The "new" law simply reaffirms the plain letter of the federal law which isn't enforced.

I love immigrants, come from immigrants, am married to immigrants.

Sign the book on the way in or fuck you.

G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION
37 IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A
38 COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS
39 OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT
40 OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL
41 LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS
42 SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT
43 LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR
44 EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION
45 PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Basically, any Arizona resident can sue their local law enforcement agency if they feel like that agency isn't 'fully cooperating' with federal immigration law.

I don't have any problem with the cops checking on people that are obviously illegals, or have a reasonable suspicion that they could be. Honestly they should have been doing that already. However, detaining US citizens because they don't have the appropriate paperwork, or even demanding that they produce MORE paperwork than is legally required is a slippery slope. That's my biggest problem with this.

I think it's absurd that anyone disagrees with a law that "makes it ILLEGAL to be in the country ILLEGALLY"

But then again, I also think it absurd we even need to make a law that STATES that this is a law, now we will enforce the LAW......Good God what has happened to this country? Honestly....

Its like "its illegal to drive you're car drunk, if you're drunk and driving your car..." Well no fuckin shit!

Situation A: pablo martinez has been a legal citizen all his life. His parents moved here and got papers etc. Pablos driving his car to work and has forgot his wallet. A police officer can pull him over on simple suspicion, and if pablo cannot produce his papers at any given point he's sent to mexico.

I see that as too harsh

Racial profiling has been illegal for years, yet I don't think you could deny that it happens. A lot. An officer CAN in fact pull you over for simple suspicion.

thats not really the crux of it

Situation A: pablo martinez has been a legal citizen all his life. His parents moved here and got papers etc. Pablos driving his car to work and has forgot his wallet. A police officer can pull him over on simple suspicion, and if pablo cannot produce his papers at any given point he's sent to mexico.

I see that as too harsh

Perhaps i'm wrong, but I think everyone is way overreacting.

The deportation assuming is a bit of an overreach.

However, US citizens are going to be detained (and have already been detained) because a police officer didn't accept the identification he/she SHOULD accept as proof of citizenship. This is a dangerous precedent.

Next, is it not illegal per the Constitution to demand a citizen to prove identity when that citizen has committed no crime? If so, then AZ cops can only ask non-citizens to identify themselves. If they ask a citizen, that citizen could then sue the state.

Okay the state of AZ passed this law, but will it hold up in court? Immigration is a federal matter, so doesn't that mean state governments are not allowed to get involved? After all, Arizona can't declare war on Mexico, for example.

From what I understand, they'll be talking to the same amount of people as before, ie, people who have, or they suspect have broken some law. Not out in the streets stopping random people and demanding proof of citizenship, so since they're already 'dealing' with the person because that person did something which triggered the police to ask them for identification, they would be committing no crime under your example.