What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Redux

Please point to any other law where citizens (not illegals) of one race or ethnicity are far more likely to be subject to being "questioned" about their immigration status than other races, when not in custody for questioning about any other crime.

This is about geography, not discrimination.
What if NY passed the same law, written exactly the same way?

Originally Posted by jinx

This is about geography, not discrimination.
What if NY passed the same law, written exactly the same way?

IMO, and the opinion of many legal experts, this law has a greater potential adverse impact on Hispanic citizens and legal residents than other races. That makes it discriminatory. Others disagree, I get that.

Again, that is why the courts should decide.

Particularly, when the law only requires "reasonable suspicion" and does not prohibit considering race as a factor. It only says race cannot be the sole factor for determining reasonable suspicion. When race is A factor (not the sole factor), it borders or crosses the line of being discriminatory.

If you are a Hispanic citizen or legal resident of AZ, you are more likely to face "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant and in violation of the state law than Anglos, Blacks, Asians.....I honestly dont see how objective observers can suggest otherwise.

IMO, there would be much less concern with the law being potentially discriminatory if it relied on "probable cause" (a greater burden of proof) rather than "reasonable suspicion".

added:
In case I wasnt clear enough about your NY comparison......any law in any state that uses a standard of "reasonable suspicion" and allows race to be a determining factor in that suspicion (just not the sole factor) raises serious legal questions of being discriminatory.