And, with a few exceptions (not related to citizenship status), they need a warrant as well. Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause.

As I stated the law of the late 1880's is no longer valid, nor does it make all persons in the US "Citizens" under our Constitution.

http://www.law.illinois.edu/lrev/pub.../Bernstein.pdf

But it would be very easy to set up a road block and stop all persons. Pretty easy get around IMHO. I will send them an email as a suggestion.

Only if he wears his Burka. :lol2:

Of course. And if you were detained and found to be here illegally you should be deported, as I would if I was in found to be in Aus illegally. And we should support our police to do the same.

Arizona is in crisis. I think this article sums up a really hard position Arizona has had to take but one that is needed.

Yes, I've seen that on law and order. :D

Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause

The wording here made me laugh. It almost suggests that cops aren't very smart and 'just need a little help sometimes'. lol

Why do you keep insisting on raise the false issue of making persons in the US "citizens"

I never said that and the Court never said that.

And the view of one attorney has not prevented the Court from citing Wo and other similar cases as precedent to affirm equal protection under the law for non-citizens.

I'm done.

:lol2:
You don't know very many cops do you.

Well if you were here illegally and declared yourself a refugee, you'd have to spend a fair amount of time in a refugee camp before anything would happen to you.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz0mGq2vyFA

"Non-Citizens" do not have the same rights as "Citizens" under our Constitution. That is the only point. They have limited Rights.

See now that is what we need!

Refugee Camps. Just like in Hong Kong. And I have been to two of them.

Do you think the Bleeding Hearts on here would support that idea? :D

I don't know, but all of ours are full and K rudd wants to close our borders to refugees which is causing an uproar.

I think they should get moving and process the current refugees and either grant them citizenship or send them home. Some of them have to stay in these camps for years which I think is insupportable. Mind you, they do have access to all the mod cons, but still, they are in a prison, and that's not right for lengthy periods.

Every country has its own problems with this issue. Our major one is that most of the people come through Indonesia, and the Indonesian government really isn't that interested in halting their progress there because Ind is not their final destination. Australia is.

They're better off being caught by Australian authorities than Australian fishermen though. They have a much higher chance of survival that's for sure.

One of my friends, whose dad is a cop, told me he was driving with his dad in Brooklyn near their house when his dad spotted a couple of kids walking down the street wearing baggy pants, long chain wallets, new flat ball caps (they prolly have a name) etc. That kind of outfit.

His dad says to him, "Ya see that? That's probable cause! I could search them."

My friend just cracked up.

And earlier in the discussion, you said that the Constitution only applies to citizens. and the Constitution deals with American citizens.

And that is factually and legally incorrect.

Wrong.

Denying your own posts now?

You changed your argument in midstream...from the Constitution "only applies to citizens" and "only deals with citizens" to there are different rights for non-citizens and citizens.

Your first argument failed by any legal standard, so I understand why you changed in midstream. :)

All your reference stated was that they could not deny the individual the right to run a laundry and collect funds because he happened to be Chinese. It did not, however, state that the US Constitution applies to all persons who are non-citizens. That was not a finding of the Court.

And why did you try to apply the findings of the Gitmo Combatants to the Rights under our Constitution? There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges.

What part of the Court's finding (that is still cited as precedent) dont you understand:

“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘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.’These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction , without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”

Both are non-residents and the Court referenced substantive guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in Wo in the Gitmo case.

Thatssss all for now, Justice Merc.

Well-known Douglas-area rancher is found slain


http://azstarnet.com/news/local/bord...0c7bc913c.html

No where did they state that the Enemy Combatants were citzens and afforded all the Rights under our Constitution, only limited Rights.

What part of the fact do you not understand that it only deals with economic renumeration? A limited Right.

:lol2: If I were a Justice we would not have to discuss this case...

Probable cause.

:lol:

Not really. Most people interpret the constitution correctly. Retarded people, like merc, on the other hand, say that the constitution says what they want it to say, regardless of reality.
Conservative brain washing/damage.

But it does give them rights. Hey, didn't you already post that it doesn't give them rights? Which is it, moron?

Let me get this straight. If a Canadian citizen is in the United States, s/he can be arrested merely if s/he criticizes the governent? This person has no right to free speech?

It's about time you came out of the closet. Although getting it in the butt by a guy who wears a burka is a really kinky fetish.

Limited.

When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?

and meanwhile, I'm just sitting on my porch watching The Most Dangerous City on Earth . . . from a distance (and frowning at thread drift)

According to you, illegal immigrants could be, since they have no constitutional rights. You've lost this one in a big way, moron. I suggest you go back under the rock you came from.

...When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?

:nuts:

Bottom line, no one is getting arrested in the US for criticizing the gobberment.

Because the constitution gives that right to EVERYBODY, whether they are citizens or not. Case closed, thank you for that proof, I accept your apology.

I know,

Before I read your post I was thinking maybe they could make their own constitutional issues thread.

It is a very important current event happening and we have to listen to people argue the constitution. I mean one dig or two ok but hogging the whole subject with one upmanship is annoying.

lol @ hogging. Yes I really talk like a tard. :P

Well perhaps this will help to get back on track. . .

Wait ... what? Every state has its own laws now.

...or not.
Link

:lol2:

20 people were gunned down in the streets in Juarez yesterday. Some are calling it "Black Wednesday."

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14980973

That sounds frightful, Cloud. I am sorry you have to be so close to that.

Be safe Cloud.

well, I don't feel as safe as I used to around here

So you still fail to answer the question.

Why do you support Human Trafficing of people across our borders?

continues:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...Kmfm5mPSxqBWfL

I disagree with that word - I think "the left" (whoever that is) wants them to be equal to, not over.
Yeh keep publishing opinion pieces like this from "the right"

Move along loser. You proved my point, don't try putting words in my mouth.

(shakes head)

http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=183&srcid=-2

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/index.html

F A I L

Given that there are deep differences, I have no idea why Europe has even been mentioned. Our current immigration problems are also due to illegal immigration (mostly Chinese and African workers being smuggled in and controlled by traffickers), or legal working immigrants from the EU that people fear are taking all the low paid jobs.

Very occasionally you might hear about fears of terrorism from Muslims, but even then it is British born Muslims. Mostly, people complain about the white Christian Europeans undercutting British builders/ plumbers/ cleaners etc.

This doesn't add anything to the previous discussion, but where the situation in this country is misrepresented I think it's worth correcting. And no, we don't have any reasonable answers. Except the BNP. Who want to see British citizens of foreign descent shipped back to where they came from. That's Grandad back to Ireland for sure. I'll keep you up to date on whether that filters down to Mum, my siblings & niece & nephew.

get your own drug wars.

wow. this is a new low--kidnapped from your own wedding right out of the church:

poor choice, girl.

Vt. farmer draws a line at US bid to bolster border
Homeland Security threatens to seize 4.9 acres
Link

Instead of dealing with the issue in AZ where MANY of illegal aliens come thru, they decide to pick off this little farm in the middle-of-nowhere VT.
What does the Dept of Homeland Security know about this place that the public doesn't? This makes no sense.

well, we don't know the gov'ts reasoning (if they have any), but they certainly have the power to take the land for the public good, if they deem it so. The landowners can dispute the valuation, because the Constitution requires just compensation, but if the Feds want it, they can take it.

I'm not sure you are correct that Arizona is the location where the "vast majority" of illegal aliens come through. Not sure you're wrong, either, but I think California, New Mexico, and Texas have a good share, too.

Golf course anyone?

Thanks Cloud - I edited my post.
I cannot find any corroboration in a quick search, but I vaguely remember reading that the number coming thru AZ has increased because of additional security on the CA border. TX . . . <shrug> Just don't know.

This is a positive move but we really need the other border states to do what Arizona has done.

http://www.alipac.us/

What about California? Will it s

I have to laugh at this. It's like naming a place "The Sanitary Fish Market."

California is too far gone, better to just s

Bwaaahaaa! Thnort!

Maybe Calif will slip into the ocean, problem gone!