As the documents point out, it's the same API used for Amazon EC3[sic] and others. They're implementing someone else's protocol.
I was wondering if that was going to be the case. Thanks for looking it up.
If that's the case, then the already-mature S3 libraries, clients, and GUI front ends should work with it. That means the s3fox firefox extension for most end users, or j3tset for Java folks. Pretty much anything that comes up when you google 's3 client' ought to work.
You don't need an entire jury to be rational thinkers--you just need a few jurors to lead the discussion. So what if you have emotional jurors? How long can you possibly deliberate over whether or not a defendant is ugly?
Think Terry Childs was convicted because he was ugly? I think you'd enjoy reading this article, which was posted on slashdot a month or so ago. It was written by one of the jurors at his trial, and he is a CCIE.
For example, any signs of remorse in the courtroom, performance on the stand, etc might be much more significant to the overall judgement process.
Typically, the defendant wouldn't take the stand at her own trial. Most attorneys really don't want their defendant cross-examined!
At any rate, the real problem with the study is that it complete ignores how juries reach a verdict. It's not as though a the Judge gives the instructions, the jury votes, and the majority rules. The jury has to deliberate and collectively reach a verdict (or not, if they are unable to reach consensus).
As the fine article pointed out, some jurors made decisions rationally vs. emotionally. During deliberations, the rationally-motivated people tend to concentrate on the facts, which tends to keep the "he jus look guilty!" crowd in check.
I'd say that the study assumes that the emotional thinkers have way more sway than the court system gives them.
What more upsetting is this: If Amazon doesn't have working disaster recovery, what do other websites/companies have?
Actually, Amazon is quite clear on this issue: any individual EC2 instance should be considered to be disposable. Your sole recourse if an instance fails lies within the RunInstances and StartInstances APIs (read: if your instance fails, launch a new one).
If you think about it, this makes sense. You can plan for common hardware and network faults, but the funny thing about failures is they don't always happen the way you envisioned. Furthermore, they don't always happen in recoverable ways. Consider the fire at ThePlanet in '08. Backup generators were working great until the fire marshal arrived and ordered them powered down. What's your recovery plan when the fire marshal shows up and says, "If you want my firefighters to risk their lives putting out your fire, you're cutting all power."?
The EC2 plan is to simply launch a replacement instance. In a different datacenter, if you wish.
Actually, the failure is your own, for not reading the fine EC2 manual.
Amazon is clear on this point: they are providing cheap VDSs on commodity hardware. Any individual VDS may terminate at any given point in time. As a result, you need to architect your app so that it tolerates the failure of a node.
If you think about it, Amazon kindof has a point on this one. We can divide servers into two types: those that have failed, and those that have not failed yet. Too many applications are architected as though hardware and network failures never happen. They do happen (even in the best-run datacenters), and EC2 forces you to plan for that inevitable failure.
What's your plan when a node or a switch fails in your physical datacenter? Or if your internet link is severed by an intoxicated backhoe operator? Will it cause you more acid indigestion than typing 'ec2-run-instances'?
On the other hand, had your app been running in EC2, you could simply relaunch your dead instance in another datacenter. You can use Amazon's automated service to do this, or you can roll your own, if you'd like.
EC2 users who had adverse outcomes due to the power outage simply failed to architect their application for their underlying hardware. Amazon is frank with users (it's all over their user guides and FAQs) that they are providing cheap instances on nodes built with commodity hardware. If you run your app on EC2, the redundancy and failover is the responsibility of your app, because AWS is not providing this. AWS is very clear about this: any given node might, at any given point in time, simply vanish. In practice, you get pretty decent uptime with EC2, but you cannot depend on this!
With a cluster of EC2 instances running across different Availability Zones and some decent monitoring/failover, it's actually pretty easy and cheap (compared with running your app in multiple physical datacenters) to achieve respectable uptime for your mission-critical apps. On the other hand, if you have single points of failure all over the place, or if you (gasp) just run your app on a single instance with no automated monitoring/failover (in other words, you have architected your app exactly how AWS recommends against), you are going to be really disappointed.
But even if you do have an application running on a single instance, if you use an EBS-backed instance, you should be able to relaunch your instance, and be back up and running as though nothing happened. Obviously your app would be down in the meantime, but you have way more flexibility than if your physical node goes down in a traditional datacenter.
It's a play on the two English-language idioms "not rocket science" and "not brain surgery". I think I've seen it attributed to Chris Rock before, and I thought it would be funny to write it because the OP worked in a hospital.
Well, we are definitely in agreement that, on balance, state and local police departments enforcing immigration laws, is bad policy for the reasons we both pointed out.
Regarding Kobach, I'm not sure what you mean by "pure motives". From your description, it sounds like he is not hiding his motives at all.
Fortunately, no one person (crazy, or not), is able to create laws in Arizona by edict. Hopefully, between all of the law's framers, the AZ legislative committee meetings, the debate in the legislature, etc., someone verified that "lawful contact" is something more substantial than Officer Friendly walking up to a "brown person" saying, "Buenos días! Now show me your passport, you fuckin' spic."
If not, hopefully that "lawful contact" language will be cleared up during the statute's inevitable legal challenges.
The best discussion I could find for what was intended by the term "lawful contact" (which as far as I am able to ascertain, is not a common legal term), and what is meant by "reasonable suspicion" in this context, is this article, which quotes one of the drafters of the measure:
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."
As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.
For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.
But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.
So according to that law professor, the intent is that if the officer establishes "reasonable suspicion" in the course of detaining someone for an offense, he may inquire about the immigration status of the detained person, if he believes it to be prudent to do so.
I still don't like the law, because I like the idea that illegal immigrants can cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation. But at the same time, the law appears to be hundreds of times less onerous than 99% of the commenters here believe it to be.
What's not clear to me is whether failure to produce satisfactory documentation should result in giving the officer probable cause to believe that "The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."
I do not see any examples of what might constitute probable cause within the bill itself. It does, however, specify that LEO can only inquire into citizenship status as part of a "lawful contact".
I suppose what constitutes probable cause will have to be determined by the courts, assuming this law remains in effect.:)
E-Verify is a step in the right direction; but it is trivial to circumvent using the method I described in my original response.
If you hired me and we were completing an I-9, I could present to you a genuine voter registration card for Joe Smith, and a genuine Social Security card for Joe Smith. You could then E-Verify those documents to your heart's content, but it still wouldn't change the fact that I am not Joe Smith, and you have no way of knowing that.
Joe Smith could be some guy whose house I broke into last week and stole those documents from.
If you're hiring someone to work for less than minimum wage - you're likely only going to get illegals working for you. If you're hiring someone to work 12-14 hours a day, no health insurance and really crummy wages - you're likely hiring illegals.
I think the people you describe are called "interns", and there is no reason for me to believe that they are illegal aliens.
But if you "happen" to have 400 illegal workers working for you in a factory, that's alright. You just have to find new workers when the old ones are detained and deported.
It's funny you should mention a factory with 400 illegal workers, because I know of one. The prosecution is still going on, but prison sentences have already been dispensed.
The above scenario is not permitted under AZ S.B. 1070. I invite you to read it so you can switch from making uninformed commentary to making informed commentary.
he law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."
What? Did you even read the law?
If you have, please revisit Article 8, Paragraph E:
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Emphasis mine.
Extra text to satisfy the lameness filter: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
There is no requirement that you prove it, however a police officer cannot arrest you under this statute if you produce one of the documents listed in the law.
Why aren't anyone punishing the employers who are enabling these illegal immigrants? Why aren't you throwing them in prison for violating the law? [...] Change these charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Throw the responsible parties in jail (including the illegal immigrants), from foremen to CEOs, single citizen hiring maids, gardeners, nannies etc.
As a small business owner, I think you are asking an awful lot.
Employers are not Federal Immigration Officials. We simply don't have the ability to determine someone's residency status beyond what we already do (and apparently ICE doesn't do such a stellar job, either).
Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to hire illegals, and I fulfill my requirements with respect to the I-9 form. But if an applicant
Presents me with a false document, I'm never going to know it.
Presents me with documents that don't contain a photo, I have no earthly clue if the applicant is who he or she claims to me. And yes, no photo ID is required for employment: a voter registration card with a social security card will satisfy the I-9 requirements, and it is illegal for me to require more documents. If my gut tells me something is wrong, it is illegal for me to discriminate based on national origin.
And do you really verify the immigration status of everyone who works on your property? Would you even know how to? My Hispanic maid, handyman, and gardener are business owners, so I remit payment directly to a business (i.e. no I-9 or 1099s need to be completed). I'm guessing that they are legal, but I have no way of knowing for sure, and no way to check.
I guess where I'm going to with this ramble is that employers are not Government Immigration Officials. Tell us what you want us to do, and we'll do it, but don't get upset when employees figure out how to circumvent the system.
No doubt there will be court challenges to this law, but it's not obvious to me why it must be unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 8 grants the federal government the power to set naturalization laws, but AZ doesn't establish naturalization laws. They specifically defer to federal law on this matter, and merely make it an AZ misdemeanor to be in the country illegally (as defined by US Title VIII).
The "Papers Please" part of the law isn't as onerous as you think it is, and it may pass constitutional muster. An officer must establish probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant before she can make an arrest. Probable Cause is a specific legal term, and if a cop just witnesses someone speaking Spanish and/or having a darker skin tone, that does not rise to the level of probable cause, and no legal arrest could be made.
The "Papers Please" part of the law merely states that IF the person can produce an AZ driver's license, or some other government ID where being a legal resident is a requirement for obtaining the ID, then that ID has to be accepted as proof that the person is a legal resident. The reverse is not true: failure to produce ID is NOT defined as probable cause that a person is illegal to be here.
The AZ law certainly pushes the envelope of being constitutional; but so far, I have not read anything in the law that clearly crosses the line.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no such thing as instantaneous speed. Velocity is always distance over time. If time is zero, that's a divide by zero.
You didn't do well in calculus, did you?
Goddamnit. You owe me a new keyboard.
I agree. In fact, this looks very similar to the Amazon API which I think is fairly straight forward.
It's not similar to the Amazon S3 API... It IS the Amazon S3 API.
The article submitter is simply (ahem) uninformed.
As the documents point out, it's the same API used for Amazon EC3[sic] and others. They're implementing someone else's protocol.
I was wondering if that was going to be the case. Thanks for looking it up.
If that's the case, then the already-mature S3 libraries, clients, and GUI front ends should work with it. That means the s3fox firefox extension for most end users, or j3tset for Java folks. Pretty much anything that comes up when you google 's3 client' ought to work.
Good find!
Have you ever served on a jury?
You don't need an entire jury to be rational thinkers--you just need a few jurors to lead the discussion. So what if you have emotional jurors? How long can you possibly deliberate over whether or not a defendant is ugly?
Think Terry Childs was convicted because he was ugly? I think you'd enjoy reading this article, which was posted on slashdot a month or so ago. It was written by one of the jurors at his trial, and he is a CCIE.
For example, any signs of remorse in the courtroom, performance on the stand, etc might be much more significant to the overall judgement process.
Typically, the defendant wouldn't take the stand at her own trial. Most attorneys really don't want their defendant cross-examined!
At any rate, the real problem with the study is that it complete ignores how juries reach a verdict. It's not as though a the Judge gives the instructions, the jury votes, and the majority rules. The jury has to deliberate and collectively reach a verdict (or not, if they are unable to reach consensus).
As the fine article pointed out, some jurors made decisions rationally vs. emotionally. During deliberations, the rationally-motivated people tend to concentrate on the facts, which tends to keep the "he jus look guilty!" crowd in check.
I'd say that the study assumes that the emotional thinkers have way more sway than the court system gives them.
30 dollars just to turn on a feature of the mobile phone? Who are they kidding? Will anybody pay that price?
I dunno. Perhaps the people who are currently paying $60/mo for a Sprint Mobile Hotspot, but would prefer to pay half that cost?
A) $100 Mail-In Rebate (so $299). And remember how much fun trying to claim a Mail-In Rebate is (and the lengths that they'll go to deny such claims?)
If you buy the phone at best buy, it's an instant rebate. I'm just sayin'.
What high prices? It's $10 more for AT&T service that is at least top two in the country.
Actually, AT&T is the bottom 1 service in the country.
What more upsetting is this: If Amazon doesn't have working disaster recovery, what do other websites/companies have?
Actually, Amazon is quite clear on this issue: any individual EC2 instance should be considered to be disposable. Your sole recourse if an instance fails lies within the RunInstances and StartInstances APIs (read: if your instance fails, launch a new one).
If you think about it, this makes sense. You can plan for common hardware and network faults, but the funny thing about failures is they don't always happen the way you envisioned. Furthermore, they don't always happen in recoverable ways. Consider the fire at ThePlanet in '08. Backup generators were working great until the fire marshal arrived and ordered them powered down. What's your recovery plan when the fire marshal shows up and says, "If you want my firefighters to risk their lives putting out your fire, you're cutting all power."?
The EC2 plan is to simply launch a replacement instance. In a different datacenter, if you wish.
Actually, the failure is your own, for not reading the fine EC2 manual.
Amazon is clear on this point: they are providing cheap VDSs on commodity hardware. Any individual VDS may terminate at any given point in time. As a result, you need to architect your app so that it tolerates the failure of a node.
If you think about it, Amazon kindof has a point on this one. We can divide servers into two types: those that have failed, and those that have not failed yet. Too many applications are architected as though hardware and network failures never happen. They do happen (even in the best-run datacenters), and EC2 forces you to plan for that inevitable failure.
What's your plan when a node or a switch fails in your physical datacenter? Or if your internet link is severed by an intoxicated backhoe operator? Will it cause you more acid indigestion than typing 'ec2-run-instances'?
"The cloud" doesn't solve everything. Film at 11.
Actually, "The Cloud" totally bails you out in cases like this. Consider the rackspace outage mentioned in TFA, or ThePlanet's huge outage back in '08. If you were affected by one of those events, you were totally hosed.
On the other hand, had your app been running in EC2, you could simply relaunch your dead instance in another datacenter. You can use Amazon's automated service to do this, or you can roll your own, if you'd like.
EC2 users who had adverse outcomes due to the power outage simply failed to architect their application for their underlying hardware. Amazon is frank with users (it's all over their user guides and FAQs) that they are providing cheap instances on nodes built with commodity hardware. If you run your app on EC2, the redundancy and failover is the responsibility of your app, because AWS is not providing this. AWS is very clear about this: any given node might, at any given point in time, simply vanish. In practice, you get pretty decent uptime with EC2, but you cannot depend on this!
With a cluster of EC2 instances running across different Availability Zones and some decent monitoring/failover, it's actually pretty easy and cheap (compared with running your app in multiple physical datacenters) to achieve respectable uptime for your mission-critical apps. On the other hand, if you have single points of failure all over the place, or if you (gasp) just run your app on a single instance with no automated monitoring/failover (in other words, you have architected your app exactly how AWS recommends against), you are going to be really disappointed.
But even if you do have an application running on a single instance, if you use an EBS-backed instance, you should be able to relaunch your instance, and be back up and running as though nothing happened. Obviously your app would be down in the meantime, but you have way more flexibility than if your physical node goes down in a traditional datacenter.
But then, what is?
It's a play on the two English-language idioms "not rocket science" and "not brain surgery". I think I've seen it attributed to Chris Rock before, and I thought it would be funny to write it because the OP worked in a hospital.
Why do you need to use your personal computer equipment to do your job? Your employer should be supplying everything you need to do your job.
If you need a computer at work, your employer should supply it.
If you need to check email from home, your employer should supply you with a blackberry.
This isn't rocket surgery.
Well, we are definitely in agreement that, on balance, state and local police departments enforcing immigration laws, is bad policy for the reasons we both pointed out.
Regarding Kobach, I'm not sure what you mean by "pure motives". From your description, it sounds like he is not hiding his motives at all.
Fortunately, no one person (crazy, or not), is able to create laws in Arizona by edict. Hopefully, between all of the law's framers, the AZ legislative committee meetings, the debate in the legislature, etc., someone verified that "lawful contact" is something more substantial than Officer Friendly walking up to a "brown person" saying, "Buenos días! Now show me your passport, you fuckin' spic."
If not, hopefully that "lawful contact" language will be cleared up during the statute's inevitable legal challenges.
The best discussion I could find for what was intended by the term "lawful contact" (which as far as I am able to ascertain, is not a common legal term), and what is meant by "reasonable suspicion" in this context, is this article, which quotes one of the drafters of the measure:
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."
As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.
For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.
But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.
So according to that law professor, the intent is that if the officer establishes "reasonable suspicion" in the course of detaining someone for an offense, he may inquire about the immigration status of the detained person, if he believes it to be prudent to do so.
I still don't like the law, because I like the idea that illegal immigrants can cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation. But at the same time, the law appears to be hundreds of times less onerous than 99% of the commenters here believe it to be.
What's not clear to me is whether failure to produce satisfactory documentation should result in giving the officer probable cause to believe that "The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."
I do not see any examples of what might constitute probable cause within the bill itself. It does, however, specify that LEO can only inquire into citizenship status as part of a "lawful contact".
I suppose what constitutes probable cause will have to be determined by the courts, assuming this law remains in effect. :)
E-Verify is a step in the right direction; but it is trivial to circumvent using the method I described in my original response.
If you hired me and we were completing an I-9, I could present to you a genuine voter registration card for Joe Smith, and a genuine Social Security card for Joe Smith. You could then E-Verify those documents to your heart's content, but it still wouldn't change the fact that I am not Joe Smith, and you have no way of knowing that.
Joe Smith could be some guy whose house I broke into last week and stole those documents from.
If you're hiring someone to work for less than minimum wage - you're likely only going to get illegals working for you.
If you're hiring someone to work 12-14 hours a day, no health insurance and really crummy wages - you're likely hiring illegals.
I think the people you describe are called "interns", and there is no reason for me to believe that they are illegal aliens.
But if you "happen" to have 400 illegal workers working for you in a factory, that's alright. You just have to find new workers when the old ones are detained and deported.
It's funny you should mention a factory with 400 illegal workers, because I know of one. The prosecution is still going on, but prison sentences have already been dispensed.
Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship.
Actually, AZ S.B. 1070 specifically defines an AZ Driver's License as one of many proofs of citizenship.
If you'd like to make informed commentary, I recommend you read S.B. 1070.
The above scenario is not permitted under AZ S.B. 1070. I invite you to read it so you can switch from making uninformed commentary to making informed commentary.
he law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."
What? Did you even read the law?
If you have, please revisit Article 8, Paragraph E:
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Emphasis mine.
Extra text to satisfy the lameness filter:
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
I'm a United States citizen.
How do I prove it?
There is no requirement that you prove it, however a police officer cannot arrest you under this statute if you produce one of the documents listed in the law.
You have obviously not read the law.
It's Arizona SB1070. You might enjoy reading it before making any further commentary, as it will reduce the chances that you will sound like a moron.
Why aren't anyone punishing the employers who are enabling these illegal immigrants? Why aren't you throwing them in prison for violating the law? [...] Change these charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Throw the responsible parties in jail (including the illegal immigrants), from foremen to CEOs, single citizen hiring maids, gardeners, nannies etc.
As a small business owner, I think you are asking an awful lot.
Employers are not Federal Immigration Officials. We simply don't have the ability to determine someone's residency status beyond what we already do (and apparently ICE doesn't do such a stellar job, either).
Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to hire illegals, and I fulfill my requirements with respect to the I-9 form. But if an applicant
And do you really verify the immigration status of everyone who works on your property? Would you even know how to? My Hispanic maid, handyman, and gardener are business owners, so I remit payment directly to a business (i.e. no I-9 or 1099s need to be completed). I'm guessing that they are legal, but I have no way of knowing for sure, and no way to check.
I guess where I'm going to with this ramble is that employers are not Government Immigration Officials. Tell us what you want us to do, and we'll do it, but don't get upset when employees figure out how to circumvent the system.
No doubt there will be court challenges to this law, but it's not obvious to me why it must be unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 8 grants the federal government the power to set naturalization laws, but AZ doesn't establish naturalization laws. They specifically defer to federal law on this matter, and merely make it an AZ misdemeanor to be in the country illegally (as defined by US Title VIII).
The "Papers Please" part of the law isn't as onerous as you think it is, and it may pass constitutional muster. An officer must establish probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant before she can make an arrest. Probable Cause is a specific legal term, and if a cop just witnesses someone speaking Spanish and/or having a darker skin tone, that does not rise to the level of probable cause, and no legal arrest could be made.
The "Papers Please" part of the law merely states that IF the person can produce an AZ driver's license, or some other government ID where being a legal resident is a requirement for obtaining the ID, then that ID has to be accepted as proof that the person is a legal resident. The reverse is not true: failure to produce ID is NOT defined as probable cause that a person is illegal to be here.
The AZ law certainly pushes the envelope of being constitutional; but so far, I have not read anything in the law that clearly crosses the line.