I have now read the text of the new law, so kindly provided to us by Doug's link.

It would be appreciated if he himself would read it. Indeed, we all should.

First, it makes clear the goal is to fight illegal immigration, and that many citizens plan to use it to do that.


A few problems: If lawful contact is made by a law enforcement official and "reasonable suspicion exists that the the person may be an alien" the person may be apprehended.

And "a person may bring an action in Superior Court to challenge any official who...implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws"   "Limits or restricts"--as seen by the irate citizen.

Put those together:   If the policeman does not find "reasonable suspicion" when informed by a citizen that the person in question "may be an alien", he may be sued.

So when a citizen points at a person as an illegal alien, how many policemen will refuse to apprehend the person, and thereby risk being sued?

That seems to be the crux of the law--and the reason Arizona under it would be rapidly heading towards Third Reich status.   Instead of Jews, it would be aliens.

No wonder some police themselves were against it--including the Association of Arizona Chiefs of Police. They have enough to do without being tasked with enforcing immigration law.



I'd like Doug to give us an actual citation from the law which proves that the person would have to have already be involved in a non-immigration related crime.

I've read what Arizona would plan to use in this regard is the "Terry" law--that a policeman may stop and frisk someone for weapons if they have a "reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken or is about to take place and the subject is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches andd seizures."   Affirmed by the US Supreme Court.

However I see nothing in the Arizona law about requiring "a reasonable suspicion" that the subject is armed and dangerous.   

Finally, the whole foundation is "reasonable suspicion".   That is entirely too hazy a concept for a law like this.