Law Provisions

The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for anyone to be unable to prove lawful residence in the United States upon being asked to provide such proof pursuant to a specific section in Title 8 of the United States Code, and requires police to make a reasonable attempt, when practical to determine immigration status if there is cause to suspect they are illegal immigrants. Only when making lawful contact, anyone who appears to be an illegal alien upon reasonable suspicion and fails to produce such proof is subject to arrest without warrant, and, upon confirmation of the individual’s illegal status by the federal government, a fine of at least $500, and up to six months in jail.

A person is “presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States” if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.

SB1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting “the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law” and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.

In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which “blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.” Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while “recklessly” disregarding the individuals immigration-status, will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if less than 10 illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if 10 or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.

Arizona is the first state with such a law. Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments discourage such inquiries for fear that immigrants will not report crimes or cooperate in other investigations.

Here are the business, economics, and finance articles that have been featured. Of historical significance to the current state of the U.S. economy: The Panic of 1907 and Tulip mania, a 17th century speculative bubble in tulips that arose in what is now The Netherlands.

The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version….

“We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks,” said Michael Snow, a lawyer in Seattle who is the chairman of the Wikimedia board. “There was a time probably when the community was more forgiving of things that were inaccurate or fudged in some fashion — whether simply misunderstood or an author had some ax to grind. There is less tolerance for that sort of problem now.”

The BBC also sees the change as highly signficant, calling it “a radical shift.”

As an example of the extreme dismay the policy change is causing in some quarters, here’s a comment that the Times highlighted:

I cannot believe all this support for the most destructive decision ever made by the Wikipedia team. I am truly horrified. If you want an edited encyclopedia, make a new one. Don’t destroy Wikipedia. Don’t transform its spirit. The point of one of the most creative and impressive structure of the Web is to be organic in nature. Thought must go back and forth. Ideas must be free to emerge, blend, mix and evolve. No this is not a great decision, it is suicidal. I am strongly against this and invite those who share my concerns to be very vocal.

Along those lines, a freewheeling discussion is currently taking place on Slashdot. Here’s one post that sort of sums up the consternation over the perceived change in the ethos of the site:

Uhh, isn’t this the way things always work when there’s a user-generated-content scenario?

1) “Hey, our site is Web 2.0 – everyone can contribute!”
2) Massive amount of content mysteriously accumulates
3) Oh wait, we need to put ‘security’ measures in place to prevent bad people doing bad things to our c.. (sorry, your) content.

Some Wikipedians, however, are calling the change less than earth-shattering:

Here’s the actual policy draft. The so called “articles about living people” are actually specific heavily vandalized articles that are already eligible for semi-protection, and the “experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia” is any account at least four days old that’s made at least ten edits. Not exactly the epic failure of Wikipedia’s core principles that the mainstream news media would like it to be. It’s heavily ironic that that the NYT is too busy bashing Wikipedia to concern themselves with the facts of the story here.

And over at The Wikipedia Review, the topic is not drawing much posting action. Responding to the Times’ assertion that certain revisions will require an experienced Wikipedia editor’s approval, one user writes:

They seem to be overstating what is actually happening… Contrary to what NYT reports, there is no indication that this will specifically be targeted at BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons). It is apparently intended to be applied using the current guidelines for semi and full protection.

Hmm. So who will write the Wikipedia article about the change in policy? That one should really be one hell of an editing war.

So maybe this one’s the Great Great Recession.