According to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975).

The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.” State v. Graciano, 653 P.2d 683, 687 n.7 (Ariz. 1982) (citing State v. Becerra, 534 P.2d 743 (1975)).

Before the amendment, President Obama commented on how SB 1070 is unconstitutional. Now, Senator McCain is telling Fox News that the President was wrong, because it requires something more than “lawful contact” by the police. Well, that may be true now, thanks to the ACLU, but it wasn’t true when the President made his remarks.

However, it’s probably a distinction without a difference, because if a cop has reasonable cause to ask someone for papers, there is also reasonable cause to suspect that person of violating the already-enacted “trespassing” statute. Instead of going from contact to reasonable cause for deportation, the officer and suspect go from contact to reasonable cause for suspicion of trespassing to reasonable cause for deportation.

This country has an idiotic immigration policy, but I really can’t object to deporting those who are here illegally. It’s consistent with the general stupidity. We should all object, however, when citizens and legal residents are snared in the net intended for others.

HB 2162 contains an amendment changing the language from “contact” to “stop, detention, or arrest” and makes explicit that the stop detention or arrest must be for an offense other than a violation of SB1070 per se. (To me this sounds like jurisdictions that make it an offense to drive without seatbelts on, but prohibit stops on that basis alone.)

I did not verify any of this until after Mr. Brown’s response to my comment (i.e., I was relying on the newspaper when I asked my question.) But this provides an example of why we should take much of what is said and written with salt: If an experienced criminal defense attorney was under a misapprehension as to the current state of the law, why should I think that Sharika, Al Sharpton, Steve Nash, etc. have sufficient knowledge to comment intelligently? And, why should any of you care what I say? As a man once said: trust, but verify.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the lawful contact language was amended out of the law.

“If you like the bill, I doubt I’ll be able to change your mind by espousing the virtues of liberty or racial tolerance. I do, however, suggest one thing. Before you pass final judgment on the bill, see what it costs. The price tag of turning thousands and thousands of otherwise law-abiding people into criminals may change your mind.”

I guess I feel pretty much the same way: rather than accept your predictions of doom, gloom, and rampant racism, I’ll not pass final judgment until I see what actually happens.