....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[SpidermanTuba]

I am the first to get my back up and demand justice and retribution when the police clearly absue their powers.

Please give an example.

 

[Liability]

You all know, of course, that what we are kicking around in great (and most interesting) detail on this thread - illegal detention under the new AZ law - is not the issue that is going to bring this law into the appellate courts.

That issue is: the AZ law usurps Federal law.

But this other stuff is so much more fun to yak about . . .

The Az law doesn't "usurp" anything.

You do realize, don't you, that the states and local enforcement have a concomitant right to pass laws regarding the enforcement of laws?I mean, properly and technically speaking, the Constitution DOES grant to the FEDERAL Government the power over Naturalization, but it doesn't mention IMMIGRATION at all. Furthermore, all powers and authority not grantted explicitly to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and/or to the People, respectively.

If Arizona had pretended to pass a law legalizing any illegal immigrant from Mexico, THAT would be prohibited since Congress under the Constitution was granted the authority to legislate on matters of naturalization.

But you overlook the legal concept known as "concurrent enforcement." In brief, that legal concept holds that, provided that the State law doesn't CONFLICT with Federal enactments on the matter, the States retain their own sovereign authority over immigration matters. And we need only worry about that if the power of Immigration matters is deemed an inherent component of the sovereign Federal Government authority related to Naturalization.

The authority of the STATES to legislate over matters of immigrants is recognized IN Federal Law. See, for example:

In fact, upon reflecting on the topic a bit more fully, I'd like to know the basis for the claim that the States are somehow barred from exercising their own (retained) sovereign power in this area?

I hate to interrupt you while you are being publically embarrassed by Spiderman Tuba,

That's ok. Your biased belief is of no value. Unlike you, I can actually be objective and I am, so I'll do something you couldn't imagine. I'll be honest. Spiderman Tuba has actually done SOME decent work for his side of the discussion. On the other hand, I have successfully skewered several of his more prominent arguments, so again, your biased petty comment is of no real value.

but I think you need to be aware of the following:

First Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Arizona Immigration Law

The federal lawsuit, filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, alleged that the law improperly intruded into the federal government's ability to regulate immigration. The complaint seeks an injunction to keep the law, signed last week by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, from going into effect this summer.

The key legal issue, according to lawyers on both sides, will be one that also was at the center of the court fight over Proposition 187 in California — whether the state law interferes with the federal government's duty to handle immigration.

Arizona, illegal immigrants, law, lawsuit challenge - latimes.com

Possibly you did not understand the meaning of "usurp." Please do carry on.

Unlike you, kid, I do understand the meaning of "usurp" which explains why I dismissed that improper and invalid commentary. You may now resume your biased and irrational commentary!

A question of whether OR NOT the Arizona law interferes with Federal law is not the same thing as the answer to that question. Perhaps you are one of the more ignorant libs who refers to a challenge and assumes that the very existence of the challenge establishes the rectitude of your ignorant position. Why yes. I think you ARE one of those silly little fellers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

There is no legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for being questioned under this law, and there certainly is no legal basis for winning such a suit.

And we do have every intention of going after employers as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Prove it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

Why would they be?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Oh, yeah. Because Mexico can REALLY afford to boycott trade with either the United States in general or Arizona in particular.

 

[Liability]

It's the Constitution.

Where?

Are you actually asking WHERE in the Constitution States retained authority and powers not specifically delegated to the Feds? Try looking at the Bill of Rights. Hint: try the 1oth Amendment.

IF you are asking where in the Constitution ANY sovereign government has the responsibility to protects its own people, I'm afraid there is no prospect of having any rational conversation with you.

Are you seriously claiming it qualifies as an ongoing criminal act based on an analogy you've come up with? As a law student, you should know this won't fly, especially when there is already case law on the matter.

Are you seriously as stupid as you now sound? If you are unaware of ongoing crimes, then your ability to grasp things like the law will forever be hampered. I didn't "come up" with the analogy, genius. There ARE ongoing crimes. In NY, the crime of bail jumping is a continuing crime, for example. In terms of the obligation to file a tax return, the failure to do so when a tax debt exists is also a well-established ongoing crime. The duty to present the border patrol and the United States government with proper documentation upon entering the country doesn't simply disappear if you sneak in. Indeed, there are numerous provisions in the INA where there are penalties associated with failure to provide VALID immigrat5ion documents upon entry and those penalties have very long term consequences (like a determination of "inadmissibility" and so forth).

Our interpretation is strengthened by reading § 1325 in conjunction with the other immigration laws. The language in the second clause, eluding "examination or inspection," has specific reference to immigration procedures conducted at the time of entry. This is made clear by sections 1224 and 1225 of 8 U.S.C. which provide for a medical examination and physical inspection of each entering alien. Because these examinations and inspections are to take place at the time of entry, a fixed point in time, this suggests that the offense described by § 1325(2) is consummated at the time an alien gains entry through an unlawful point and does not submit to these examinations.

See U.S. v. Rincon-Jimenez from the 9th Circuit.[/quote]

WTF? The 9th Circus is hardly a bastion of coherent legal analysis. Your incoherent excerpt of that decision made no sense, anyway. ONE Court has found that the the statute of limitations doesn't get tolled (i.e., that it is not a continuing crime) to willfully evade the reporting requirements of entry into the United States). I'll grant you, that is an official pronouncement from one court. But it is not the be-all and end-all of whether their analysis is valid.

Its only an appeals court, if you've got anything from the Supreme Court or another circuit on the matter I'd love to see it.

I'll take a look. I haven't tried yet to even look it all up.

In this case the district court was ordered to dismiss the indictment on the basis the statue of limitations had run out - Jimenez had been here for 9 years, the limitation was 5.

Yeah. I know. I read the case for which you provided the citation. I would note, however, that there are OTHER circumstances that make BEING HERE itself a crime -- regardless of date of entry. See, for example, U.S. v. Alvarez-Quintero, 788 F.Supp. 132 (D.R.I., 1992). That case involved a different provision of the Immigration law. Where one has gotten deported for having committed an aggravated felony but subsequently re-enters the United States, the law on its face makes it a crime to be FOUND IN the United States since no re-entry is authorized! In fact, take a look at what the 9th Circus itself later said, quoting their own prior Rincon-Jiminez case:

A violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326 for being found

Page 423

in the United States after a prior deportation is a continuing offense which continues so long as the alien remains in the country. United States v. Rincon-Jimenez, 595 F.2d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1979).

U.S. v. Guzman-Bruno, 27 F.3d 420 at 422-423 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1994) [my emphasis.]

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Illegal immigrants. If the majority of them happen to belong to a specific ethnic group, that's neither our fault nor relevant to the central problem. Certainly, it doesn't constitute a reason to ignore said central problem, which would be the illegality of their presence here.

And gee, why would a border state, with a significant LEGAL population belonging to that same ethnic group, want to target people from that ethnic group? I really wish you uplanders would stop projecting your pernicious racism onto the rest of us. Just because YOU would be inclined to hate Hispanics - if you knew any - doesn't mean Arizonans do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why would you have reason to believe someone is illegal before you've even pulled them over? They don't have signs on the car.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

I was out with my best friend one night, and he got pulled over for speeding. The officer asked for my ID as well, stating that she prefers to know everyone she's dealing with. Given that I'm a middle-aged, Caucasian-looking female, I'm fairly sure there was no profiling in play there. Just sensible caution.

Now, had I been unable to speak English, unable to produce any ID, and appeared unduly nervous and agitated - for example - I'd say the cop would have had reasonable suspicion that SOMETHING was up, and been justified in following up on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I have to disagree. I think the Constitution means "person" as defined by the dictionary, which ain't "citizen". I don't think the state is allowed to deprive people of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law simply because they aren't citizens. However, no one - and certainly not this law - is proposing acting without due process of law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why would he be "pretty sure" the guy is an illegal? Because he's scruffy-looking, because he's Mexican, or because he's in a seedy part of town? None of those, together or separately, are unique to illegals. There are plenty of scruffy-looking Mexican-Americans living in seedy neighborhoods.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Er..go ahead and take that to wherever you're headed. I'll wait.

The Arizona law authorizes detention of citizens without probable cause. The fact that someone "looks like" an illegal alien does not confer probable cause to stop on a police officer. What does an illegal alien look like? Does he look any different than the Americans of Mexican descent you are talking about?

It authorizes nothing of the sort, nor does it say anything about "looks like", so I fail to see how that is even coming up.

So an Arizona officer might be just as likely to stop your American of Mexican descent as he would a Mexican who is an illegal.

Maybe all the cops in YOUR state are white supremacists with time on their hands. This is not the case in Arizona.

Police are not required to ignore contraband they come across during a detention for some purpose totally unconnected to the contraband in the first instance. Hence, an American of Mexican descent with contraband in his car, illegally stopped pursuant to this law you say so many of them "are 100% behind," would be hauled off to jail, even though he was a U.S. citizen.

Well, that would require this law to allow them to be stopped JUST for suspicion of being illegal, which is not provided for in the law (unless the car has a bumper sticker reading, "I'm an illegal immigrant. Ask me how!")

In addition, I really don't give a rat's ass if someone carrying cocaine or other contraband in his car has his panties in a ruffle about the law because it got him arrested for said contraband or not. My heart does not bleed for the travails of drug traffickers. Sorry.

The point is, I doubt that someone in that fix would be so sympathetic to a law that had just empowered an officer to throw him behind bars due to an illegal search and seizure.

See above.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it doesn't. It requires probable cause.

So there goes all that well constructed post, fffft, down the drain. Because you're starting with a FALSE PREMISE.

Here is what the law says:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

This would appear to require probable cause for the initial stop, in that it only applies following a "lawful contact" between the police and the subject.

But what about a consensual encounter that is based solely on a mere hunch that the subject is an illegal? That would appear to be legal under this law, yet it is NOT legal under the 4th Amendment, because it is a stop that is, de facto, not based on probable cause.

What part of the phrase "reasonable suspicion" are you having trouble with? Do you consider a "hunch" to qualify as "reasonable suspicion"? Because I'm fairly sure the courts don't. The cops are not authorized, under this law, to stop random people and ask for ID just for the hell of it. And again, where do you live, that YOUR cops have that much free time to annoy people for fun?

 

[Paulie]

You've got a point.

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

I don't grasp the argument, either, that claims the 14th Amendment somehow invalidates or nullifies the Az bill. I contend, in fact, that it does not.

Incorporation of the 4th Amendment through the Due Process clause of the 14th.

Listen, I'm all about supporting the idea that police should not have the authority to just yank a mexican up and demand papers, if for no other reason than it sets a dangerous precedent.

But it's well known by just about anyone who uses their brain that Arizona is an entry point for border crossers, and is a hotbed of them throughout the state.

The feds don't seem to care one way or the other, so the State made a tough decision.

It's potentially a slippery slope, but my question for you is how would YOU handle the issue of the illegal immigration in the state of AZ? Not just the border crossings as they are happening, but all of the illegals already there?

 

[Foxfyre]

The liquor store reported that a masked black guy just held them up. A black guy, seeing the cops coming, ducks into an alley. They pursue and detain him for questioning.
Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

*****************************************

The farm truck has outdated tags or commits some other minor infraction. The highway patrol signals it to pull over. Some Hispanic looking guys in the back of the truck immediately bail out and dash into the bushes. The cop pursues them with intent to detain and question.

Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

******************************************

The lady reports that a young white guy just snatched her purse. The police look over all the young white guys in the vicinity and question any who seem the least bit evasive.

Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

******************************************

When I've found myself in the vicinity of a crime I've been stopped at checkpoints and have been asked to show my driver's license, registration, and sometimes insurance certificate. It is annoying if I happen to be in a hurry, but I would much rather suffer a bit of inconvenience rather than have bad guys go free. I have never felt that my rights were violated in any way - not even the night at 2 am when the highway patrol asked me to exit the car while he determined that I had not stolen my husband's leased company car that I was driving.

What constitutes unlawful search or detainment?

How much can be tie the hands of law enforcement to protect our rights before we lose other rights to those who intend to do violence to our persons or property?

The cops have lawful jurisdiction in all these cases. Arizona cops do not have jurisdiction to enforce federal laws broken on their international border with Mexico - that's a federal area.

Are you sure about that? It is my opinion that any law enforcement officer has jurisdiction to enforce any laws on the books - local, county, state, or federal. I don't think it is a question of authority as much as it is a matter of policy. Many police departments adopt a 'don't ask - don't tell' kind of policy to avoid conflict with local immigrant communities.

That is certainly a component of the current debate, but Arizona finally decided that if the feds won't enforce the law, then local law enforcement will.

Researchers say partnerships between federal, state and local law enforcement is one policy option that is gaining popularity. For example, Arizona's governor this month signed a law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

There are 67 formal agreements between the federal government and state and local criminal justice agencies empowering local officials to enforce immigration laws. Such efforts are credited with identifying 140,000 deportable immigrants from 2006 to 2009.

However, such efforts come with concerns about the potential for racial profiling, strained community relations and improper resource allocation, Saunders said.

Whole discussion here:
RAND | News Release | Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws at the State and Local Levels

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's the Constitution.

Where?

Are you actually asking WHERE in the Constitution States retained authority and powers not specifically delegated to the Feds?

No, I'm asking how this fact implies that a power delegated to the fed - border enforcement - is a sovereign power of the state as well.

Are you seriously as stupid as you now sound?

I cited case law directly related to the question at hand. You cited tax law. You're the stupid one.

If you are unaware of ongoing crimes

I'm fully aware that they exist, but the 9th Circuit ruled that presence in the nation after illegal entry does not constitute an ongoing crime.

WTF? The 9th Circus is hardly a bastion of coherent legal analysis.

BY ALL MEANS, PRESENT CASE LAW FROM ANOTHER CIRCUIT SMARTY PANTS, I'D LOVE TO READ IT.

Your incoherent excerpt of that decision made no sense, anyway

Its not mine, I didn't write it. Are you seriously this retarded? If you can't understand the writings of a U.S. justice of appeals, you should consider DROPPING OUT OF LAW SCHOOL

But it is not the be-all and end-all of whether their analysis is valid.

I AWAIT YOUR CITATION OF OTHER RELEVANT CASES

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It is my opinion that any law enforcement officer has jurisdiction to enforce any laws on the books - local, county, state, or federal.

Uhhh, no. You don't understand what "jurisdiction" means, do you? This is why you can get through the border patrol with prescription narcotics at the Texas-Mexico border but will be arrested if caught by the state police - the feds have no law against bringing in the narcotics (if you have a prescription from a doctor), but Texas doesn't not recognize a prescription from Mexico as valid. The feds cannot enforce the state law - they have no jurisdiction - and the state police cannot wait for you at the border, because the border is federal jurisdiction.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is my opinion that any law enforcement officer has jurisdiction to enforce any laws on the books - local, county, state, or federal.

Uhhh, no. You don't understand what "jurisdiction" means, do you? This is why you can get through the border patrol with prescription narcotics at the Texas-Mexico border but will be arrested if caught by the state police - the feds have no law against bringing in the narcotics (if you have a prescription from a doctor), but Texas doesn't not recognize a prescription from Mexico as valid. The feds cannot enforce the state law - they have no jurisdiction - and the state police cannot wait for you at the border, because the border is federal jurisdiction.

I don't know if there are any exceptions but the fact that the border control chooses not to enforce a Texas law is beside the point. It has been my experience--yes personal experience--that it isn't as easy to bring in controlled substances from another country, even with a prescription, as you might think. It can be done but the rules are tough.

I supplied a reliable link for my opinion at least where illegal immigration is concerned.

Perhaps you could supply a reliable source to support yours?

And I do know what jurisdiction means. Do you?

 

[Liability]

You've got a point.

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

I don't grasp the argument, either, that claims the 14th Amendment somehow invalidates or nullifies the Az bill. I contend, in fact, that it does not.

Incorporation of the 4th Amendment through the Due Process clause of the 14th.

You appear not to grasp that that phrase you just tossed-off has no actual relevance to the conversation.

Where there is no denial of a Constitutional Right, and there isn't any in the Az bill, the fact that the 14th Amendment incorporates the 4th Amendment to the States is a irrelevant little factoid hanging out there in space.

If you think you can make out a rational coherent claim that the Az immigration bill does deny anybody a Constitutional right, you are going to have to state your case and make your case. Your pithy little factoids aint gettin' it done, kid.