ArizonaâÄôs recently passed bill compels police âÄúwhen practicableâÄù to check the immigrant status of anyone if there is âÄúreasonable suspicionâÄù the person is in the country illegally. The broad language of âÄúreasonable suspicionâÄù and âÄúwhen practicableâÄù opens the door for police to check immigration statuses of those who arenâÄôt actually any more suspicious than other citizens. A potential criterion for this harassment is race. Imagine if Minnesota passed a law with this exact language. Under what circumstances would a police officer possibly observe somebody who is not committing a crime (because then the officer would arrest that person to begin with, and the law would be redundant) and think to himself or herself, âÄúThere is a reasonable suspicion that this person has crossed the Canada-U.S. border without proper authorization and is in this country illegallyâÄù? There is no such situation, which makes this law absurd. There is nothing about a personâÄôs appearance or legal actions that should make one suspect that he or she is in this country illegally. However, the phrase âÄúreasonable suspicionâÄù allows officers to target Hispanics and give bogus nonracial reasons for the targeting. If executed properly, the law is redundant, but if executed improperly, it permits legal justification for harassment based on race. If one thing is clear, the United States is ready for immigration reform. Unfortunately, because the federal government has not enforced immigration law effectively, Arizona overreacted to a legitimate concern. It will be incumbent upon Congress to develop reform founded upon civil rights. This means avoiding a national biometric ID card and a racist enforcement mechanism, both of which smack of totalitarianism.