First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.

Rather than try to explain why I think this isn't as bad as it is being made out to be, i think this explains it reasonably well.

I did read it, when I linked to the text in full earlier. I remain unconvinced that there is a satisfactory definition of "reasonable suspicion" that doesn't involve race. And that article points out exactly the paradox that Alex alluded to previously, the fact that a large portion of those in favor of it are the same that bristle at the mention of the phrase "national ID card", and yet the defense of this bill is that we're all okay with showing or driver's license.

Until you can convince me that a white person standing in front of Home Depot is just as likely to be asked for his driver's license as a brown person is, no dice.

Assuming the letter of the law is as described, and assuming everyone behaves angelically in implementing it, it is still unnecessary pandering unless Arizona had a pre-existing limit on law enforcement's powers in this area.

It's as if a law was passed requiring the police to detain every homosexual that they reasonably suspected to have molested a child. The police can already do that.

By the way, whenever you read about something that's been "reasonably crafted" and "narrowly tailored" after "due deliberation," lock your door and hide. Something outrageous is about to happen.

“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

That's attributed to MLK, though I cannot find a reference that sites a source.

I still can't find the text of the darned bill.

As a practical matter, there would be a big difference in harassment potential if the bill said "during a lawful encounter with police" rather than "during a lawful detention." A lawful encounter is any encounter with law enforcement that is not the product of an illegal detention. "Hey, amigo, can I talk to you?" is not an illegal detention because, the decisions are clear, unless you are detained, you can terminate an encounter with an officer and just walk away.

Everyone knows that.

The bill

Senate fact sheet.

I'm not 100% sure that's the absolute final version of the bill that was passed, but from what I gather it's at least very close.

The article you posted, scaeagles, also doesn't address exactly how us law-abiding citizens are supposed to magically determine who we can and can't hire, or give a ride to. Are bus drivers now going to have to refuse service to anyone they saw walk over from standing in front of Home Depot, lest they turn out to be illegal immigrants, putting the driver at risk of prosecution?

Survey says: "lawful contact."

Upon rereading, I see that Scaeagles' article mentions this as the saving grace. I think it's where all the mischief lies.

Why oh why did I think things may have changed around here and you'd actually answer a question. Since it seems you want to play semantics I'll rephrase:

would you have the same feelings towards this law if your family didn't look like they belong here? If it was your family who was at risk of getting pulled over and/or questioned about their immigration status?

I did answer your original question, though I suppose indirectly. Apparently you haven't read my earlier comments. Earlier in this thread I said I oppose this law. Because I oppose the law and have stated that, it seems relatively obvious that I would not be "all for" the law under your express circumstances.

So snark on semantics all you want - if you read what I said earlier you might get what I was saying now.

My only point is people are making all sorts of hell about this when it's basically allwwoing the law enforcement of AZ to do the same thing the feds have the authority to do but won't.