....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wanna debate luissa some on this......we have way too much sexual tension and it would be a good release




Did I just say that

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?

Only if I'm with Del and Article on a weekend romp....ummmm i mean trip

Ptown.org: Home - Provincetown Gay and Lesbian Guide lodging, events, activities, more <-----this is the towns official homepage

 

[Liability]

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.

.

The law doesn't adversely affect anyone, dark or light skinned, you racist ass-sucker.

,

 

[Luissa]

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



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.

However, if they are legally here, they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

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

Have you seen Dick and Jane?

And you sure don't mind the government being involved in someone else's life.

 

[Valerie]

The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[jillian]

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.

Aside from exorbitant enforcement costs:

in 2009, nearly $4.5 billion worth of products were exported from the state to Mexico, which is Arizona’s No. 1 trading partner. That includes semiconductor chips, machinery, and plastics.

“Trade with Mexico is extremely important for our state,” he says.

Also, nearly 40 percent of fruits of vegetables imported to the US from Mexico pass through Arizona, according to research by the Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

If boycotts from Mexico become widespread, it could hurt the state economy.

MinnPost - Arizona immigration law: Will Mexico boycotts cripple trade?

 

[Luissa]

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.

.

The law doesn't adversely affect anyone, dark or light skinned, you racist ass-sucker.

,

Gee, I wonder who a border state is trying to target.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

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.

Please explain why a non citizen is afforded counsel, bail and a trial by a jury in every state in our Union? If your explanation were accurate wouldn't any alien here illegally be immediately placed in prison and left there. No habeas corpus, no appeal rights, no right to confront witnesses against him and no right to a defense.
And, btw, is that the type of society in which you would choose to live?

 

[hjmick]

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.

.

The law doesn't adversely affect anyone, dark or light skinned, you racist ass-sucker.

,

Gee, I wonder who a border state is trying to target.

French Canadians...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

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.

Have you seen Dick and Jane?

And you sure don't mind the government being involved in someone else's life.

You cut out the good part of my post "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" i'm editing it back in.

If you read the actual arizona law (bill) it DOES NOT give the police the authority to profile based on race. They ONLY have the authority to ask for proof of citizenship IF someone breaks another law and gets caught.

I wish every state did that. I would have no problem providing the information anytime I got pulled over for a driving violation or had any other run in with police.

 

[Ravi]

The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So we are back to--what is probable cause?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Aside from exorbitant enforcement costs:

in 2009, nearly $4.5 billion worth of products were exported from the state to Mexico, which is Arizona’s No. 1 trading partner. That includes semiconductor chips, machinery, and plastics.

“Trade with Mexico is extremely important for our state,” he says.

Also, nearly 40 percent of fruits of vegetables imported to the US from Mexico pass through Arizona, according to research by the Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

If boycotts from Mexico become widespread, it could hurt the state economy.

MinnPost - Arizona immigration law: Will Mexico boycotts cripple trade?

Now that is funny!

 

[Valerie]

The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So we are back to--what is probable cause?

Yep, we're left with defining "unreasonable searches" and "probable cause".

 

[Luissa]

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.

Have you seen Dick and Jane?

And you sure don't mind the government being involved in someone else's life.

You cut out the good part of my post "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" i'm editing it back in.

If you read the actual arizona law (bill) it DOES NOT give the police the authority to profile based on race. They ONLY have the authority to ask for proof of citizenship IF someone breaks another law and gets caught.

I wish every state did that. I would have no problem providing the information anytime I got pulled over for a driving violation or had any other run in with police.

Actually it doesn't, that might be what they intended, but it says lawful contact. And I am pretty sure you can use reasonable suspicion when making lawful contact.
Doesn't the bill say they can use "reasonable suspicion" to ask them for their ID?
So wouldn't that mean they can pull them over if they think they might be illegal? I really don't know to be honest, but that is what it sounds like to me.

 

[Luissa]

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.

Aside from exorbitant enforcement costs:

in 2009, nearly $4.5 billion worth of products were exported from the state to Mexico, which is Arizona’s No. 1 trading partner. That includes semiconductor chips, machinery, and plastics.

“Trade with Mexico is extremely important for our state,” he says.

Also, nearly 40 percent of fruits of vegetables imported to the US from Mexico pass through Arizona, according to research by the Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

If boycotts from Mexico become widespread, it could hurt the state economy.

MinnPost - Arizona immigration law: Will Mexico boycotts cripple trade?

Didn't the Mexican President warn his truck drivers? I heard so much about this yesterday, I have forgotten.

 

[Liability]

Have you seen Dick and Jane?

And you sure don't mind the government being involved in someone else's life.

You cut out the good part of my post "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" i'm editing it back in.

If you read the actual arizona law (bill) it DOES NOT give the police the authority to profile based on race. They ONLY have the authority to ask for proof of citizenship IF someone breaks another law and gets caught.

I wish every state did that. I would have no problem providing the information anytime I got pulled over for a driving violation or had any other run in with police.

Actually it doesn't, that might be what they intended, but it says lawful contact. And I am pretty sure you can use reasonable suspicion when making lawful contact.
Doesn't the bill say they can use "reasonable suspicion" to ask them for their ID?
So wouldn't that mean they can pull them over if they think they might be illegal? I really don't know to be honest, but that is what it sounds like to me.

If I look like a pastey white guy and I speak with no un-American sounding accent, then what would be the "reasonable suspicion" which might justify having a cop demand of me that I demonstrate that I'm an American?

But if someone sounds like a tape recorded version of Osama bin fucking Laden and looks like a Saudi Arabian visitor to these shores, then the reasonable suspicion kinda jumps up a peg or two.

It seems to unduly offend liberoidal "sensibilities" that I (not appearing to be anything other than a home-grown white bread kinda guy) might not get the SAME kind of scrutiny from a cop who has stopped me for other reasons (like a traffic stop, etc) which a person of Arab decent might get. To this, frankly, I can only respond with ill-concealed derisive laughter.

Look, libs: you either WANT there to be a reasonable suspicion or you don't. Assuming you DO, then let's not pretend that the pastey white guy should get the same scrutiny as Obama Akbar.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So we are back to--what is probable cause?

Probable Cause: Reasonable cause as shown by the circumstances of the case.

Probable Cause for Arrest: A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused is guilty. In Substance, a reasonable ground for belief in guilt.

 

[Ravi]

The 4th Amendment

So we are back to--what is probable cause?

Probable Cause: Reasonable cause as shown by the circumstances of the case.

Probable Cause for Arrest: A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused is guilty. In Substance, a reasonable ground for belief in guilt.

So what would be the probable cause for suspecting someone is undocumented?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

.

Arizona's law mirrors federal law which has been upheld by the USSC as constitutional.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So we are back to--what is probable cause?

Probable Cause: Reasonable cause as shown by the circumstances of the case.

Probable Cause for Arrest: A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused is guilty. In Substance, a reasonable ground for belief in guilt.

So what would be the probable cause for suspecting someone is undocumented?

Suspecting someone is an illegal isn't the basis for questioning their legal status.

Say for instance 4 men were in a car driving down the street and got pulled over for speeding, the police ask them each for ID, which isn't at all uncommon, the police do this to make sure no one in the car has outstanding warrants, not because they may be in the country illegally. Hell it happens all the time, if you don't believe me just watch a few episodes of "Cops".

 

[Wry Catcher]

So we are back to--what is probable cause?

Probable Cause: Reasonable cause as shown by the circumstances of the case.

Probable Cause for Arrest: A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused is guilty. In Substance, a reasonable ground for belief in guilt.

So what would be the probable cause for suspecting someone is undocumented?

Very good question. I might have a resonable suspicion that someone who had looked like "Osama bin fucking Laden" or" like a Saudi Arabian visitor to these shores" is here illegally but I would not have probable cause to stop and demand proof of their right to be here.
However, as a smart cop I would know to watch and wait. A gum wrapper tossed on the street, crossing a street against a light, or driving with a burned out license plate light are all sufficient reasons to make a field contact and ask a few questions.
During my discussion with the 'suspicious' person I might notice he didn't look me in the eye, so I might ask him why. If the answer was a bit slow and the subject showed some apprehension my questions might become a bit harsher and my suspicion stronger.