I would just like to hear you cast some blame and responsibility to those who have actually created this situation

What, specifically, are you claiming this statute does, as to race, that's unconstitutional? And what specific part of the U.S. are you claiming it violates? If this law's as obviously unconstitutional as you imply, that shouldn't be hard to answer.

and if you are lucky to meet one of professional, courteous police officers who are doing their job to the best of their abilities

just ONCE, I would just like to hear you cast some blame and responsibility to those who have actually created this situation........

The term "seizures" in the 4th Amendment refers to things

Seize
Definition - Transitive Verb
1 : to put in possession of property or vest with the right of possession or succession
2 : to take possession or custody of (property) esp. by lawful authority <~ drugs as evidence>
compare foreclose repossess
3 : to detain (a person) in such circumstances as would lead a reasonable person to believe that he or she was not free to leave

Incidentally, you're overstating a person's right to refuse to answer a question by police.

The police can do more than just question someone when they have reasonable suspicion, without placing the person under arrest. A "stop and frisk" or "Terry stop" is a typical example of this.

The fact you're not free to leave, by itself, does not mean you're under arrest.

another increasingly fascist/racist nation.

Illegal immigration is the fault of greedy, capitalist corporations, small business and agriculture who rely on the use of grossly underpaid illegal workers in order to maximize profit... Without them, there would be little to no benefit from illegal immigration...

Illegal immigration is also the fault of greedy, self-entitled Americans who think that they are entitled to what is arguably the leastest expensive 'food basket' in the developed world that requires corporations, small business and agriculture to rely on the use of grossly underpaid illegal workers to provide...

Where does this statute authorize officers to arrest someone for failing to show they're not an alien unlawfully present in the U.S.?

Illegal immigration is the fault of greedy, capitalist corporations, small business and agriculture who rely on the use of grossly underpaid illegal workers

And it empowers the officers to take custody (that means 'arrest') and hand the person over to federal immigration authorities (even outside of Arizona jurisdiction, meaning they can 'dump' them in New Mexico or Nevada if they want)...

Now... You tell me what they are going to do if they ask for proof and someone refuses by stating "I'm an American citizen. I was born in this country"...

NAFTA was designed and accepted as a means to drive people off their lands for our cheap-azz crap and corporate control of peasant lands.

Mexico, Central America and other colonies are a symptom of our disease. We make these people and places scapegoats because we refuse to accept personal responsibility for the world we demand and created.

I guess my response to your challenge didn't sit very well with you.

and the consumers are benefitting.

We killed the unions

that our own children needed a college education to avoid real work

The statute makes it a State-level crime to be "unlawfully present"

That doesn't seem very likely.

What if the person says "Soy Americano. Nacio aqui"?

The feds have always had road blocks and check stops on the highways heading north from the border in AZ. They stop you, ask you where you're from and check you out thoroughly if you're not American. What's the diff?

The state legislature has made a number of minor changes in the statute in response to various mischaracterizations. You're making one right here. This statute does NOT make that a crime.

"For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency," the statute requires that official or agency to make "a reasonable attempt . . . when practicable," to "determine the immigration status" of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."

The legislature has added an explanatory note to the statute saying that the substitution of the phrase "lawful stop, detention or arrest" for "lawful contact" in an earlier version "stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

I hope you're not trying to say a state can't enforce a federal law if it chooses. States most certainly can, and do. The clear purpose of this statute is to enforce federal laws, including the one I cited and quoted--and which you have continued to ignore--8 U.S.C. sec. 1304 (e). This section requires every alien 18 or older to "at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession [a] certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." Failure to comply is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, a jail term, or both.

40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
S.B. 1070

11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE
16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF
18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT
20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT
21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO
22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION
23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL
24 IMMIGRATION.
....
27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
....
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:

It begins at ground zero and ground zero is Mexico.

And that means you can be arrested for suspicion of being "unlawfully present", in and of itself...

Why can't industries that need labor just tell the gov't how many to let in? Gov't says how many get in till industries say they have enough. We also need to protect these workers from industry abuse (no unpaid overtime, proper compensation, safety conditions, and other standard labor protections).

Seems perfectly reasonable, given that it is ARIZONA... Originally settled by the Spanish, then Mexican territory... Where Spanish is a "founding language"... And, actually, THE ORIGINAL European "founding language"... Do you think a natural born American citizen of original Spanish (or even Mexican) heritage from before Arizona was even US territory shouldn't have the right to answer in his family's traditional language...?

But if the person can't produce any of the approved documents, the official or agency can call the federal immigration authorities to verify his immigration status as 8 U.S.C. 1373 (c) authorizes. The Arizona statute says either a federal official the government's authorized to determine immigration status, or the state official or agency communicating with the feds about a person's status, can make the final determination of that status. If it's determined that the person doesn't come within the exemption of 13-1509 F., that gives the official or agency probable cause to think he's violating 1304 (c), 1306 (a), or both. And that means they also have probable cause to think he's violating 13-1509 A. Only at that point could the official or agency arrest the person.

When you say this law requires police to "violate people's rights" and requires "racial profiling" (whatever that may be) and violation of constitutional rights, you're only asserting the uninformed conclusion you've jumped to. That's not reasoning--and it is no response at all to my challenge to state specifically what constitutional guarantee you think this law violates, and how. You can't answer, so you refer me to someone's suit. You've revealed yourself as yet one more person who's made up his mind this issue on the basis of his own biases.

I'm aware of how much the law professor who drafted the statute knows about the constitutional issues involved. If you think he got them wrong, prove it.

Yeah! He got it wrong, law professor or not! They already had to amend the new law that was legalizing racial profiling.