Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The idea here is that there is no rational reason for any police officer to think that the person is here illegally based soley (and that's the operative word) on the fact that he is of Mexican descent.
Well, since no one has suggested that he SHOULD think that, and those who have suggested that he WOULD think it have yet to offer any explanation as to why, I'm still confused as to why we're even discussing it.
Think about it: no one has suggested that police officers should be able to "just go around, detaining every Mexican they see . . . solely because they are Mexicans", and again, those who have suggested that they WILL have yet to offer any explanation as to why they think that, so I'm still confused as to why we're even discussing it.
Interesting scenario - but I doubt that this alone would be sufficient PC to stop. There would have to be more, such as the person is seen staggering as he goes to his car, pulls out too fast into traffic, no lights (a common red flag that the driver is UI), etc.
True. You might have been in there for eight hours because you work there, or because you have a crush on the bartender, or because you like to sing karaoke. In fact, I hang out at my favorite bar every Tuesday from 8 pm to 2 am PRECISELY because I like karaoke. I usually drink Diet Coke the whole time.
Just in passing - you are a curious (and interesting) blend of political philosopies. At times, you are clearly liberal, at other times, hopelessly conservative. I like that.
Think about it: no one has suggested that police officers should be able to "just go around, detaining every Mexican they see . . . solely because they are Mexicans", and again, those who have suggested that they WILL have yet to offer any explanation as to why they think that, so I'm still confused as to why we're even discussing it.
What police officers may or may not do is not the issue. The issue is, what does the new Arizona law AUTHORIZE or ALLOW them to do? If it allows them to do something that is violative of the Constitution, that's enough - the law is unconstitutional.
Instead of just telling us over and over that it denies due process, as though we're supposed to take your word for it, how about you demonstrate for us HOW it denies due process? Is that a can-do for you at all?
It denies due process because it authorizes police action that denies due process. I don't know how more plainly I can state it. Sorry if that is not enough for you.
Sorry if communication is a problem for you, but I didn't ask you to keep stating it. I heard you the first time. What I asked for was PROOF. That would involve, rather than a mere reiteration of your position, an actual explanation of HOW it "authorizes police action that denies due process".
Well, thank you for yet another fascinating, unrelated, and therefore worthless hypothetical. I would ask you what possible relation an imaginary law authorizing the shooting of Mexicans on sight could have to this, but I frankly am totally disinterested in your irrelevant little tangents.
Possibly you could find some time at some point to tell us what this "something" is that the police are authorized to do that is "plainly a denial of due process", and if it's not too much trouble, maybe you could throw in an explanation of HOW it is a denial of same. No rush, take your time, but before I'm retired would be nice.
Only if you're sure that actually being relevant won't sprain anything.
If you posit that stopping and questioning people solely because of their race is a denial of due process, and if you agree that the new AZ law authorizes this (which it appears to do), then the new AZ law authorizes police to do something that is plainly a denial of due process.
The problem here is that I DON'T agree that SB 1070 authorizes any such thing, nor does it appear to do so, therefore it would be impossible for me to even GET as far as positing any of this, so your entire basis is false.
That's "HOW" it denies due process.
Now, you might disagree that the AZ law authorizes police to stop people solely becuase of their race. Fine - but that's a different issue. I trust you see that.
I do. I also see that CLEARLY I have jumped too far ahead in assuming that you 1) read the law, and 2) understood the words. So before we get to the part where we try to discuss the implications of the law on due process, why don't we backtrack and have you explain to me precisely where you got the idea that the law has ANYTHING to do with race, OR authorizing stops based solely on same?
I'm never, EVER liberal.
They are enforcing a law already on the books.
And a cop can stop someone or search their home if they have probable cause to believe they are violating any OTHER law.
Now they can also check them if they have probable cause to believe they're breaking IMMIGRATION laws.
Perfectly constitutional.
You forgot one word "LEGAL".
What the matter with your fucking retards? you dont know the difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL? Morons.
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.
.
Instead of just telling us over and over that it denies due process, as though we're supposed to take your word for it, how about you demonstrate for us HOW it denies due process? Is that a can-do for you at all?
It denies due process because it authorizes police action that denies due process. * * * *
If a law were passed that said: "Any person of Mexican descent seen in public may be shot on sight by any police officer," I think you would agree with me that here is a law that denies due process. HOW does it deny due process? By authorizing police to do something that is plainly a denial of due process.
Let's apply that to the new AZ law. If you posit that stopping and questioning people solely because of their race is a denial of due process, and if you agree that the new AZ law authorizes this (which it appears to do),
then the new AZ law authorizes police to do something that is plainly a denial of due process.
That's "HOW" it denies due process.
Now, you might disagree that the AZ law authorizes police to stop people solely becuase of their race. Fine - but that's a different issue. I trust you see that.
I trust you see that. We sure as hell do!
Instead of just telling us over and over that it denies due process, as though we're supposed to take your word for it, how about you demonstrate for us HOW it denies due process? Is that a can-do for you at all?
It denies due process because it authorizes police action that denies due process. * * * *
LOL.
Georgie, you are indeed a simpleton.
A thing which denies dp denies dp.
While that meaningless little sentence is nominally (and trivially) true, it does also more than obviously begs the question. DOES the law deny any dp?
I deny your suppressed premise, you simpleton.
Show us that it "allows" the police to "deny" due process.
But you can't "show us," because you are full of shit. It doesn't. It doesn't allow it, and it doesn't even appear to allow it.
Your tautological efforts are beyond stupid, stupid. HOW exactly does the law authorize any denial of dp? It doesn't. That's why you keep evading that "little" point.
Whoa. Back the fuck up, jerkoff.
It most certainly does NOT do any such thing.
then the new AZ law authorizes police to do something that is plainly a denial of due process.
That's "HOW" it denies due process.
It neither "apparently" authorizes any denial of DP nor DOES it authorize any such thing. So your stupid and dishonest premises are without ANY persuasive power, stupid.
Now, you might disagree that the AZ law authorizes police to stop people solely becuase of their race. Fine - but that's a different issue. I trust you see that.
It doesn't. Your CLAIM that it does is retarded. And since it is your retarded claim that is the foundation of your idiotic contention that the law authorizes the police to deny folks due process, there really is NO difference in noting that your premise is retarded (i.e., wholly unsupported) and denying the retarded assertion you make which is based on that retarded premise.
The Arizona Immigration bill absolutely does not authorize [nor does it even (honestly) "appear" to authorize] the police denial to anybody of due process.
Georgie, you are a liar and a stupid fuck-tard.
It denies due process because it authorizes police action that denies due process. * * * *
LOL.
Georgie, you are indeed a simpleton.
A thing which denies dp denies dp.
While that meaningless little sentence is nominally (and trivially) true, it does also more than obviously begs the question. DOES the law deny any dp?
I deny your suppressed premise, you simpleton.
Show us that it "allows" the police to "deny" due process.
But you can't "show us," because you are full of shit. It doesn't. It doesn't allow it, and it doesn't even appear to allow it.
Your tautological efforts are beyond stupid, stupid. HOW exactly does the law authorize any denial of dp? It doesn't. That's why you keep evading that "little" point.
Whoa. Back the fuck up, jerkoff.
It most certainly does NOT do any such thing.
It neither "apparently" authorizes any denial of DP nor DOES it authorize any such thing. So your stupid and dishonest premises are without ANY persuasive power, stupid.
Now, you might disagree that the AZ law authorizes police to stop people solely becuase of their race. Fine - but that's a different issue. I trust you see that.
It doesn't. Your CLAIM that it does is retarded. And since it is your retarded claim that is the foundation of your idiotic contention that the law authorizes the police to deny folks due process, there really is NO difference in noting that your premise is retarded (i.e., wholly unsupported) and denying the retarded assertion you make which is based on that retarded premise.
The Arizona Immigration bill absolutely does not authorize [nor does it even (honestly) "appear" to authorize] the police denial to anybody of due process.
Georgie, you are a liar and a stupid fuck-tard.
Whoa there, little guy! That vein is standing out on your forehead again . . .
George C, you didn't answer my question.
What is in the Arizona law that is not also in the Federal law? From what I've read from some pretty good legal minds, Arizona isn't proposing or doing anything that isn't being done on the Federal level.
And if there is nothing in the Arizona law that is not also in the Federal law, and the Feds aren't running into Constitutional problems enforcing the law, then why is Arizona's law so illegal?
Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who counseled Pearce when he was writing Senate Bill 1070, said Arizona simply is taking action on what Congress already has deemed illegal, so the state is not infringing on federal authority or running afoul of the supremacy clause.
"The bill basically makes it a penalty under state law to do what is already a crime under federal law," he said. "If the state is concurrently prohibiting the same behavior that the federal government is, then the state is not preempted and is acting consistently with Congress' objectives."
"This is one of the most extreme and direct attempts by a state to regulate immigration law, and that is prohibited by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," she said. "The immigration-enforcement provisions do not have adequate safeguards that United States citizens, legal residents, Native Americans and other minorities will not be detained and arrested."
Under the Constitution's "supremacy clause," the Constitution and federal law trump state law. Article 1 of the Constitution, which spells out Congress' powers, specifically gives U.S. lawmakers authority to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" and to regulate commerce with other nations. Opponents of individual state action on immigration argue a uniform national immigration policy makes sense and is preferable to a patchwork of different laws in different states.
Timing is not clear, but legal experts speculate that certain immediate challenges to the law - such as the argument that federal authority is supreme on immigration - could result in a judge blocking the law from ever taking effect. Other challenges, such as those claiming racial profiling, may require enforcement of the law first to create a test case.
George C, you didn't answer my question.
What is in the Arizona law that is not also in the Federal law? From what I've read from some pretty good legal minds, Arizona isn't proposing or doing anything that isn't being done on the Federal level.
And if there is nothing in the Arizona law that is not also in the Federal law, and the Feds aren't running into Constitutional problems enforcing the law, then why is Arizona's law so illegal?
Because it runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause, for one reason.
Heres your talking point:
Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who counseled Pearce when he was writing Senate Bill 1070, said Arizona simply is taking action on what Congress already has deemed illegal, so the state is not infringing on federal authority or running afoul of the supremacy clause.
"The bill basically makes it a penalty under state law to do what is already a crime under federal law," he said. "If the state is concurrently prohibiting the same behavior that the federal government is, then the state is not preempted and is acting consistently with Congress' objectives."
Some of the arguments against it:
"This is one of the most extreme and direct attempts by a state to regulate immigration law, and that is prohibited by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," she said. "The immigration-enforcement provisions do not have adequate safeguards that United States citizens, legal residents, Native Americans and other minorities will not be detained and arrested."
Under the Constitution's "supremacy clause," the Constitution and federal law trump state law. Article 1 of the Constitution, which spells out Congress' powers, specifically gives U.S. lawmakers authority to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" and to regulate commerce with other nations. Opponents of individual state action on immigration argue a uniform national immigration policy makes sense and is preferable to a patchwork of different laws in different states.
Timing is not clear, but legal experts speculate that certain immediate challenges to the law - such as the argument that federal authority is supreme on immigration - could result in a judge blocking the law from ever taking effect. Other challenges, such as those claiming racial profiling, may require enforcement of the law first to create a test case.
Here is a pretty good treatment of the issues and the arguments on both sides:
Court fight looms on new immigration law
And just accepting your not-that-all-non-biased source at face value, I think it will be interesting if there is a Constitutional challenge.
You forgot one word "LEGAL".
What the matter with your fucking retards? you dont know the difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL? Morons.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. 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 guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."
US Supreme Court
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)
In conclusion Arizona's immigration "Law" is DOA.
.
And just accepting your not-that-all-non-biased source at face value, I think it will be interesting if there is a Constitutional challenge.
Yes . . . (ahem) . . . it does appear to be tilted a tad to my side, doesn't it? But I think it still states the issues fairly well.
Yes it does. That's why I gave you props for that.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. 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 guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."
US Supreme Court
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)
In conclusion Arizona's immigration "Law" is DOA.
.
Due process of the law occurs after arrest, before conviction.
So it's perfectly legal to detain someone you think is breaking the law.
If they aren't, you let them go.
Pretty simple.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. 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 guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."
US Supreme Court
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)
In conclusion Arizona's immigration "Law" is DOA.
.
Due process of the law occurs after arrest, before conviction.
So it's perfectly legal to detain someone you think is breaking the law.
If they aren't, you let them go.
Pretty simple.
You almost have it - but not quite. Keep working on it.
Due process of law is involved in every phase of the criminal justice system. A violation can occur anywhere along the way, starting with the initial contact by police or possibly, in some situations, even prior to that. It is never litigated until the case gets to court, which is always long after the arrest, obviously.
Yes, it is perfectly legal to detain someone you (the police officer) think is breaking the law, PROVIDED the detention is based on observations which rationally support a reasonable suspicion that the law is being broken. And the test of the officer's observations is an objective one, not subjective - which means that the judge has to agree with the detention; it isn't enough that the officer says he thought the guy was breaking the law.
Again, I do not CARE what the alleged "argument" may be. I want somebody to SHOW US that there is any realistic prospect that the Az Immigration Law has ANY adverse impact on ANYBODY'S right to DP.
(There is a reason that nobody, you or anyone else, will take up that particular challenge.)
All right, Mr. Cool . . .
Someone is denied due process when they are subjected to an illegal search and seizure.
Under the AZ law, police officers are authorized to stop and question people without probable cause to do so. A mere suspicion or hunch that the person may be an illegal based solely on the person's race, is not reasonbly objective and is, therefore, insufficient.
A person who is stopped and questioned or searched without probable cause to do so, is the subject of an illegal search and seizure and is, accordingly, being denied due process of law.
I am not sure that the "lawful contact" prerequisite to a stop that is written into the AZ law, will do the trick. It might - have to see how that plays out in actual application and in the appellate courts.
