Jump to content

Talk:Arizona SB 1070

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former good article nomineeArizona SB 1070 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Arizona SB1070, the state's new immigration enforcement law, has attracted national attention as the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in decades within the United States?
WikiProject iconLaw B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Arizona / Mexican-Americans B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Mexican-Americans task force (assessed as High-importance).

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. [01:17, July 21, 2010‎ JeffConrad]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Arizona SB 1070. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content from Secure Communities article

I removed the following content from the Secure Communities article as off-topic. Please review it for merging into the present article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On June 25, 2012, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the federal government's challenge to Arizona's 2010 immigration law. Arizona was the first state to pass a law concerned with immigration enforcement issues, based on the state's claims of the federal government's failure to fulfill its obligations and protect the state's interests in the area of immigration. Several other states have since followed suit adopting their own legislative efforts to enforce existing immigration law, and the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona's case is expected to affect also the validity of those laws.[1] The state laws have been criticized by the Obama administration as interfering with the government's constitutional domain of protecting the country's borders and controlling immigration.[2]

The court's split decision gave both sides a reason to claim a measure of victory. The law's provision regarded as central and most controversial was upheld unanimously, while the possibility of its further challenges was left open. The three remaining clauses were struck down as unconstitutional. The Arizona government will not be able to criminally penalize persons for seeking work, or for failing to register with the federal government. The police will not be able to make warrantless arrests based on their belief of the suspect's deportability under the federal law.[2] Immigrants will not be required to carry federal proof of their legal status.[3]

The "show me your papers" provision was sustained. It obliges state law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of a person stopped or arrested, if they have reasons to suspect him or her of being in the country illegally.[2]

"The state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law", and "detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns", wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, expressing the majority opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia vocally objected not only to the majority argument in the case, but also to the administration's immigration policies.[2]

President Obama expressed his fear that the provision accepted by the court may lead to racial profiling.[2]

References

  1. ^ Lance Griffin (2012-06-25). "Alabama weighs impact of Supreme Court rulings". Dothan Eagle. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
  2. ^ a b c d e Adam Liptak (2012-06-25). "Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
  3. ^ "US Supreme Court cuts parts of Arizona migrant law". BBC News. 2012-06-25. Retrieved 2012-09-03.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Arizona SB 1070. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arizona SB 1070. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weakened in 2016

Please do the needful: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arizona-law-20160915-snap-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B11D:F586:C912:8775:DA4A:7B1C (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"he prevalence of yard sales suggested illegal immigrants were leaving Arizona, with some returning to Mexico and others moving to other U.S. states," is a stretch at best

Under the "Effects" subtopic, it is suggested that an abundance of yard sales indicated a mass exodus of Latinx residents leaving Arizona. While I do not dispute that many Latinx, documented or otherwise, may have left the state following passage of SB 1070, this suggested indicator is laughable and has no relevance to the article. More substantive evidence of mass departure, would be the "anecdotal evidence provided by schools, businesses, churches, and healthcare facilities," also mentioned in the article from which the yard sale mention is taken.

Joshua Baker

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arizona_SB_1070&oldid=892585160"