The concern is that it would lead to essentially racial profiling as well as a violation of US citizens rights NOT to have to prove citizenship.

I've encountered a lot of illegals that speak fluent english, I've also encountered a lot of naturalized citizens that speak NO english.

i understand, but i think we're sensationalizing that point and not looking at logistics.

let's say you're a legal resident. you're committing a crime, you choose not to speak english, and you don't have valid id. so you can't prove your legal residency.

ok, so what?

you get detained. which would have happened since you were already in suspicion for another crime. while you're detained, they're checking your immigration status. they find out you're a legal resident. so what's the issue here? instead of turning your over to the federal government, they keep you because you were already (possibly) doing something illegal.

you can't be a naturalized citizen without a working (or at least basic) knowledge of the english language. so either they chose not to speak the language for whatever reason, or whoever was handing out papers that day was asleep at the wheel.

But if it's a traffic stop you wouldnt' be detained anyway, you'd just have gotten a ticket.

I just have low expectations about what "reasonable suspicion" will actually mean.

But you don't necessarily have to be committing a crime. You could be pulled over for a broken taillight something you wouldn't be arrested for the majority of the time and be detained indefinitely until you can prove your citizenship.

Not to mention that there is no concise answer for what is acceptable proof of naturalization or citizenship. A drivers license doesn't cut it because illegal immigrants can get those.

Probable cause =/= knowing for certain a crime is afoot. An officer can look at just about anything. Race is not one of those things, but there are many other factors which could be considered in such a routine traffic stop--lack of ability to speak English would be a factor in favor of PC because someone who doesn't speak English is much more likely to be illegal than someone who does; lack of insurance might also mitigate in favor of PC as illegals are much less likely to carry insurance.

It's not a racial thing, but let's be honest, in Arizona, illegal Mexicans are fairly common, so things common with illegal Mexicans aside from race and color are going to be fair game.

Saying that you know for a fact that race/color are going to be the singular motivating factors as to whether searches occur before the law has even started being enforced is sensational and pseudo-clairvoyant. You just don't know how Arizona police will be trained or how these laws will be enforced.

If the law is enforced, will the vast majority of arrests be Mexicans? Hell yeah... the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican, 'specially in AZ.

But we know from past incidents that no matter the training some police officers use their power in inappropriate ways. This law gives people who have "issues" with Mexicans a way to go after them and cover it by saying they had this reason or that reason. We shouldn't be passing laws in this country that can increase racial profiling.

If civil rights issues occur, someone's going to get paid and training will be corrected.

Oklahoma tried to pass a regime of laws a few years back to deal with employers who violated the immigration laws. Our laws were almost all struck down. Arizona did something its legal experts thought just might stand a chance (I disagree).

But the potential of racial profiling happening is not enough by itself to make something illegal. If that were the case, laws making crack cocaine illegal should be declared unconstitutional as well since the vast majority of crack cocaine arrestees are black. The fact that one racial minority is more likely to violate a certain law is not proof that law enforcement will use profiling to enforce that law.

more arrests =/= that group is using the most

Hence, the profiling argument.

I get what your saying and I'm hoping the Feds win this case. I just personally don't like the idea that this law is going to happen and then if it goes wrong you can sue. I don't believe in waiting to see if it leads to profiling. Stop it before it gets to that point is my opinion.

If you look at the current population [black males in particular] this potential racial profiling issue might be a compelling reason for overturning just about every law on the books. Racial profiling is a danger with any law. And when it happens, the remedy is the same for everyone--get a lawyer and get paid.

When the numbers are what they are with black crack users arrests vs. white cocaine users arrests, it's hard to imagine that racial profiling is the difference maker there. In 2006, blacks consisted of 82% of crack cocaine arrests. In that same year, whites accounted for 72% of powder cocaine arrests.

And yet, the penalties against crack cocaine are ridiculously higher than those for powder cocaine.

There's pretty much a documented issue in Illinois with racial profiling among police officers when it comes to traffic stops and searches folowing those stops. Even though they searched something like 8x more minorities than whites they found drugs in the cars of whites 2x more often. Yet they keep pulling over the minorities at a much higher rate. It's not as simple as "someone gets paid and retraining happens and it's all ok now."

Do your numbers not contemplate the existence of probable cause to initiate a search at those traffic stops? You assume race is at the top of the list. Yet you do that without any evidence of that. Just a bunch of assumption.