....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[Contumacious]

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.


,

PHOENIX (April 28, 2010)—Officials in at least three Arizona cities including Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff are considering a lawsuit to try to block the new immigration enforcement law, and the threat of possible legal action could add momentum to the backlash over the immigration crackdown.

.

 

[Liability]

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.


,

PHOENIX (April 28, 2010)—Officials in at least three Arizona cities including Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff are considering a lawsuit to try to block the new immigration enforcement law, and the threat of possible legal action could add momentum to the backlash over the immigration crackdown.

.

A disjointed reply, from a total fucking moron, that fails to address any part of the post to which it nominally was responsive.


,

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

,


,


When all is said and done, Confusedatious is still just a fucking imbecile and a proud supporter of pedophiles.

 

[Contumacious]

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

"To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U. S. C. §§ 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). In light of the discretionary federal power to grant relief from deportation, a State cannot realistically determine that any particular undocumented child will in fact be deported until after deportation proceedings have been completed. It would of course be most difficult for the State to justify a denial of education to a child enjoying an inchoate federal permission to remain.

First, appellants appear to suggest that the State may seek to protect itself from an influx of illegal immigrants. While a State might have an interest in mitigating the potentially harsh economic effects of sudden shifts in population,*fn23 § 21.031 hardly offers an effective method of dealing with an urgent demographic or economic problem. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State's economy. To the contrary, the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc. 458 F.Supp., at 578; 501 F.Supp., at 570-571. The dominant incentive for illegal entry into the State of Texas is the availability of employment; few if any illegal immigrants come to this country, or presumably to the State of Texas, in order to avail themselves of a free education.


PLYLER v. DOE, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 06/15/1982)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

.

 

[George Costanza]

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

All "persons" are protected by the 14th Amendment, whether they are citizens or illegal aliens. You can stamp and roar all you want on this point, but you are just flat wrong.

 

[Liability]

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

All "persons" are protected by the 14th Amendment, whether they are citizens or illegal aliens. You can stamp and roar all you want on this point, but you are just flat wrong.

I happen to AGREE with Georgie on this point. I think the 14th does protect all "persons," not just all "citizens." The QUESTION, now, is WHAT does it "protect" all these "persons" from? The short answer is found in Section I:

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.

Let's start with the first relevant clause of Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" -- the Az immigration law DOESN'T abridge any citizen's privileges or immunities at all. So that can't be it.

Moving on: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Hm. The Az Immigration Law doesn't deny ANY person of life liberty or property without due process. So THAT can't be it, either.

Moving on: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This must be it! It HAS to be the contention of the Az Immigration Law opponents that this immigration law somehow manages to deny to some "persons" the equal protection of the law.

I would LOVE to find out HOW they figure it does this. So far, aside from just making the claim as though it is obviously and self-evidently true (and it isn't), the opponents of the Az Immigration Law who make this claim have UTTERLY, COMPLETELY and TOTALLY failed to make their case.

So let me ask the question in the (probably futile) hope that some opponent of the Az Immigration Law might have the guts to offer an honest clear answer: TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

Bull shit. I know tons of people who have gone to Mexico, obtained legal prescriptions under Mexican law, declared them when crossing the border, and were allowed entry with their prescriptions. (about half of those people wound up busted by the Texas authorities somewhere along the road). Perhaps the law has changed now, but that's the way it was 10 years ago.

 

[Foxfyre]

So let me ask the question in the (probably futile) hope that some opponent of the Az Immigration Law might have the guts to offer an honest clear answer: TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY.

Most especially since the Arizona law includes nothing that is not in the Federal Law. You would think if there was an equal protection problem, it would have shown up at the federal level by now.

 

[Liability]

So let me ask the question in the (probably futile) hope that some opponent of the Az Immigration Law might have the guts to offer an honest clear answer: TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY.

Most especially since the Arizona law includes nothing that is not in the Federal Law. You would think if there was an equal protection problem, it would have shown up at the federal level by now.

Absolutely. These liberoidal Statists fully trust the U.S. government to enforce immigration laws in a way that does not violate Equal Protection. (I love it when libs are so devout in their love, admiration and unbounded respect for the integrity of the Federal government.)

But Arizona cannot be trusted.

Bad Arizona. Good Federal Government.

Stupid libs.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

.

"state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295

"general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). Gonzales v. City of Peoria

Congress stated that a formal agreement is not necessary for "any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a state… to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States," or "otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10).

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

and now ...........

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;


so your conclusion is premature at best.

 

[Liability]

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.

Perhaps you would be so good as to point ot the precise provision of the Constitution that delegates to the Federal Government "border enforcement." I doubt it, of course. Go find a penumbra and hurry back to us.

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

No no, you petty little ineffectual arrogant yutz. You are the stupid one, sadly. I cited tax law only to show that there is a concept recognized in the law of a "continuing crime" whereby a statute of limitations never even BEGINS. I have also, since then, cited you to case law where Courts have recognized that certain provisions of The Immigration and Naturalization Law constitute (by their very terms) "continuing crimes." Did you miss the reference? Do you need to have it read back to you, putz?

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.

Wrong. One Court said that in the context of a specific offense related to an immigration law violation. The SAME COURT, however, also noted that OTHER Immigration Law violations DO constitute continuing crimes. Don't be so selective in your readings, stupid. It only makes you look worse.

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

No no, stupid. You offered a paragraph from the middle of a decision devoid of context. The way you presented it was therefore meaningless. As I later acknowledged, that citation to ONE case from ONE circuit was valid as far as it goes. But your citation to authority doesn't go far enough. For, as I later ALSO noted (with case law citation, you yutz), the VERY SAME COURT ALSO noted that OTHER Immigration Law violations DO constitute "continuing crimes."

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

I AWAIT YOUR CITATION OF OTHER RELEVANT CASES

Already provided, stupid. Do you need it read back, imbecile?

Also, I now give you an assignment. Shepardize this case: UNITED STATES of America v. Romualdo CORES, 356 U.S. 405 (1958). Where, as there, the SCOTUS recognized that some immigration law violations are continuing crimes, can you seriously persist in contending that immigration law violations are not continuing crimes? The correct answer, obviously, is that some are and others are not (and the reason for the differences are pretty clear).

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Mysteries of an Immigration Law

Is Arizona's new law a menace?

Steve Chapman | April 29, 2010

After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. "I don't know," she replied. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

No kidding. But she has a lot of company in her ignorance. When I called University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller and told him I wasn't sure what some of the law's provisions mean, he replied, "Neither is anyone else on the planet." We will find out what it means after it takes effect, not before.

.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Mysteries of an Immigration Law

Is Arizona's new law a menace?

Steve Chapman | April 29, 2010

After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. "I don't know," she replied. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

No kidding. But she has a lot of company in her ignorance. When I called University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller and told him I wasn't sure what some of the law's provisions mean, he replied, "Neither is anyone else on the planet." We will find out what it means after it takes effect, not before.

.

As a fan of Chapman, I'm disappointed in this one. He usually has a better grasp of the larger picture than he demonstrates in this piece.

 

[George Costanza]

Moving on: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Hm. The Az Immigration Law doesn't deny ANY person of life liberty or property without due process. So THAT can't be it, either.

(Snipped - not relevant.)

I would LOVE to find out HOW they figure it does this. So far, aside from just making the claim as though it is obviously and self-evidently true (and it isn't), the opponents of the Az Immigration Law who make this claim have UTTERLY, COMPLETELY and TOTALLY failed to make their case.

So let me ask the question in the (probably futile) hope that some opponent of the Az Immigration Law might have the guts to offer an honest clear answer: TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY.

As I said before - the Bill of Rights has been incorparted into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment by a series of U.S. Supreme court decisions. The 4th Amendment is (obviously) included in the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

The AZ law allows searches and seizures which are violative of the 4th Amendment.

Thusly, the AZ law is denying people "life, liberty or property without Due Process of law," to the extent that it allows the government to violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizure in the obtaining of the evidence necessay to convict and punish people suspected of being illegal aliens.

I think this is the argument that is being referred to when the 14th Amendment is mentioned in the context of the AZ law. Whether that is a totally valid argument is another issue - but your question only extended to what the argument was, not to its validity.

 

[Liability]

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.

Mysteries of an Immigration Law

Is Arizona's new law a menace?

Steve Chapman | April 29, 2010

After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. "I don't know," she replied. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

No kidding. But she has a lot of company in her ignorance. When I called University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller and told him I wasn't sure what some of the law's provisions mean, he replied, "Neither is anyone else on the planet." We will find out what it means after it takes effect, not before.

.

.

As usual, it's really kind of a combination of a stupid question and a question founded upon ignorance.

The faux "question" is: how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened.

But they aren't STOPPED for any such reason.

They are stopped for any of a myriad of other reasons. IF, during such an encounter, a set of circumstances arise which call for the cop to make some inquiry, it MIGHT be based on any number of factors. Lack of license. Lack of familiarity with the area. No rational explanation for presence in a particular area. Contradictory answers. Apparent (undue) nervousness. Language. Physical appearance (no need to shy away from it. Sometimes, boys and girls, illegal immigrants from South America actually LOOK a bit like South American natives.

Plus, you opponents overlook the fact that there will also be some training.

Merely looking Hispanic is not going to be a sufficient basis. But if that turns out to be ONE of a set of factors that the cops notice AFTER an otherwise legitimate police/person encounter on the street, it's not actually unreasonable.

And if Pedro, the LEGAL immigrant happens to be carrying his green card, guess what? He's going to be just fine. If Ramone, the illegal immigrant, cannot produce a green card (since he never got one) or a visa or a passport or any other proper form of identification and that leads to his detention AS an illegal alien,

GREAT!

And, well, that's just too damn bad for him.

 

[Foxfyre]

The AZ law allows searches and seizures which are violative of the 4th Amendment.

Thusly, the AZ law is denying people "life, liberty or property without Due Process of law," to the extent that it allows the government to violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizures. . . .

What is there in the Arizona law that is not already in the federa law?

And if there has been no problem with 4th Amendment violations at the federal level, why would there be one at the state level?

 

[Liability]

Moving on: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Hm. The Az Immigration Law doesn't deny ANY person of life liberty or property without due process. So THAT can't be it, either.

(Snipped - not relevant.)

I would LOVE to find out HOW they figure it does this. So far, aside from just making the claim as though it is obviously and self-evidently true (and it isn't), the opponents of the Az Immigration Law who make this claim have UTTERLY, COMPLETELY and TOTALLY failed to make their case.

So let me ask the question in the (probably futile) hope that some opponent of the Az Immigration Law might have the guts to offer an honest clear answer: TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY.

As I said before - the Bill of Rights has been incorparted into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment by a series of U.S. Supreme court decisions. The 4th Amendment is (obviously) included in the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

The AZ law allows searches and seizures which are violative of the 4th Amendment.

No. It does not. You making that hollow baseless and utterly unsupported claim is simply not a proper substitute for establishing that it's true. And it isn't.

Thusly, the AZ law is denying people "life, liberty or property without Due Process of law," to the extent that it allows the government to violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizure in the obtaining of the evidence necessay to convict and punish people suspected of being illegal aliens.

Poppycock. Again, you making the claim is not the same thing as it being true or rationally grounded. It is neither.

I think this is the argument that is being referred to when the 14th Amendment is mentioned in the context of the AZ law. Whether that is a totally valid argument is another issue - but your question only extended to what the argument was, not to its validity.

Wrong again. I asked for HOW the law would violate the Constitution. I did NOT ask for the simplistic contentions that claim that it "would" do so. I said, in effect, "show me." Nobody yet has.

There is STILL not a scintilla of any actual valid coherent reason to assume that the Arizona Immigration law will have ANY such impact on Equal Protection.

 

[George Costanza]

Moving on: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Hm. The Az Immigration Law doesn't deny ANY person of life liberty or property without due process. So THAT can't be it, either.

(Snipped - not relevant.)

I would LOVE to find out HOW they figure it does this. So far, aside from just making the claim as though it is obviously and self-evidently true (and it isn't), the opponents of the Az Immigration Law who make this claim have UTTERLY, COMPLETELY and TOTALLY failed to make their case.

So let me ask the question in the (probably futile) hope that some opponent of the Az Immigration Law might have the guts to offer an honest clear answer: TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY.

As I said before - the Bill of Rights has been incorparted into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment by a series of U.S. Supreme court decisions. The 4th Amendment is (obviously) included in the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

The AZ law allows searches and seizures which are violative of the 4th Amendment.

No. It does not. You making that hollow baseless and utterly unsupported claim is simply not a proper substitute for establishing that it's true. And it isn't.

Thusly, the AZ law is denying people "life, liberty or property without Due Process of law," to the extent that it allows the government to violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizure in the obtaining of the evidence necessay to convict and punish people suspected of being illegal aliens.

Poppycock. Again, you making the claim is not the same thing as it being true or rationally grounded. It is neither.

I think this is the argument that is being referred to when the 14th Amendment is mentioned in the context of the AZ law. Whether that is a totally valid argument is another issue - but your question only extended to what the argument was, not to its validity.

Wrong again. I asked for HOW the law would violate the Constitution. I did NOT ask for the simplistic contentions that claim that it "would" do so. I said, in effect, "show me." Nobody yet has.

There is STILL not a scintilla of any actual valid coherent reason to assume that the Arizona Immigration law will have ANY such impact on Equal Protection.

I don't see a denial of Equal Protection in the AZ law unless it would be deemed to be a denial of Equal Protection as applied. On its face, the law does not appear to deny Equal Protection because it does not direct its application against any particular race or ethnic group. If the law is enforced only against a certain race or ethnic group, then it might be a denail of Equal Protection as applied.

With regard to the Due Process issue, perhaps you were not reading my post as thoroughly as you should have. You had asked what the argument was for the claim that the AZ law denies Due Process. I told you. I am not saying that the AZ law DOES violate Due Process - only that, in my opinion, that is what the argument for that proposiiton IS.

 

[Liability]

As I said before - the Bill of Rights has been incorparted into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment by a series of U.S. Supreme court decisions. The 4th Amendment is (obviously) included in the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

The AZ law allows searches and seizures which are violative of the 4th Amendment.

No. It does not. You making that hollow baseless and utterly unsupported claim is simply not a proper substitute for establishing that it's true. And it isn't.



Poppycock. Again, you making the claim is not the same thing as it being true or rationally grounded. It is neither.

I think this is the argument that is being referred to when the 14th Amendment is mentioned in the context of the AZ law. Whether that is a totally valid argument is another issue - but your question only extended to what the argument was, not to its validity.

Wrong again. I asked for HOW the law would violate the Constitution. I did NOT ask for the simplistic contentions that claim that it "would" do so. I said, in effect, "show me." Nobody yet has.

There is STILL not a scintilla of any actual valid coherent reason to assume that the Arizona Immigration law will have ANY such impact on Equal Protection.

I don't see a denial of Equal Protection in the AZ law unless it would be deemed to be a denial of Equal Protection as applied. On its face, the law does not appear to deny Equal Protection because it does not direct its application against any particular race or ethnic group. If the law is enforced only against a certain race or ethnic group, then it might be a denail of Equal Protection as applied.

With regard to the Due Process issue, perhaps you were not reading my post as thoroughly as you should have. You had asked what the argument was for the claim that the AZ law denies Due Process. I told you. I am not saying that the AZ law DOES violate Due Process - only that, in my opinion, that is what the argument for that proposiiton IS.

You are a rather verbose little bugger, but you remain steadfastly wrong.

I already refuted the DP contention. MY question focused on the EP argument. My exact question (my words, not your feeble attempt to recast what I said) was: "TELL US HOW the Az Immigration Law denies EQUAL PROTECTION to ANYBODY."

And I agree that it doesn't.

As for DP, nobody has YET demonstrated (despite all of your quibbling deflection efforts) that anything about the Az Immigration law has ANY adverse effect on anybody's right to due process.

Again, I do not CARE what the alleged "argument" may be. I want somebody to SHOW US that there is any realistic prospect that the Az Immigration Law has ANY adverse impact on ANYBODY'S right to DP.

(There is a reason that nobody, you or anyone else, will take up that particular challenge.)

 

[George Costanza]

Again, I do not CARE what the alleged "argument" may be. I want somebody to SHOW US that there is any realistic prospect that the Az Immigration Law has ANY adverse impact on ANYBODY'S right to DP.

(There is a reason that nobody, you or anyone else, will take up that particular challenge.)

All right, Mr. Cool . . .

Someone is denied due process when they are subjected to an illegal search and seizure.

Under the AZ law, police officers are authorized to stop and question people without probable cause to do so. A mere suspicion or hunch that the person may be an illegal based solely on the person's race, is not reasonbly objective and is, therefore, insufficient.

A person who is stopped and questioned or searched without probable cause to do so, is the subject of an illegal search and seizure and is, accordingly, being denied due process of law.

I am not sure that the "lawful contact" prerequisite to a stop that is written into the AZ law, will do the trick. It might - have to see how that plays out in actual application and in the appellate courts.

 

[AllieBaba]

Except it's NOT ILLEGAL IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE.

How hard is this to understand?