....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
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.

.
 

Lost Soul

Active Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
584
Reaction score
118
Points
28
You forgot one word "LEGAL".

What the matter with your fucking retards? you dont know the difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL? Morons.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,002
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
You forgot one word "LEGAL".

What the matter with your fucking retards? you dont know the difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL? Morons.
I think it is you morons, that don't know the difference between legals and illegals.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Even Karl Rove recognizes the unintended consequences of this law.

However, as a Democrat, go, boys, go. And use your most bigoted cops to enforce the law. Many Texas Republicans will lose the next election.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,002
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
Arizona is going to bankrupt themselves with this law.
What a smart move by a state that was hit pretty hard by the housing market crash.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
21,873
Reaction score
6,566
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
The Fourteenth has long been due for an overhaul...
 
Last edited:

Valerie

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
31,507
Reaction score
7,380
Points
1,170
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.

.




without due process of law
 

Liability

Locked Account.
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
35,447
Reaction score
5,178
Points
48
Location
Mansion in Ravi's Head
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.

.
^ What a truly absurd, stupid and ridiculous post.

Since the AZ law denies nobody of Equal Protection of the Law nor does it deprive anybody of due process, there is NO basis whatsoever to believe the new AZ immigration law is "DOA." In fact, it should stand up QUITE WELL.


,
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,002
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
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.

.
^ What a truly absurd, stupid and ridiculous post.

Since the AZ law denies nobody of Equal Protection of the Law nor does it deprive anybody of due process, there is NO basis whatsoever to believe the new AZ immigration law is "DOA." In fact, it should stand up QUITE WELL.


,
Even if it does stand up, they are going to bankrupt themselve trying to prove they are right.
And anytime a legal citizen is questioned or arrested because of this law, you can bet they will be suing the state. Last time I checked Arizona wasn't doing that great in this economy.

Why do they spend their tax dollars in a smart way, and go after the employers?
 

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
A protection is like protecting me from the actions of anther citizens so I don't see how the immigration bill can be affected by this and it garantees that some kind of legal procedure will be implemented for all persons affected by the law. It prevents the state from kidnapping people without the 'due process of law'.

Also, since the law applies to everyone equally without specifying a single race. Its not saying only mexican nationals can get deported but all non-us residents regardless of race, creed, nationallity will get deported.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,002
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
A protection is like protecting me from the actions of anther citizens so I don't see how the immigration bill can be affected by this and it garantees that some kind of legal procedure will be implemented for all persons affected by the law. It prevents the state from kidnapping people without the 'due process of law'.

Also, since the law applies to everyone equally without specifying a single race. Its not saying only mexican nationals can get deported but all non-us residents regardless of race, creed, nationallity will get deported.
That would work, if Arizona wasn't trying to target a certain ethnic group.
 
OP
Contumacious

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
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.

.
 

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
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.

.
I've been waiting all week for this thread.

Notice the period at the end of the first sentance. That punctuation means the sentance following is in regards to the first sentance and the first sentance has to do with " 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." The following sentance, being in the same paragraph, directly relates to the first.

Your are injecting meaning that was not there originally based on your empathy for the poor souls who come here trying to feed their families. While your description of what the 14th ammedment means is innacurrate your intention behind the description is commendable.

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

wiki said:
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the Citizenship Claus, described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.

Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Other senators, including Senator John Conness, supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.
So in the end illegal immigrants are not protected by this ammendment however their childeren would be if born here.
 
Last edited:

Liability

Locked Account.
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
35,447
Reaction score
5,178
Points
48
Location
Mansion in Ravi's Head
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.

.
^ What a truly absurd, stupid and ridiculous post.

Since the AZ law denies nobody of Equal Protection of the Law nor does it deprive anybody of due process, there is NO basis whatsoever to believe the new AZ immigration law is "DOA." In fact, it should stand up QUITE WELL.


,
Even if it does stand up, they are going to bankrupt themselve trying to prove they are right.
And anytime a legal citizen is questioned or arrested because of this law, you can bet they will be suing the state. Last time I checked Arizona wasn't doing that great in this economy.

Why do they spend their tax dollars in a smart way, and go after the employers?
anytime a legal citizen is questioned or arrested because of this law, you can bet they will be suing the state.

Nonsense.

People get subjected to questioning by police officers for a variety of different reasons all the time. It is beyond absurd to think that you have some cognizable cause of action to sue Arizona if the police question you. In the first place, of course, according to the law itself, there must still be some other basis for the police/citizen encounter. Under THOSE circumstances, what precept in our law would validly prohibit a police officer from making inquiry as to the legal status of a person who APPEARS to possibly be an alien? And On what conceivable basis could that turn into the legitimate grounds to file suit against the State?

I know we live in a land where the judiciary is often bent decidedly to the left. That is, they tend to be irrational much of the time. But that's why we have higher courts to shunt such absurd lawsuits aside. Any appellate judge worthy of the name "judge" would have to reject a claim that one may sue Arizona if a cop, upon making an otherwise valid stop of your person, proceeds to determine if you might be an illegal alien.

The very notion is facially absurd.
 
OP
Contumacious

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,409
Reaction score
1,990
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
You forgot one word "LEGAL".

What the matter with your fucking retards? you dont know the difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL? Morons.
I think it is you morons, that don't know the difference between legals and illegals.
They do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. But since the law adversely affects the darkies - the non-Aryans - they are happy with it.

.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,002
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
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.

.
I've been waiting all week for this thread.

Notice the period at the end of the first sentance. That punctuation means the sentance following is in regards to the first sentance and the first sentance has to do with " 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." The following sentance, being in the same paragraph, directly relates to the first.

Your are injecting meaning that was not there originally based on your empathy for the poor souls who come here trying to feed their families. While your description of what the 14th ammedment means is innacurrate your intention behind the description is commendable.

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

wiki said:
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the Citizenship Claus, described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.

Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Other senators, including Senator John Conness, supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.
So in the end illegal immigrants are not protected by this ammendment however their childeren would be.
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.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,002
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
I wanna debate luissa some on this......we have way too much sexual tension and it would be a good release :lol:


:rofl:

Did I just say that :eusa_whistle:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is the funniest thing I heard all day, and I watched travel planet today. They were in Province, Mass? You hang out there a lot? ;)
 

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
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.

.
I've been waiting all week for this thread.

Notice the period at the end of the first sentance. That punctuation means the sentance following is in regards to the first sentance and the first sentance has to do with " 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." The following sentance, being in the same paragraph, directly relates to the first.

Your are injecting meaning that was not there originally based on your empathy for the poor souls who come here trying to feed their families. While your description of what the 14th ammedment means is innacurrate your intention behind the description is commendable.

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

wiki said:
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the Citizenship Claus, described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.

Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Other senators, including Senator John Conness, supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.
So in the end illegal immigrants are not protected by this ammendment however their childeren would be.
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.
I know a lot of legal people will be asked to show their proof of citizenship (i think thats what you are getting at) and that this wont be nice for them. However, if they are legally here, they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Also, if police use this law to unfairly profile hispanics they will end up in trouble just like any other case of racial profiling...or at least they should be.

Still doesn't change the meaning of the 14th ammendment but its a legitimate concern.
 

Valerie

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
31,507
Reaction score
7,380
Points
1,170
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.

.
I've been waiting all week for this thread.

Notice the period at the end of the first sentance. That punctuation means the sentance following is in regards to the first sentance and the first sentance has to do with " 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." The following sentance, being in the same paragraph, directly relates to the first.

Your are injecting meaning that was not there originally based on your empathy for the poor souls who come here trying to feed their families. While your description of what the 14th ammedment means is innacurrate your intention behind the description is commendable.

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

wiki said:
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the Citizenship Claus, described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.

Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Other senators, including Senator John Conness, supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.
So in the end illegal immigrants are not protected by this ammendment however their childeren would be.
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.

Exactly...That's where the FOURTH Amendment comes in.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top