Impeach Arizona Gov. Brewer!

[Navy1960]

Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).


Wry this is also from SB 1070

2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law

The bill itself is nothing but a repeat of Federal powers Wry so if there is outrage over this, then where is the outrage over Federal Law that requires an alien to carry their "green card" with them, etc.? In fact this bill is not an over-reach at all what it is attempting to do is create a uniform standard of enforcing Federal Law among all Arizona Law enforcement officials. I've said this in other posts, but perhaps it needs to be said here, if someone is a suspect in a Federal crime, given the fact that many do not like SB 1070 then can I assume that they also do not want local law enfocement involved in arrests of Federal suspects in anyway at all?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Right...And the left isn't using non-enforcement of the law to foment a wedge issue...They'd never do anything untoward like that!

Immigration reform is not a clear party line wedge issue. The far left sees it as a human rights issue, but many business owners and some large industries rely on undocumented workers; many American Citizens use undocumented labor to landscape their homes and do the 'labor' in home remodels. Doubt this? Drive by Home Depot Saturday morning.

If anyone is using immigration as a wedge issue, it is the far right - though not all the wingers support the Arizona Law. Even Tom Tancredo as wacked out as he is says 1070 is too extreme.
Me. I believe we should enforce our laws. Local ordinances, state and federal laws, and of course our Constitution.

Right...And absolutely NONE of those hiring illegals are lefties.

Absolutely true, none of those can be lefties. As defined by you and other fringers, aren't all lefties lazy, unemployed and seeking welfare from a Nanny State? So how can someone you believe is unemployed going to hire an undocumented person?
'splain' that.Can't take the partisan hack blinders off for even a second, can you?

Didn't think so....AMF.

Look in the mirror Dude, there you will see the quintessential partisan hack.

 

[Navy1960]

As an elected offical Gov. Brewer took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. By approving, signing and enforcing Arizona SB 1070 Gov Brewer has taken a course of action to nullify the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, a high crime by any standard.

Please point to the area's in SB-1070 that in your opinion rise to the level of unconstitutional. In fact in SB-1070 there is no place that mandates a law enforcement official to single out a person for race or for you to carry documentation other than as required by Federal Law a "green card". I don't know if you are aware of that fact Wry furthermore the bill is supported by long standing SCOTUS dedicions on what is considered reasonable suspcicion.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I might suggest Wry that before anyone advocates for the removal of our Gov. which they are within their rights to do, they really read the actual bill rather than listen to the heated talk on this issue on both sides.

Having said that, there are few people who would stand for any public official that would single out a person based on race, gender, etc. and SB , something else from SB 1070 you may not know:

34. Requires the act to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.

All this serves Wry is to take away from the real problem here in immigration and that is the use of human beings as SLAVE labor in our country because we have a system that will not enforce the law because it means votes and enhances that SLAVE labor market. These people that come across the border are for the most part GOOD and decent people looking for a better life for themselves and their families and if we as a nation really wanted to do what is right here then what we would do is actually make the process of becoming a citizen understandable and uniform as well as well managed. Until we do, you will always have groups on both sides of the isle for pure political reasons help serve this slave market because they think it means votes. Arizona did the only thing if could do in this situation and thats tell a Federal Govt. that has for years not just Democrat Administrations but Republicans as well ignored Federal Law and left Arizona to fend for themselves while officers, it's citizens, ranchers and yes even those same immigrants died because of it.

We agree on most of the issues you so well presented. I don't believe a 'Terry Stop' allows for an officer to determine the immigration status of a subject detained in a suspicious circumstance. A 'Pat Search' is standard procedure, going through a persons wallet seeking information on their status is not. Suggesting otherwise bordens the scope of the Terry decision and I doubt the SCOTUS or a Libertarian would agree with that analysis.
Time will likely tell.

I don't know Wry IMHO, a law is a law, it would be the same as if an officer who in the act of questioning a suspect after pulling them over , through that questioning were to find out the suspect was wanted for a White Collar Crime in say New York perhaps. or was on Inter-Pol's 10 most wanted list. If people do not wish someone to be questioned under the reasonable suspicion standard then perhaps do not make immigration to this country a Federal crime? Your right though, it will be an interesting case, and knowing the 9th circuit you can bet it will be over-turned there in a heart beat and then on to the USSC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).


Wry this is also from SB 1070

2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law

The bill itself is nothing but a repeat of Federal powers Wry so if there is outrage over this, then where is the outrage over Federal Law that requires an alien to carry their "green card" with them, etc.? In fact this bill is not an over-reach at all what it is attempting to do is create a uniform standard of enforcing Federal Law among all Arizona Law enforcement officials. I've said this in other posts, but perhaps it needs to be said here, if someone is a suspect in a Federal crime, given the fact that many do not like SB 1070 then can I assume that they also do not want local law enfocement involved in arrests of Federal suspects in anyway at all?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.
An argument maybe made, since our Constitution does not speak to the issue directly, that immigration is an exclusive power of the Federal Government. I know that does not speak to the issue directly, but does by inference.
I'll look further as time permits.

 

[tigerbob]

Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).


Wry this is also from SB 1070

2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law

The bill itself is nothing but a repeat of Federal powers Wry so if there is outrage over this, then where is the outrage over Federal Law that requires an alien to carry their "green card" with them, etc.? In fact this bill is not an over-reach at all what it is attempting to do is create a uniform standard of enforcing Federal Law among all Arizona Law enforcement officials. I've said this in other posts, but perhaps it needs to be said here, if someone is a suspect in a Federal crime, given the fact that many do not like SB 1070 then can I assume that they also do not want local law enfocement involved in arrests of Federal suspects in anyway at all?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.
An argument maybe made, since our Constitution does not speak to the issue directly, that immigration is an exclusive power of the Federal Government. I know that does not speak to the issue directly, but does by inference.
I'll look further as time permits.

Why? Entering the country legally and becoming a naturalized citizen are two entirely different things. Can you paraphrase? Maybe I'm missing your point.

 

[Navy1960]

Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).


Wry this is also from SB 1070

2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law

The bill itself is nothing but a repeat of Federal powers Wry so if there is outrage over this, then where is the outrage over Federal Law that requires an alien to carry their "green card" with them, etc.? In fact this bill is not an over-reach at all what it is attempting to do is create a uniform standard of enforcing Federal Law among all Arizona Law enforcement officials. I've said this in other posts, but perhaps it needs to be said here, if someone is a suspect in a Federal crime, given the fact that many do not like SB 1070 then can I assume that they also do not want local law enfocement involved in arrests of Federal suspects in anyway at all?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.
An argument maybe made, since our Constitution does not speak to the issue directly, that immigration is an exclusive power of the Federal Government. I know that does not speak to the issue directly, but does by inference.
I'll look further as time permits.

Moreover, the enumerated powers doctrine that constrains the powers of the federal government does not so constrain the powers of the states. Rather, the states possess what are known as "police powers," which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are "an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people…" Manigault v. Springs,

I agree it will get interesting Wry, but at least IMHO it makes a lot more sense to just address the issue of citizenship for those that wish to become citizenship rather than engage in name calling while this slavery continues as it always has because one side or the other wants to score political points. It's my humble opinion that if your in this nation illegally it sends the wrong message to ALL those who have gone through the very difficult process of becoming a citizen and by just passing a wand over them and saying here you are your now citizens does the same thing. No, perhaps the best thing to do is make the process simple and easy and for those wishing to become citizens let them apply to become a citizen or some form of temporary status. but I would like to believe as a nation if we put our mind to it we can solve this issue, afterall very few nations even poor ones tolerate illegal immigration an there is no reason we should. What we should be doing is encouraging LEGAL immigration.

 

[slackjawed]

First off, the law in Arizona does allow for impeachment, but that would have to be initiated by the state assembly, not a "concerned citizen" in San Fransisco!
I doubt the AZ state assembly that passed this bill that the gov signed is willing to impeach her for signing the bill they passed.
Secondly, the law in Arizona allows a recall of the governor, with a petition to do so initiated by Arizona state CITIZENS, again, not initiated by a "concerned citizen" in San Fransisco. If the petition drive is successful, the recall is placed on the ballot in the next election, or a special election, determined by the state assembly.
A recall of the governor has happened before in Arizona. It can be done, it is possible.
However; since it appears that a majority of citizens in Arizona approve of the new law, I doubt that the petition drive would be successful, and if it was, the recall would likely fail on the ballot.

As an aside, I find it comical yet disturbing that the same people that turned San Fransisco into the shithole it has become, think they should have the influence to force other places, where they do not live and apparently know nothing about, to turn into the same kind of shitholes.

Stay home, follow your mayor's advice, we don't need or even want you in Arizona, anymore than we want the illegal aliens that commit crimes in Arizona that have earned Phoenix the title of the city with the #2 rate of kidnapping in the world, and the city with the highest rate of kidnapping in North America.

 

[Reidlr]

I thought about just posting that the US Constitution is for American citizens and does not apply to illegal immigrants. But I feel as though I must provide some substance to my argument regarding your post. I have a few points:

1) The 14th Amendment, Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 have no warrent in this discussion. Therefore, we only have the 14th Amendment, para 1 but the mere question of a law enforcement officer does not deprive a person of life, liberty or property. If the person does not have the proper id required under 8 USC sec 1304 then the officer has every right to detain the person for breaking the law; as is the standard practices for upholding the law for every law enforcement agency in the country. Unless of course you think that laws should be changed to fit the circumstance; but I hope you are not that dim witted. Really, the 14th Amendment is a bad example and really has no leg to stand on.

2) Now for your 4th Amendment argument:
First I will provide the USC requiring legal aliens to carry thier identification "green card" with them at all times:
8 U.S.C. Sec 1304 (d)(e) states,
"(d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card
Every alien in the United States who has been registered and
fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act,
1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a
certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt
card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be
prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both."
So, a legal alien without proper id will be fined and/or possibly detained. To enforce this law, law enforcement officers must be able to request to see stated documents. In Muehler v Mena, a case in RI, the federal appeal court stated that, "...mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure..." and found that asking a person for his papers was not and does not violate the person's 4th Amendment rights. I will save you the time and not list the hundreds of cases where police questioning was questioned under the 4th Amendment, and subsequently found to not violate the persons 4th Amendment rights by the Supreme Court or a Federal Court of Appeals.

Wry Catcher, please attempt not to create anymore posts that portay you as an uneducated liberal that has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[Navy1960]

Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983)

a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984).

"preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999).

Outside the inflamed talk of DWL, and racial profiling SB 1070 seeks to enforce existing Federal Law, and there are many many examples of case law to support it. Again if people are upset over the fact that police have he right to inquire to the immigration status of an individual then they need to direct that attention to Washington and not to a state that seeks to enforce it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Impeach a governor for doing nothing illegal over a law that has 70% support by the state's constituents.

Good luck with that. She just insured herself another term, or the end of the terms of those who oust her. Win/win, either way.

But you have fun bashing your head against the wall.

There is no human right to be an American Citizen or receive our benefits.

 

[Maple]

As an elected offical Gov. Brewer took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. By approving, signing and enforcing Arizona SB 1070 Gov Brewer has taken a course of action to nullify the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, a high crime by any standard.

When 70% of Arizonan's agree with her, I seriously doubt that's going to happen. Her bill is totally and completely in line with the federal law on illegal immigration, so all she is doing is following it and attempting to enforce it.

 

[Maple]

Impeach a governor for doing nothing illegal over a law that has 70% support by the state's constituents.

Good luck with that. She just insured herself another term, or the end of the terms of those who oust her. Win/win, either way.

But you have fun bashing your head against the wall.

There is no human right to be an American Citizen or receive our benefits.

Yes, and her poll numbers have sky-rocketed over this. I am surprized that Texas and California have not followed her lead, they need to, illegals are bankrupting California.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Notwithstanding the vile and hysterical anger of slackjawed, the issue of 1070 has turned into a real debate. I will with due restraint respond to slackjawed briefly and then ignore him as I so others who spew anger and hate for irrational reasons. It is unlikely the people of Arizona will impeach or recall the Governor, and if so that a trial in the Senate of the state would never impeach her.

As to the comments by Reidlr I ask how he defines "liberty", as in the phrase, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property...". And, what was meant by the phrase, "nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

 

[Maple]

I thought about just posting that the US Constitution is for American citizens and does not apply to illegal immigrants. But I feel as though I must provide some substance to my argument regarding your post. I have a few points:

1) The 14th Amendment, Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 have no warrent in this discussion. Therefore, we only have the 14th Amendment, para 1 but the mere question of a law enforcement officer does not deprive a person of life, liberty or property. If the person does not have the proper id required under 8 USC sec 1304 then the officer has every right to detain the person for breaking the law; as is the standard practices for upholding the law for every law enforcement agency in the country. Unless of course you think that laws should be changed to fit the circumstance; but I hope you are not that dim witted. Really, the 14th Amendment is a bad example and really has no leg to stand on.

2) Now for your 4th Amendment argument:
First I will provide the USC requiring legal aliens to carry thier identification "green card" with them at all times:
8 U.S.C. Sec 1304 (d)(e) states,
"(d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card
Every alien in the United States who has been registered and
fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act,
1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a
certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt
card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be
prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both."
So, a legal alien without proper id will be fined and/or possibly detained. To enforce this law, law enforcement officers must be able to request to see stated documents. In Muehler v Mena, a case in RI, the federal appeal court stated that, "...mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure..." and found that asking a person for his papers was not and does not violate the person's 4th Amendment rights. I will save you the time and not list the hundreds of cases where police questioning was questioned under the 4th Amendment, and subsequently found to not violate the persons 4th Amendment rights by the Supreme Court or a Federal Court of Appeals.

Wry Catcher, please attempt not to create anymore posts that portay you as an uneducated liberal that has no idea what he is talking about.

Good work If I am doing something that appears suspicious to a local police officer he or she has every right to ask for my I.D and I am a citizen of the U.S, why not illegals??? If I don't produce an I.D they will detain me. This is all nothing more than the dog and pony show. The illegal immigrant is considered to be the UNDOCUMENTED Democrat voter, that's the only reason the fuss over this by the liberal democrats and our socialist President.

Arizona has asked for 3,000 National guardsmen to patrol their border, it is Obama's responsibility to send them, he hasn't, so the state stepped in and is doing something about it. Good for them.

 

[manu1959]

The States have their OWN constitution. They have every right to do what is necessary to protect their citizens! Stop falling for the rhetoric and politiizing of Obama and his cronies. They are using this to gain the hispanic vote which I will say again - MOST HISPANICS ARE FOR SECURE BORDERS AND AGAINST AMNESTY! Obama will NOT move on immigration reform because he knows full well that is the case. If anyone was to take a survey on who is out there protesting, I would bet my bottom dollar that most are illegals and family of illegals already here! The pro-illegal orgs buss these people around the country to protest whatever they feel will hurt their movement to legalize these illegals and open our borders!

Really too? You and ihopehefails must have gone to the same school of law. So Gov Brewer can do what is necessary to protect their citizens, and, by inference, legally sign into law the anti-Bill of Rights if in her opinion she is protecting her citizens?
I didn't know, wow! LMAO 2).

the current president ...and any past president for that matter has failed to protect the citizens of the US by doing nothing ....thus they would be in breach of their oath and should be impeched ..... the gov of arizona is doing what our president won't....

protecting the us boarder, the us citizens and questioning suspects and arresting those in violation of the law....

which is more than i can say for anyone else in govt.

 

[slackjawed]

Notwithstanding the vile and hysterical anger of slackjawed, the issue of 1070 has turned into a real debate. I will with due restraint respond to slackjawed briefly and then ignore him as I so others who spew anger and hate for irrational reasons. It is unlikely the people of Arizona will impeach or recall the Governor, and if so that a trial in the Senate of the state would never impeach her.

As to the comments by Reidlr I ask how he defines "liberty", as in the phrase, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property...". And, what was meant by the pharae, "nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

you are the on ethat started a thread full of partisan bullshit full of vile and hysterical anger calling for the impeachment of a governor, in a state you don't even live in.

neg rep for your idiotic partisan toolness

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Notwithstanding the vile and hysterical anger of slackjawed, the issue of 1070 has turned into a real debate. I will with due restraint respond to slackjawed briefly and then ignore him as I so others who spew anger and hate for irrational reasons. It is unlikely the people of Arizona will impeach or recall the Governor, and if so that a trial in the Senate of the state would never impeach her.

As to the comments by Reidlr I ask how he defines "liberty", as in the phrase, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property...". And, what was meant by the pharae, "nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Ther "persons" you're referring to are aka American citizens. An illegal alien is NOT an American citizen, therfore it's my opinion that their rights are not protected under the United States Constitution.

 

[Reidlr]

Impeach a governor for doing nothing illegal over a law that has 70% support by the state's constituents.

Good luck with that. She just insured herself another term, or the end of the terms of those who oust her. Win/win, either way.

But you have fun bashing your head against the wall.

There is no human right to be an American Citizen or receive our benefits.

Yes, and her poll numbers have sky-rocketed over this. I am surprized that Texas and California have not followed her lead, they need to, illegals are bankrupting California.

Texas State representative Debbie Riddle has said she plans on introducing a bill similar to Arizona's immigration law. See the article in the Austin 8 News and the Houston Chronicle.

Of course the liberals in Texas are spinning this as an ANTI-immigration bill and will be trashing her for weeks to come. I personally hope that she gets it passed and the people of El Paso and south western Texas can get some much needed help.

 

[Big Fitz]

Impeach a governor for doing nothing illegal over a law that has 70% support by the state's constituents.

Good luck with that. She just insured herself another term, or the end of the terms of those who oust her. Win/win, either way.

But you have fun bashing your head against the wall.

There is no human right to be an American Citizen or receive our benefits.

Yes, and her poll numbers have sky-rocketed over this. I am surprized that Texas and California have not followed her lead, they need to, illegals are bankrupting California.

Yep. But they're getting bad advice from anarchy lovers and globalists who desire to give American Citizen Rights to the entire world. And there are too many of those morons in those states, currently, to have a rational thought on the topic.

Of course, what's coming next is going to be an Annullment Fight with the Federal Government when the first mass deportation occurs, which very possibly could create the constitutional crisis the fascists in power have been desperately wanting in which to try and cement their permanent control.

Yes it's a long shot prediction, but I can see it.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I thought about just posting that the US Constitution is for American citizens and does not apply to illegal immigrants. But I feel as though I must provide some substance to my argument regarding your post. I have a few points:

1) The 14th Amendment, Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 have no warrent in this discussion. Therefore, we only have the 14th Amendment, para 1 but the mere question of a law enforcement officer does not deprive a person of life, liberty or property. If the person does not have the proper id required under 8 USC sec 1304 then the officer has every right to detain the person for breaking the law; as is the standard practices for upholding the law for every law enforcement agency in the country. Unless of course you think that laws should be changed to fit the circumstance; but I hope you are not that dim witted. Really, the 14th Amendment is a bad example and really has no leg to stand on.

2) Now for your 4th Amendment argument:
First I will provide the USC requiring legal aliens to carry thier identification "green card" with them at all times:
8 U.S.C. Sec 1304 (d)(e) states,
"(d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card
Every alien in the United States who has been registered and
fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act,
1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a
certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt
card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be
prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both."
So, a legal alien without proper id will be fined and/or possibly detained. To enforce this law, law enforcement officers must be able to request to see stated documents. In Muehler v Mena, a case in RI, the federal appeal court stated that, "...mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure..." and found that asking a person for his papers was not and does not violate the person's 4th Amendment rights. I will save you the time and not list the hundreds of cases where police questioning was questioned under the 4th Amendment, and subsequently found to not violate the persons 4th Amendment rights by the Supreme Court or a Federal Court of Appeals.

Wry Catcher, please attempt not to create anymore posts that portay you as an uneducated liberal that has no idea what he is talking about.

POST OF THE DAY!