Talk:Arizona SB 1070

What are we actually discussing?

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'm not quite sure what the point is here; are you suggesting we include the entire texts of both bills? The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize rather than include entire texts of laws, court opinions, or whatever; were it otherwise, the key points would often get lost in the clutter. From the beginning, I think we've provided adequate links to the official texts, and where appropriate, directed the reader to specific sections. If it's thought that we've omitted mention of a key provision of either SB 1070 or HB 2162, then that omission should probably be addressed by expanding the section Provisions. JeffConrad (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The article's introduction is meant to cover the entire topic of the law, from what it does to all the reactions it has produced. The first section in the article's body, "Provisions", is meant to describe what the law actually says, with no opinions or reactions included. That section does contain a few quotes of the law's text, but as JeffConrad says, it has to be a summary description of the law rather than quote large chunks. There are five or more links at the bottom of the article to the law's actual text, so I don't think anyone can miss the opportunity to read it for themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks--I stand corrected. My criticism of the article was that after reading a dozen of the 172 footnotes, I incorrectly concluded that there was no link to the laws as enacted. I went back and found both links under the "References" section. I never spent one minute in a law school classroom, but I found the language much less arcane than the typical pile of real estate closing documents. Having read the laws, I feel sufficiently capable of holding an opinion on them. President Truman once said, "Our government should never be so complicated that anyone with a high school education cannot understand it."--W8IMP (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Who are citizens?

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)

Our charter is to describe the law, not comment on it. Many people have suggested that there may be problems, and perhaps Constitutional issues, in applying the law; all we can do is see what, if anything, happens and describe it at such time as may be appropriate. Note, however, that the law says only that certain documents are presumptive evidence of not violating the law; it does not say that anyone who cannot prove citizenship will be arrested. An arrest can be made only if a peace officer has probable cause that a person detained for some other reason

1. Is an alien,
2. Who is required to register and carry registration documents, and
3. Is not in possession of the required registration documents.

As we've discussed previously, no one yet knows what will constitute reasonable suspicion to inquire about immigration status, or probable cause to arrest for violating the statute. We can't address this topic until there is some actual experience with implementation of the law. JeffConrad (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd that the government made a law that it doesnt know how to interpret or enforce. Well, I guess it will be open to the "peace" officer in charge to arbitrary enforce the law he sits fit. Travis in travisland (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What is proof of citizenship?

"...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."

Can one take this to mean that every law enforcement officer in the State of Arizona will have a complete list of what forms of identification constitute legal presence?--W8IMP (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, we're not here to interpret the law. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The training materials developed by AZPOST (Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board) include a document, Presumptive Identification, listing forms of presumptively acceptable identification. JeffConrad (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Split Article

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)

I'd rather not split it. Readership of the article is already low given its national prominence, and split out articles always get a lot fewer views than the main. And the name would have to be Reactions to the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, which is beyond awkward. In part the article is long because it's being written as events happen, and it's impossible to know how they will turn out and what will be important in the long run. The article can be reshaped in the future once things are better understood. But anyway, thanks for the mention of the donations mark, I've included it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The most common term for this act is SB1070. So, the article on it's reactions would be "SB1070 Challenges". The article, as is, is very confusing. For example, since the majority of the article focuses on reaction to the act and -not- on what the act actually says, if the article is skimmed, it is not at all clear that SB1070 prohibits racist application. Further, the training for SB1070 isn't referenced at all and, so, neither is the fact that law enforcement is trained not to apply it in a racist manner. -17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk)

I would like the article to go back to its prior name of "Arizona SB1070", but I lost all the name discussions. The very first section of the article, "Provisions", describes what the article actually says, with no reactions for or against. Even a skimmer should see that. Whether the article will in practice preclude racist application is somewhat that will be known after it goes into effect and experience with it is gained. As for your final comment, the training for SB1070 is referenced: "She [Brewer] vowed to ensure that police forces had proper training relative to the law and civil rights,[2][45] and soon said she would issue an executive order requiring additional training for all officers on how to implement SB 1070 without engaging in racial profiling;[46] the order was issued on April 23, 2010.[47] Ultimately, she said, "We have to trust our law enforcement."[2]" Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The training isn't being discussed (you do know that the actual training videos have been released, yes? and that they emphasize that the law is not to be enforced in a racially biased manner?), only Brewer's promises about the training are mentioned. There is, in fact, more weight given in this article to criticism that the law is racist than is given to the fact that the training emphasizes that the law is not to be enforced in a racist manner, that the law makes clear that race can't be a factor in developing reasonable doubt, that even the US Government isn't bringing claims of racism against the law in court, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk • contribs) -14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ WT: Splitting the article makes no sense - separating the actual provisions of the law from the reactions invites a barrage of POV in the latter w/o a possibility of pointing to the section above and saying "read what the law actually says". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a barrage of POV in the article as is as well as undue weight on criticism/boycotts/lawsuits/amicus curiae/etc. against SB1070. I still don't understand what the difference is suppossed to be between the Reaction section and the Challenges to Legality and Constitutionality section and both of those sections together count for the overwhelming majority of the article (undue weight).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk • contribs) -14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that splitting the article makes little sense. Though much of the article covers the reaction to the law, absent that reaction, the law would not be sufficiently notable to merit an article, as we've previously discussed. Incidentally, I'm fine with changing the title of this article to “Arizona SB 1070”, even though it's a bit misleading because the changes resulting from HB 2162 are important. Perhaps “Arizona SB 1070/HB 2162”, as is used in some places in the AZPOST training videos, would be another possibility (as I recall, the solidus is now OK in a title).

It might be worth adding mention of the AZPOST training materials and including a link (http://www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm). The best bang for the buck is probably in Arizona Immigration Statutes Outline, an 11-page PDF. The direct-view video is slow to load and the size is quite small; the downloads from the FTP site are better, but are fairly large at close to 600 MB. If the training materials are mentioned, I think the article should avoid passing judgment; although the videos speak often of avoiding racial profiling, they've already received a fair amount of criticism for some of the things that might lead to reasonable suspicion (e.g., inability to give a home address—recall our previous discussion of this in light of A.R.S. 13-2412). JeffConrad (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I really think the reason readership of this article is really low is that Wikipedia has a reputation for being untrustworthy on political issues. This article is a good example of why. As was pointed out, this article primarily is about the reaction to the act, not the act itself (that is to say, the article gives undue weight to the reaction - by word count percentage, the article is primarily discussing reaction to the act). For example, most of the discussion on alleged racism is describing what critics have said of the act, not what the act and supporting legislation actually says, what the training materials actually say, etc. The article is disorganized and repeats criticism of the act. It doesn't discuss many significant components to any real depth (such as the idea of concurrent enforcement). Largely, the article is a shambles. I don't go to Wikipedia to find out about political issues because Wikipedia isn't reliable. -16:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk)

It's getting difficult for me to see what this has to do with splitting the article ... As to not saying enough about what the law actually says, what significant elements have been left out? And what else should be said about concurrent enforcement? I agree that we don't discuss it at length, but should we? We mention the key case on that topic, Gonzales v. City of Peoria, which also seems to be the one to which the training videos allude (they don't mention the case by name). I suppose we could examine how other circuits have ruled if that's felt necessary, but that would seem to approach a topic that actually might belong in a separate article.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (“~~~~”) as called for just below the ‘Save page’ button. JeffConrad (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Look at the concurrent enforcment section. There's very, very little signal to noise.

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)

Again, it gets down to how much this article should include about topics such as “concurrent enforcement”. One easy option would be to include Kris Kobach's direct comments as an additional source, (e.g., this article at the National Law Journal web site. I agree that the ACLU press release is a bit vague, though the updated version (to which I've changed the link) is slightly better. JeffConrad (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is the question of how much this article should address why some people believe that SB1070 does or does not embody the concept of concurrent enforcement. I think that question's answer is pretty clear. In as much as we've decided to put in the article that there is a debate, we should describe the nature of that debate.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Crime rates in Arizona

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)

If you want to go that route, then the quote really isn't relevant because the author of the piece was looking at metro crime rates, not border crime rates. Border crime rates have -increased-, not decreased, from 2000 to 2008 (see http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/06/on-the-border.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The JustOneMinute blog hardly qualifies as a reliable source, and in any event, it doesn't support your contention.

Again, please sign your posts with four tildes. JeffConrad (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The JustOneMinute blog was put in the Discussion page (not the article) for clarity - for your own education. The FBI statistics it references are reliable, though.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The FBI statistics are presumptively reliable, but they don't support the premise that border crime has increased. While I agree with the blogger that border areas are probably rural, it does not follow that all rural areas are on the border. The current statement that crime in Arizona decreased between 2000 and 2008 is true; there has been a slight increase in crime rates in non-MSA cities, and a significant increase in rural areas, but without more information, we can't relate it to the border or illegal aliens. Moreover, only about 4% of the population live in rural areas, so to make a big deal of this without qualification or more information would be misleading. I suppose if it's really felt important, we could mention that rural crime has increased, but crime for MSAs and the state overall have decreased; even then, I think we'd need to mention that 93% of the population reside in MSA cities.

As I said previously, this section needs some work, probably a couple of sentences to give more continuity to the flow of ideas. JeffConrad (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You said and I quote, "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.'" I pointed out that alonog the majority of the border, the crime rate has actually -increased-. In reply, "to make a big deal of this without qualification or more information would be misleading". I agree. and for the EXACT same reason, making a big deal of the reduction in crime rates in metro areas (as you've done by reinserting the quote under discussion) without qualification or more information is similarly misleading.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article and Archibold state (correctly) that overall crime has decreased, and the article makes no statement about border crime. You claim that border crime has increased but cite nothing in support, so I don't know that the current wording needs qualification. JeffConrad (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the border isn't in the metro area. That's too obvious a point to have to point out to you. The majority of the border is in the rural area. Again, too obvious a point to have to point out to you. The rural area has seen a growth in the crime rate (as per the FBI statistics). Therefore, the majority of the border has seen a growth in crime rate (as per FBI statistics). This is grade school level logic. Help me understand why you aren't grasping it.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look at a map. Most of the major MSAs are in the southern part of the state, and Tucson, the second-largest MSA, is only about 50 miles from the border. The vast majority of the state's rural area is to the north. Absent county-by-county statistics, there is nothing to support a claim that border crime has increased. If you have reliable additional information, state it, but don't cite the FBI statistics as supporting what they do not support. JeffConrad (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that I honestly didn't expect someone to argue that since there's a metro area fifty miles from the border, that must mean that the majority of the border area is metro. I mean, wow! -166.132.209.254 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you carefully reread what I actually said. The majority of the state's rural area is in the north of the state, not near the border. Without a county-by-county breakdown, we don't know the crime rates for specific rural areas. This discussion is becoming absurd. We have supported what's in the article with a presumptively reliable source. If someone who disagrees can provide an equally reliable source that shows otherwise, it's reasonable to use it; otherwise, this discussion has run its course. JeffConrad (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are four metro areas "close" (within 50 miles) to the border. These are Siera Vista (153.5 suare miles), Nogales (20.8) square miles, Yuma (106.7 square miles), and Tuscan (880 square miles). That's a total square mileage of 1161 square miles. Basic geometry, divide that by 50 miles (the height of the area we're looking at), and you end up with a border about 23.22 miles in length if the area near the border is all metro. The border would have to be less than 47 miles in length if half the area was metro. Grade school math shows that the huge majority of the border area is rural - and, like I said, in rural areas, the crime rate is increasing.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I already sent one warning to your talk page. Please refrain from this "grade school math"-phrasing and similar attacks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A warning for what, though? You think it's wrong to point out that grade school math teaches Area = length * height or basic addition? The fact is, though, that any grade schooler can do basic geometry. I know I was doing it by the fifth grade.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are implying that those who disagree with you are incapable of such calculations. Please stop. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I don't know if they are incapable of such calculations, if they are willingly resisting doing such calculations, if they are just being distracted by everyday life, or something else. All I'm saying is that these kinds of calculations can be done by any grade schooler.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by where you think I said the border area was not rural; I simply said that because the major MSAs are in the southern part of Arizona, the vast majority of the state's rural area is north of the major MSAs. Without looking at a map that shows all areas that are not MSA cities and not non-MSA cities, it's tough to be sure, but I would guess that the vast majority of border areas are rural. “Border area”, of course, is a subset of “rural area”, so we can probably say that all border areas are rural, but we can't say that all rural areas are border areas. This is simple logic at whatever level you're comfortable with. Because we don't have a breakdown of crime within rural areas, we don't know whether crime rates in border areas are higher than, less than, or the same as the rates for all rural areas in the state. JeffConrad (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits of 17 July 2010

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.

• The wording implied large increases in property crime rates in non-MSA cities and rural areas. But the stated rates apply only to violent crime; property crime rates have apparently decreased by anywhere from 9% to 23% (depending on what is compared) in non-MSA cities, and have apparently increased by 21% in rural areas, assuming the 2000 and 2008 data for the latter can be compared (see below).
• An op-ed seems mighty questionable as a reliable source, especially when it cites nothing to support its statements.
• The op-ed links to Tom Maguire's JustOneMinute blog, so apparently that is the actual source, and it should be indicated as such. But that blog hardly qualifies as a reliable source either, and it is extremely POV. Additionally, Maguire makes the unsupported claim that if rural crime is up, so is border crime, so I seriously question his suitability as a reference here.
• Maguire's blog cites FBI statistics, which presumably are reliable. But the FBI's rural statistics for 2000 (“rural”) are stated slightly differently than those for 2008 (“nonmetropolitan counties”); the areas encompassed may be the same, or they may not, so I don't know if the comparison is valid. I think we need to be sure before making the comparison; after a quick review of the explanatory documents on the FBI web site, I've been unable to resolve it. In any event, the burden of proof falls upon the editor adding the material.

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)

Every argument you've made against the FBI statistics for rural areas applies equally to the statistics for metro areas. Therefore, if you are going to remove the statistics on the rural areas, you should remove the statistics on the metro areas as well. That would be neutral and I would consider it acceptable.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement we had was for the entire state of Arizona, not the metro areas. And it was supported by the NY Times article, a presumptively reliable source.

Bloggers, especially those as opinionated as Maguire, aren't reliable sources. If we were to attempt a breakdown by area, perhaps we could directly cite the FBI data, but we'd need to synthesize the overall numbers, and I don't know if we can go that far without getting into original research.

There is another, and arguably greater, issue, however: the data show a decline in the population of both non-MSA cities and a significant decline in population in rural areas, which makes no sense. Something in the methodology must have changed. I wasn't the only one to notice this; James Alan Fox made a more extensive analysis than Maguire in a blog on the Boston Globe site. The FAQ on the FBI UCR indicate a change in estimating population was made in 2007; but the sharp drop occurred in 2006, so something else is going on. Without a much better explanation, I don't think we can meaningfully compare the 2000 and 2008 data except perhaps for the state overall (presumably, any urban/rural redistribution wouldn't affect the overall state population). I still haven't resolved the “rural” vs “nonmetropolitan counties” issue (the change in description was made in 2003), but I'm not sure it's relevant.

Archibold makes the statement that “the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining”; the latter part appears supported by the data, but the former definitely is not. So while the statement we had was accurate, the source was misleading, so I've removed the statement. The rest of the paragraph seems a bit of a non-sequitur, but I've left it for now.

If it's felt necessary to include something about the crime rates, the only thing supportable is the overall rate for the state, which is backed by the NY Times article and is consistent with the FBI data. The breakdown is unsupported by a reliable source, and the FBI data suggest that the comparison attempted by Maguire may not even be possible, so we cannot include it in the article without a much better source to support it. JeffConrad (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the overall state statistics are meaningless without looking at how demographics have changed over time - specifically, whether populations are being concentrated into metro areas. Surely, you are familiar with Bayesian inference (god, I hope so, 'cause I don't want to have to dumb things down). And, while we're on the topic of Bayesian inference, it is just as true to say that we don't know how crime is distributed between metro areas as it is true to say that we don't know how crime is distributed between rural areas. That's what makes your comments along these lines so funny, because you insisted that we put the crime rates for metro areas in the article. Your self-serving double standard is painfully obvious.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're walking the civility-cliff by now, and the edge is getting "painfully" closer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Impact similar legislation

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)

Care to elaborate? I seem to be missing the entire context/meaning of this statement. What exactly would you like to see changed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow, either. JeffConrad (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys. In the impact section it lists off a bunch of states where clones of the bill have been purposed. The wiki article seems to hint that it is a big issue and near majority support is found in favor of it in various senates and houses. However, reading the actual links shows us that in most cases only 1 or 2 politicians actually introduced such legislation and in the all cases the legislation was quickly turned down. A single purposed bill that never even leaves committee is not only not worth mentioning but to label it with the generic term "introduced into the texas's legislation" doesn't do justice to how little backing the bill received. I guess its an example of being technically right but grossly misleading. Travis in travisland (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, there may be a grievance. The number of states that can be mentioned without a lawmakers' attribution are nill. We should be careful not to give them false titles, though. See my reversion of a so-called outgoing Governor. †TE†Talk 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean now. You have a point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Choyoo and ThinkEnemies and it's why I originally reverted this edit.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been agreed here that we should avoid giving false titles to the people supporting sb1070 legislation in other states. Further, Wikipedia takes a very dim view of providing unsourced biographical information about living people. Therefore, as per consensus, if we provide titles, we should source them. Travis in Travisland is seeking to edit war on this point. Such edit warring is counter-productive and should be stopped. I believe a good neutral poosition is not to provide titles, but to provide wikilinks to the articles for the respective politicians.-166.132.238.251 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING? Travis in travisland (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Native American Issues (purposed section)

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)

Yes, I was looking into that as well -- particularly the "mis-identification"-concerns; the ID-thing is not an issue here, tribal ID-cards are accepted. However, the Navajo Nation does not issue such cards. Trouble is, I couldn't find any WP:RS that address the issue. I could only write from hearsay and "personal interviews", which is not acceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a local newspaper or newsletter put out by the Navajo Nation in Arizona? Maybe that could be used. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

http://navajotimes.com/ -- I checked a month ago, nothing. Hold on... there's this: http://www.navajotimes.com/news/2010/0510/051310law.php Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good news and bad news. I talked to a few people on the wikipedia help page irc. The good news: you can conduct an interview. The bad news: It will have to be placed on wikinews which does do original research stuff. I guess we could workout some list of questions, you or someone else could do an interview, host it on wikinews, and maybe just a link on this page. What do you think? Travis in travisland (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much work for a minor issue. It's fishing for comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead Links

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)

Raw AP stories are always trouble, because they are longer than what usually gets published by their clients and because they expire at the Google site. I've replaced this one with two AP-based stories from the same period in the Washington Post and MSNBC that together cover most of the same territory. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead, anyone?

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)

The lead section is supposed to give an overview and summary of the entire article (see WP:LEAD). Referencing isn't needed, but can easily be supplied from the main body if anyone insists. What is not acceptable is removing over half of the content. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Some people seem to need a refresher on Wikipedia policy regarding lead sections. The following is a quote, "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." I am challenging the material in the lead. Again, "material that is challenged .. should be cited" and, no, citing the law itself doesn't work. The law is a primary source. You need a secondary source.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there's no problem with a primary source. From WP:Primary,

“Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.”

I'd say the bill text has been reliably published, and there isn't much mystery to what the law says; the current lead is concise summary, not an interpretation. The problem here with a secondary source (such as strong POV blogs that you seem to consider suitable sources) is that by selecting the source, almost any desired interpretation can be found. That's just the opposite of what we need. JeffConrad (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As was mentioned in Seb's talk page, we can not ignore verifiability simply because we are dealing with a lead. Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia and to -consistently- replace sourced material with unsourced material is a flagrant violation of that pillar. It is quite justifiably identified as vandalism. That being said, I believe the edit I will make in a few minutes will resolve that problem and render this a mute point.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording that Seb restored simply summarizes key points of the legislation that are further discussed (and sourced) elsewhere in the article. As Seb mentions, we could easily source it by adding a citation of the entire texts of SB 1070 and HB 2162, but this would add nothing to the article but needless clutter. The reverted wording was not only poorly written, but the statment “A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute” was not even correct because guilt requires a conviction, and the law says nothing about a federal conviction as a prerequisite for a state conviction. Moreover, the source used was secondary, whereas elsewhere in the article we've used the text of the bills on the Arizona legislature web site. The choice between the two versions is a no-brainer.

I'll not attempt to discern the IP editor's good/bad faith, but these edits strike me as having been solely for the sake of defiance rather than with the intent of improving the article. If they don't rise to vandalism, they're so close that the difference is infinitesimal. I think any further such edits without discussion and resolution here should be treated as vandalism. JeffConrad (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"for the sake of defiance"? I don't even know what that means. What, exactly, do you think I'm defying, somebody's ownership of the article? Article ownership is a violation of Wikipedia policy - you know that, right?-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You have by now shown through your actions that you have no interest in discussing anything, are rather intent on edit-warring and insulting/lecturing others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, and you are rapidly heading for a block. There is nothing in the material I just restored that differs from what we say under Provisions, and we source every statement there, guiding the reader to the specific sections of the legislation that contain the provisions. Exactly what in the statements that you gratuitously tagged do you dispute?

Defiance? It should be obvious that the changes you've repeatedly made do not represent consensus, yet you insist on making them. Please stop. JeffConrad (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean you can ignore policy.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What policy was ignored? From WP:LEADCITE,

“The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.”

Tag bombing isn't consensus. Policy is that a person who adds a tag explain the reason for adding the tag; you did not do so, despite being asked for a reason. Consequently, the tags were removed. If you still challenge the wording, I ask, again, what in the material you tagged do you dispute? JeffConrad (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

UTAH Letter

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)

it's too far off-topic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Way off topic and POV. JeffConrad (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that it has no connection? Travis in travisland (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually do. It only proves that these sentiments have existed before the law, and will (and would've) continue to exist after the law (or without it). The only thing that relates to the law is the general focus on these kinds of stories and the attention paid to it by the media right now. Apart from that, it's not like all of this suddenly popped up yesterday. I don't know where you sit, but it seems that the various IPs pestering us from NY or other places in New England woke up one morning and started screaming "ZOMG, WTF, there's racism in the Southwest! It was without any of that just yesterday!"... Naw. You need to carefully sort out what's actually new and belongs here, and what doesn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I am a liberal from NY, so sue me lol. I think this law has empowered them to speak louder then before. The various hate groups have decided that by picking on brown skinned immigrants they would have more success then cross burning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis in travisland (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Seb az86556. Illegal immigration has been a hot button issue for a number of years now across the nation, and this article is not responsible for portraying all of that, just what is materially related to the SB1070 law. The Utah incident is not. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Arizona land of the Klan?

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)

I do think that the immediately related events and persons are already mentioned in the article. See my comment in the section above. I do not think we need to throw in every instance of racism and/or neo-nazism into this article. Frankly, if we did, we would easily venture into a whole host of issues in the state and the region, beginning with Mormon supremacist thinking, Manifest Destiny, and the establishment of Phoenix itself, followed by Hwéeldi and other genocidal and ethnic cleansing-activities, and then top it off with the NRA and other loons; that would simply span the globe, and that's not what this article is about. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Didnt even think about the Mormon stuff. If I remember correctly they dont much care for off-white people other then Native Americans. Maybe I am wrong Travis in travisland (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We already say that one person called the law “racist”, and we properly mention it as an opinion, not a fact. I'm sure many of the editors here have strong feelings about the law, but this article isn't the place to express those opinions. I agree with Seb that we need to keep from venturing into la-la land; we've already been criticized for getting too far off topic. The more we drift, the less the value of the article to the reader.

As for Joe Arpaio: I'm sure many editors have opinions about him. But he's not the topic of this article. JeffConrad (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the Joe reference. Made it more neutral. Travis in travisland (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Illegal" is not a race. Carpetbagging liberals are working hard to pass this Act off as racist, but it's not. We've seen this sort of thing before. Liberal rushed to call the Duke rape a racist event. They rushed to call Officer Crowley a racist. Liberals using the racist claim are deliberately confusinng "Hispanic" with "Illegal" - confusing an entire race with a criminal behavior. It's insulting to Hispanics who have come to this country legally. Further, the Act specifically prohibits race from being used in any way to determine reasonable suspicion (in that case, the Act is actually -more- stringent than Federal law) and the training tapes make clear that race can't be used.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-read the article again. A person's race and accent are legally allowed to be used in determination of race. Now, that you have your neo-con blood rage out, perhaps you want to take a nice deep breath and ask yourself if it is even a tiny bit possible that there is a racist component in the support, drafting, or enforcement of this law. No one is talking about the duke rape but you, or officer Crowley that isnt being brought up, thats you trying to put your opponents in a box. Travis in travisland (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article again. I guess you meant, "a person's race and accent are legally allowed to be used in determination of reasonable suspicion", but that's a flat out lie. The article points out that, "On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[27]" The Act, in its current form, doesn't allow race as a consideration. Carpetbagging liberals continue to lie about what is actaully in the Act and many of the Act's most vocal liberal critics in politics hadn't even read the Act before they started criticizing it. Perhaps you want to take a nice deep breath and ask yourself if it is even a tiny bit possible that carpetbagging liberal talking heads are spinning the racist angle on this Act the exact same way these carpetbaggers spun the Duke rape case, the Crowley-Gates issue, the Tawanna Brawley issue, the OJ Simpson issue, and a very long list of other so-called "scandals". For the record, I'm not a Neo-Con. Neo-Con politics make me ill for almost the exact same reason that carpetbagging liberal scare mongers make me ill.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article again

"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)

Based on what you just said, you'd have a far better case if you argued that US law is racist since 1070 only allows race to be used to the extent that it is permissable by US law and the Arizona Supreme Court based it's decision on US law.

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)

Citations in lead section.

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)

domestic abuse

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)

Maybe you're linking to the wrong website. Can't find that quote. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough 3 second google search found another link. Travis in travisland (talk) 20:44, 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)

So, would the sentence (that is found in the article currently) "and Phoenix officials estimated that the city could lose up to $90 million in hotel and convention business over the next five years due to the controversy over the law" be considered WP:NOTCRYSTAL as well? Travis in travisland (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed material that was copied and pasted from the cited source without attribution as a source, a direct violation of WP policy. Additionally, 90 Days to Phoenix looks like a self-published blog, so it's mighty shaky as a source in the first place. If we want to mention the exceptions for CPS and first responders, we should directly cite Sec. 5 of SB 1070. JeffConrad (talk) 00:10, 20 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)

Joe Arpaio

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 full restoration is okay with me too. But I've changed the citing; the lost AP raw story has now been replaced by three client- stories. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 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)

He's been sued over racial bias multiple times, but I can't find any evidence that he's lost the court cases. Repeated frivolous law suits brought against a person for political reasons is hardly an indictment against that person.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Has your research shown the number of times out of court settlements were reached?67.246.175.103 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't looked at that. If you've got reliable sources on that, I'd like to see them. But, they belong in the Arpaio article, not this one.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything we say about Arpaio needs to be reliably sourced. Moreover, as I said above, we need to keep it on topic for this article. JeffConrad (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Provisions

I've slightly reworded this section to better describe what the law actually says, as well as follow the original chronology in each of the law's sections. Additionally,

• The enumeration symbols for the four types of presumptive identification seemed unnecessary and possibly distracting; moreover, they were potentially confusing because the bill uses numerical rather than alphabetical designations.
• The authority to arrest for probable cause derives from A.R.S. 13-883 rather than from Sec. 3 of SB 1070, so the reference (which I think I added) wasn't appropriate.

Sec. 6 of SB 1070 adds the authority to arrest for any offense that makes a person removable from the the United States. I've not added it because, as the AZPOST training materials point out,

• Few peace officers will know which offenses qualify.
• A peace officer already has the authority for a warrantless arrest for any misdemeanor or felony, so the added provision doesn't really change anything.

We can add this if it's felt necessary, but I think the more we add that's of marginal importance, the more difficult the reading becomes. If we do add it, we need to cite the right section.

Rhode Island

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?"

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

<banned user's sock redacted>

A newspaper editorial is not a WP:RS ... not even close. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds may sometimes be suitable, but only as opinion. This op-ed one is so far over the top (“The morons being led by Janet Napolitano ...”, and a few that go even further) that it fails WP:WEIGHT and probably other critera. Moreover, other than citing Estrada v. Rhode Island (1st Cir. 2010, in which the decision to disallow the suit on grounds of qualified immunity considered only whether the officer involved had violated clearly established law), the piece has little to say about what's being done in RI. I don't think think it merits inclusion. JeffConrad (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Another protest by me against the article title

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:

• Google News hits for "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act": 21
• Google News hits for Arizona SB 1070: 3,469

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)

(Striking the last part of this ... if the title were commonly used, the fact that it touts its own benefits wouldn't matter. That the name is so long and ridiculous, as noted below, is part of why it is rarely used by news sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

<banned user's sock redacted>

The suggestion certainly has some merit, and as I have previously indicated, I'm OK with either wording. The Act title is ridiculous, and reading it almost leaves me out of breath. It's common elsewhere to refer to legislation by the bill number; for example, the reference to “AB32” (or “AB 32”) is far more common than the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” (though WP doesn't seem to have a redirect).

One advantage of using the legislation's title is that this automatically includes any subsequent changes. What's unusual here is an amendment so soon after the initial legislation was enacted. But the changes made by HB 2162 are significant, and need to be included in any reasonable discussion of the law. Several places in the article, we properly mention “the Act” as amended by HB 2162, and we probably should continue with that practice if the title is changed. There is also the potential conflict with another SB 1070 in a subsequent legislative section, though the odds of one similarly noteworthy are probably low.

I had suggested “Arizona SB 1070/HB 2162”, as is done in some of the AZPOST training materials, but that doesn't seem to be finding much support, and it doesn't get many hits in Google search (I got either 2 or 5, depending on whether I included the spaces; without including “Arizona”, I got 51). JeffConrad (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been for moving it back to the old title ever since it was moved to this one. I can once again attest to the fact that, at least here in AZ, both in print and on TV, SB1070/"Es-bee-ten-seventy" is almost exclusively used. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we change the title (I'd keep the space in deference to official, and not uncommon media, practice), give the official title in the first sentence, and refer to “the Act” thereafter unless we're specifically talking about SB 1070 unmodified by HB 2162. If necessary, we could so state in the lead section after we've mentioned HB 2162. JeffConrad (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but “Arizona SB 1070/HB 2162” is simply too unwieldy (not to mention that the law may be modified still further, such as by executive order or by the courts striking down some provisions but keeping others). I also don't see anything wrong with referring to the law as SB 1070 in the article text, as is currently done in a bunch of places. I think the article can make clear that SB 1070 is both the widely-used common name for the whole law and the procedural name associated with one specific phase of its passage. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with “Arizona SB 1070” for the title (sorry I didn't make this more clear), and using it within the article when we specifically mean SB 1070. But I take issue with using that when we properly mean the Act, as amended by HB 2162 and whatever else. That many others commonly misstate it I don't dispute, but I don't think that justifies doing it here. The greatest drawback is the invitation for someone to simply read the actual text of SB 1070 that we've linked and assume that the obligation to investigate immigration status upon reasonable suspicion arising from any “lawful contact”, and the significant enhancements for possession of dangerous weapons, dangerous drugs, etc. I think we should take pride in being one of the few places that consistently get it right.

Changing the title should address the readership issue. Once the article has been found, I can't see how using “the Act” will throw off the reader; if nothing else, it's two syllables vs. six. JeffConrad (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Shall we tag the redirect then for move-delete? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. If we want to be strictly correct within the article, we probably should use past tense when referring to SB 1070, and present tense, in most cases, when referring to the Act provides. JeffConrad (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It apparently worked without tagging/deleting since there was no history. Now -- will the lead have to be reworded? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally, the description matching the title is given first, but must it be so? Several rewordings I'd thought of seemed a bit awkward, because

• The official title is, of course, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
• It was first introduced as Arizona Senate Bill 1070
• Everyone knows it as Arizona SB 1070

Shades of Rocky Raccoon ... Every rewording I envisioned with the title description mentioned first seemed awkward, because we'd need to start with that, move to either the second or third descriptions, and then indicate that the title description is the most common. And thereafter, we'll normally refer to the Act. I think I'm for seeing if it works as it stands. JeffConrad (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for going ahead and doing the move. The opening wording doesn't quite satisfy me, but like you, I haven't come up with a better formulation yet. I did add a footnote about the Google News hits, in order to support the assertion that Arizona SB 1070 is the common name. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 24 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)

Good catch! Yeah that should most likely be removed. Its funny, but definitely not neutral. I guess I could use it the next time there is a protest here "down with Juan Crow laws!" haha. The only possible reason I could see for keeping it is if someone would honestly mistake that as the title of the page. Which I dont see happening. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 07:14, 26 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)

and if the bill is over-ruled?

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'd say we cross that bridge when we come to it. It appears that many provisions will stand; for any that are voided, we simply so indicate, changing to past tense in some references if necessary. JeffConrad (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assume the various horrible legal battles about this bill will be added, making this article even longer. Travis in travisland (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has always included the legal battles around the law; no "will" about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who has a reputation for being tough, fair, and non-ideological

Does anyone else find this wording a little non-neutral? Travis in travisland (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Provisions: sweep of the immigration check upon arrest

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)

Yes more discussion of ruling is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.22.206.72 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

category removal

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)

because I checked the category, and it doesn't belong there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Does not belong. Is about immigration not race. Categories not place to make point.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.22.206.72 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So if it isnt about race how come the lawsuits are being launched by civil rights groups accusing the bill of racial bias? Travis in travisland (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked the page and was able to find no docs on what is and what isnt too be included in that list. How did you come to that conclusion? Travis in travisland (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that the cat is for laws which deal with race, such as prohibition of interracial marriage, the Nuremberg laws, and that stuff. SB1070 has absolutely nothing in it that says "people of XYZ racial group are hereby confined to ABC". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Chandler Roundup, Cocaine sentencing, Tawana Brawley rape allegations, Daniels, et al. v. the City of New York, the Kin-Yip Chun incident, Duke lacrosse case, and Pigford v. Glickman are also in that category list.

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)

And I would suggest that most of those examples be removed rather than this one added. I just haven't yet found the time to read them all... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Arent we getting a little off-track (my god how may times have I thought this of myself when editing this page, lol)? The page is what it is now. If we start editing that page just so we can exclude this page doesn't that involve arguing against precedent? The fact is on all these pages other editors have deemed them valid for inclusion. Now we find out as a result of this collective decision making process we need to include this article. So instead of going with majority we re-edit the whole page just to not include this. Travis in travisland (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably not worthwhile to examine other members of the category, since their presence there might be inappropriate (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Rather we should figure out on an individual basis whether a page belongs in the cat. 1070 is clearly a legal issue, so the question is whether it is race-related. Given that virtually all its supporters say it's not and virtually all its critics say it is, what do we do? I don't buy the argument that lack of overt racial language in the law means it has nothing to do with race--poll tax laws were written in "race neutral" language, but we all know they were written to target one race. I would say that the fact that this law has sparked a huge amount of discussion surrounding race and racial profiling would merit its inclusion. delldot ∇. 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I never understood that whole WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS stuff. The consensus has established already what is valid for inclusion in this category list. Question: Should I move this discussion to that page's talk page? Travis in travisland (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't move it, I think it's a good discussion to have here, because we're discussing the specifics of this law and whether it merits inclusion in this category. What do you think, Seb az86556, about my point that race neutral language does not make the law race neutral? And the fact of a great deal of race-related discussion around this law? delldot ∇. 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant copy it not move it. Travis in travisland (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

delldot, it's good to see someone new on this page. First of all, it shouldn't be assumed that exclusively those who favor the law say it's not a race-issue. As for what people say, people talk a lot; the race-related discussion around it comes from the "Nazi Arizona! Jan Brewer=Gestapo!"-crowd and gets picked up by the media. Just because someone wants to make it a race-issue to subsequently paint those who are for it as Nazis, doesn't mean it is a race-issue, and not in all instances should wikipedia pick up on this categorization (literally). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Just because the language is race neutral doesn't mean it isn't racist" and "just because it's critics call it racist doesn't mean it's race related" are two statements with equal veracity. We need a reliable, neutral source which says it's race-related if we're going to claim it is.-166.137.141.22 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The same neutral sources that said those other ones on the list were race-related? Travis in travisland (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying is that you are unable to provide a reliable source which is neutral and says this is a race related issue. Until you -are- able to provide such a source (forex. A reputable poll which says that supporters/detractors fall along race lines, evidence that both defense attorney and prosecutor call it a race issue, etc.). You're waisting everyone's time in te talk page.-166.137.143.132 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that I want the same standards of inclusion that were used on those pages to be used on this one. Fair is Fair and a consistent policy has already been established given the number of entries on the page and the length of time it has been around. Look for example on the Tawana Brawley Rape accusation page. An article that is included on this list. The adding took place on July 7th 2009. There is not a single word of discussion on the talk page, nor any evidence of an edit war.Travis in travisland (talk) 16:48, 30 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)

I agree it's not a super big deal, Wasted. But I think it's worth discussing if there are parties on both sides of the question that care. 166..., I think it will be tough to find any source that can be considered neutral by everyone. What kind of source do you have in mind? If we can find a NYT or Boston Globe article or something discussing the racial profiling concerns or something, would that do it? What other criteria would or would not work for folks here? Seb az86556, I agree that people talk a lot, but I'm not sure what metric we can apply to neutrally determine whether they're just talking or whether they have a point. Hence my feeling that if enough people are saying that it's race related, then it's race related by virtue of the dialog surrounding it. e.g. I'd say that's the case with the Rodney King beating. Maybe I'll hunt around and see what FAs do in this situation if there are any similar to this article. delldot ∇. 03:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree it's not *that* majorly important. On the other hand, framing something as a "race-related legal issue" when there's doubt is hot-button. I know there are already people beating the crap out of each other in Phoenix over this. So... Do what you like. It's not really that important. I just don't want this to be thrown into the same pot as Nazi legislation or Apartheid. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I dlo think it's important for three reasons; casually putting a lot of noise on the 'race-related legal issues' list diminishes the quality of that list, calling something 'racist' in order to discredit it is common and not npov, and wikipedia must always adhere to the three pillars and this breaks two of them. If it's not a big deal, then leave it off the list. As for acceptable sources which would allow us toput it on the list, examples of acceptable sources are listed in the last IP post following "forex".-166.137.140.18 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If we all care so much about the quality of the list why aren't us editors going through the list item by item, finding the ones we think don't belong, going to the respective pages and removing them? The question nearly answers itself; no one will do this because they will be forced to have much much larger arguments on the respective talk pages.

Yeah, I do acknowledge the phenomenon of calling something you don't support racist (but that may be that detractors do genuinely think something's racist, but their internal motivations are neither here nor there). Probably the reason the converse hasn't been brought up is that it's blindingly obvious: if you support legislation that does have to do with race, of course you're going to deny it. But again, those people may well be sincere in their beliefs. So I feel like we should abandon that line of inquiry because it's unhelpful to speculate about people's private motivations (and certainly not verifiable). That's why I've been advocating for calling it race-related if enough discussion is taking place about race around the issue. 166..., I think the "both prosecutor and defense" criterion is too strict, because it requires a very broad consensus--the defense is not going to agree that it's a race issue because that would hurt their case. Plus isn't that kind of arbitrary? What did you think of the question about an article that discusses the racial profiling aspects of the law? delldot ∇. 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For a law that has nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form in the slightest possible way (which is what is being hinted here strongly) race sure does come up often in it. I wonder why the drafters of the law went to such lengths to claim that it wasn't racial biased if it was so far from racists that they couldn't even imagine that anyone would consider it. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Race doesn't come up often in this laaw. Other than the statement that race won't be a sole criteria and will be used only to the extent allowable by federal law, race isn't mentioned stall.

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)

Hispanics support this law. ALRA is an example. Last night, Anderson Cooper was sinterviewing other Hispanics who support it - legal immigrants. The only people calling it "racist" are carpetbagging liberals and illegals and people who make money off of illegals.-166.137.141.70 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I really dont see what relevance a bunch of random Hispanics opinion matters one bit in this topic. As for your comment on the "illegals and people who make money off of illegals" maybe you want to review the nice wikipedia article on ad hominem attacks. This isnt the place to discuss the Hispanic view of the law Travis in travisland (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

break

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)

The law is not *explicitly* race related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.250.34.34 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither is the Tawana Brawley rape allegations, but yet it is still on the list. Travis in travisland (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)