“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
I'm still certain there are bigoted cops who are going to abuse this, but what can you do? With or without the legal population, the Hispanic population will be the new majority of this country by 2030. Karma has a way of striking back.
“I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Arizona's law applies to all, equally. No violation.Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
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.
Asking a person suspected of being an illegal alien is now in perfect accordance with statute. No violation.
Doesn't seem to have much applicability to asking a possible Invader for his ID.2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
I'm kinda thinking that none of the current crop of Invaders wore Confederate Grey. What's your opinion on this essential matter?3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Well, if any of the Invaders wants to pay off some Confederate debt, I don't see why they should be stopped.4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Needless to say, Congress isn't enforcing squat, but the matter if the Invasion isn't covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, except for the misread part where invader spawn is improperly granted citizenship, something the authors of this Amendment had no intention of granting.5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
It's not "unreasonable" to demand a person suspected of other crimes to produce papers demonstrating that he is not also violating federal immigration law. Nor does it violate probable cause, since he's already under suspicion, with probable cause for violating other laws.Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, there's no Constitutional issues with Arizona's law. What's your problem with it again?
Oh, yeah, it defends the United States against an Invasion by inimical foreigners.
Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 04-28-10 at 06:11 PM.
What is going to constitute reasonable suspicion that a police officer knows what someone is or is not carrying in his wallet.
Answer that one, my friend, and you have just become Karnak the Magnificent. On the other hand, if you are a mere mortal, like the rest of us, the only answer that you can give is "Because he looks brown". This includes not only illegal aliens, but Hispanics who were born right here in the good ole' USA. That constitutes racial profiling. If you say I am full of crap here, then answer this second question:
How many white people are going to be stopped and thrown in jail for not carrying papers?
The answer for anyone whose IQ is higher than that of an artichoke is "NONE". Therefore, the law is racist.
One other question:
How has Arizona dealt with illegal aliens in the past?
By turning them over to Immigration, who deported them. But the new law says that they have to be put into places, for a length of time, and taken care of before being deported. Who pays for that? Arizona's taxpayers, of course. So not only are Arizona's lawmakers complete idiots for passing a bill that will be struck down by SCOTUS as racist, but they are also complete idiots for passing a bill that can only be enforced by raising taxes. In short - Arizona's lawmakers are complete idiots.
Last edited by danarhea; 04-28-10 at 07:29 PM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)