This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arizona SB 1070 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Arizona SB 1070 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 30, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Arizona SB1070, the state's new immigration enforcement law, has attracted national attention as the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in decades within the
United States? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 23, 2011, April 23, 2016, and April 23, 2020. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I've slightly reworded this section to better describe what the law actually says, as well as follow the original chronology in each of the law's sections. Additionally,
Sec. 6 of SB 1070 adds the authority to arrest for any offense that makes a person removable from the the United States. I've not added it because, as the AZPOST training materials point out,
We can add this if it's felt necessary, but I think the more we add that's of marginal importance, the more difficult the reading becomes. If we do add it, we need to cite the right section. [01:17, July 21, 2010 JeffConrad]
Please do the needful: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arizona-law-20160915-snap-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B11D:F586:C912:8775:DA4A:7B1C ( talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Under the "Effects" subtopic, it is suggested that an abundance of yard sales indicated a mass exodus of Latinx residents leaving Arizona. While I do not dispute that many Latinx, documented or otherwise, may have left the state following passage of SB 1070, this suggested indicator is laughable and has no relevance to the article. More substantive evidence of mass departure, would be the "anecdotal evidence provided by schools, businesses, churches, and healthcare facilities," also mentioned in the article from which the yard sale mention is taken.
Joshua Baker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.132.68 ( talk) 14:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder that there is a rule about reverting other's work 3x in one 24 hour period. Additionally it is not a good idea to remove large amounts of work without discussing it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis in travisland2 ( talk • contribs) 23:39 UT, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The act having been partially struck down suggests that it remains in effect in amended form. That infobox usually uses yellow for an amended act that is in force. I wonder if this may be something wrong with the infobox, or how it's used here...? Ellenor2000 ( talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)