![]() | 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 |
i removed this sentence. The article cited as a source is quoted exactly so right there seems like a copyright problem. Also, the article really doesnt prove that fact at all. It just says it with no study, quotes, or anything else to back it up. Here is the article that was cited as a source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36617_Page2.html
Travis in travisland ( talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
One or more editors have apparently been removing all mention of ACTUAL boycotts against Arizona as a direct result of the bill. The article now says only that "boycotts were proposed" in both the lead section and in the boycott section. Whether or not the editors agree with the boycott by the City of Los Angeles and others, to remove all mention of it is very deceptive. I shall now try to restore it. Facts707 ( talk) 08:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Some current discussion I've sparsely overheard is the constitutionality of said boycotts. Various court decisions have been mentioned ( Dean Milk v. City of Madison (1951)) for example) indicating that any interstate commerce interference is not allowed. Perhaps this can help someone with some time find some reliable sources, if they exist at the current time. I'm not sure where to look, myself. (Not a lawyer :) 70.162.140.134 ( talk) 06:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
original wording "This was due to their having established, powerful Hispanic communities, deep cultural ties to Mexico, past experience with bruising political battles over the issue (such as with California Proposition 187 in the 1990s), and the perception among their populations that illegal immigration was less severe a problem."
new wording This was attributed to their having established, powerful Hispanic communities, deep cultural ties to Mexico, past experience with bruising political battles over the issue (such as with California Proposition 187 in the 1990s), and the perception among their populations that illegal immigration was less severe a problem.
I know it sounds like weasel wording, but I stand by this. The source provided is a dead-link, so we dont know how much effort they went into to verify these claims. If someone could produce a nice study showing these were the causes of the symptoms listed then fine, but in the meantime it just sounds like a Ad hominem circumstantial. Travis in travisland ( talk) 17:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
After many heated encounters with propaganda-type rubbish about AZ SB1070, I read the Wikipedia article. I expected the article to begin with an exact quotation of the law, but instead read a description of (and many references to) it, followed by copious positive and negative criticism. "...The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens..."-- W8IMP ( talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have much difficulty determining how a driver's license suffices to prove citizenship. In '04 my son bought a bus ticket to attend a conference in Toronto. When he attempted to board the bus, the driver told him to go home and get a birth certificate. Customs Canada would not let him into the country based on his Michigan driver's license, which proves residence, but not citizenship.
Reading the article, one cannot determine what forms of identification constitute proof of citizenship. The article implies that Arizona considers a driver's license or state I.D. issued by that state and "...other forms of identification which require proof of citizenship..." as sufficient proof, but gives no way to determine which government entities do, (or do not) require such proof.
When we obtained New Mexico drivers' licenses, no one asked us for proof of citizenship. (By the way, I would rather share the road with "illegals" who have any kind of driver's license than with people who have not demonstrated the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle). If I am in Arizona after SB 1070 goes into effect and pulled over in Tucson (a city I frequently visit) and cannot produce a birth certificate or passport, am I going to jail?-- W8IMP ( talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"...IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."
This article should be split as more than half the article now is about reaction to SB1070 rather than describing what SB1070 is. I recommend that the article be split into an article on "SB1070 Reaction" (including pro (such as the fact that over half a million dollars has been donated to a defense fund) and con (such as all the lawsuits brought against SB1070)) and an article on SB1070 (describing what exactly it is and isn't). -03:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 ( talk)
The section says that the ACLU criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause. But the article is completely mute on how exactly the ACLU believed the statute violates the Supremacy Clause. Kobach believes the law embodies the doctrine of concurrent enforcement, but the article says nothing about why he believes this. Really, the only thing in the article section is "bitch, bitch, bitch". Beyond saying (paraphrased), "people disagree with regards to the Supremacy Clause and concurrent enforcement", the section is vaporous - there's no information here which can't be gained after about a 5 second google search.- 65.185.178.220 ( talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the second sentence in the paragraph that now begins “Between 2000 and 2008 ...” is a bit of a non-sequitur. But it's even worse if the first sentence is eliminated. Perhaps we should begin with the reason the topic is even mentioned; quoting the source, “It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement.” Obviously, we'd need to reword or provide context for “connection”. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've put the section in question back to where it was before this discussion. Although I think it needs work, it's at least correct, if perhaps not the entire story.
Although Archibold's statements seem to be correct, I agree that they may not tell the entire story. A comprehensive treatment could be quite lengthy; we'd need to resolve whether the 2008 and 2000 figures are directly comparable, and we'd need to make clear whether we're talking about violent crime (apparently the basis for Maguire's claims) or overall crime. Assuming we can resolve the validity of the 2000 vs. 2008 “rural” figures, we perhaps could say something to the effect of “while there has been a decrease in crime rates statewide and in major cities, there has been a significant increase in the crime rate in rural areas”, giving whatever figures we find are appropriate. If we cannot confirm that the 2000 and 2008 figures are directly comparable, I think we need to either stick with Archibold's statement or perhaps remove this material, including the second sentence, altogether. In any event, if we keep this material, we need an additional sentence or two to provide context—as it stands, it's a non-sequitur. JeffConrad ( talk) 09:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Having read the articles listed I find the wording on wikipedia to be slanted. A single politician introducing a bill that is rejected is not an entire state considering it. It is the actions of one person. Travis in travisland ( talk) 16:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Was toying with the idea of writing a Native American issue section. To go over issues such as: the possibility of Native Americans being profiled as Mexicans, history of laws dividing the white population from non-white population in Arizona, tribal identification cards not being considered a valid ID, national sovereignty being violated to enforce this Proclamation etc. Thoughts comments? Travis in travisland ( talk) 06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Arizona law raises fear of racial profiling". Associated Press. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4nY72M0hFVOHUzIrqYpD67DoBxgD9F9PCN82.
Is used extensively throughout this article, but is, in fact, a dead link and, so, it's veracity is impossible to determine.- 65.185.178.220 ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There's been some discussion about the wording of the lead--see these edits. This talk page seems to be visited often enough; perhaps some of you care to weigh in and maybe find a compromise. I personally think the earlier version (restored by Seb) is better, but I also (personally) think that the IP's edits are good-faith, if persistent. But they have not reverted again, and I think have shown good faith on my talk page. So, I leave it to the good people of the community, and possibly to the editors in question. (And Seb, I hope it's OK with you if I remove the warning from their page--we all know now how we feel. Thanks.) Drmies ( talk) 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be included. It shows the rising trend of neo-nazism in the american mid and south west. Neo-nazism that lead to this bill's creation to begin with. Thoughts comments? Travis in travisland ( talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
In attempt to keep the peace, I've added citations of specific sections of SB 1070 to the second paragraph in the lead section. The citations are redundant, because we already include them in the section Provisions. But I suppose they do provide guideposts for those who want to verify that we have it right and don't want to read the whole article. My heart would not be broken if others think they add too much clutter and decide to remove them.
I removed the mention of allowing enforcement of federal immigration law because the Act doesn't really say that; rather, I think that passage was just another way of saying that the Act bars state or local officials or agencies from limiting enforcement of federal immigration law. Arizona peace officers already had the authority to enforce the criminal provisions of federal law, from the U.S. Code and confirmed by Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In the interest of keeping the lead simple, I didn't include “to less than the full extent permitted by federal law”, which, for practical purposes, limits enforcement to criminal provisions. I'd rather keep it simple and rely on the Provisions section for the details, but I won't object if someone insists that we add the qualifier. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok this debate has already happened on this page several times already. Maybe this time we can get it right and work out some sort of comprimise.
There are a great deal of people who believe that this law is inherently racist against people who are not Caucasian. In the interests of full disclosure I will admit that I do feel this way, however I believe I am capable of still being neutral on this subject. With that being said I believe that the question boils down to "Does this law have a racist component that is large enough to mention, and if so how best to go about it?" Do we at least all agree on the question? I do not purpose any changes until this debate is over, and will not be the one to start. Travis in travisland ( talk) 04:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. "[24] While the U.S. and Arizona constitutions ordinarily prohibit use of race as a basis for a stop or arrest, the U.S. and Arizona supreme courts have held that race may be considered in enforcing immigration law. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the U.S. Supreme Court found: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.”[96] The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.”[97] Both decisions say that race alone, however, is an insufficient basis to stop or arrest."
Also notice that the law in its current form makes no mention of accent at all. Now since we are trying to be civil here I ask very nicely that you stop using terms like "carpetbagging liberals" There are many other places online where you can express your support for this bill. Travis in travisland ( talk) 20:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, I'll stop using the term "carpetbagging liberal" when you stop using the term "racist". Like you said, there are plenty of other places on the web where you can express your disfavor of this bill.- 65.185.178.220 ( talk) 11:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This was thrown in @ random... might be interesting, but where to put it?
Comparison to similar law in Rhode Island A July 8, 2010 editorial in the conservative Canada Free Press stated, " Rhode Island has been carrying out the procedures that are at issue in Arizona concerning immigration statutes for quite a while and doing quite nicely, thank you very much indeed. Obama says there is a federal preemption issue, if that is true then why haven’t he and Holder sued Rhode Island, and the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet?" [1]
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the original material about Joe Arpaio. I had objected to a later revision that seemed quite POV, and more importantly, only marginally related to the topic of this article. Because Arpaio has been a major player in the call for tougher enforcement, I think his opinion is relevant, provided that we stay on topic. If others disagree, though, I won't argue that we need to keep this material. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have is with the word "tough" which isnt neutral and the lack of mention of the fact that he is constantly being sued successfully over his "tough" policies. A great deal of this article deals with accusations of racial bias and here we are ignoring the fact that a man who has been enforcing this law on his own for years has been sued over it multiple times. Travis in travisland ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
With the recent flurry of news stories about the law soon going into effect and the federal suit against it, I've noticed that 'SB 1070' is more frequently than ever the term that news sources use to refer to it as (if they say anything more specific than just 'Arizona's new immigration law'). So I re-ran my Google News test, covering the past month:
That's a 170:1 ratio. Talk about a violation of
WP:COMMONNAME!! The article name should be changed back to
Arizona SB 1070, where it started. And besides being much more commonly used, it's also a good deal more neutral.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
While fixing the redirects, I discovered someone redirected Juan Crow to this page. Tagged it for vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If we end up calling it something like "Arizona immigration law" we could be in trouble if they pass a new one. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 06:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have an exit strategy if the bill is deemed to be unconstitutional? How will we re-write it? Travis in travisland ( talk) 01:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I stated, “A person arrested for violation of this section cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status ...” [emphasis added], taking the interpretation of “Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.” advanced by Arizona in the hearings. Judge Bolton has given it the literal meaning any person arrested for anything. Her injunction obviously isn't the final word, but for now, she's calling the shots, so perhaps we should accordingly change the wording in this article to the literal language of the Act. Would we then need to clarify that, yes, it apparently did include any person arrested for anything? JeffConrad ( talk) 03:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed to the literal wording; I've put a comment next to that wording, but not attempted explanation of the potential ambiguity. If we think that's needed, we probably should cover it in an expanded discussion of Judge Bolton's preliminary injunction, if we think that's needed. JeffConrad ( talk) 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
repeatably this has been removed. I really dont know why
this is a direct quote from source
"It isn’t clear, for example, whether shelter employees could be fined for driving an undocumented woman to court to get a restraining order against her abuser.
“We could be charged for transporting someone without documents,” Castro said. "
here is the source http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/immigration-issue-hurting-domestic-violence-victims
here is what was wrote One problem facing women shelters is that it is possible they could face fines are criminal charges for driving victims of domestic abuse to court houses to get restraining orders
please explain your logic for removal. Travis in travisland ( talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have with this material is that a lot of it is speculation about what will happen in the future, which seems like a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The title of the section is "Impact", which means things that have already happened. Thus, I think it's appropriate to include that women have already begun avoiding domestic abuse hotlines and shelters for fear of deportation, because that has happened. The rest, who knows what will happen? This concern also applies to the previous paragraph about H1-B visas and students and the like. I originally added that material, but now I think it should go. If and when these problems do occur due to the law, then the Impact section should begin including them. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The exceptions for the provision of the Act that bars transportation of illegal aliens make no sense without the 90 Days to Phoenix citation, so I removed them. I've included them under Provisions, where they should have been all along. The wording there may still need some work. JeffConrad ( talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else find this wording a little non-neutral? Travis in travisland ( talk) 02:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
for a long time the tag "race-related legal issues" was there. Over the last two days it got removed. If you check the logs you can see it was there. Why not put it back? Travis in travisland ( talk) 14:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Chandler roundup is very simular to this bill in many ways
Cocaine Sentincing section doesnt even mention the accusations of racial bias in enforcement. Also, notice that there is nothing in the cocaine laws that demand a racial bias.
The Tawana Brawley case involved an individual falsely accusing others of rape. Not a government law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
Daniels case involved a claim of racial bias in police enforcement. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
The Kin-Yip chun incident involved the hiring allegedied hiring policies of a univeristy ot a law that was settled out of court. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
Duke Lacross case involved yet another false accusation of race. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
Pigford v. Glickman was a case of alleged racial bias in farm loans that was settled out of court. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
I am not saying there aren't listings that clearly do belong in this section, what I am saying is that give the fact that these other listing exist this bill does fit the category. Since day one there have been accusations of racism in this bill's drafting, intended purpose, and groups it targets. Travis in travisland ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that regular readers (non-editors) never pay any attention to WP categories, so this debate is a lot over a little. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Delldot, what's more I important to you, that we adhere to verifiability and npov or that this Act be included ass a race based legal item?- 166.137.141.70 ( talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
166..., it is important to me to be verifiable and neutral, but I don't think that's necessarily at odds with having this cat. That the law is race-related and that it's not are both valid opinions. That some members of a target group support or oppose a given issue is immaterial. I think this article should be covering the main dialog that is occurring around this issue (and it does). Let's try to address this question without maligning supporters or opponents, or trying to read into their motivations (as I've said, I think it's likely that both sides are sincere). delldot ∇. 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not seeing this as productive, so I'm not going to be involved in the discussion any more. I urge you all not to edit war over this, lest we be WP:LAME. Travis, please don't reinsert the category. 166..., please don't get into an edit war with Travis. If this degenerates into reverting each others' edits, you're both going to be blocked for edit warring. Please see WP:Edit war. I'm available for help with editing questions but the issue of this category is not important enough to cause any of us trouble. delldot ∇. 16:13, 31 July 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 |
i removed this sentence. The article cited as a source is quoted exactly so right there seems like a copyright problem. Also, the article really doesnt prove that fact at all. It just says it with no study, quotes, or anything else to back it up. Here is the article that was cited as a source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36617_Page2.html
Travis in travisland ( talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
One or more editors have apparently been removing all mention of ACTUAL boycotts against Arizona as a direct result of the bill. The article now says only that "boycotts were proposed" in both the lead section and in the boycott section. Whether or not the editors agree with the boycott by the City of Los Angeles and others, to remove all mention of it is very deceptive. I shall now try to restore it. Facts707 ( talk) 08:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Some current discussion I've sparsely overheard is the constitutionality of said boycotts. Various court decisions have been mentioned ( Dean Milk v. City of Madison (1951)) for example) indicating that any interstate commerce interference is not allowed. Perhaps this can help someone with some time find some reliable sources, if they exist at the current time. I'm not sure where to look, myself. (Not a lawyer :) 70.162.140.134 ( talk) 06:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
original wording "This was due to their having established, powerful Hispanic communities, deep cultural ties to Mexico, past experience with bruising political battles over the issue (such as with California Proposition 187 in the 1990s), and the perception among their populations that illegal immigration was less severe a problem."
new wording This was attributed to their having established, powerful Hispanic communities, deep cultural ties to Mexico, past experience with bruising political battles over the issue (such as with California Proposition 187 in the 1990s), and the perception among their populations that illegal immigration was less severe a problem.
I know it sounds like weasel wording, but I stand by this. The source provided is a dead-link, so we dont know how much effort they went into to verify these claims. If someone could produce a nice study showing these were the causes of the symptoms listed then fine, but in the meantime it just sounds like a Ad hominem circumstantial. Travis in travisland ( talk) 17:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
After many heated encounters with propaganda-type rubbish about AZ SB1070, I read the Wikipedia article. I expected the article to begin with an exact quotation of the law, but instead read a description of (and many references to) it, followed by copious positive and negative criticism. "...The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens..."-- W8IMP ( talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have much difficulty determining how a driver's license suffices to prove citizenship. In '04 my son bought a bus ticket to attend a conference in Toronto. When he attempted to board the bus, the driver told him to go home and get a birth certificate. Customs Canada would not let him into the country based on his Michigan driver's license, which proves residence, but not citizenship.
Reading the article, one cannot determine what forms of identification constitute proof of citizenship. The article implies that Arizona considers a driver's license or state I.D. issued by that state and "...other forms of identification which require proof of citizenship..." as sufficient proof, but gives no way to determine which government entities do, (or do not) require such proof.
When we obtained New Mexico drivers' licenses, no one asked us for proof of citizenship. (By the way, I would rather share the road with "illegals" who have any kind of driver's license than with people who have not demonstrated the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle). If I am in Arizona after SB 1070 goes into effect and pulled over in Tucson (a city I frequently visit) and cannot produce a birth certificate or passport, am I going to jail?-- W8IMP ( talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"...IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."
This article should be split as more than half the article now is about reaction to SB1070 rather than describing what SB1070 is. I recommend that the article be split into an article on "SB1070 Reaction" (including pro (such as the fact that over half a million dollars has been donated to a defense fund) and con (such as all the lawsuits brought against SB1070)) and an article on SB1070 (describing what exactly it is and isn't). -03:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 ( talk)
The section says that the ACLU criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause. But the article is completely mute on how exactly the ACLU believed the statute violates the Supremacy Clause. Kobach believes the law embodies the doctrine of concurrent enforcement, but the article says nothing about why he believes this. Really, the only thing in the article section is "bitch, bitch, bitch". Beyond saying (paraphrased), "people disagree with regards to the Supremacy Clause and concurrent enforcement", the section is vaporous - there's no information here which can't be gained after about a 5 second google search.- 65.185.178.220 ( talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the second sentence in the paragraph that now begins “Between 2000 and 2008 ...” is a bit of a non-sequitur. But it's even worse if the first sentence is eliminated. Perhaps we should begin with the reason the topic is even mentioned; quoting the source, “It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement.” Obviously, we'd need to reword or provide context for “connection”. JeffConrad ( talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've put the section in question back to where it was before this discussion. Although I think it needs work, it's at least correct, if perhaps not the entire story.
Although Archibold's statements seem to be correct, I agree that they may not tell the entire story. A comprehensive treatment could be quite lengthy; we'd need to resolve whether the 2008 and 2000 figures are directly comparable, and we'd need to make clear whether we're talking about violent crime (apparently the basis for Maguire's claims) or overall crime. Assuming we can resolve the validity of the 2000 vs. 2008 “rural” figures, we perhaps could say something to the effect of “while there has been a decrease in crime rates statewide and in major cities, there has been a significant increase in the crime rate in rural areas”, giving whatever figures we find are appropriate. If we cannot confirm that the 2000 and 2008 figures are directly comparable, I think we need to either stick with Archibold's statement or perhaps remove this material, including the second sentence, altogether. In any event, if we keep this material, we need an additional sentence or two to provide context—as it stands, it's a non-sequitur. JeffConrad ( talk) 09:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Having read the articles listed I find the wording on wikipedia to be slanted. A single politician introducing a bill that is rejected is not an entire state considering it. It is the actions of one person. Travis in travisland ( talk) 16:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Was toying with the idea of writing a Native American issue section. To go over issues such as: the possibility of Native Americans being profiled as Mexicans, history of laws dividing the white population from non-white population in Arizona, tribal identification cards not being considered a valid ID, national sovereignty being violated to enforce this Proclamation etc. Thoughts comments? Travis in travisland ( talk) 06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Arizona law raises fear of racial profiling". Associated Press. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4nY72M0hFVOHUzIrqYpD67DoBxgD9F9PCN82.
Is used extensively throughout this article, but is, in fact, a dead link and, so, it's veracity is impossible to determine.- 65.185.178.220 ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There's been some discussion about the wording of the lead--see these edits. This talk page seems to be visited often enough; perhaps some of you care to weigh in and maybe find a compromise. I personally think the earlier version (restored by Seb) is better, but I also (personally) think that the IP's edits are good-faith, if persistent. But they have not reverted again, and I think have shown good faith on my talk page. So, I leave it to the good people of the community, and possibly to the editors in question. (And Seb, I hope it's OK with you if I remove the warning from their page--we all know now how we feel. Thanks.) Drmies ( talk) 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be included. It shows the rising trend of neo-nazism in the american mid and south west. Neo-nazism that lead to this bill's creation to begin with. Thoughts comments? Travis in travisland ( talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
In attempt to keep the peace, I've added citations of specific sections of SB 1070 to the second paragraph in the lead section. The citations are redundant, because we already include them in the section Provisions. But I suppose they do provide guideposts for those who want to verify that we have it right and don't want to read the whole article. My heart would not be broken if others think they add too much clutter and decide to remove them.
I removed the mention of allowing enforcement of federal immigration law because the Act doesn't really say that; rather, I think that passage was just another way of saying that the Act bars state or local officials or agencies from limiting enforcement of federal immigration law. Arizona peace officers already had the authority to enforce the criminal provisions of federal law, from the U.S. Code and confirmed by Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In the interest of keeping the lead simple, I didn't include “to less than the full extent permitted by federal law”, which, for practical purposes, limits enforcement to criminal provisions. I'd rather keep it simple and rely on the Provisions section for the details, but I won't object if someone insists that we add the qualifier. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok this debate has already happened on this page several times already. Maybe this time we can get it right and work out some sort of comprimise.
There are a great deal of people who believe that this law is inherently racist against people who are not Caucasian. In the interests of full disclosure I will admit that I do feel this way, however I believe I am capable of still being neutral on this subject. With that being said I believe that the question boils down to "Does this law have a racist component that is large enough to mention, and if so how best to go about it?" Do we at least all agree on the question? I do not purpose any changes until this debate is over, and will not be the one to start. Travis in travisland ( talk) 04:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. "[24] While the U.S. and Arizona constitutions ordinarily prohibit use of race as a basis for a stop or arrest, the U.S. and Arizona supreme courts have held that race may be considered in enforcing immigration law. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the U.S. Supreme Court found: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.”[96] The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.”[97] Both decisions say that race alone, however, is an insufficient basis to stop or arrest."
Also notice that the law in its current form makes no mention of accent at all. Now since we are trying to be civil here I ask very nicely that you stop using terms like "carpetbagging liberals" There are many other places online where you can express your support for this bill. Travis in travisland ( talk) 20:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, I'll stop using the term "carpetbagging liberal" when you stop using the term "racist". Like you said, there are plenty of other places on the web where you can express your disfavor of this bill.- 65.185.178.220 ( talk) 11:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This was thrown in @ random... might be interesting, but where to put it?
Comparison to similar law in Rhode Island A July 8, 2010 editorial in the conservative Canada Free Press stated, " Rhode Island has been carrying out the procedures that are at issue in Arizona concerning immigration statutes for quite a while and doing quite nicely, thank you very much indeed. Obama says there is a federal preemption issue, if that is true then why haven’t he and Holder sued Rhode Island, and the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet?" [1]
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the original material about Joe Arpaio. I had objected to a later revision that seemed quite POV, and more importantly, only marginally related to the topic of this article. Because Arpaio has been a major player in the call for tougher enforcement, I think his opinion is relevant, provided that we stay on topic. If others disagree, though, I won't argue that we need to keep this material. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have is with the word "tough" which isnt neutral and the lack of mention of the fact that he is constantly being sued successfully over his "tough" policies. A great deal of this article deals with accusations of racial bias and here we are ignoring the fact that a man who has been enforcing this law on his own for years has been sued over it multiple times. Travis in travisland ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
With the recent flurry of news stories about the law soon going into effect and the federal suit against it, I've noticed that 'SB 1070' is more frequently than ever the term that news sources use to refer to it as (if they say anything more specific than just 'Arizona's new immigration law'). So I re-ran my Google News test, covering the past month:
That's a 170:1 ratio. Talk about a violation of
WP:COMMONNAME!! The article name should be changed back to
Arizona SB 1070, where it started. And besides being much more commonly used, it's also a good deal more neutral.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
While fixing the redirects, I discovered someone redirected Juan Crow to this page. Tagged it for vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If we end up calling it something like "Arizona immigration law" we could be in trouble if they pass a new one. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 06:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have an exit strategy if the bill is deemed to be unconstitutional? How will we re-write it? Travis in travisland ( talk) 01:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I stated, “A person arrested for violation of this section cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status ...” [emphasis added], taking the interpretation of “Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.” advanced by Arizona in the hearings. Judge Bolton has given it the literal meaning any person arrested for anything. Her injunction obviously isn't the final word, but for now, she's calling the shots, so perhaps we should accordingly change the wording in this article to the literal language of the Act. Would we then need to clarify that, yes, it apparently did include any person arrested for anything? JeffConrad ( talk) 03:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed to the literal wording; I've put a comment next to that wording, but not attempted explanation of the potential ambiguity. If we think that's needed, we probably should cover it in an expanded discussion of Judge Bolton's preliminary injunction, if we think that's needed. JeffConrad ( talk) 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
repeatably this has been removed. I really dont know why
this is a direct quote from source
"It isn’t clear, for example, whether shelter employees could be fined for driving an undocumented woman to court to get a restraining order against her abuser.
“We could be charged for transporting someone without documents,” Castro said. "
here is the source http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/immigration-issue-hurting-domestic-violence-victims
here is what was wrote One problem facing women shelters is that it is possible they could face fines are criminal charges for driving victims of domestic abuse to court houses to get restraining orders
please explain your logic for removal. Travis in travisland ( talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have with this material is that a lot of it is speculation about what will happen in the future, which seems like a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The title of the section is "Impact", which means things that have already happened. Thus, I think it's appropriate to include that women have already begun avoiding domestic abuse hotlines and shelters for fear of deportation, because that has happened. The rest, who knows what will happen? This concern also applies to the previous paragraph about H1-B visas and students and the like. I originally added that material, but now I think it should go. If and when these problems do occur due to the law, then the Impact section should begin including them. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The exceptions for the provision of the Act that bars transportation of illegal aliens make no sense without the 90 Days to Phoenix citation, so I removed them. I've included them under Provisions, where they should have been all along. The wording there may still need some work. JeffConrad ( talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else find this wording a little non-neutral? Travis in travisland ( talk) 02:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
for a long time the tag "race-related legal issues" was there. Over the last two days it got removed. If you check the logs you can see it was there. Why not put it back? Travis in travisland ( talk) 14:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Chandler roundup is very simular to this bill in many ways
Cocaine Sentincing section doesnt even mention the accusations of racial bias in enforcement. Also, notice that there is nothing in the cocaine laws that demand a racial bias.
The Tawana Brawley case involved an individual falsely accusing others of rape. Not a government law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
Daniels case involved a claim of racial bias in police enforcement. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
The Kin-Yip chun incident involved the hiring allegedied hiring policies of a univeristy ot a law that was settled out of court. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
Duke Lacross case involved yet another false accusation of race. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
Pigford v. Glickman was a case of alleged racial bias in farm loans that was settled out of court. Once again not a law, not a bill, and not a regulation.
I am not saying there aren't listings that clearly do belong in this section, what I am saying is that give the fact that these other listing exist this bill does fit the category. Since day one there have been accusations of racism in this bill's drafting, intended purpose, and groups it targets. Travis in travisland ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that regular readers (non-editors) never pay any attention to WP categories, so this debate is a lot over a little. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Delldot, what's more I important to you, that we adhere to verifiability and npov or that this Act be included ass a race based legal item?- 166.137.141.70 ( talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
166..., it is important to me to be verifiable and neutral, but I don't think that's necessarily at odds with having this cat. That the law is race-related and that it's not are both valid opinions. That some members of a target group support or oppose a given issue is immaterial. I think this article should be covering the main dialog that is occurring around this issue (and it does). Let's try to address this question without maligning supporters or opponents, or trying to read into their motivations (as I've said, I think it's likely that both sides are sincere). delldot ∇. 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not seeing this as productive, so I'm not going to be involved in the discussion any more. I urge you all not to edit war over this, lest we be WP:LAME. Travis, please don't reinsert the category. 166..., please don't get into an edit war with Travis. If this degenerates into reverting each others' edits, you're both going to be blocked for edit warring. Please see WP:Edit war. I'm available for help with editing questions but the issue of this category is not important enough to cause any of us trouble. delldot ∇. 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)