Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)

  • 390 Replies
  • 39946 Views
?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #150 on: May 03, 2010, 10:45:11 AM »
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

The law will be abused.
why?
Because police are police.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65192
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #151 on: May 03, 2010, 12:40:08 PM »
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

The law will be abused.
why?
Because police are penguins.

Fixed
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #152 on: May 03, 2010, 01:44:27 PM »
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #153 on: May 03, 2010, 02:00:29 PM »
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!

Anarchy is a sign of weakness. A realization that the current system is not working and chaos is the answer. I despise anarchists and those that say that order and government is not needed even with our large numbers of people on this small little planet. What fools.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #154 on: May 03, 2010, 03:35:21 PM »
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!
Hardly. Anarchy fails for the exact same reason that Communism does.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #155 on: May 03, 2010, 04:12:41 PM »
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!
Hardly. Anarchy fails for the exact same reason that Communism does.
Interesting. Care to expound on that? I'm having trouble understanding the common thread between the two, besides highly unrealistic goals that contradict themselves by needing actual organizations, when the intial ideals were built upon total freedom.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #156 on: May 03, 2010, 06:26:52 PM »
Nobody, atleast not I, is suggesting anarchy.  I am suggesting a constitutional government, which is an ideal I know and probably unobtainable because of the political environment in which we live.  However I still do oppose any law which violates those boundaries, whether I think the law will have a good outcome or bad.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #157 on: May 03, 2010, 06:41:53 PM »
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?

Read the Constitution.  Your attitude is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution entails.

Absolute crap. The Consititution is a "living" document in that it is still subject to change even today through amendments. As it stands, the Consitution rules against unlawful search and seizure and certain other rights in relation to privacy are held. However, a good bit of this is left up to the Judicial Branch and its intrepretations of this intentionally vague document. If they and the law at large deem it legal (with supporting views based on the Constitution)- it holds the weight of the Constitution behind it as they are its custodians.

As it stands, unless the Consitution is changed, the Judicial Branch hears a case against it, or the lawmakers themselves works against it - it stands thanks to different intrepretations of the "iron-clad" Constitution.

You crazy kids. Thinking the Constitution makes every act of investigation illegal just because your view of it says so.

That being said.... I don't really like the essense of this bill, but I understand that it can, with the right backing, stand up under any press short of a total "shake-down" of the Judicial Branch or the State Legislature.

I was referring to his comment of "What do you have to hide?"

Even that "principle" of the Constitution is not exacly set in stone. True, you have rights - but these rights are at the partial whim of the Judicial Branch and social tides. Don't like it? Get an amendment into the Constitution that sets out your rights, word for word, and will not be open to intrepretation.

Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #158 on: May 03, 2010, 07:16:56 PM »
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #159 on: May 03, 2010, 07:20:09 PM »
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #160 on: May 03, 2010, 07:24:23 PM »
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Always glad to let others know that what they hold dear and always valid is not the case.

P.S. - I'm not anti-government, quite the opposite - I'm pro-government to a certain degree. Just didn't want people to assume something without me stating my positon.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #161 on: May 03, 2010, 07:39:07 PM »
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.
We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #162 on: May 03, 2010, 07:43:04 PM »
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.
We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.
I sincerely hope this was sarcasm.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #163 on: May 03, 2010, 07:45:16 PM »
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Always glad to let others know that what they hold dear and always valid is not the case.

Wow.  Still, that wasn't exactly a precedent-setting case, given the official apologies and reparations offered by the government decades later.  I'd hate to think that something like that would happen nowadays, although I can't say for certain that it never will. :-\

We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.
I sincerely hope this was sarcasm.

lrn2Dann

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #164 on: May 03, 2010, 07:49:42 PM »
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.
We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.
I sincerely hope this was sarcasm.

Who knows, we may have a fascist commenting on here. I've met many during my time on the internet. Many of them are "weekend" fascists - they "think" they like the ideas, but do not realize how good we have it here in this country. However, I've also met the actual hard-core fascists and fully realize what they're supporting. He's probably just being sarcastic though.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #165 on: May 04, 2010, 03:02:37 AM »
I am 100% in favor of putting American citizens into interment camps during times of war if their time inspires songs like this

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


Otherwise i am not really in favor.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #166 on: May 04, 2010, 06:08:59 AM »
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Always glad to let others know that what they hold dear and always valid is not the case.

Wow.  Still, that wasn't exactly a precedent-setting case, given the official apologies and reparations offered by the government decades later.  I'd hate to think that something like that would happen nowadays, although I can't say for certain that it never will. :-\

Actually, the precedent of compelling state interest still exists today.  Though there are rules which the precedent lays out that lower courts must adhere by before invoking it.  Compelling state interest was recently argued in Citizen's United v FEC, the argument failed.

I personally wish for this precedent to be overturned.  The only exception given in the constitution as to when rights can be suspended or limited is as a result of due process, even in the face of great danger to the homeland or political instability, that was entirely a judicial invention.  The rights protected in the constitution should not be compared to any compelling state interest to take them away.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #167 on: May 04, 2010, 06:38:36 AM »
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1


"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents."

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #168 on: May 04, 2010, 07:26:29 AM »
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1


"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents."
Can they pull over white people and request birth certificate/passports based solely on said people's whiteness?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #169 on: May 04, 2010, 08:32:38 AM »
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1


"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents."
Can they pull over white people and request birth certificate/passports based solely on said people's whiteness?

Not sure.  But neither can the cops in Arizona according to SB1070. 

Heres Article Article 67 of the Mexican Population Law. Article 67 stipulates, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #170 on: May 04, 2010, 12:37:05 PM »
I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.


All Americans should have their rights protected, whatever race.

Key word there is "Americans" and IMO those in this country legally, which you can't tell by reading their mind contrary to popular belief.

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

?

Christianrocker90

  • 3135
  • Rays Republic
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #171 on: May 04, 2010, 12:43:42 PM »
I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.


All Americans should have their rights protected, whatever race.

Key word there is "Americans" and IMO those in this country legally, which you can't tell by reading their mind contrary to popular belief.

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

That's irrelevant to the second half of my comment.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #172 on: May 04, 2010, 12:53:57 PM »

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

BUUZZZZZZ!!!  Ohhh im sorry, thats the wrong answer.  Bob, show him what he didn't win!

The Constitution which is a Law, protects the Citizens of the United States of America. Other more specific law protects or subjects people who are not citizens to our laws. For example you cannot deport a U S Citizen but you can deport a non citizen.

Have you noticed that the Constitution is primarily a means of protecting the Citizens from the power of the State of America not some other entity.

Who does the Constitution apply to, only U S citizens, for example to run for some political office requires Citizenship, to vote requires citizenship and in the case of the President you must be a natural born citizen.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #173 on: May 04, 2010, 01:28:47 PM »

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

BUUZZZZZZ!!!  Ohhh im sorry, thats the wrong answer.  Bob, show him what he didn't win!

The Constitution which is a Law, protects the Citizens of the United States of America. Other more specific law protects or subjects people who are not citizens to our laws. For example you cannot deport a U S Citizen but you can deport a non citizen.

Have you noticed that the Constitution is primarily a means of protecting the Citizens from the power of the State of America not some other entity.

Who does the Constitution apply to, only U S citizens, for example to run for some political office requires Citizenship, to vote requires citizenship and in the case of the President you must be a natural born citizen.

Dumbass.  The constitution protects all people under it's jurisdiction, it also grants additional priviledges to citizens.  Priviledges are different from rights.  All people have their rights protected, while special citizens are granted additional privileges such as the ability to vote or run for office.  The constitution uses the word "people" and "citizen" to mean different things.  Take this:

Quote
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,

This clearly establishes that citizens are a subset of people and have the priviledge of running for office.

Now this:

Quote
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.

Makes no mention of this applying only to citizens.  In fact, no where in the bill of rights does the word citizen appear.  It only mentions "people" "persons" or "the accused".

the 14th amendment clarifies it further:

Quote
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.

When the constituiton talks about citizens, it is talking about priviledges that they are entitled by law, however when it talks about people, it talks about the protection of rights of all people, citizen and non citizen alike.

This is why if a tourist comes to this country, the government cannot just detain him, put him in jail, or shoot him in the head without first charging him/her with a crime and having a trial.  Why?  Because their rights are protected.


*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #174 on: May 04, 2010, 03:43:41 PM »
Well... i would argue this

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the preamble, the constitution states We the People of the united states, so from that point on, i would assume all times it states "people" it states the people of the united states... and it isn't a hard jump to the people of the united states being citizens.


And that will be my foray into constitutional interpretation until i take a class or so.
Please don't call me a dumbass...

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #175 on: May 04, 2010, 04:16:58 PM »
Well... i would argue this

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the preamble, the constitution states We the People of the united states, so from that point on, i would assume all times it states "people" it states the people of the united states... and it isn't a hard jump to the people of the united states being citizens.


And that will be my foray into constitutional interpretation until i take a class or so.
Please don't call me a dumbass...


I've heard the argument before.  I won't call you a dumbass so long as you wish to learn about it.  My response is that the preamble is a statement of purpose and does not hold any force of law, it is the articles that come after that do.  Also the first quote I mentioned:

Quote
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,

Does it make any sense that "person" in that sentence means citizens, when it clearly states no person except for citizens?

That is not the only example either, it is established over and over again that citizens are a subset of people.  Take the 14th amendment example which I gave above as well.  But there is also this in article IV:

Quote
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Why would they use citizen in the first clause, then person in the second clause?  Do you really think that is just a mistake?
It's plainly obvious that they are deliberate in their use of those two words.  By the way, not even the Bush administration argued that people within our jurisdiction do not have any constitutional protections.  That is why they kept foreign prisoners of war in GITMO, so they could claim they did not have to give them habeas corpus rights because they were not on U.S. soil.  They, like everybody agreed that if they are on U.S. soil, they are afforded the protections in the constitution like everybody else.  Such as due process and free speech.  They are NOT afforded the priviledges and immunities, such as voting, or running for office that are reserved only for citizens.

Think of the preamble as a statement of what the founders wished for the constitution to accomplish.  If it actually had force of law, there would be no need for the following articles at all, they could justify any law or government action as being presuant of that purpose.  The following articles are the powers and restrictions enumerated in order to accomplish that purpose.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #176 on: May 04, 2010, 04:24:34 PM »
My criminal law professor and constitutional law professor agree.  The whole idea of the rights laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that they are natural rights, bestowed by God on all human beings.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #177 on: May 04, 2010, 04:43:05 PM »
My criminal law professor and constitutional law professor agree.  The whole idea of the rights laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that they are natural rights, bestowed by God on all human beings.

Can't argue with those two.


the 14th amendment clarifies it further:

Quote
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.

When the constituiton talks about citizens, it is talking about priviledges that they are entitled by law, however when it talks about people, it talks about the protection of rights of all people, citizen and non citizen alike.

This is why if a tourist comes to this country, the government cannot just detain him, put him in jail, or shoot him in the head without first charging him/her with a crime and having a trial.  Why?  Because their rights are protected.



Thanks for proving my point dumbass.  Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here.  If they are involved in an additional crime then the AZ police are now allowed to ask them for proof of being here legally. 


*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #178 on: May 04, 2010, 06:46:14 PM »
Thanks for proving my point dumbass.  Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here.  If they are involved in an additional crime then the AZ police are now allowed to ask them for proof of being here legally. 

I don't have any problem with that, and I don't think that anyone else here does, either.  The problem that I think most people have is that it allows cops to ask for proof of citizenship/legal residence with reasonable suspicion.  How can one reasonably suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #179 on: May 04, 2010, 06:59:24 PM »
Thanks for proving my point dumbass.  Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here.  If they are involved in an additional crime then the AZ police are now allowed to ask them for proof of being here legally. 

I don't have any problem with that, and I don't think that anyone else here does, either.  The problem that I think most people have is that it allows cops to ask for proof of citizenship/legal residence with reasonable suspicion.  How can one reasonably suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them?

This.

Also Wardogg, I was responding to your argument earlier that the constitution only applies to citizens.  Not whether or not police can determine sombodies legal status after a lawfully arrest.  The problem here is giving the police the power to demand proof of citizenship (ie provide identification) with only a reasonable suspicion, where the 4th amendment requires a warrant before issuing a demand. Which applies to citizens and non citizens alike.