As I write this, there is a march going on protesting Bill 1070 that was passed in Arizona not too long ago. There seems to be an unnerving amount of people still confused about the bill. Some still believe that you need probable cause in order to be asked for proper documentation, but the reason for this protest is because the specific term they use is reasonable suspicion. There is a difference. Basically, you need less evidence when this term is used. A simple Google search of âÄúreasonable suspicion vs. probable causeâÄù should clear up any questions. Specific wording is truly one of the finer aspects of law writing. Since thatâÄôs all cleared up, I wanted to address the supporters of this bill. A lot of them think that this argument is about ridding the country of illegal immigrants. No one is refuting that illegal immigration is a problem, so in order to make progress we have to move on from that already known fact. Instead, the question we need to ask ourselves is, âÄúAre we willing to give up what is constitutional in order to fix this problem?âÄù Another thing we need to understand is the only way to come into this country legally is by either being a refugee, accepting a job offer (my fatherâÄôs case), or being a student (even then you still need to be wealthy). The only choice that leaves families for a better opportunity is coming here illegally. Remember, hungry people make for angry people. Also, for the supporters using the drinking age analogy, there have already been cases documenting that a driverâÄôs license was not substantial evidence of residency and only their birth certificate was accepted. Octavia Abea, University undergraduate student