and find more ... but since one reference is enough for most Wikipedia entries ...
- - - - - - - - - -
See my response in #Defining the legislation above regarding including the fringe associations in some of these groups. In the end, it doesn't really matter, the law stands on its merits regardless of who wrote it or who they hung out with or who they were funded by. As for the Nazi comparison, it's simple. Let's wait five years. If by then most of Arizona's illegal immigrants and their political sympathizers have been rounded up and sent to concentration camps and then death camps, I'll be all for the parallel. Until then, it's as stupid and historically ignorant as all the conservative radio talk show guys who call Obama a Stalinist. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Peter, warrantless arrest is long established, finding support in the common law dating back to something like the 14th century—so it's nothing new to this legislation. Like arrest with a warrant, it falls under the Fourth Amendment, so it must be based on probable cause. I think many of the concerns with this law are well founded, but I think problems will arise more with its application than on its face. As I've said here repeatedly, it will hinge on how “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are interpreted in the context of immigration status. As Wasted Time R says, we'll need to see what happens, and I don't think it will take five years.
In general, I have great respect for the SPLC. But Ms. Bauer badly hurts her credibility with statements like, “By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the country illegally”. Reasonable suspicion obligates an inquiry, but arrest requires probable cause, as I mentioned above. I'm sure Ms. Bauer actually knows this, but the statement reads as it reads. JeffConrad ( talk) 08:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Although she hasn't been known as an outspoken advocate of such a measure in the past, she has written "numerous" letters of concern to the Administration about securing the borders. In 2004, she supported a measure that required proof of citizenship to vote in the state of Arizona. These are actions that seem to go against the notion that Brewer was bending to the will of her conservative competition to get a leg up in the upcoming primaries. There are no sources that I've seen that seem to suggest she was ever against this bill. In the end, we should keep this article as neutral as possible without injecting our own speculation about her motives. To make it more objective, I've removed lines in "Background and Passage" to reflect that. Thoughts? Issues? Let me know...-- GoneIn60 ( talk) 07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I ended up removing such language as "unorthodox" and rephrased several items so that it seemed more objective. But overall, most of the content you added remains. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
yeah the wording seemed funny. Any grammar experts want to fix it? It sounded like the whole state was considering changing the laws rather then a bill being introduced into the assemblies. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of this phrase and the others in bold in the introduction. Is prejudical to the reading. Of the rest of the page. Why is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.250.91.216 ( talk) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This language is highly POV and doesn't belong on a balanced article such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.53.253 ( talk) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of bold text in the lead section is covered in WP:BOLDTITLE; it applies to first mention of the article title or a reasonable synonym. It's not reasonable to treat any of the secondary names by which the bill has been called as reasonable synonyms for the title of this article, especially because Wikipedia already has articles matching Driving While Black and Driving While Brown (the latter is a redirect to the first). The title of a bill is usually spin, but that's legislator's prerogative, whether or not we think the title makes any sense. What governs here is the WP:MOS. JeffConrad ( talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok I gave it a few days to calm down. Listen we are some of the only guys editing this article. It shouldnt be too hard for two guys to work something out. Now as such the following points I am willing to concede:
What I want:
What I purpose:
Does this work for you? I think this will also make the article neutral. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion began on my Talk page; because this articl should reflect consensus among the various editors, I've copied the relevant parts here. 67.246.175.103 proposed the following:
I replied:
Though I'd like to see somewhat smoother and more neutral wording, I have no objection to including the material above; I might briefly mention the specifics of each action in this article just so the reader isn't forced to follow the links to see what the actions are. But I'd like to see what others think. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
might not be the place to put nazi analogies. However, there have been several other race based roundups in history 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I managed to get the wording right, the truth is still there but i have given slack to the idealogically bent to air their viewponts on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
TruthHurts235 ( talk) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree that "reasonable suspicion" is dependent upon a number of different factors surrounding the circumstance. Great point. While I support the Arizona Senate bill it cannot be denied that it allows law officers more freedom to racially profile hispanics and other minorities. But isn't that their job in the first place? Police officer's job description entails profiling suspicious people who they suspect are breaking the law? These men and women heavily rely on racial profiling and stereotypes because it is necessary in logically estimating who is a threat and who is not. This practice can essentially save their life. In the case of this Senate Bill, Police Officers will have an excuse for pulling over hard working, legal immigrants who are simply going about their business. This is unfair but we must realize that the bill does not truly change anything. If a police officer suspects you might be illegal at this moment he can ask you for ID for any number of reasons. While I am by no means a judicial expert, if a police officer wants to see your ID he will come up with a number of valid reason why. The Arizona Senate Bill is an edgy matter which teeters on the fence of racial profiling but at its core it will not change the status quo. Illegals will still enter the country and find jobs. this is inevitable. The debate over the bill has become a huge media debachle which has served as excellent dinner discussion. The truth is that the bill won't drastically change anything except for wating the time of legal ID carrying hispanics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjharris119 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is an accurate reading of the law.
In fact, Section 3 Letter F says:
F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. 26
This line does not say that the person is guilty of a misdemeanor simply for not carrying legal documents - it only applies to people who actually are here without permission (which is determined by the federal agency).
If a legal alien or tourist loses his or her papers, the Federal government can verify that when reviewing the person's status. The law says that Arizona officials will not make that determination.
Further, the phrase "carrying legal documents" is charged. It connotes a strong police state (yes, reminiscent of Nazi Germany) and has no place in an encyclopedic venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.172.191 ( talk) 06:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the wording in this section is problematic:
"In fact, however, section K..." "...but failed to note that the bill"
it takes on a structure of argument and rebuttal that, while minor, still seems intent on demeaning those who criticize the law. In content, I realize that this sort of back-and-forth is typical of wikipedia on contentious issues, and I even recognize that putting relevant points and counterpoints adjacent makes a certain sense. But I still think the end result fails to pass the neutrality test. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.58.62 ( talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I noted the fact that the legislation explicitly referenced the "attrition through enforcement" doctrine that conservative think tanks such as CIS have been pushing as a way to reduce the immigrant population in the U.S. I thought it was noteworthy that legislation would that explicitly pick up on a doctrinal idea. Tedperl ( talk) 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I see "illegal immigrants." and the term "illegal aliens" used in this article. It occurs to me that some would phrase it "illegal migrants" or something of the sort. Any thoughts of picking one term and making the whole article consistent? I vote for "illegal immigrant" If there is no object in a day or so I will change them all to that term, grammar providing of course. 76.180.115.242 ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
To coalesce and condense what's above: there have been several instances of editors replacing terms such as alien and immigrant with other terms that the editors apparently consider less offensive. We really can't reasonably do this. Both alien and immigrant are defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101: the former is a noncitizen of the United States and the latter is essentially an alien who has taken up or may be considering residence in the United States (see 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15) for a more precise description). This section also distinguishes between an immigrant alien and a nonimmigrant alien, so alien and immigrant are not synonymous. The same terms are used in the new Arizona law, so this article is consistent with both U.S. and Arizona law—as I think it should be. A migrant is a person who frequently moves, often to find employment, so the term isn't a substitute for immigrant.
The use of illegal or unlawful is somewhat more problematic, because under U.S. law, illegal presence in the United States is a civil rather than a criminal matter, and Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983) appears to disallow enforcement of civil violations of U.S. immigration law by state LE personnel. But that's not really an offense under the new Arizona law; rather, the offense is presence of an alien in Arizona without having registered or without being in possession of the required registration documents. At the federal level, this is a criminal matter, and apparently is enforceable by state LE under Gonzales. Perhaps Arizona would have been better served if they had defined “undocumented alien” to refer to an alien present in Arizona and not in possession of required registration documents, but they did not do so, and I don't think we should do so here. In attempt to keep things simple, I indicated that an unlawful alien was subject to arrest. In retrospect, this was a mistake; I've revised the article so that the description of the arrestable offense is strictly correct. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was busy for a couple of days and not monitoring the article, so I'm not complaining, but I disagree with the decision to rename it from "Arizona SB1070" to "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act", which seems to have made with little discussion.
The rationale given was "Standard convention is to call the law by its enacted name", which is largely true, but not always: Category:California statutes shows some articles with 'legislative number' names.
In this case, various forms of "Arizona SB1070" and "Arizona Senate Bill 1070" get about 552,000 Google hits combined, while "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" gets only 47,000 hits. That's more than a 10:1 ratio and seems to fly in the face of WP:COMMONNAME.
The reason for the usage disparity is probably that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is singularly uninformative about what the law is or does. It never mentions "immigration" or "alien" or "illegal" or anything that has to do with these issues and instead sounds like a local ordinance that establishes citizen block patrols. Going back to the California laws examples, California Public Records Act, California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, Red Light Abatement Act, etc. all describe the areas that those pieces of legislation applies to, and thus are reasonable names. This one does not. I realize that there's a trend to name laws in a way that pitches their benefits, but at least for example Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sounds like it has something to do with health care.
Also, I'm not even convinced that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is really an official name of this law; it doesn't appear on the top legislature page on it and only appears at the very bottom of the House Engrossed Version as a note. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess my problem with the current name is that it gives a slant to the article. Instead of being an immigration law it is now pitched, as has been previously mentioned, something that sounds like it has to do with making neighborhood watches. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 01:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It can't be just "Arizona Immigration Law" because Arizona's had several immigration-related laws over the years. It would have to be qualified by year, such as Arizona immigration law (2010) or Arizona immigration law, 2010 or Arizona 2010 immigration law or 2010 Arizona immigration law. (This assumes this is the only immigration law of any significance to be passed in the state this year.) The 'immigration law' wouldn't be capitalized because it isn't the formal title of anything. This name would be the most informative and easiest to find of any of the alternatives discussed so far, if the least precise. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act"
, Bing put it at the top (interestingly, under Arizona HB2162) and Google put it at #5. In any event, it would seem that we need to distinguish Arizona's law from at least one similar bill.
JeffConrad (
talk)
01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)