Yes.

If you read the bill how could you make statements like this:

When the bill clearly states that:

In other words, lawful contact must be made BEFORE they can question immigration status, and they also must establish reasonable suspicion that the person may be here illegally before questioning them.

You aren't going to be stopped going into the store. If they stopped everyone who looked like an illegal immigrant they wouldn't have time to do anything else. They simply don't have the manpower to do that so they work smarter than that. They follow guidleines put in place to actually vet illegals, not harass real citizens. Do you think they want to waste your time or theirs for no reason at all? Of course not!

It absolutely boggles my mind that people can be against this for any other reason than wanting the borders to be open.

I am all for eliminating illegal immigration. I am not for amnesty for those who are here illegally. My concern is that citizens and legal immigrants will be snagged in the Dragnet. But I have a few questions for you:

1. What is lawful contact?
2. Does it require probable cause?
3. What reasonable suspicion would cause an officer to think that criminal activity is afoot? Five mexicans deep in a Buick Riveria...is that suspicious enough?
4. What prevents officers from making pretextual stops?
5. What would lead an officer to believe that someone is an illegal alien?
6. How do you only vet illegals if there are no particular discernable characteristics that allow you to tell the difference between an illegal alien and one who is here legally? (What I hope you didn't mean is that the law is put in place to vet mexicans, not to harass real citizens). You cannot.

Ps. What are "real" citizens?

An easy solution to the Arizona law is to neutrialze the percieved racial component of the law. Make it routine that officers must ascertain the residencey status of all persons stopped by an officer after "legal contact", not just those that they suspect are here illegally. I don't think it would stop profiling, but it would lessen the constitutional scrutiny.

I'm not going to answer those silly questions. The law is in plain English.

To me this is the same as being asked for a driver's license. The cop takes it back to his car and runs a check on it.

Since you are a real citizen (not illegal) you don't have anything to worry about.

In no way does this infringe upon any rights of ours, and believe me if it did I would be the first to object to it.

The fact is, immigration is a problem as you admit and we need to do SOMETHING about it. Asking someone their status after they are already pulled over is the LEAST we can do.

I would be fine with that. LEO grabs my license, runs my name through the federal database and sees I was born here, writes me my speeding ticket, and lets me go on my way.

I don't see how this is such a big deal. People who aren't born here are required to carry their 'papers' anyway.

Those questions are far from silly. They are the basis of criminal procedure law in this country. Those questions protect you from unreasonable search and seizure. The law, as written, does not require probable cause or reasonable suspicion for "lawful contact" other than to determine the immigration status of an individual.

I may not have anything to worry about, but there are hundreds of thousands of Mexican/Hispanic-Americans living in Arizona that do.

They are silly in the context of this argument because probably cause, reasonable suspicion and lawful contact are already well defined by case law and this bill simply adds that LEOs are allowed to ask about a subject's immigration status once they make that contact. It doesn't outline probable cause etc because it doesn't need to.

I simply feel that the people opposed to this law are not interpreting it correctly, and applying those misinterpretations to what if scenarios are leading them to be against the bill.

Is it really that horrible of a question? "Are you a US citizen?"

How does that question infringe upon your rights?

How realistic is this answer?

I believe you're right about this and perhaps most of them are illegal
aliens. Is it right? Prob not. But like I said the Federal govt. needs to get
their act together.

Three years of law school and years of legal practice tell me that this law will not survive Constitutional scrutiny. Point-blank.