LOL, yep
It actually looks at claims on both sides, and finds neither to be quite right.
Not from what I saw when reading through real quick. Everything seemed to come from the guise that the law is questionable and people supporting it are lying about what it does.
The difference is enforcement. Prior to this law, the odds of any one making an active effort where slim to none. Now they have gone up significantly. It has the positive of finding more illegals, but has the negative that, since some profiling can be done, innocents are going to be much more likely to be bothered by the police. The unanswered question at this time is how much.
Profiling in general is legal and completely fine. Racial profiling is not. This law doesn't allow for it any more than any other law. There's no magical right that I know of where someone has a right not to be "bothered" by the police. As long as the police act within both state and federal law, they can bother whoever and however many people they want in my mind and a law should stay on the books if its doing its job in regards to criminals. If the police break state or federal law then deal with them.
How many innocents get "bothered" in no way shape or form proves the notion of racial profiling being made legal in the law.
The other question is whether Hispanic people with a definite accent is enough to be "reasonable suspicion", and that probably will end up before the courts soon.
Indeed, that said having a "Thick accent" is not "racial profiling" nor does it specify HISPANIC accent in the federal governments guidebook. Even then though, nothing they've shown documents that an accent alone is going to be acceptable as reasonable suspicion nor that its acceptable as such anywhere else in the country, state or federal.
You are reading way too much into the words. It says, quite clearly, that there are unknowns about how officers will be trained to establish "reasonable suspicion". Saying "we dunno" is not implying anything. There are no assumptions from the article, and I made none. We do not know means we do not know. Don't build that strawman. The point in my quoting that part was to show how Hispanics could be some what uneasy about things. Nowhere did I claim that in fact they would be unfairly targeted, nor have I ever said that. It is a question that will have to be answered.
Gotcha.
You wait for that one to be answered, I'll wait for "Death Panels" to be answered, and we can both keep our "reasons to be concerned" it seems. I mean, since things not being officially laid out in definitive detail means anything could reasonable still happen.
The whole point that many of us have about potential problems with the law hinges on the fact that terms like "vague" and "unclear" can be used in discussing how the law will be handled. That is not a problem with the source, it's a problem with the guidelines. Yes, the federal government's rules suffer the same problem, but let's face it, the federal government really does not enforce immigration laws much, which is why Arizona went down this road.
However whether or not the federal government enforces it or not doesn't matter in regards to the cries of "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!" that so many lob around. And it appears, from your own source, that most of the things people scream about being unconstitutional are the vary things found in the Federal law.
Additionally, the only thing I've seen people point out in the law as "vague" every single time I've asked for it is "Reasonable Suspicion". Which, unlike your terms your quoted, is actually less vague then it seems since its a recognized and long standing legal standard that has historical cases of it being used in a plethora of different law enforcement situations and whose constitutionality in regards to the criteria to meet it has been established in numerous various court cases.
The only thing I've seen anyone quote specifically as "vague" is that "reasonable suspicion"
MAY allow them to just randomly stop Hispanic people for being Hispanic and ask them for their papers...however that's not "Vague", that's patently untrue and flatly unconstitutional, not to mention no where present in this law.
Is there some vagueness to it? Yes, there is, its meant to be. Just like Probable Cause is "vague", just like "Reasonable Doubt" is vague", just like preponderance of evidence is "vague", just like "mod discretion" is vague, and most other forms of legal code is. They're broad statements that are governed over by far more strict and narrow guidelines and laws that allow the law enforcement officers and those involved in the legal system a level of latitude when acting while providing a strict boundary around that openness. The issue I have is that everyone that complains about its "Vagueness" then proceeds to point to the vagueness supposedly allowing it to do things that are definitively outside of those boundaries.
Please, specifically, you, tell me what you find "Vague" about the law.
I think part of the problem is that you misunderstand my position on the law. Whether it is a good law or not is not known yet to my mind. I think we will find out when the details are wrinkled out, and when we see how it is enforced. If Hispanic citizens and those here legally are not bothered by police, then no problem. If that and it reduces the number of illegals in the state, then it's a good law. If Hispanics have issues with being harassed, then it will be a bad law. As things stand now though, I am not against the law, and maybe that neutrality is why I don't see everything as biased one way or another. It's something you have commented on yourself, how bias can very well be in the eye of the beholder.
And see, I do not see it necessarily as a "bad law" if it Hispanics have issues with being harassed. That point alone does not prove it is "bad law", but that there is something wrong with regards to it. It COULD be a bad law. It COULD be bad enforcement guildelines. It COULD be individual departments having bad policy. It COULD be individual officers acting incorrectly.
Oh, and its also possible that the claims of "harassment" could end up being relatively hollow and far over reported and over exaggerated or fully not harassment at all but fully justified under the law but we don't hear it the specifics from the media but only the sob stories.
The difference is I'm not going to believe its a "Bad law" simply because a bunch of hispanic citizens in Arizona make claims that they got unfairly harassed. If its found to be systemically problematic with evidence of legitimate harassment then yes. If its found to be unconstitutional somehow at a federal level, then yes. Those would be bad laws. If a bunch of baseless accusations of "harassment" come out, or a handful of legitimate accusations? No, that's not what I'd decree as a "bad law" in and of itself.
Mind you, my issue is a good deal less with your general view of the law as it is with your sources presentation and implication of their own view in the manner at which they come at the story and the majority of people who use the very arguments you're using however don't use them to argue a neutral point but to argue that the law is unjust and must go.