the Arizona law REQUIRES reasonable suspicion..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
reasonable suspicion of what?? not that a crime is being commited - as is the case in NJ law.
so all the other arguments and cases are irrelevant here..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
is that why you kept citing them? or are they now irrelevant because they don't help you prove your point - because you don't have one.

really?? if an officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of the immigration law, there is no crime that has been committed??(dt) cluelessful, ты наша..:-D where did you take your law classes? just want to know, so I don't mistakenly take them there.. :-) if it was up to you, we would be living in a lawless state where no one can uphold any laws with criminals running around..and only laws that regulate our private lives and increase taxes are passed..

really?? if an officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the personis in violation of the immigration law, there is no crime that has been committed??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
a crime in what sense? is it a felony, a misdemeanor or just violation? and what exactly is this reasonable suspicion based on? the fact that one looks Hispanic, or that they look poor, or don't speak English? unless the person is seen crossing the border, I don't see any valid cause for reasonable suspicion to arise.

Many police officers in New Jersey are misusing a 2007 directive by the state’s attorney general by questioning the immigration status of Latino drivers, passengers, pedestrians and even crime victims, reporting them to federal immigration authorities and jailing some for days without criminal charges, according to a Seton Hall Law School study.

“The data suggests a disturbing trend towards racial profiling by the New Jersey police,” said Bassina Farbenblum, a lawyer with the law school’s Center for Social Justice, which gathered details of 68 cases over the past nine months in which people were questioned about their immigration status for no apparent reason, or after minor infractions, like rolling through a stop sign. None involved drunken driving or the use of false documents.

In one case it cited, police officers questioned a man at the Camden train station after asking to see his ticket. Unable to show one, he was arrested and held for seven days before being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Elsewhere, another man was transferred to immigration agents after being held for four months, cited only for driving without a license. And a woman who showed her Argentine license at a “car checkpoint” was detained, then turned over to federal immigration agents even though a judge told her there were no charges against her.

The New Jersey directive ordered the police to inquire about immigration status when arresting someone for an indictable crime or for driving while intoxicated. The directive is silent on lesser offenses, but forbids the authorities from questioning the victims or witnesses of crime about their immigration status.

It also listed seven incidents in which Latinos who sought police help were questioned about their immigration status, in direct violation of the directive.

One woman told the center that she had called the police to her Plainfield home to protect her from domestic violence, but that they threatened to call the federal enforcement agency.

A man told of going to the Mount Holly police station to report that his passport had been lost, only to be detained for 16 days after police found some unpaid parking tickets, and turned over to immigration agents. The police in Mount Holly did not respond to questions about cases involving the directive.

Ms. Farbenblum said the cases in the report are “the tip of the iceberg,” since many noncitizens are reluctant to come forward or never see a lawyer, and the police are not required to report their questioning of immigrants in such cases. Police resources are being diverted from serious crime prevention, breaking down the trust necessary for effective policing in a state with the nation’s third highest immigrant population, the report contends.




In the first six months after the directive was issued, the police referred 10,000 people to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but only 1,417 of them were charged with immigration violations, government data shows. Many others were legal residents or United States citizens.

***********.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/nyregion/15immigration.html
so you really still don't see the potential for misuse and abuse in Arizona?

Глеб, в Аризоне не дорого и свежий. Прямо с базы
Оh wait, we should be more sympathetic to illegal aliens undocumented foreign nationals

The only solution to Arizona problem, is to built the double fence on the border.