Violent crime in Arizona has doubled every year since 2005, almost certainly due to international predators since the actual population has only increased by less than a million 'persons'. Since this would qualify as an 'emergency condition' even by federal executive power laws, the creation of laws governing an emergency by the state of Arizona is easily within its Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved by the states respectively, or to the people.") authorities in order to deal with what amounts to a violent foreign invasion of that state. It may not be a civil rights issue at all since the violent predators are not citizens in many cases.

And note the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Arizona law, in an emergency, does NOT deprive a person of his life, liberty or property, noting that a 'person' is not defined as a 'citizen under the jurisdiction of the United States', until he has been identified as a suspect in a crime but also gives equal protection at that point. Under emergency conditions, many of the 'persons' could qualify as enemy combatants or habitual terrorists and are not entitled to the Bill of Rights protections of citizens.

We probably shouldn't go into the fact that each 'person' entering the State of Arizona who doesn't have citizenship rights automatically costs the citizens of that state $150,000 dollars per person for security, judicial, educational, and health administration. What happens if the Arizona or New Mexico or Texas State has a law that says a 'person' coming across the border automatically owes that State an infrastructure 'fee' of $150,000 and that he can be detained in desert tent facilities until it is paid? If the 'person' is not a citizen, would such a fee be a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment?   It might be if the 'person' is given work planting bioflora 'forests' of Jatropha bushes as part of a soil reclamation project for the Great State of Mind in order to compensate for the $150,000 owed.

Nearly all modern crimes are committed by the use of weapons from ambush in the absence of constituted authority. Many such ambushes occur against the members of constituted authority because the 'person' only sees his own instinctive needs, not some constituted infrastructure that allows him to live.   The human society changed, but the primitive didn't.  It is necessary to remember that  an area anywhere in the world can be compromised by terrorist activity as many currently are.  Most terrorist operations are based on a very primitive but nearly universal predatory instinct to acquire wealth and sustenance (and female mates) from the people who inhabit a given area.  It does not matter whether the place is ancient Jerusalem with 300 or 400 foreign occupations over 4000 years or Juarez, North America, with tribal violence passing though it 20 times in 200 years.  The current tribal violence in Juarez for drug loot  is based on the same primitive instincts and certainly doesn't come under the conditions of Constitutional sovereignty where the rights of 'citizens' as opposed to 'persons' are equated as the same thing. Rights did not exist until they were created by a consensus forming some constituted authority.  There is no human 'privilege' that supersedes a 'right' given by common agreement in spite of what an individual's subconscious tells him. 

Much of the violence of the world is based on the same primitive instincts and certainly don't come under the conditions of Constitutional sovereignty. There have been many instances in American history in which the level of violence in a community area has reached such a magnitude that local police cannot react to it without citizen aid as militia.  The current examples are Washington DC and Chicago, Illinois, but also a territorial zone within 100 miles of the Mexican border where drug terrorists are maintaining a sanctuary by force.  This zone is very little different from pirate sanctuaries in Tripoli (1800) or Jamaica (1730) or Chicago (1930). They all required a re-establishment of constitutional safety that local authorities were incapable of creating because of their own predatory greed.   As a community is overrun by outside forces, it is the rights of citizens that are taken away, not by a government, but by the communities' attacker(s). Why would an organized criminal activity by 'persons' be given the same rights protection it has taken from the 'citizens' of a community? Is there a way of maintaining some constitutional balance as the Justice and Liberty covenants say is necessary?