Talk:Arizona SB 1070

Provisions

I've slightly reworded this section to better describe what the law actually says, as well as follow the original chronology in each of the law's sections. Additionally,

• The enumeration symbols for the four types of presumptive identification seemed unnecessary and possibly distracting; moreover, they were potentially confusing because the bill uses numerical rather than alphabetical designations.
• The authority to arrest for probable cause derives from A.R.S. 13-883 rather than from Sec. 3 of SB 1070, so the reference (which I think I added) wasn't appropriate.

Sec. 6 of SB 1070 adds the authority to arrest for any offense that makes a person removable from the the United States. I've not added it because, as the AZPOST training materials point out,

• Few peace officers will know which offenses qualify.
• A peace officer already has the authority for a warrantless arrest for any misdemeanor or felony, so the added provision doesn't really change anything.

We can add this if it's felt necessary, but I think the more we add that's of marginal importance, the more difficult the reading becomes. If we do add it, we need to cite the right section. [01:17, July 21, 2010 JeffConrad]

Weakened in 2016

Please do the needful: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arizona-law-20160915-snap-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B11D:F586:C912:8775:DA4A:7B1C (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"The prevalence of yard sales suggested illegal immigrants were leaving Arizona, with some returning to Mexico and others moving to other U.S. states," is a stretch at best

Under the "Effects" subtopic, it is suggested that an abundance of yard sales indicated a mass exodus of Latinx residents leaving Arizona. While I do not dispute that many Latinx, documented or otherwise, may have left the state following passage of SB 1070, this suggested indicator is laughable and has no relevance to the article. More substantive evidence of mass departure, would be the "anecdotal evidence provided by schools, businesses, churches, and healthcare facilities," also mentioned in the article from which the yard sale mention is taken.

---

Joshua Baker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.132.68 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

revert rule

Just a reminder that there is a rule about reverting other's work 3x in one 24 hour period. Additionally it is not a good idea to remove large amounts of work without discussing it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis in travisland2 (talk • contribs) 23:39 UT, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Snide remarks about persons involved in a controversy are always out of place in an encyclopedia.

Since this is a controversial article, all but the most obvious statements should be supported by a source that satisfies the verifiability policy. The sources must be cited in this article; referring to another Wikipedia article which contains citations is not acceptable.

I don't think it has come up in this series of edits yet, but new editors often make the mistake of giving sources in edit summaries. Edit summaries are not an acceptable place to cite a source; they must be cited in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

everything I wrote was cited and cited properly. This is the problem with careless reverts. David Duke did make that comment, that was cited. Peirce is a eugenicist which once again was cited. Jan Brewer is a decedent of immigrants, which for the 3rd time was cited. The see also accurate reflect similar legislation. But I guess it is easier to just revert and then threaten on talk pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.69.191 (talk • contribs) 00:07 UT, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Travis in travisland2 and 24.228.69.191 could be different editors. Please sign in if you want a response. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that two different editors are reverting your edits, not the same one. Wikipedia's need for sourcing is not only for verifiability but also to establish notability, relevance or due weight, meaning a fact, while true, should only be included if the RS on the matter also include it, showing it's relevant. Please also use a spell checker. Finally, WP:BRD, while not policy, puts the onus on the editor trying to introduce new changes to prove the edits should stay, not the other way around Hydromania (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Partially struck down under status - wrong colour?

The act having been partially struck down suggests that it remains in effect in amended form. That infobox usually uses yellow for an amended act that is in force. I wonder if this may be something wrong with the infobox, or how it's used here...? Ellenor2000 (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently that is a thing on the infobox side, not on the article side. *sigh* we're off to see the wizard (the template that is the infobox in question) Ellenor2000 (talk) Ellenor2000 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)