Talk:Arizona SB 1070/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Arizona SB 1070. 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

Suggestions

More materials needed on reactions, including potential boycotts.Tedperl (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added something on possible boycotts. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

also needs material on reactions to detractors - at this point, although the article states that 60% of US voters and 70% of Arizona voters support the bill or something similar, almost all reactions listed are against the bill. (Radiumsoup (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

I've been trying, as have a couple of other editors. It's not easy, since the rhetoric is so unbalanced. Human nature: the "anti's" always get more worked up against something than the "pro's" do for it. Thus, proponents of SB1070 say it's a reasonable, carefully crafted measure that will help fix a problem. Opponents say it's hello, Nazi Germany. Just as proponents of Obamacare say it's a reasonable, carefully crafted measure that will help fix a problem, while opponents say it's hello, socialist tyranny. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there is something different going on--and that is that immigration politics are far more sharply felt, and more stringent legislation passed in Arizona, than in the rest of the country. So what appears reasonable to a majority of Arizona residents and politicians seems overly restrictionist and extremist elsewhere. If we could get some more context that explains this difference, that might be a good thing as well. (And kudos for your editing, Wasted Time)

A partisan but attentive analysis of earlier politics can be found at:

"Anti-Immigrant Legislation in Arizona Leads to Calls for a State Boycott" Tedperl (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No doubt the issue is more strongly felt in border states, but even states in the middle of the country have felt the demographic and economic effects of immigration, and polls on SB1070 are showing people in favor of on a national basis as well as in Arizona. Although as the article states, poll questions tend to oversimplify complex issues of immigration law, and as with all polls, results are very sensitive to question formulation. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Effect on climate change legislation

[copied here from user talk page]

Hi, I contributed to [this] article. I saw that you removed its effect on delaying the climate change bill citing that it tangentially mentions the immigration law. I just wanted to point out that there are close to 800 stories [1] covering the fallout on climate-change bill and the majority if not all of them mention the immigration law as one of the reason, Sen. lindsay graham has been cited as one of the main detractors with his quote already mentioned. Just in case, here are some relevant links - [2] [3] [4] [5]. All of them mention immigration as one of the primary reasons for the fallout. Thank you. --Theo10011 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The federal immigration debate and possible legislation, yes. The question is whether the Arizona law has been more than a tangential factor in this. The sources you've shown so far only mention it in passing. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you would look at the links I posted above, 5 of them, they are all from reputed news sources who mention Sen. lindsay graham, even quote him on why he's chosen to back out on the climate change bill-“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,’’ Graham said. “I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy, and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress.’’, all of the news stories prominently mention him and the immigration law as the primary reasons for the failure of the bill.--Theo10011 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been a simmering debate within the Dem leadership of Congress over what to give higher priority to, immigration reform or climate change. This has been going on since health care passed and since financial reform mostly got done. See for example this CBS News story in March or this The Hill story earlier in April, neither of which mention the Arizona law. Now SB1070 comes along, and from the Dem perspective gives a little more urgency to doing immigration reform first. And maybe that triggers Graham's reaction. That's your case, but it's a second-order effect, and the same decision about placing immigration reform might have happened for electoral reasons anyway (to help Harry Reid get re-elected, for example). That's why I'm leery of mentioning this here. We'll see what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the text of Graham's letter. It doesn't mention the Arizona law explicitly. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Because the bill requires people wishing to run for President to present proof of being born in the United States, I linked Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

Can someone with more legal knowledge elaborate on the precise ways that the AZ government requires birth certificates? For example, under this law, what constitutes proof of being born in the United States? [21:02, April 25, 2010 67.121.155.70]

You're thinking of a different Arizona bill, not yet passed, that has nothing to do with this one. See this Fox News story. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

ref-ing

When explaining the law, should we just give a general link to the law or specifically give notes on what section, subsection, and paragraph we're referring to? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better to be specific. I coalesced them earlier to make the cite template usage easier, but they should probably be split back out again. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now redone the references to the law the same way book references are done: one base cite at the bottom with the full information, then a bunch of short-form cites in the article text that reference particular sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. The adopted house-version changes my stance on this law tremendously. Wiki can actually be educational :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title

This probably should be moved to the best known description of the bill. What do the reliable sources call it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The three most common names on Google News are Arizona SB1070, Arizona SB 1070 (space between the two), and Arizona Senate Bill 1070, in that order. On plain Google, the order is reversed, but all are roughly in the same ballpark. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It does have a name, though: "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added that name to the article and given it a redirect. But it gets a lot fewer Google or Google News hits than any of the above forms, so it shouldn't be used as the article title. Not to mention that it's singularly uninformative about what the law is or does. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The arizona state legislature page doesn't put a seperation between SB and 1070. They list it as just SB1070.Chhe (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits of 29–30 April 2010

I've changed the section Provisions to reflect that the bill doesn't specifically require proof of immigration status. A legal alien not in possession of a registration card would be in violation, but a citizen incorrectly suspected of being an alien would not. Presumably, lack of documentation would be a factor that might elevate reasonable suspicion to probable cause, but would not in itself be cause for arrest.

I also changed one ref from a news report to the bill itself, added WLs to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and added a link to the bill text (there's also an HTML version if it's thought that should also be included.

~~I believe an encounter might go something like this:~~

If a peace officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a crime, the officer may briefly detain the person for further investigation. SB1070/HB2162 do nothing to change this.

Under the new A.R.S 11-1051 created by SB1070, the officer must attempt to determine the person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person detained is an illegal alien.

Arizona has a “stop and identify” law that requires a person detained on reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to provide the person's true full name (but nothing else) to the peace officer. Failure to provide the name is a crime in itself, and provides probable cause to arrest.

If the person provides a name (and possibly additional information), and that leads to probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents, the person can be arrested under the new A.R.S 13-1509 created by SB1070.

The courts will obviously need to determine how this actually goes, and in particular, the meanings of reasonable suspicion and probable cause in this context.

I've revised the scenario above to reflect HB2162. JeffConrad (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon further thought, what I'd suggested above is far too simplistic, and going further would be inappropriate here. Accordingly, I've struck the entire scenario. JeffConrad (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth adding some of this to the article, though I think we should be very careful to stick to the letter of the law and identify opinion as such. Perhaps we should add a WL to Stop and identify statutes. JeffConrad (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Point 1 is the crux here: refusing to answer questions will constitute reasonable suspicion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to answer questions generally does, not by itself, give reasonable suspicion to detain; rather, a peace officer must have specific and articulable facts that the person to be stopped is involved in a crime—see Terry v. Ohio for the basics. Subsequent jurisprudence has made it clear that “reasonable suspicion” depends on the totality of circumstances, and is almost addressed on a case-by-case basis. Arizona's “stop and identify” law, A.R.S. 13-2412, may be instructive, requiring a person detained to state his true full name but nothing else, and there must already be reasonable suspicion to detain for the obligation for a person to state his name to even apply. But as I said, the courts may need to sort out what reasonable suspicion means in this context.

There's apparently another significant issue to be sorted out. Reading Byron York's op-ed in the Washington examiner, Kris Kobach, who apparently was the bill's actual author, claims that “lawful contact” means detention under circumstances of Terry. But that's not what the law says, and it's obvious from A.R.S 13-2412 that the legislature understand what a detention is. So this is yet another key thing for the courts to sort out (or for the legislature to correct if detention is what was really intended). Even if the law is amended to apply only to detentions, refusal to answer questions other than a request for the person's true full name might not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion. JeffConrad (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"might not". Indeed... but as per WP:FORUM, we're getting off track here. We'll see what happens ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't start the speculation on reasonable suspicion ...

One issue has already been addressed by the legislature: HB2162, signed last night by the governor, replaces “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention, or arrest”, so there must already be reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. I'm not quite sure of the distinction between stop and detention, so the courts may still have something to sort out. Presumably, a person so detained would be required to state his true full name, and refusing to do so would automatically be cause for arrest. We'll need to see how the courts interpret anything else.

In any event, the law now reads as Kris Kobach claimed. JeffConrad (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

If anyone lives in Phoenix or anywhere else that's seeing a demonstration against and/or for the law, a photo of it would be a great addition to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Audience and terminology

This article is for a general audience rather than a group of attorneys; does a term like sine die really improve it? JeffConrad (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When it's wikilinked I think it's okay. But I see someone else changed it. Electroshoxcure (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's still in the article, linked and in parens, and I think it's fine. Lots of WP articles are written in technical language – see Streptococcus or Fundamental theorem of calculus for a couple of examples picked at random. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

A big issue with the bill is whether it encourages racial profiling. What exactly is meant by reasonable suspicion? Is it spelled out anywhere? I looked for a link to the actual bill, but I couldn't find one (and of course my reading of the bill would be original research...). Can people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants be stopped for that alone? Or is the investigation of immigration status in the bill limited in some way? Electroshoxcure (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

you realize these are two different questions, right?

are you asking about racial profiling or about immigration status?

people cannot be stopped at random; the bill says "lawful contact". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawful contact. Like asking a cop for directions while being brown

TruthHurts235 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The change from “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” probably addressed the major constitutional infirmity. Time will tell how the police and the courts interpret “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the United States illegally. We can't prejudge here. JeffConrad (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hits, stats, but not in the news

This article's page view stats show a steady climb in readership since it was first created. It would be even higher if it showed up on the first page of Google hits, but for most formulations it's not appearing until the second or third page.

The 14,300 hits on its main page partial day as a DYK would normally qualify it for inclusion in WP:DYKSTATS, but "rule 3" there may preclude it. I'll see what the readership looks like in the next couple of days.

Attempts were made here and here to get this article into the Wikipedia:In the news main page feature, but the powers that be decided it was only a "local story" and thus not significant enough for inclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre sentence

When I read this sentence:

Republican opposition to the law gives short-term political benefits by energizing their base and independents, but longer term carries the potential of alienating the growing Hispanic population from the party

I am completely baffled. It seems totally backward. It might make sense if instead the word "opposition" was changed to "support", but am I the only one confused? 98.82.34.167 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Boromir123 for confirming my sanity. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, I'm the one who got that reversed. And then rewrote other parts of it upon getting a complaint, but kept it reversed! Just one of those embarrassing thinkos ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Your credit is good with me. :-) 98.82.34.167 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Draconian

Nazi and Gestapo tactics are not the only disparaging comparisons made in reference to AZ's SB1070. When calling for a travel boycott to Arizona, Mayor Chris Coleman, of St Paul, pronounced the bill "Draconian." --P6274

source/link? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added it. I was able to use the same source to put St. Paul in the list of cities banning travel to Arizona, which someone had tried to add without a source earlier. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbers as words

I don't see the applicability of either comparable quantities or adjacency for the number of illegal immigrants or the number of days after the end of the session. In particular, it's uncommon to use ninety, and almost no other account of SB1070 that I've seen does so. And for good reason—it's a lot harder to read. If we insist on ninety, we should also use twenty and thirty for the jail time, as does the text of HB2162. Again, though, this just makes it harder to read.

Practice does vary—Chicago use words for whole numbers up to one hundred. But the default rule from WP:ORDINAL would seem to apply here. JeffConrad (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the opening paragraph of WP:ORDINAL blesses either numerals or words for one- or two-word numbers, such as sixteen, eighty-four, and two hundred. I've used the word forms of these in articles that have reached FA and GA status, so it's certainly acceptable usage. As for the particulars in this article: "... on July 28, 2010, 90 days ..." is visually confusing, as the numeral 90 tends to get jumbled with the other two numbers. So the word form is better here (this is a form of the adjacent quantities exception). Same with the sentence having the class 1 and class 6 crimes; the numeral 10 would get visually mixed up with these, whereas in word form it's distinct. In the sentence "with all but one Republican voting for the bill, 10 Democrats voting against the bill, and two Democrats not voting", the 10 is better written in word form per the comparable quantities rule (same as their example of not writing "five cats and 32 dogs"). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree on the comparable quantities; much of the rest is a matter of opinion. But it's not worth arguing. JeffConrad (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that it's not worth arguing, you can change back the ones you disagree with if you like. It doesn't really matter until an article is taken to GAN or FAC and that's a long way off for this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, a case can be made either way. Not a big issue compared with accuracy and reasonable NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

HB2162

maybe I am the only confused person by now, but except for the footnotes, there is no mention of HB2162, which, as it dawns to me right now, made some crucial changes to the law. It should be mentioned somewhere. First off, I'll make a redirect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The week-after modification to the law is mention in several places, including the lead, but naming it as HB2162 would probably make things clearer. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also states: failure of government agency employees and supervisors to report violations is a "... class 2 misdemeanor ..." (HB2162 Section E), and "... Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court ..." (HB2162 page 2, lines 8-10), and it changes proof of legitimacy to Arizona MVD ID card or Tribal Enrollment Card (HB2162 page 5 lines 12-18). Presumably US Citizens from other states and US Citizens with no proof or need for ID will be jailed. --peterblaise (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You're reading the section pertaining to elgibility for public benefits and welfare. The "stop, arrest, detention"-section also lists any US driver license or ID. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, even incident to a detention, police need reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien to inquire about immigration status, and probable cause that a person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents to arrest. Certainly, there are concerns about how these standards of proof will be interpreted, but to say that people “will be jailed” seems to overstate the case, especially since the law doesn't take effect until August. Absent some actual history, we really can't comment here on the law's implementation. JeffConrad (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bold Text

I made the alias names all bold. To give the page consistency, thank you for pointing out the error. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The “alias” names are nothing of the sort—they have nothing to do with the page title, so bold face is accordingly inappropriate. The number of citations is also absurdly excessive, to the point of non-NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The other "alias" names are bold as well. I dont see anyone complaining about that. The number of sources is very appropriate due to the large amount of debate on its inclusion. Can you really have too many sources? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The other “aliases” actually are synonyms for the article title; the “aliases” you cite aren't. You might want to review WP:MOS to get a better idea of what belongs in the lead section. And yes, you really can have too many sources—you clearly are pushing an agenda here. JeffConrad (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

acussing someone of pushing an agenda doesn't make your own argument right. Please be polite68.171.233.131 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits such as this make it reasonable to believe the ip address is pushing an agenda. Truthsort (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand by my comment based on this wording and similar edits by the same person. What really governs here is WP rules for use of bold text in the lead section, which I've addressed under Living While Brown below. I think common sense also suggests a reasonable balance between citations for and against. And I'd say that eight citations either way is excessive, if for no other reason than aesthetics. JeffConrad (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuremberg and Pass laws section (purposed)

I am considering putting together a section comparing this law and the Nuremberg Laws and Pass Laws. There seems to be a great deal of articles on the subject. Considering this to be a useful addition to the article. Please any thoughts or comments 98.118.188.7 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unrelated and inappropriate. JeffConrad (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, I concur. Bad idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

well, we might think it inappropiate but reddit, facebook, dailykos, editories in the denver post, and a hunk of the blogsphere think its worth talking about. Look, on the bright side with multiple groups yelling about we can hope to get a neutral view. So let him right the section and scream and yell to remove all bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.233.131 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

photo request

Anyone in the state could you get a photo of a police checkpoint or a person geTing arrested for not having their papers. It would make a great addition 68.171.233.131 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The law doesn't even take effect for 90 days ... JeffConrad (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, we have 90 days to get ready to fulfill the request. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

SB1070 or SB 1070?

We're somewhat inconsistent in referring to this bill as well as HB 2162. Normal practice is to use a space between the house designator and the bill number; I think we should make the article read accordingly, perhaps using a nonbreaking space. JeffConrad (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the two External links and the links within them, you'll see that the Arizona legislature refers to both SB1070 and HB2162 without any embedded space. I only found one instance that had the space in the article, and changed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's how they do it on the web site, but I don't think that's the official way. If you look at the actual documents, the bills are indicated as “S.B. 1070” and “H.B. 2162”. I believe The Bluebook omits the periods, but I'm relying on Chicago rather than The Bluebook itself. Someone who has a copy of The Bluebook could confirm which is correct.

In any event, I think the space is required. JeffConrad (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the spaces, without the periods. As noted, Arizona (as well as THOMAS) include the periods, but CMoS (15th ed.) 17.309 shows U.S. bills without the periods, so at least one good source supports omitting them. Including the periods would also seem acceptable, but at least to me, they add a lot of visual clutter. JeffConrad (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

We need one (or perhaps a few) sources that support the specific claim made here—that critics claim it encourages racial profiling “based on wording, enforcement, and historical precedent”. The plethora of previous citations didn't do this; perhaps Ralph E. Stone came the closest, though his same op-ed by appeared in in two different publications and shouldn't have been cited twice. JeffConrad (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The easiest (and probably the best) approach would be to simply eliminate this language, which doesn't really add much to the basic statement. JeffConrad (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the language and included two of the more cogent (at least to me) of the previous refs. We probably should add a ref or two for the supporters. JeffConrad (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther King

Twice the reference to the earlier boycott has been removed. Any thoughts on why? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It may have been seen as getting a bit off track, but it may have gotten lost in some other material that clearly did not belong. Moreover, it wasn't very well written. I personally see no problem with including a concise, factual, well-written mention. JeffConrad (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it, but it's definitely worth one mention for historical background. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Vivek Malhotra op-ed

Vivek Malhotra's op-ed in the New York Times addressed a serious deficiency in the SB 1070 that was fixed in HB 2162; police now cannot stop a person solely on reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. If the material remains, it needs to be made clear that the comment was made prior to HB 2162, both to avoid confusing the reader and to avoid making Malhotra look foolish. I think it would be far better just to remove it. JeffConrad (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a qualifier, but I think the entry now looks a bit silly. Again, I'd remove it. JeffConrad (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed it. It was a weak forum to draw a source from in the first place. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mention of criticism and support in lead section

I've moved the brief mention of the criticism and the counter by the bill's supporters back to the lead section. A lead section summarizes the entire article, so mention of the major points is indicated. And the reaction by the bill's critics and supporters is indeed a key point; were it not for the reactions, this bill, like most of the thousands of others that are passed in state legislatures every year, would not be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia.

We've seemingly already run the gamut of how the reaction is treated in the lead section, and what remains seems succinct and balanced. I don't think it should be moved without a convincing argument. JeffConrad (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, it's also essential that HB 2162 be mentioned early on, because the effect of SB 1070 alone would be quite different from how the law now stands. Much of the reaction to the bill has overlooked the changes brought by HB 2162, even after its enactment, and for this article to follow that lead would be a grave disservice to its readers. JeffConrad (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In the ideal world, the lead summarizes the entire article and doesn't need any footnoting, since every statement made is also stated in the article body and footnoted there. For a hot-button, in-the-news topic like this one, citing in the lead becomes a temporary necessity and only the brave attempt to include the most contentious points.

As for HB2162, whatever the merits, the facts remains that opponents of the law have largely ignored it, and have kept on going with their protests. I've included this in the article now. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this edit, and that most people have ignored HB 2162 (which speaks volumes on their credibility). My comment about which sources are “authoritative” remains. Jonathan Cooper's piece for the AP simply says, “Civil rights advocates vowed to challenge the law in court, saying it would lead to racial profiling despite the governor's assurances.” I hardly see this as solid support, and think it's inferior to the guest op-ed in the Arizona Republic, so I'm inclined to restore it. I'll concede that BeyondChron doesn't have the cred of AP or the Arizona Republic. JeffConrad (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondary Offense?

The article says this is a secondary offense (during a police stop for some other offense) and points to Arizona HB 2162, Section 3. While this is a fine job citing it is still a little vague and the news continues to argue that it is not a secondary offense but that anyone can be stopped and questioned at any time. Can we get a little more info or back up? I read section 3 there and I see no clear wording, granted I am no law professor and I do agree it reads similar to a secondary offense the words here on wiki are very clear while the law seems less so... AndrewHorne (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Those news sources are simply wrong :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we correctly describe it in this article. Whenever possible, look to what the law actually says rather than what someone says the law says. Indeed, SB 1070 stated that immigration status be questioned for any “lawful contact”, which by most definitions would mean that a peace officer could simply walk up to a person and ask immigration status. HB 2162, which many secondary sources apparently have not read, changed that. The new A.R.S. 11-1501 will now read, in relevant part,

“B. for any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the united states, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.” [emphasis added]

It would seem clear that it's a “secondary” offense.

Many secondary sources have claimed that a person stopped must “show papers” or face arrest. This isn't necessarily true. For example, though the law will impose an obligation for a peace officer to investigate immigration status, it will not impose a corresponding obligation on a person so queried to respond; in general, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination allows a person to remain silent. Another Arizona law, A.R.S. 13-2412, requires a person detained on reasonable suspicion of involvement of a crime to give his “true full name” to a peace officer on demand. And of course, the driver of a vehicle must present a driver license to a peace officer on demand. Aside from those specific requirements, it's not yet clear that a person queried about immigration status would need to present documentation or even respond to any questions—that's something the courts will need to sort out, in addition to what constitutes reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien illegally present in the United States.

It is not the prerogative of Wikipedia editors to speculate on such matters, and accordingly, we've not done so. I think the same approach would serve many ordinarily presumptively reliable sources equally well. Again, look to the law or an authoritative interpreter such as a court rather than to Joe's Blog. JeffConrad (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations for racial profiling in lead section.

I agree that the alternative sources weren't the most stellar, and I included them with some hesitation. But I'm not sure the AP source is really any better, especially as it describes Joe Arpaio's take

“He said it gives him new authority to detain undocumented migrants who aren't accused of committing any other crimes.

‘Now if we show they're illegal, we can actually arrest them and put them in our jails,’ Arpaio said.”

Presumably, from the April 24 date the astute reader will conclude that Arpaio's comments were made prior to the enactment of HB 2162. If the astute reader is aware of HB 2162. And bothers to note the date.

Offhand, I don't know what to suggest, other than that supporting sources need to be carefully examined for content and sometimes the date as well as for a presumptively reliable pedigree. The safe approach would of course be to always state it as “So-and-so says ...”, and perhaps qualify statements that appear to have been made before the law was revised (which of course gives the benefit of the doubt that the speaker would have apprised himself of the changes). But this would quickly render the article nearly unreadable. JeffConrad (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-read, I see that I may have conflated two issues: the presumptive authority of a source, and the pre/post HB 2162 timing of a comment. Both are relevant to this article, but they should be recognized as distinct. JeffConrad (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading Archibald's May 3 piece (cited in support of several statements) raises the same questions, leading me to wonder how carefully he read HB 2162, if he read it at all. Is a Times columnist always better than a guest editorial in the Arizona Republic? I'd guess the same issues would arise with many of the other sources. Who decides which are “weak”? JeffConrad (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what you're referring to here. Archibold isn't a columnist, he's a NYT reporter. Straight news stories (such as the ones he files) are given much more weight than anybody's op-ed pieces. The point with the May 3 Archibold story was that HB2162 hasn't mollified the opponents of the law (maybe it should have, maybe it shouldn't have, but it's a fact that it hasn't). The opponents of the law have said that it would lead to racial profiling all along: before it was passed, after it was passed, after it was signed, after Brewer's executive order, after HB2162. It should be easy to cite this using straight news sources, not op-ed pieces. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong term (as well as wrong spelling). The days when all opinion was confined to the editorial page have long passed, and perhaps I treated questionable interpretation of the facts as opinion; it's sometimes hard to tell the difference. The question then is mainly one of credibility; Archibold and Thee-Brenan state, “The Arizona law gives local police officers broad power to detain people they suspect are in the country illegally ...”, which is a questionable statement in light oft the fact that a person must already be detained for the question of immigration status. The authors continue, “But the new immigration law also now includes civil violations of municipal codes as grounds to check papers,” [emphasis added]. This makes it sound like a civil violation wasn't previously needed to inquire about immigration status; that simply wasn't true, because SB 1070 mandated an inquiry without any violation. Perhaps I'm being too fussy here. I normally consider Archibold very credible but when I see statements that seem clearly wrong, my sense of credibility diminishes considerably. To be fair, even if the authors are guilty, they're no worse than most others. One of my long-standing gripes with most news writers is that they often misdescribe the law and fail to cite specific law so the reader can make up his own mind. Perhaps more succinctly: a name and publisher's pedigree to not ensure reliability, especially if the content seems at odds with the facts.

The other issue, which as I've mentioned is really separate, is the timing of a source, and that's the main issue with Cooper's piece. His article certainly isn't wrong, but it might easily mislead or confuse the average reader. One could easily get the impression that Joe Arpaio's an idiot if he made the statement quoted above after the signing of HB 2162.

In this particular context, as I think we would agree, so many have ignored or misinterpreted the facts that it's essential for this article to at least not promote further misunderstanding. As I've mentioned, though I don't have a magic method for determining who's “reliable” and who isn't, and I don't have an elegant method for indicating that a comment was made prior to HB 2162.

Hopefully, I've also made it clear that my concerns aren't limited to this particular citation. JeffConrad (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Archibold's April 23 comment that “the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano” is yet another example of the sometimes fine line between news and opinion (though here the line really isn't so fine). It's tough to suggest that Archibold is nuts here, but I think it's also unreasonable to interject similar opinion into this article without qualification. I guess it's possible to say something like, “According to New York Times writer Randal Archibold, ...” but this would make for messy reading if done very often. JeffConrad (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nazi-stuff (rebound)

People were asked to give a justification for excluding this. I don't think that's the way it works. In this case, please make a case for including it. This article is not a collection of random quotes and comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I pulled it because it of WP:Undue weight problems. Given that the law passed and was signed and enjoys popular support in both the state and the nation, the article can't be an endless list of the most hyperbolic statements against it. That opponents are comparing the law to Nazi Germany is already included in the article, as well as reactions to such claims. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The quote disturbs the balance of the article and does nothing to help the debate. The law has since been amended to prevent law enforcement from asking for legal documents except during an arrest for committing a crime. The comparison to Nazi Germany no longer holds any water. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - -

Oh comparison to Nazi practices holds water all right:

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, page 1, lines 37-39,

"... A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States ..."

... and page 2, lines 27-33:

"... A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer's agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith ..."

Warrantless arrest, search, and seizure, and protection of warrantless arrest, search, and seizure = Nazi practices ... versus United States Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment:

"... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized ..."

Now, some may say they've amended Arizona SB 1070 with Arizona HB 2162 so that asking for Federal ID papers only applies after arrest for another crime, but careful reading of both bills together shows that Police can do whatever they want with impunity and indemnification, so it probably will only be a formality what the first accusation of a crime will be before asking for Federal ID. Lemme guess, J-walking. No, vagrancy. No, resisting arrest. No ... oh, does it matter?

Also, the Nazi reference is apt since Arizona SB 1070 was written based on neo-Nazi white-supremacist resources from Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance (United_States) website to supporters.

Nazi is all over this legislation, and "Nazi" should be all over any accurate reporting on it, too. It is NOT liberal reactionary invention to call this Nazi, it is accurate historical reporting on the source of this specific legislation -- neo-Nazi white-supremacists wrote Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Include this information in the main article page.

One reference? http://splcenter.org/get-informed/news/arizona-immigration-law-violates-constitution-guarantees-racial-profiling. Everyone, please dig and find more ... but since one reference is enough for most Wikipedia entries ...

--peterblaise (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - -

See my response in #Defining the legislation above regarding including the fringe associations in some of these groups. In the end, it doesn't really matter, the law stands on its merits regardless of who wrote it or who they hung out with or who they were funded by. As for the Nazi comparison, it's simple. Let's wait five years. If by then most of Arizona's illegal immigrants and their political sympathizers have been rounded up and sent to concentration camps and then death camps, I'll be all for the parallel. Until then, it's as stupid and historically ignorant as all the conservative radio talk show guys who call Obama a Stalinist. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, warrantless arrest is long established, finding support in the common law dating back to something like the 14th century—so it's nothing new to this legislation. Like arrest with a warrant, it falls under the Fourth Amendment, so it must be based on probable cause. I think many of the concerns with this law are well founded, but I think problems will arise more with its application than on its face. As I've said here repeatedly, it will hinge on how “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are interpreted in the context of immigration status. As Wasted Time R says, we'll need to see what happens, and I don't think it will take five years.

In general, I have great respect for the SPLC. But Ms. Bauer badly hurts her credibility with statements like, “By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is in the country illegally”. Reasonable suspicion obligates an inquiry, but arrest requires probable cause, as I mentioned above. I'm sure Ms. Bauer actually knows this, but the statement reads as it reads. JeffConrad (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Governor Brewer's political stance

Although she hasn't been known as an outspoken advocate of such a measure in the past, she has written "numerous" letters of concern to the Administration about securing the borders. In 2004, she supported a measure that required proof of citizenship to vote in the state of Arizona. These are actions that seem to go against the notion that Brewer was bending to the will of her conservative competition to get a leg up in the upcoming primaries. There are no sources that I've seen that seem to suggest she was ever against this bill. In the end, we should keep this article as neutral as possible without injecting our own speculation about her motives. To make it more objective, I've removed lines in "Background and Passage" to reflect that. Thoughts? Issues? Let me know...--GoneIn60 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You were right to be concerned originally that the article was making too strong a link between her primary challenge and her decision to sign the bill. But I rewrote that material last night to indicate there were multiple factors here, of which the primary challenge is only one. You cannot just eliminate the primary challenge; I can list a dozen sources that mention it in conjunction with her decision, especially in light of her unpopularity with conservatives for supporting Arizona Proposition 100 (2010). It's simply not tenable to completely omit the political context of her decision. If you have additional sources for her positions on immigration prior to having become governor, or other factors in her decision, then great, by all means add that in. But since she had become governor, she had not said much about the topic, including no mention of it during her inaugural address. And there are sources that say she was genuinely struggling with her decision on the bill (if not ever publicly against it). We can't just omit all this. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You could have a 100 sources that mention the primary as a factor in her decision, but that doesn't make it a fact. All of those sources are stating an opinion. I understand your desire to include the political context of her decision, but it is my position that political analysis should probably have its own section. In "Background and Passage", we should only be citing the course of events without involving politics. Inserting politics here disturbs the goal of neutrality and can be a turnoff to those from both sides of the aisle seeking an unbiased account of events. I'm going to make another edit here, but I am going to remain open to further discussion and further editing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a fact that she's in a primary fight, and it's a fact that reliable sources mention that in the context of her decision, in addition to half a dozen other factors that they mention. We aren't saying this is the only factor that was at play in her decision, we're saying it was one of them. For you to claim that this whole process doesn't involve "politics" is silly; it's a law passed by an elected legislature and signed by a governor up for election, of course it involves politics. Every law passed by every political body does. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

When did I claim the process doesn't involve politics? My suggestion was to merely "separate" politics from the description of the bill's passage and signing. Having it here is not necessary. You can describe political events with dates, vote counts, and other stats without describing "possible" factors and motivations at play. Doing so turns what should be a small paragraph into a distracting conversation. Having that distraction in a section that is dedicated to it makes more sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I ended up removing such language as "unorthodox" and rephrased several items so that it seemed more objective. But overall, most of the content you added remains. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes, modulo a couple of style guide tweaks and the addition of a link to Arizona Proposition 100 (2010) (the one percent sales tax increase). I restored two things you cut, however. One is the mention of her past support for Arizona Proposition 200 (2004), which I had added based on your previous argument above that it should be included. It does seem at least somewhat relevant to me, but if you've changed your mind on it, I'm okay with removing it too. The other is the quote from her aides that "she agonizes over these things," making reference to the signing decision. Your edit summary comment didn't really explain why you thought it should go. Given all the flak that Brewer has caught for signing the bill, I think it's fair to include direct language from her side about how seriously she took the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we've finally hit a good compromise. Looks good to me! --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

public officials

yeah the wording seemed funny. Any grammar experts want to fix it? It sounded like the whole state was considering changing the laws rather then a bill being introduced into the assemblies. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Living while brown

The use of this phrase and the others in bold in the introduction. Is prejudical to the reading. Of the rest of the page. Why is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.250.91.216 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is way over the top, for several reasons:

The relevant words have no direct relation to the title of this article, and should not be bolded whether or not POV.
The bolded words show a distinct bias, by repetition as well as bolding.
The number of citations is simply absurd, and is POV for this reason alone.

This is almost an invitation for an editor with the opposite agenda to add similarly biased comments supported by an equally absurd number of citations. This doesn't make for a good article.

I think we should clean this up so that we have at least arguable NPOV. If this is a problem, I'm inclined to tag the article. JeffConrad (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrases are Bold just like all the other phrases in the opening paragraph. If we are going to use the name that some random poltician called it and bold it then we should use the names that journalists and social commentators use. What makes one example of spin more appropiate then another? 76.180.115.242 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This language is highly POV and doesn't belong on a balanced article such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.53.253 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling it the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is NPOV 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV requirement applies to Wikipedia, not the Arizona Legislature. JeffConrad (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I read once that one of Kim Jong ill's title was inventor of the airplane. Perhaps we should add that too his page. A lie told by the government is still a lie.98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The veracity of a bill title is not the concern of Wikipedia editors. JeffConrad (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of bold text in the lead section is covered in WP:BOLDTITLE; it applies to first mention of the article title or a reasonable synonym. It's not reasonable to treat any of the secondary names by which the bill has been called as reasonable synonyms for the title of this article, especially because Wikipedia already has articles matching Driving While Black and Driving While Brown (the latter is a redirect to the first). The title of a bill is usually spin, but that's legislator's prerogative, whether or not we think the title makes any sense. What governs here is the WP:MOS. JeffConrad (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Two people does not a consesnse make. Tommorow I can bring three people in to argue the opposite way. A consense is made when the parties find common ground or the argument is exhausted. This section was removed knowing full well the three revort rule. So I will wait 24 hours. I would like to hope that this large majority that opposes it by that time tommorow has a better series of arguments. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think that if this had broad support, the reverts would quickly have been overridden by others. The essence of the material remains, supported by a couple of the more cogent references.. This is an encyclopedia article, not personal blog, and accordingly requires a balanced presentation. I think the lead section currently does a reasonable job of it. Including language that's jarringly NPOV does nothing but impair the article's credibility. JeffConrad (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The result of a revert war shouldnt determine poll numbers. Unless this is a wikipedia policy I am not aware of. In which case I was foolish to stop doing it when I was warned to stop. Now, I myself moved the sentences in question down the article. I did this because the very simple argument was made to me that it was worth including but not in that place. So, I made a judgement call and moved them in the section that seemed logical. I still stand by what I say that it is worth including in this page. This is what the common man and intellectual are calling this law. A 5 minute google search with those phrases will show a large number of links to the Arizona law. Like it or not a large percent of people are calling it by those names. As I said I play by the rules and will wait my 24 hours, I doubt anyone else will. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do what you will, but this is asking for a vandalism warning. It's not so much a matter of the 3-revert rule as continually adding material that's obviously NPOV. You do your case no favors when you use over-the-top language as in the last edit, and continually don't bother with details like spelling or when you include essentially the same reference twice.

You may recall that I simply unbolded the various names, though I did express reservations about their suitability. Other editors apparently felt the names weren't appropriate, and removed them. And including eight references for anything is simply absurd. Moreover, it was clear that some of the op-ed writers either didn't understand the law or simply hadn't read it, which is why I didn't include them in the refs that I retained. JeffConrad (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I gave it a few days to calm down. Listen we are some of the only guys editing this article. It shouldnt be too hard for two guys to work something out. Now as such the following points I am willing to concede:

It shouldnt be in the lead section. It makes that section to long among other reasons
It shouldnt be in bold even if the other aliases are
the number of references is too many

What I want:

Somewhere in the article a mention of this

What I purpose:

I put it in the article already, you decided where it goes in the article
We got through the footnotes one-by-one until we agree.

Does this work for you? I think this will also make the article neutral. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the material up in the "Protests" section. I have reduced the number of cites to three, and formatted them properly (not just bare URLs). I have also added in a mention to Driving While Black, which is the origin of all these phrases. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning other recent Arizona actions

This discussion began on my Talk page; because this articl should reflect consensus among the various editors, I've copied the relevant parts here. 67.246.175.103 proposed the following:

For critics that believe that the law is racially biased they have pointed out other perceived bills that have been introduced in the same time period. These bills were considered by them to be anti-Hispanic (insert source from article).

I replied:

The source [ThinkProgress.org] is secondary and possibly not WP:RS; the Wall Street Journal should be cited directly, and an indisputably more NPOV source (perhaps such as this report on Fox News or this op-ed in the Arizona Republic) found for HB 2281. But I'm hardly the steward of this article; we need consensus among the various editors, and accordingly, the discussion belongs on the article's Talk page.

Though I'd like to see somewhat smoother and more neutral wording, I have no objection to including the material above; I might briefly mention the specifics of each action in this article just so the reader isn't forced to follow the links to see what the actions are. But I'd like to see what others think. JeffConrad (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than the general material in the "Background and passage" section, I'm leery of including other legislative bills here. If HB 2281 is important, someone can create a separate article about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Profiling

I think I managed to get the wording right, the truth is still there but i have given slack to the idealogically bent to air their viewponts on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

TruthHurts235 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You generally cannot write bald statements like "The legislation encourages racial profiling", when proponents of the legislation and the governor who signed it say that it won't. You have to write that people A, B, and C say it will encourage racial profiling (cite 1, 2, 3) and people D and E say it will not (cite 4, 5). Yes, this may be tedious, and yes, this may cloud the truth as you see it, but that's how it's done around here. If, after a year or three of the law being in effect, all or nearly all news sources say that the law has in practice led to racial profiling, then yes a bald statement would be supportable. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So they say it wont therefore it isnt true. Boy, I wish my wife would give me that deal. There is this thing called lying might want to check it out.

What constitutes “reasonable suspicion” usually depends on the totality of the circumstances, and the courts will need to develop guidelines for what it means in this context. It's not the prerogative of WP editors to speculate. JeffConrad (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the last time this was tried they rounded up everyone who was part of the Hispanic racial group. So I guess there is already a guideline.

I only came to the discussion page to give props for the balance in this article; having been a part of a number of editing efforts on contentious emerging issues I know that it's not easy. I've read the actual law and I'm proud that Wikipedia features a fairer overview of the issue than any of the MSM accounts I've seen. Kudos. 96.251.96.102 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Praise comes only rarely in this biz ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree that "reasonable suspicion" is dependent upon a number of different factors surrounding the circumstance. Great point. While I support the Arizona Senate bill it cannot be denied that it allows law officers more freedom to racially profile hispanics and other minorities. But isn't that their job in the first place? Police officer's job description entails profiling suspicious people who they suspect are breaking the law? These men and women heavily rely on racial profiling and stereotypes because it is necessary in logically estimating who is a threat and who is not. This practice can essentially save their life. In the case of this Senate Bill, Police Officers will have an excuse for pulling over hard working, legal immigrants who are simply going about their business. This is unfair but we must realize that the bill does not truly change anything. If a police officer suspects you might be illegal at this moment he can ask you for ID for any number of reasons. While I am by no means a judicial expert, if a police officer wants to see your ID he will come up with a number of valid reason why. The Arizona Senate Bill is an edgy matter which teeters on the fence of racial profiling but at its core it will not change the status quo. Illegals will still enter the country and find jobs. this is inevitable. The debate over the bill has become a huge media debachle which has served as excellent dinner discussion. The truth is that the bill won't drastically change anything except for wating the time of legal ID carrying hispanics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjharris119 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tjharris- You are absolutely right that the Arizona Senate bill will allow policeofficers more freedom to racially profile people. It gives them freedom for almost anything. The fact is that the bill is a violation of human right, plain and simple. It's preposterous. What's next apartheid in California. You're wrong in the fact that the bill won't change anything. This bill is inherently racist and promotes inequality. This bill sets the precedent for law abiding citizens minorities to be treated as a lesser breed. This bill must not pass or it will be the beginning of a trend for minorities losing more civil rights.

Um, the bill has already been passed and signed into law by Gov. Brewer. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A.R.S. 13-2412 is very clear about when a peace officer can require a person to identify himself: it's only when the peace officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in a crime. And even then, all the peace officer can require is that the suspect state his true full name; the law specifically precludes requiring any other information, so there is no requirement to present identification. Note that this reasonable suspicion does not apply to suspicion that a person may be in the country illegally because that's a civil offense rather than a crime; moreover, the courts have held that states cannot enforce civil provisions of federal immigration law. Now the new Arizona law requires peace officer who has detained a person under circumstances of 13-2112 to make a reasonable attempt to determine the person's immigration status, but imposes no requirement on the person to respond, so there obviously are some issues for the courts to resolve.

A traffic stop is a special case. A driver lawfully stopped is required to present a valid license to a peace officer, and failure to do so entails its own penalties. How that per se will affect reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally, and probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents also remains to be determined. But suspicions related to immigration status alone don't justify a stop; there must be some other reason. It doesn't need to be much: a burned-out tail light, failure to signal a lane change, etc., but there must be some reason other than immigration status to stop the vehicle.

Again, it's going to hinge on the interpretation of “reasonable suspicion”. We don't do hypotheticals here, so we need see what actually happens rather than speculate on what might happen. JeffConrad (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying legal documents" -Wikipedia

I don't think this is an accurate reading of the law.

In fact, Section 3 Letter F says:

F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. 26

This line does not say that the person is guilty of a misdemeanor simply for not carrying legal documents - it only applies to people who actually are here without permission (which is determined by the federal agency).

If a legal alien or tourist loses his or her papers, the Federal government can verify that when reviewing the person's status. The law says that Arizona officials will not make that determination.

Further, the phrase "carrying legal documents" is charged. It connotes a strong police state (yes, reminiscent of Nazi Germany) and has no place in an encyclopedic venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.172.191 (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... the section you are quoting simple means charges are waived upon permission by the federal government. It has been and remains the law that foreign citizens are obligated to carry their papers with them at all times and present them upon being asked to do so. Whether or not that makes it a "police state" is up to your own interpretation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've slightly revised the lead section so that it matches the corresponding statement under Provisions; hopefully, it addresses the bulk of the objection. Whether it still connotes a strong police state is a matter of opinion, but I think the wording is now strictly correct, so I think it's suitable for an encyclopedic venue. JeffConrad (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on my reading there's still a problem here. Section 3-F implies that a legal alien is excluded from this provision, even if he doesn't have identification on his person. It's a federal crime for a legal alien not to carry proof of immigration status but failing to do so doesn't nullify permission to stay in the country, and so such a person "MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES." Therefore "The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien..." should be "The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an illegal alien..."

Mforg (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. The Act does not make it a crime for an alien to be in the country illegally; under federal law, that's a civil offense, and in Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that only the federal government can enforce the civil provisions of U.S. immigration law. Failure to be in possession of required registration documents is a criminal offense, and Gonzales held that nothing prohibited a state from enforcing federal criminal offenses. This law apparently made the federal crime a state crime as well for added measure.

Item A(5) added to A.R.S. 13-3883,

“The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”

appears to be a separate issue. In any event, I think the article correctly describes the state offense of being in the U.S. without required registration documents. JeffConrad (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But how does the current text account for the exception in Section F? The text in the article says the law makes it a state crime for an alien--a group that includes legal and illegal aliens--not to carry registration documents. But part F quoted above says that the relevant part of the law doesn't apply to people who have authorization to be in the country, i.e. citizens, legal aliens, etc. Therefore under the new law it's not a state crime for a legal alien to not carry registration documents. Mforg (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your last sentence. But the current wording of the article refers only to failure to carry registration documents required by federal law. There is no crime for failure to carry documents that aren't required. JeffConrad (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

protests, criticism, and boycotts

I think the wording in this section is problematic:

"In fact, however, section K..." "...but failed to note that the bill"

it takes on a structure of argument and rebuttal that, while minor, still seems intent on demeaning those who criticize the law. In content, I realize that this sort of back-and-forth is typical of wikipedia on contentious issues, and I even recognize that putting relevant points and counterpoints adjacent makes a certain sense. But I still think the end result fails to pass the neutrality test. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.58.62 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those additions were inappropriate and I've removed them. It is not the purpose of the "Protests" section to argue the merits of the law, but merely to describe people's reactions against it. The "Provisions" section earlier on describes in an objective way what the law actually does. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Defining the legislation

I noted the fact that the legislation explicitly referenced the "attrition through enforcement" doctrine that conservative think tanks such as CIS have been pushing as a way to reduce the immigrant population in the U.S. I thought it was noteworthy that legislation would that explicitly pick up on a doctrinal idea. Tedperl (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for the other bits of historical context that you've added here. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The law was written based on neo-Nazi white-supremacist resources from John Tanton, the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement, who created the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and NumbersUSA. FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. CIS's reports, blogs, editorials, panels, and press conferences, call U. S. immigration practices unadulterated evil, and predict impending doom due to immigration. CIS has even blamed immigrants, both legal and undocumented, for terrorism and global warming(!). CIS manipulates data and statistics, and then applies faulty logic to come to their preordained conclusion that immigrants are bad. CIS studies have been debunked by the Immigration Policy Center http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, America's Voice, and so on. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance (United_States) website to supporters. Apparently the other Arizona Senators and the Arizona Governor are so full of fear that their gullibility is easily taken advantage of. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to put relevant background such as this into the main article? Thanks. --peterblaise (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The degree of association of those organizations with various fringe groups is best left to those articles, where it is already discussed. Ditto Pearce. At the end of the day it mostly doesn't matter who wrote a law, the law has to be judged on its own words and merits. And regardless of what anyone thinks of it, SB1070 has the support of majorities of both houses of Arizona's legislature, Arizona's governor, the majority of Arizona's citizens, and apparently the majority of America's citizens. It is thus hard to make a case that it's a 'fringe' law. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time that the discusison of the racist connecions of the groups should be mentioned in the articles about those groups. The guilt by association argument is generally weak and tendentious. It also means the people avoid taking the arguments that groups like FAIR and CIS make seriously. While I would agree with PeterBlaise that CIS analysis, particularly the way that they account for costs and benefits to states are biased, I think that the best thing to do is to point that out, and not try to exclude the argument on the racist connections of some of their supporters. One should bear in mind that the right has tried to that repeatedly to Obama. Not very edifying. Tedperl (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I see "illegal immigrants." and the term "illegal aliens" used in this article. It occurs to me that some would phrase it "illegal migrants" or something of the sort. Any thoughts of picking one term and making the whole article consistent? I vote for "illegal immigrant" If there is no object in a day or so I will change them all to that term, grammar providing of course. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Alien is the term used in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, so it's probably the safest default and the least presumptive. In this context, alien simply means someone who isn't a U.S. resident, whereas immigrant implies someone who has taken up residence. SB 1070 doesn't even mention the latter. JeffConrad (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So we go with "illegal alien" or "illegal aliens" then? 76.180.115.242 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we go with alien and use illegal alien very sparingly. JeffConrad (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agh this is what I want to avoid. I really want a netural term. Believe me in my politcal mode I would call them migrants but if we are going to be neutral I am more then happy to help. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not, alien is what's used in both U.S. and Arizona law. We can't change it just because we don't like it. Migrant is a euphemism that's simply wrong. JeffConrad (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say my likes have anything to do with. I just admited that i am human and have my own opionions but am willing to try to work to be nuetral. Calling them Aliens doesnt indicate that there citizenship is in question. Saying illegal immigrants implies that they will immigrate here eventually but now its not working out. Saying illegal aliens seems to work the best. However, a portion of this law deals with non-illegal aliens. 76.180.115.242 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alien indeed refers to a noncitizen. There remains a distinction between alien and illegal alien. A legal alien is required by federal law to carry a registration card, and failure to carry the required registration is the only cause for arrest under 13-1509. An illegal alien is presumably one who is in the United States unlawfully; such status is not cause for arrest under 13-1509. Indeed it cannot be, because unlawful presence in the United States is a civil rather than criminal issue. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that only the federal government can enforce the civil provisions of U.S. immigration law. So the distinction is important. JeffConrad (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede that to some extent, we're playing semantical games here. This may be one of several things the courts will need to sort out. JeffConrad (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alien and immigrant

To coalesce and condense what's above: there have been several instances of editors replacing terms such as alien and immigrant with other terms that the editors apparently consider less offensive. We really can't reasonably do this. Both alien and immigrant are defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101: the former is a noncitizen of the United States and the latter is essentially an alien who has taken up or may be considering residence in the United States (see 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15) for a more precise description). This section also distinguishes between an immigrant alien and a nonimmigrant alien, so alien and immigrant are not synonymous. The same terms are used in the new Arizona law, so this article is consistent with both U.S. and Arizona law—as I think it should be. A migrant is a person who frequently moves, often to find employment, so the term isn't a substitute for immigrant.

The use of illegal or unlawful is somewhat more problematic, because under U.S. law, illegal presence in the United States is a civil rather than a criminal matter, and Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983) appears to disallow enforcement of civil violations of U.S. immigration law by state LE personnel. But that's not really an offense under the new Arizona law; rather, the offense is presence of an alien in Arizona without having registered or without being in possession of the required registration documents. At the federal level, this is a criminal matter, and apparently is enforceable by state LE under Gonzales. Perhaps Arizona would have been better served if they had defined “undocumented alien” to refer to an alien present in Arizona and not in possession of required registration documents, but they did not do so, and I don't think we should do so here. In attempt to keep things simple, I indicated that an unlawful alien was subject to arrest. In retrospect, this was a mistake; I've revised the article so that the description of the arrestable offense is strictly correct. JeffConrad (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all good and nice and well-explained; but to me, the "probable cause"-thing doesn't make logical sense anymore. You don't need probable cause to see whether or not there are documents. Either X has them ("here they are officer") or X does not have them. What does that still have to do with "probable cause"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To make an arrest, a peace officer must have probable cause to believe that

The person is an alien
who is required to register under 8 U.S.C. 1302, and
is not in possession of the required registration documents.

If the person is not an alien or is an alien not required to register, no registration documents are needed. What constitutes probable cause that a person is an alien? I don't know, and don't think anyone else does, either. The same holds for reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien; I don't think anyone has the answer to that, either. Of course, if a person admits to being an alien and can't produce the required documents, probable cause is pretty obviously provided.

In this op-ed for the New York Times, Kris Kobach, who assisted in drafting SB 1070, described a possible scenario:

“For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.”

Simple enough, right? I agree that this might suffice to provide reasonable suspicion, and it finds support in Estrada v. Rhode Island (1st Cir. 2010). But only the driver is required to present identification, and absent additional circumstances, the passengers aren't even required to answer any questions. Under those circumstances, the lack of identification would not be established. Estrada considered a situation in which passengers complied with a request for identification (and most could not provide much), so the consequences of refusing to answer questions were not considered. From R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1, it would appear that a person cannot be required to provide a name or anything else unless the person is reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime, and even then, it does not require presentation of written identification. Is this the final word? Absent a case in which passengers refuse to cooperate, I don't think we know.

This is precisely why the meanings of “reasonable suspicion” (and presumably “probable cause”) in the context of immigration status are the crux of the new Arizona law. Perhaps some clarification will emerge from AZPOST in response to Gov. Brewer's executive order, but I suspect that ultimately, the courts will need to sort it out.

Sorry for such a long answer, but I just don't think there's a simple one, and I think anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed. In the meantime, I think we should stick to what we know for sure rather than fanning the hysteria of those who pontificate without even having read the law. That many others do this is no excuse. JeffConrad (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't taking sides, I was trying go by (probably "mathematical") logic; maybe that doesn't help much in this case... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks "nomenclature" should be spelled "nomanculture" probably has no business editing Wikipedia.—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just use the term resident aliens? Or we could use Alienents. :) kidding on the last one.

Lilly (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resident Alien is defined by law as a legal immigrant (holder of a Resident Alien Card). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title and move

I was busy for a couple of days and not monitoring the article, so I'm not complaining, but I disagree with the decision to rename it from "Arizona SB1070" to "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act", which seems to have made with little discussion.

The rationale given was "Standard convention is to call the law by its enacted name", which is largely true, but not always: Category:California statutes shows some articles with 'legislative number' names.

In this case, various forms of "Arizona SB1070" and "Arizona Senate Bill 1070" get about 552,000 Google hits combined, while "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" gets only 47,000 hits. That's more than a 10:1 ratio and seems to fly in the face of WP:COMMONNAME.

The reason for the usage disparity is probably that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is singularly uninformative about what the law is or does. It never mentions "immigration" or "alien" or "illegal" or anything that has to do with these issues and instead sounds like a local ordinance that establishes citizen block patrols. Going back to the California laws examples, California Public Records Act, California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, Red Light Abatement Act, etc. all describe the areas that those pieces of legislation applies to, and thus are reasonable names. This one does not. I realize that there's a trend to name laws in a way that pitches their benefits, but at least for example Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sounds like it has something to do with health care.

Also, I'm not even convinced that "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is really an official name of this law; it doesn't appear on the top legislature page on it and only appears at the very bottom of the House Engrossed Version as a note. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with all these points; moreover, I can assure you that all of the local television stations refer to it as "SB1070" ("es-bee-ten-seventy"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a "state bill" when it's an enacted law is both misleading and inaccurate. It was a state bill; it's now a state act. Sources preceding the passage of the bill will, of course, refer to it as a bill, but that is now out of date. There are plenty of recent sources which refer to the act by its name [6]. As for not being a descriptive title, that's not a relevant concern; this is the formal title of the law, it's how it will be referred to in litigation and in future legislation referencing it. Compare for instance the USA PATRIOT Act, which says nothing about what the law actually covers. As long as the old title of SB1070 or ~~State~~ Senate Bill 2070 still exists as a redirect (which it does), the move won't cause any problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO's argument ~~below~~above is faulty. Look at text of HB2162 it talks about modifying SB1070 not the so-called act name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.60.62.122 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The title is given in Section 13. of SB1070h. It may be silly and uninformative, but that's hardly out of the norm. I agree with including the common name, but also agree with ChrisO that it's now enacted law. There's another problem referring to the law simply as SB 1070, because the law comprises SB 1070 and HB 2162, and looking only at the former leads to a very erroneous interpretation, of which we've seen several examples and are likely to see more. A good recent example is the San Diego City Council, which on Monday May 3 voted 7–1 to condemn SB 1070. But the resolution considered only SB 1070, and for that reason Councilman Carl DeMaio voted against the resolution, stating, “I cannot support the resolution as introduced, as it does not accurately reflect the Arizona state law as amended under HB 2162.” I'm sure any minute now someone will add the resolution to this article, and overlook the issue that DeMaio raised.

Incidentally, it's Senate Bill 1070, not State Bill 1070. JeffConrad (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess my problem with the current name is that it gives a slant to the article. Instead of being an immigration law it is now pitched, as has been previously mentioned, something that sounds like it has to do with making neighborhood watches. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As several of us have mentioned, the title of this bill, as so often is the case, is ridiculous and misleading. But that's the title the Arizona legislature chose, and I'm not sure what options we have. As discussed, “SB 1070” would be very misleading because the final legislation was significantly modified by HB 2162. I suppose something like “Arizona immigration law” would be a possibility, though it seems a bit vague. The more I think of it, though, “Arizona” should be somewhere in the title, probably at the beginning. JeffConrad (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I didnt bookmark this page and have been using the google search phrase "arizona immigration law wikipedia" to find it. I tried it with three different ip addresses and got the same result. I cast my vote for Arizona Immigration Law. Are we going to set a time frame for this. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It can't be just "Arizona Immigration Law" because Arizona's had several immigration-related laws over the years. It would have to be qualified by year, such as Arizona immigration law (2010) or Arizona immigration law, 2010 or Arizona 2010 immigration law or 2010 Arizona immigration law. (This assumes this is the only immigration law of any significance to be passed in the state this year.) The 'immigration law' wouldn't be capitalized because it isn't the formal title of anything. This name would be the most informative and easiest to find of any of the alternatives discussed so far, if the least precise. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the ordering. Ok how about 2010 Arizona immigration law? Can we set a time limit on this? 67.246.175.103 (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the title should begin, “Arizona immigration law ...” so we don't start a title with a number. I'd vote for “Arizona immigration law (2010)”, with possible redirects from the others. In all, we'd have a lot of redirects (including Arizona SB1070, SB10710 and the current title), but I agree that the article could be hard to find for someone who doesn't already know where to look. As long as there isn't a clash with some other possible article title, I don't see a problem. JeffConrad (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've pinged User:ChrisO (the leading advocate for the current name) again. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be another obvious issue here: I think the Arizona Legislature have at least one other regular session this year; what if they pass another immigration bill? JeffConrad (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly.

I'm afraid 67.246.175.103's reasons for wanting to rename this article simply aren't allowed in terms of Wikipedia policy. Yes, "the title of this bill is ridiculous and misleading". But as JeffConrad rightly said earlier, that's the title of the bill. There are plenty of other examples of legislation titled in similar "slanted" ways: No Child Left Behind Act, No-FEAR Act, PROTECT Act of 2003, America COMPETES Act and so on. Note that - as I said earlier - as a matter of course we use the official title of legislation in article titles. It's not up to us as editors to decide that we dislike the title and won't use it because we consider it to be "slanted". It's a basic issue of editorial neutrality; everyone can agree that the act has a particular title, regardless of whether or not we like that title, but rejecting that title for reasons of personal dislike is an imposition of a personal point of view. Original research is also an issue: the official is verifiable and precise. Other alternative names are not. There's no reason why we can't create alternative names which redirect here, which I've done for all of the alternatives suggested above by Wasted Time R. The bottom line is that as long as people are able to find the article, no matter how ridiculous its title might be, there's no problem. Type "Arizona immigration law" into the search box and you get this article. Problem solved? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific WP policy that requires (or suggests) a bill's official title be used as the article title? Though the title is the title, and using it allows us to say, “Talk to the Arizona Legislature if you don't like it”, I'd question the claim that it's “precise”. In any event, it would seem to me that we should prepend Arizona to the title to make the context clear; at first glance, a reader who has reached the article via a redirect may wonder what happened. The title is already so unwieldy that another word won't make much of a difference. JeffConrad (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search for the official bill title took me to the Minnesota House of Representatives, where a similar immigration bill has just been introduced. The bill is titled ... you guessed it, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. That bill may not pass, but I think we still should prepend Arizona to the title here.

Regarding ChrisO's argument (I deserve some credit for my notifications to him on this, since I know he always opposes my position ;-), yes WP search using that phrase finds the article under this name, but Bing puts it at the bottom of their first page of results and Google doesn't find it at all. That's probably what's accounting for the lower readership the article has gotten since the renaming. If we can't give it a good name, I'd also be in favor of prepending "Arizona" to the current name. There is a lot of existing practice on this, as about half the articles in Category:California statutes and Category:Massachusetts statutes have their state's name prepending to the act or law name. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you searching for? When I looked for "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act", Bing put it at the top (interestingly, under Arizona HB2162) and Google put it at #5. In any event, it would seem that we need to distinguish Arizona's law from at least one similar bill. JeffConrad (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was doing this Google search for arizona immigration law, which as ChrisO said will be the most common one done. The WP article is a no-show in the results. Only if you change it to to search for arizona immigration law sb1070 does the WP article show up, at the bottom of the first page of results. But not many will do that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the redirects haven't yet been indexed by Google. Bottom line seems to be that people think of it as “SB1070”, and that's how it's listed as the first item in the FAQ on the Arizona Legislature web site (no wonder some people still think the law allows police to stop those the police suspect of being illegal aliens). In any event, I think something like Arizona Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is the right choice for the article title. JeffConrad (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping the title as it is for now, then if another state passes a law with the same name it can be moved to "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona)" with the same convention followed for the other state law. As for what "people think of", that simply isn't relevant from our point of view. It isn't "SB1070" any more, it's an enacted law that's already been modified by another bill. In other words, it's different from the original SB1070. It's simply wrong to refer to an enacted law as a "senate bill" when it's nothing of the sort. Verifiability isn't a license to introduce blatant inaccuracies into articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call it "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona immigration law)" or something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilly granger (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)