....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[Lost Soul]

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.

.

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.


Read your own quote dunderhead. Damn that Koolaid you guys been drinking must kill the few brain cells you guys have.

 

[frazzledgear]

Arizona is going to bankrupt themselves with this law.

With 70% of Arizonans approving this law and 60% of Americans, you really think so?

As far as liberals are concerned only the US has no right to know who enters their country and for what purpose and has zero right to enforce its own immigration law -and insist the nation belongs more to whoever can sneak their way into it far more than it belongs to US citizens who they think should just shut up and foot the bill.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has failed in its CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to protect our borders, forcing states to face increasing budget crises -and leaving them with no alternative but to enforce federal law on the state level. No matter how you idiot liberals want to spin this, this was merely an affirmation that EXISTING federal law would now be enforced on the state level -even if federal government refuses to enforce its own law. This was NOT some kind of new law that has never been seen before.

What liberals will NOT do is man up to the root cause of the flood of illegal Mexicans into this country -because doing so would mean demanding the US actually DO something to END IT instead of being participants in it. Liberals want to pretend that being participating partners is somehow more "humane" instead. The cause of the flood of illegal Mexicans into the country is RACISM in Mexico -with Spanish heritage Mexicans OPENLY discriminating against native Indian Mexicans and deliberately keeping them at the very bottom of the economic ladder. Because doing so increases the pressure on them to LEAVE. Or haven't you noticed the President of Mexico NEVER looks like the Mexicans caught entering this country illegally? Spanish heritage Mexicans have DELIBERATELY forced native Indian Mexicans to the bottom of the heap for the SPECIFIC purpose of driving them out of Mexico and forcing the US to take responsibility for their own citizens that are considered very undesirable for no reason but their heritage. Spanish heritage Mexicans run EVERYTHING and they run it for THEIR benefit and consider native Indian Mexicans to be undesirable as government workers, employees -and even as citizens. It is why the unemployment rate among Spanish heritage Mexicans is a fraction of what it is among native Indian Mexicans. Native Indian Mexicans are a segment of the population Spanish heritage Mexicans believe is bad for Mexico -and therefore should be subtly and not-so-subtly DRIVEN OUT OF MEXICO. And they have POWERFUL allies in the form of US liberals.

Every liberal who insists we give amnesty over and over again to illegals is in reality DEMANDING that we REWARD Mexico for its FILTHY, CORRUPT, INHUMANE and REVOLTING RACIST actions against their OWN CITIZENS! Liberals are nothing but PARTNERS in the filth, the corruption, the racism and active participants in stripping native Indian Mexicans of their heritage and their nation, constantly encouraging the Mexican government to keep up their pressure to keep treating native Indian Mexicans as second class citizens in their own country.

Best of all, liberals are willing to demonstrate in the street, threaten violence and even engage in violence -all in order to continue rewarding Mexico and maintain their partnership with the corrupt, racist and filthy Mexican government in their deliberate campaign to drive out an entire population.

Thanks for what is in reality just a phony pretense liberals -because YOU are anything BUT humane. Liberals are the partners and active participants in the real racism in all this -while insisting it is those who oppose repeatedly rewarding the Mexican government for its blatantly racist policies who are actually the real "racists". This is just one more in a very lengthy list of reasons I could never be a liberal.

 

[Liability]

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?

As expected, you ask the wrong question.

The people are not even to be stopped on the basis of their nationality. It is ONLY when they are OTHERWISE stopped or detained that we get to the question of whether or not they might be here illegally. A reasonable suspicion about THAT can arise from a variety of factors. And they are pretty damn obvious too.

State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010

SENATE BILL 1070

* * * *

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
* * * *

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

 

[Ravi]

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?

As expected, you ask the wrong question.

The people are not even to be stopped on the basis of their nationality. It is ONLY when they are OTHERWISE stopped or detained that we get to the question of whether or not they might be here illegally. A reasonable suspicion about THAT can arise from a variety of factors. And they are pretty damn obvious too.

State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010

SENATE BILL 1070

* * * *

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
* * * *

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Define lawful contact.

 

[manu1959]

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.

.

if you break the federal law by crossing into the united states and obtain or attempt to obtain a job without the correct paperwork...ss card....work visa etc....or obtain or attempt to obtain a dl without the correct paperwork ....

can you not then be identified as a suspect breaking the law and questioned .... and asked for your legal status....as you committed fraud...

 

[Liability]

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

As expected, you ask the wrong question.

The people are not even to be stopped on the basis of their nationality. It is ONLY when they are OTHERWISE stopped or detained that we get to the question of whether or not they might be here illegally. A reasonable suspicion about THAT can arise from a variety of factors. And they are pretty damn obvious too.

State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010

SENATE BILL 1070

* * * *

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
* * * *

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Define lawful contact.

Because it's such an alien concept in the law, you mean?

A lawful contact between a police officer and a citizen (or a "person") is well established in the law. I mean, jeez. come on.

 

[Ravi]

As expected, you ask the wrong question.

The people are not even to be stopped on the basis of their nationality. It is ONLY when they are OTHERWISE stopped or detained that we get to the question of whether or not they might be here illegally. A reasonable suspicion about THAT can arise from a variety of factors. And they are pretty damn obvious too.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Define lawful contact.

Because it's such an alien concept in the law, you mean?

A lawful contact between a police officer and a citizen (or a "person") is well established in the law. I mean, jeez. come on.

Then define it. Reason I ask is because someone I know recently appealed to a street cop for help and because the cop had a hair up his ass this person was mistreated and charged with a crime without probable cause.

So, helping someone across the street is lawful contact, no?

 

[Paulie]

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.

.

Being as how the citizenship qualifications had already been laid out in the constitution, one would reasonably expect "persons" at that point to refer to qualified citizens. Not to mention right there in the 14th.

I will give you an E for effort here, though.

 

[Liability]

Define lawful contact.

Because it's such an alien concept in the law, you mean?

A lawful contact between a police officer and a citizen (or a "person") is well established in the law. I mean, jeez. come on.

Then define it. Reason I ask is because someone I know recently appealed to a street cop for help and because the cop had a hair up his ass this person was mistreated and charged with a crime without probable cause.

So, helping someone across the street is lawful contact, no?

Jeez. You have conveyed one side of a story. I think, with all due respect, that maybe it should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

It is not exactly unknown in our collective experience that some cops have been known to lie. (Sometimes its the citizens/persons who do that lying thang, however.) Fucking LOTS of people get speeding tickets. I don't know the percentage, but I do know LOTS and LOTS of the drivers insist that they were NOT speeding. And sometimes, no doubt, they are right. They weren't. But oftentimes, they WERE despite their protests of innocence.

A lawful encounter between a cop on the street and a citizen (or a person) is analyzed in a variety of ways. It takes into account numerous factors. Does a cop need any particular Constitutional basis to approach me on a street to ask me a non-accusatory question? What must he do to elevate that presumably lawful encounter (which usually requires no probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything) to a "seizure" of my person for constitutional purposes?

I'm not trying to duck your question. I'm just saying that it is not even remotely as simple as you make it out to be -- at least not in terms of proper legal analysis.

This is entirely distinct from the more troublesome question of what may happen if a police officer chooses, unilaterally, to distort the law or to later lie about an encounter when testifying about it in Court. I know that kind of shit does happen. The question is: how often does it happen. Then there's the question of whether or not -- in any particular case -- it happened at all.

 

[Liability]

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.

.

Being as how the citizenship qualifications had already been laid out in the constitution, one would reasonably expect "persons" at that point to refer to qualified citizens. Not to mention right there in the 14th.

I will give you an E for effort here, though.

To confuse matters, I think I'll throw in with those who argue that for purposes of analyzing the validity of police conduct, it doesn't matter at all if the person detained or stopped in a street-level encounter is a citizen or an alien. "Person" does not mean "citizen." If a cop cannot arrest my citizen ass without probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime, then he can't arrest an alien on criminal charges, either, without that same level of probable cause.

Now, an illegal alien CAN be arrested for the CRIME of being here illegally. I cannot be validly so arrested. But a rapist can be validly arrested for a rape, too. If I haven't committed any crime, then there should be no probable cause to arrest me. Different outcomes don't necessarily imply improper discrimination.

 

[Paulie]

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.

.

Being as how the citizenship qualifications had already been laid out in the constitution, one would reasonably expect "persons" at that point to refer to qualified citizens. Not to mention right there in the 14th.

I will give you an E for effort here, though.

To confuse matters, I think I'll throw in with those who argue that for purposes of analyzing the validity of police conduct, it doesn't matter at all if the person detained or stopped in a street-level encounter is a citizen or an alien. "Person" does not mean "citizen." If a cop cannot arrest my citizen ass without probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime, then he can't arrest an alien on criminal charges, either, without that same level of probable cause.

Now, an illegal alien CAN be arrested for the CRIME of being here illegally. I cannot be validly so arrested. But a rapist can be validly arrested for a rape, too. If I haven't committed any crime, then there should be no probable cause to arrest me. Different outcomes don't necessarily imply improper discrimination.

In the context of the 14th, person would assumably mean citizen. The text outlines citizenship, and then mentions "persons". Occam's Razor tells me that persons means citizens at that point, considering the purpose of the 14th to begin with.

Besides that, one is not afforded "liberty" in the absence of legal residency status, because that person has now broken the law. It stands to reason that they would be deprived of liberty at that point, like any other law breaker.

 

[froggy]

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?

Why don't they do both, and a true American would not sue , but support it.

 

[Liability]

Being as how the citizenship qualifications had already been laid out in the constitution, one would reasonably expect "persons" at that point to refer to qualified citizens. Not to mention right there in the 14th.

I will give you an E for effort here, though.

To confuse matters, I think I'll throw in with those who argue that for purposes of analyzing the validity of police conduct, it doesn't matter at all if the person detained or stopped in a street-level encounter is a citizen or an alien. "Person" does not mean "citizen." If a cop cannot arrest my citizen ass without probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime, then he can't arrest an alien on criminal charges, either, without that same level of probable cause.

Now, an illegal alien CAN be arrested for the CRIME of being here illegally. I cannot be validly so arrested. But a rapist can be validly arrested for a rape, too. If I haven't committed any crime, then there should be no probable cause to arrest me. Different outcomes don't necessarily imply improper discrimination.

In the context of the 14th, person would assumably mean citizen. The text outlines citizenship, and then mentions "persons". Occam's Razor tells me that persons means citizens at that point, considering the purpose of the 14th to begin with.

Besides that, one is not afforded "liberty" in the absence of legal residency status, because that person has now broken the law. It stands to reason that they would be deprived of liberty at that point, like any other law breaker.

I don't think we need old Occam's shaving kit to divine what the Framers meant in this regard. They fucking said it. No mystery to even be solved.

They knew the difference between a citizen and a person. One must be a person to be a citizen, but one need not be a citizen to be a person.

The explicit grants of certain protections from the government was accorded NOT just to citizens, but to persons.

I don't think this is at all unclear in the law, either.

If a citizen gets arrested and charged with a crime, the citizen is entitled to certain rights (like the right to counsel, the right to a trial in a Court of law before a jury of one's peers, etc). And if an alien gets arrested and charged with a crime, just like the citizen, the alien is also entitled to certain rights (like the right to counsel, the right to a trial in a Court of law before a jury of one's peers, etc).

It's true. You could look it up!

 

[Paulie]

You've got a point.

I'm still not sure how or why the 14th nullifies the bill, though.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Great.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CA is already bankrupt from not enforcing its borders and AZ is close behind

AZ HAS A DEFICIT EQUAL TO 20% OF ITS ANNUAL BUDGET

GET A FUCKING CLUE!

You can't have 1 state worth of taxpayers paying for 1.5 states worth of people!!

 

[Contumacious]

This is despicable law is clearly a terrorist act as it is meant to terrorize scary non-aryans . They've even admitted as much when they said in interviews that their goal was to "scare" so-called "illegal" immigrants so much that they will go back home.

PUT THESE FILTHY PASTY WHITE RAT BASTARDS UNDER THE FUCKING JAIL NOW!

 

[George Costanza]

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.

.

I was waiting for someone to hit on that phrase. Bingo.

 

[George Costanza]

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?

Some "other basis" for the police/citizen encounter. I assume you mean, some basis other than a suspicion that the person being approached is an illegal alien. Officer legitimately pulls a Mexican over for drunk driving. There's your other basis, right there. He can now ask the Mexican for proof of citizenship, since the "other basis" for the stop has been satisfied - is that your point?

What about a consensual encounter - would that serve as a legitimate "other basis"?

Cop spots a scruffy looking Mexican walking down the street in the seedy part of Phoenix. He is pretty sure the guy is an illegal. "Hi, there, senor. How ya doin' today?" The guy stops walking, looks at the cop and says he's doing just fine. Wham - consensual encounter. Officer then asks the guy for identification and/or proof of citizenship.

Think this would pass Constitutional muster? I don't.

 

[George Costanza]

You've got a point.

I'm still not sure how or why the 14th nullifies the bill, though.

Try the 4th.