....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[Cecilie1200]

If you are not a citizen you are not techinically within the state's jurisdiction and are not protected by the 14th ammendment

All "persons" are protected by the 14th Amendment, whether they are citizens or illegal aliens. You can stamp and roar all you want on this point, but you are just flat wrong.

Furthermore, I don't think I would care to live in a country that did not guarantee due process of the law to everyone. I believe there are some guarantees in the Constitution which are only for citizens and legal residents, but I don't think that's one of them, nor would I want it to be.

 

[AllieBaba]

So is it illegal to pull over old beater cars that aren't violating any traffic laws, because they look like they're mules?

This is the way most of our drug busts happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

YOu guys are forgetting about the fact there is a lot of LEGAL hispanics who live in Arizona, and who will be effected by this law.

Mysteries of an Immigration Law

Is Arizona's new law a menace?

Steve Chapman | April 29, 2010

After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. "I don't know," she replied. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

No kidding. But she has a lot of company in her ignorance. When I called University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller and told him I wasn't sure what some of the law's provisions mean, he replied, "Neither is anyone else on the planet." We will find out what it means after it takes effect, not before.

.

As a fan of Chapman, I'm disappointed in this one. He usually has a better grasp of the larger picture than he demonstrates in this piece.

I don't know Chapman, but he's definitely talking out of his ass on this one.

OF COURSE no one knows what an illegal immigrant "looks like". That's because no one is supposed to be trying to identify them by appearance to begin with, nor is anyone suggesting that they should.

One CAN, however, know what an illegal immigrant may ACT like, and a trained law enforcement officer DEFINITELY knows what suspicious behavior looks like. My God, if we don't even think we can train police to recognize THAT, why are we even bothering to have police at all?

 

[George Costanza]

So is it illegal to pull over old beater cars that aren't violating any traffic laws, because they look like they're mules?

This is the way most of our drug busts happen.

Yes, it is illegal to pull over old beater cars that aren't violating any traffic laws because they look like they're mules.

Sad to say, that IS the way that many drug busts happen. But it's OK - the officer will lie about the reason for the stop, claiming the driver failed to signal a turn or was speeding.

Voila! Instant probable cause!

 

[AllieBaba]

You're an idiot.
Honestly. PROBABLE CAUSE.

 

[George Costanza]

You're an idiot.
Honestly. PROBABLE CAUSE.

Probable cause must be objectively reasonable. What separates a legitimate, old beater car, from an old beater car that is a mule? Nothing. So, in order to make good drug busts, the cops would have to pull over ALL old beater cars, letting the good guys go free and busting the bad guys. It doesn't work that way - nor should it.

 

[George Costanza]

If you are not a citizen you are not techinically within the state's jurisdiction and are not protected by the 14th ammendment

All "persons" are protected by the 14th Amendment, whether they are citizens or illegal aliens. You can stamp and roar all you want on this point, but you are just flat wrong.

Furthermore, I don't think I would care to live in a country that did not guarantee due process of the law to everyone. I believe there are some guarantees in the Constitution which are only for citizens and legal residents, but I don't think that's one of them, nor would I want it to be.

 

[George Costanza]

Except it's NOT ILLEGAL IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE.

How hard is this to understand?

Question for you - do you think that a police officer who sees a Mexican walking down a street in downtown Phoenix has probable cause to stop, detain and question that person about his citizenship status, solely because he is a Mexican walking down a downtown street in Phoenix?

 

[AllieBaba]

If he has reason to think the person is here illegally, absolutely.

Just as he has the right to pull me over if he thinks I might be drunk, based not on my driving, but on the fact that he saw my car in the parking lot of the bar for the past 8 hours.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Moving on: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Hm. The Az Immigration Law doesn't deny ANY person of life liberty or property without due process. So THAT can't be it, either.

(Snipped - not relevant.)

I would LOVE to find out HOW they figure it does this. So far, aside from just making the claim as though it is obviously and self-evidently true (and it isn't), the opponents of the Az Immigration Law who make this claim have UTTERLY, COMPLETELY and TOTALLY failed to make their case.

So let me ask the question in the (probably futile) hope that some opponent of the Az Immigration Law might have the guts to offer an honest clear answer: TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY.

As I said before - the Bill of Rights has been incorparted into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment by a series of U.S. Supreme court decisions. The 4th Amendment is (obviously) included in the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

The AZ law allows searches and seizures which are violative of the 4th Amendment.

And how do they violate the 4th Amendment? Just as a technical matter, they're in the law, so they aren't, by definition, illegal. More substantively, there is no denial of due process involved before the searches and seizures take place. This law is asking for the same due process that searches and seizures of illegal substances require, just as an example.

Thusly, the AZ law is denying people "life, liberty or property without Due Process of law," to the extent that it allows the government to violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizure in the obtaining of the evidence necessay to convict and punish people suspected of being illegal aliens.

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?

I think this is the argument that is being referred to when the 14th Amendment is mentioned in the context of the AZ law. Whether that is a totally valid argument is another issue - but your question only extended to what the argument was, not to its validity.

Okay, where's your position on this, then? Does SB 1070 violate the Constitution, or not? If so, how?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The law DOES NOT SAY THAT. You keep saying "hunch" and "based solely on race" as though someone somewhere has specified those criteria.

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.

I don't think I'm alone in saying I would be grateful if you could show us some "probable cause" for the continued discussion of all of this, since none of it actually appears in the law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So is it illegal to pull over old beater cars that aren't violating any traffic laws, because they look like they're mules?

This is the way most of our drug busts happen.

Why would they "look like mules"? Certainly, just being an "old beater car" isn't enough.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Except it's NOT ILLEGAL IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE.

How hard is this to understand?

Question for you - do you think that a police officer who sees a Mexican walking down a street in downtown Phoenix has probable cause to stop, detain and question that person about his citizenship status, solely because he is a Mexican walking down a downtown street in Phoenix?

Question for you: what possible reason would you have for thinking that a cop in Phoenix WOULD stop a Mexican walking down the street in downtown Phoenix? Because I for one am not willing to have a totally hypothetical debate predicated on the assumption that Phoenix police officers can be assumed to be racist, harassing assholes.

 

[George Costanza]

If he has reason to think the person is here illegally, absolutely.

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.

Think about it - police officers should not be able to just go around, detaining every Mexican they see and questioning them about their citizenship status, solely because they are Mexicans. You do see a problem with something like this, don't you?

Just as he has the right to pull me over if he thinks I might be drunk, based not on my driving, but on the fact that he saw my car in the parking lot of the bar for the past 8 hours.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If he has reason to think the person is here illegally, absolutely.

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 - police officers should not be able to just go around, detaining every Mexican they see and questioning them about their citizenship status, solely because they are Mexicans. You do see a problem with something like this, don't you?

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.

Just as he has the right to pull me over if he thinks I might be drunk, based not on my driving, but on the fact that he saw my car in the parking lot of the bar for the past 8 hours.

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.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

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.

 

[George Costanza]

If he has reason to think the person is here illegally, absolutely.

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.

Just as he has the right to pull me over if he thinks I might be drunk, based not on my driving, but on the fact that he saw my car in the parking lot of the bar for the past 8 hours.

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.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

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.

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.

Let's apply that to the new AZ law.

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?

 

[AllieBaba]

Bullshit, GC. They are enforcing a law already on the books. That's all.
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.

Unlike the fucking health monstrosity.