New immigration law of Arizona

So lately there have been many reports on the news about the new immigration law in Arizona. I do not agree with the new law, and I would like to know what the Instructables community thinks about this new law. 

Here are a few links to what it says-

Picture of New immigration law of Arizona
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-100 of 146Next »
flyn2drive5 years ago
I wish the debate would focus on what really matters: keeping the law. The law allows for legal immigration. No one will have a problem with legal immigrants coming into the U.S. The law is Arizona's attempt at that. The Federal government has failed to do their job and has forced the States to take these measures. As an attorney who has looked at these laws, it is especially frustrating to see the Federal government fail to enforce the existing laws we have.

Nevada Annulment
CrLz5 years ago
My take is Arizona is trying to stimulate immigration debate / reform.

I'm surprised Arizona has the cojones to push this into the national forum, it's not like they are California. Naively, I would have expected Texas to start this.

The Village Voice in NYC recently published "Inside the Brutal World of America's Kidnapping Capital" , which was taken from a series of articles in Phoenix Arizona's newspaper.  Horrifying.

Can't say whether the original articles are pro-bill ~propaganda, but the Voice publication illustrates the ugly reality of danger fellow human people face.

Solutions?  Meaningful discussion is an important start.
Village Voice.jpg
NachoMahma6 years ago
.  What about the law do you not like. The part where they arrest ppl who are here illegally?
.  Any links to the text of the law (instead of some talking head's opinion about what it says)?
The part where the police are specifically empowered to stop and arrest anyone they think might possibly be here illegally.  No probable cause, just what color the person's skin is, what language their speaking, etc.
.  Precisely where does it say "No probable cause"?
.  I see "stop, detention or arrest." I see "where reasonable suspicion exists." But no "without probable cause."
So, how can you develop a "reasonable suspicion" from just looking at somebody?

Well... in Arizona, when you see a person with a large van full of Mexican people with a Mexico license plate, A cop's first thought is if they are legal or not. Why do people see that as racism?
Location has nothing to do with it. What is actually happening is that the officer is looking at somebody and assuming that they are committing a crime based purely on the observation that they look like somebody from another country.

That is exactly the same as not sending aid to the flood victims of Pakistan on the grounds that "Pakistanis support Al Qaeda".
Yes. i undderstand what you mean, but it is police officers job, they are not being racist, they just do there job to protect the rest of us. Please understand this, earlier in 2010 a police officer was shot by an illegal imigrant. Later, 2 more were killed. And then, A man At his ranch was killed.

Just last week an obese woman killed her two children! We should sterilize all fat ladies, because obviously they're all baby killers.

You really have no concept of just how absurd, let alone ignornantly hateful, your argument is, do you?

I'm not implying that all imigrants are illlegal. I'm saying that some are ILEGAL and that some are a threat.
And you are saying (not implying, saying) is that you can tell that someone is illegal by looking at the color of their skin, or their license plate. I can tell just by looking at your white face that you're an ignorant bigot. I don't have to know anything about you or your personal history or views. Now do you get the point?
No i'm not saying that. ( i'm black by the way)
Good to know. And even more interesting that there was no possible way that I could know that! To me, "you" look just like a yellow robot. Notice that I (apparently, for rhetorical effect) made assumptions about both the color of your skin, and your attitude toward other people, with no actual knowledge of you at all. Making those assumptions, with no knoweldge, is racism. It doesn't matter what color you are, you can still be a racist.
I understand that it is racist to do that and i would never make assumptions just by the color a persons skin.
Thank you for clarifying your original comment. I appreciate that you recognize the dangers of racism, especially institutionalized racism.
All I want to know now are your views on the law.

The law as amended is formally legal and constitutional (in my opinion), as it codifies at the state level what is already federal law.

The legislative record is what courts look to when determining the "intent" of a law, when a law's constitutionality is questioned. The legislative record is always what the rest of us should look to when trying to understand "why" any law has been passed, especially a law which doesn't actually (as amended) say anything which wasn't already in the law to begin with.

The legislative record, which includes the original unamended version, the statements of Arizona legislators, the governor, and law enforcement officials, make it very clear that the law is intended to target Mexican-looking individuals, regardless of their behaviour, in an effort to identify those Mexican-looking individuals who are also in the state illegally.

That intent, and the clear and publicly announced plans by several state law enforcement officially to target anyone who "looks like they might be illegal", is demonstrably racist, and is extremely likely to have a detrimental effect on actual law enforcement and crime-reduction activities.

As you said, I don't know why they passed it because it changed nothing!
Well, that's sort of my point. The original version of the bill, which caused all the uproar, violated federal due process by allowing police to ask for ID from anyone, regardless of probably cause. In order to try and quell that uproar, and to bring their law into federal legality, they had to change it. But they didn't want to look "soft on crime" by simply repealing it. Makes you question their intent, doesn't it?
You did, or at least you defended other people doing so. See your comment of Aug 23 12:53 PM, which I've previously quoted.
Sorry, you are implying exactly that. When you jump from "all Mexicans" to "illegal immigrants," you are making the racist assumption that those two groups are the same. How about the assumption that all African-Americans are gang members? That assumption is no more racist than yours.
. What the others are saying is that you can't tell who is illegal by looking at them. There are millions of legal Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics, Central Americans, South Americans, &c, in the US who all share similar physical characteristics. I'm confident that there are many illegals in the US who look quite WASPish (or Asian, or African, or Slavic, or ...).
Yes I undestand that. your the only one here that is respectful of other people.
The reason people think that illegal imigrants are dangerous/a threat is because they have come to our country illegally, they have committed a crime already why wouldn't they do it again?
And how do you know whether someone is an illegal immigrant, a legal immigrant, or a natural born U.S. citizen? Chew on that for a while.
I would like to continue this conversation with respect towards one another. I respect you. Would you do the same to me?
Yes. The rhetorical points are there specifically to make the point. You realize that I know nothing about you personally (and you're even more aware of that now!). There's no way that I can judge either your intent, or even your behaviour without known more about you than the fact that you look just like a yellow robot.
I just would like to make it clear that I am not a racist nor do i think you can judge a person by the color of there skin.
Thank you for clarifying your original comment (below, Aug 24 2:20 PM). I have no wish to label you as a racist or anything else.

But you did! On Aug 23, 2010 12:53 PM, you wrote,

when you see a person with a large van full of Mexican people with a Mexico license plate, A cop's first thought is if they are legal or not.

That statement is what started this whole discussion. Either you yourself are making a racist judgement, or you're saying that all Arizona police officers are (and should be) racist.

Judging a person because of their membership in a particular national, ethnic, or racial group is racist. Just because you don't consider yourself racist doesn't mean that you\r statements won't lead other people to conclude that you are.

It is a police officers job. They need to find out if they are illegal or not and the law clearly said (you have probably read or atleast live in Arizona) that police officers are aloud to inquire about people that they may think to be an illegal imigrant. It is the same thing as a police officer going over to a hooker and talks to her about being a hooker. (weird example)

The original language of the bill allowed police to illegally (violation of due process) ask someone for identification under any and all circumstances. The amendments passed in the wake of the international recognition of that illegality limit those inquiries to when an individual has already been detained for suspicion of some other illegal activity.

Your example is actually out of line. Unless the officer actually observes the person soliciting, they have no right to detain them. Sure, they can go and say hello or suggest that they move on, but they cannot exercise anything involved in detention (for example, asking for ID).

It's police officer's job to find that out.
Actually, it is specifically not. A police officer's job is to investigate or prevent crime when he or she sees actual criminal behaviour. Driving a car when your skin is brown is not criminal behaviour. Driving a car with a validly registered out of state, or even out of country, license plate is not criminal behaviour. Therefore, those activities cannot be used by the police to "guess" whether the individual involved is a legal resident or not.
I did not say it was illegal to drive a car if you are dark skinned. Also if you hearsd, the law allows police officers to investigate if they are suspicious about somebody

You're right. You didn't say it was illegal. What you said (implied) was that it should be perfectly okay for police to stop someone just because they are dark skinned.

Presumably, you also support the Torrance (L.A.) police doing the same. After all, in L.A., if you see a car full of African-American men, a cops first thought is that they're all gang members.

I did not imply and did not say and have no physical proof that I did which i did not.

Then please clarify exactly what you meant when you wrote (Aug 23, 2010. 12:53 PM):

when you see a person with a large van full of Mexican people with a Mexico license plate, A cop's first thought is if they are legal or not.

As read, you are implying that is perfectly fine for a police officer to stop a vehicle containing Mexican (or actually, just Mexican-looking) people, even if that vehicle is being driven perfectly legally.

If you were implying something else, then you should clarify it.

I would like to apologize for my dumb comment. I do admit that it sounded racist. Please don't label me as a racist. Again I apologize.
I don't want to label you as anything (except maybe a yellow robot lover :-). Thank you; I will go back to some of my own comments above and acknowledge this.
It is legal for an officer to ask for identification from anyone. I'm not being racist. It said in the bill that it i legal for officers to ask for suspected illegal imigrants id. Would it be illegal to ask for there ID if he was simply pulling him over for speeding?

Pulling someone over for speeding is precisely the "stop and detain" under which asking for ID is legal.

It is not legal for a police officer to stop you and require identification if there is no probable cause that you are engaged in illegal activity. Walking while black or brown does not constitute probable cause.

You keep implying that I am racist which am not.
Okay. I just saw your 2:20 PM comment above. Thank you for clarifying. I will go back to a few of my earlier comments and acknowledge that.
Just out of curiosity, have you actually read the law? if you hane not, you have no place in this conversation.
Yes, I have, both the original text and as amended. Scroll down to find the original discussion (May 15, 2010. 10:56 PM). Have you?
The reason people think that illegal imigrants are dangerous/a threat is, they come to our country illegally. They have already committed a crime so why wouldn't they do it again?
You might consider looking up the definition of the word, and figure out for yourself. Or are you just another ignorant white American who doesn't know what a book is?
NO! I Think that it is fine to come to our country LEGALLY but it is a crime coming here ILEGALLY.
. Wow! "ignorant [W]hite American who doesn't know what a book is?" Can one get much more racist than that? ;)
Yay! You figured it out (but of course you're smarter than the average Internet commenter, aren't you :-). Want to bet Robot Lover still doesn't get it, even after this exchange?
. I'm not your average nitwit. Heck, I graduated in the upper 95% of my class.
By the way, did you figure out how that second comment of mine is directly related to your own question?
.  As far as I can tell, no one is claiming that you can. I see no suggestion in the law of that technique ("just looking at somebody") being used. All it says is that, if the officer has already made a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, and the officer has reason to be suspicious, the officer should perform his/her normal duties and check ID. The same procedures they follow every day.
.  As with the investigation of all crimes, officers have some discretion as to what is suspicious. A speeding car with sagging back springs on a car that is close to the border is suspicious.
.  An Hispanic walking down the sidewalk, minding his/her own business, is not suspicious - and I see no one but the fearmongers suggesting otherwise.
> OK

> OK

> "I see no one but the fearmongers suggesting otherwise."

I quibble your use of the term "fearmonger".  Remembering that I am a non-lawyer Brit discussing US law, if there's one thing I have seen, it is that, if a law can be abused, it will be abused, whether by those enforcing it, or those meant to be controlled by it.

If those controlling the law enforcers decide that there are too many foreigners on their patch, then the law enforcers will be instructed to find reasons to be suspicious.

UK stop-and-search laws are currently being criticised because the majority of people subjected to the process are from coloured minorities.  The excuse used is that a greater proportion of crime is committed by members of those minorities.  The evidence for this statement?  The majority of people who are found to have committed an offence following a routine stop-and-search are from coloured minorities.

It's an abuse of the law, but it is legal.  Not right, not moral, but still legal.

On the other hand, if an individual is found to be in the UK illegally, they can only be deported if they can be formally identified.  All an illegal immigrant has to do to avoid deportation is to destroy any legitimate identification they possess.  Forged passports, driving licenses etc cannot be used as formal identification, even if the details on them are correct.

Destroy (or post home) your valid ID and you cannot be deported.  Again, an abuse of the law.

lemonie Kiteman6 years ago
Small, but interesting thought: I've got no concept of "race" or "minorities" on this site. Or anywhere else internet I suppose... W/ref cyber-crime, you're tainted by your top-level domain I suppose?

Kiteman lemonie6 years ago

Even gender is often hard to get a handle on.

lemonie Kiteman6 years ago
True, a girl called Adrian for example...

Kiteman lemonie6 years ago
Exactly who I was thinking of.
(I just accidentally referred to a potential future employer as male, when she isn't.  Her name is "Terry", for goodness' sake!)

lemonie Kiteman6 years ago
I got "Chris" confused today - Monaco / Hesketh - one of each, picked the wrong one...

lemonie Kiteman6 years ago
But there's also Talia Shire's character in Rocky, I'd thought she was Adrienne (until now)

Here's what I think about the example you mentioned about UK stop-and-search laws:
.  The abuse of authority you talk about is no different than a cop strong-arming someone, taking a bribe, or manufacturing evidence to frame someone. It's wrong and there are rules/laws against it.
.  The police have to have some discretion in order to perform their duties. Police worldwide are already given as much, if not more, discretion. If they don't use it properly, they are punished.
.  So far, I've seen zero evidence of a conspiracy to violate anyone's rights.

.  There is nothing new in the bill. It only restates what the authorities are supposed to be doing already. It would be like your town passing a law that said the police have to check driver's license every time they pull someone over for a violation.
You misunderstand me.

The abuses you mention are illegal.  When I said "abuse the law", I meant find loopholes - follow the word of the law, but not the spirit, to achieve an end that was not intended by the author of the law.  Loopholes.

The UK stop-and-search law was not meant to generate profiling data, but it does.

The passport loophole was meant to protect people from being accidentally deported to the wrong country, or for the wrong crimes.

.  It looks like we are misunderstanding each other all the way around. :)
.  Any abuse that is possible is already possible. Any loopholes that can be used are already in place. The law grants no new powers or responsibilities. The law really does nothing more than heighten awareness of the situation and scare some ppl who want to read more into it than there is.
Ah, I see.

It doesn't have to.  It says, as I quoted below, "ANY LAWFUL CONTACT."  That means a police officer coming up to you on the street and saying, "Hello."
.  Quote an obsolete source all you want to, but the law doesn't say "any lawful contact". It says "any lawful stop, detention or arrest".
...it's not obsolete. It's part of the bill itself. And "any lawful contact" is a direct quote.
.  Yes, it's obsolete. No, it's not in the bill. That is a quote from the original, now obsolete, document. It has since been amended to read "any lawful stop, detention or arrest" (because of the confusion that the original language caused).
from my reading of the documentation it suggests that the police officer has to be stopping you for something legit to begin with (tail light out, littering, jay walking, whatever) not DWM or WWM (driving/walking while mexican). a police officer saying hello does not constitute "legal contact" as they're not contacting you in a legal function. a police officer giving you directions isn't legal contact. technically a police officer asking where you're going isn't legal contact.

will this never get abused? i can't say that, but the law isn't giving anyone free reign to just walk up to any hispanic looking person and ask for ID
Glad(to-meet-ya)ys (author)  NachoMahma6 years ago
I don't like how many will get arrested for looking like they are here illegally.

I'm looking for something actually =], can't seem to find something though....
.  In a nutshell my stance is:
.  No matter what your country of origin, if you are here legally, then I welcome you with open arms to the Land Of Opportunity. I'd appreciate it if you would learn to speak English; if I move to where you come from, I will learn your language.
.  If you are here illegally, you go to jail and then get deported. Sorry, but we can only absorb so many ppl without it over-taxing our resources and ruining it for everyone.
Glad(to-meet-ya)ys (author)  NachoMahma6 years ago
I do know English, just not that well, I'm working on it.  My argument is that people think we come here to make a disaster when we really don't. We come to work. How do we ruin it for everyone? We work just as hard as anyone else, and we don't get the resources that people who are here legally do.
> I'm working on it
.  Great! My English is not perfect, so I don't expect anyone else's to be, but all should be able to do business with the government (including schooling) in English and follow the directions (in English) of police and other emergency workers.
.  What you speak/read at home, church, &c is none of my business.
> My argument is that people think we come here to make a disaster when we really don't.
.  I feel certain that the vast majority of immigrants (both legal and illegal) do not intend to cause any harm. But many end up placing unnecessary strains on "the system" if just because of their numbers.

> How do we ruin it for everyone?
.  In controlled numbers, immigration is a great benefit to all involved. It's a win-win situation. A symbiotic relationship.
.  Uncontrolled growth is cancer. :(

> We work just as hard as anyone else, ...
.  pfffftttt! From what I've seen, most Hispanics (not just Mexicans) are very hard-working ppl and many are willing to do jobs that natives think are too nasty or beneath them. Almost reverse racism there, huh? :)

> and we don't get the resources that people who are here legally do.
.  And most illegals don't pay the taxes that pay for those resources. While, from what I have read, a considerable number of illegals are taking advantage of social programs.
Glad(to-meet-ya)ys (author)  NachoMahma6 years ago
I try to speak English as much  as possible, I only speak Spanish at my house and at church.

I'm not saying that all of us are hard workers. I know that a great amount of immigrants come and get in trouble. They are lazy and do take advantage of social programs but just because of them we all get categorized as lazy and useless. That's what I was going to say, a lot of immigrants do jobs that others won't do. Like being dishwashers at a restaurant (my moms current job), house-keeping (also my moms current job), construction (my dad), roofing (my dad), taxi-drivers, etc; and those are jobs that are necessary.

We do pay for those resources, we don't pay as much as others would, but we do pay our share of them.

The point I'm trying to reach is that I don't like how this law gives police officers the right to pull-over or try to arrest anyone that looks like they are here illegally. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I just want to know what others think of the law, that's all. =]
.  You seem to be confusing (or using interchangeably) "immigrants" and "illegal aliens."
.  I, like most Americans, welcome all legal immigrants. We are a country of immigrants. Our diverse population is part of what makes us great.
.  The police have always had the right to detain someone if they believe that person is doing something illegal. Some legislators have tried to impede their ability to do so. As far as I can tell, the new law just re-affirms what is already there, ie, nothing new, just a lot of talking heads telling you the sky is falling.
i'm possibly in the minority, but, my issue with this whole thing isn't a "drain on resources" or "increased crime rates" (the "drain on resources" can be disproven. the majority of jobs held by illegal immigrants aren't taken directly from the hands of an american willing to do the job. MOST of these jobs are things that americans don't want to do, or wouldn't do for the right price. the second has only marginal basis in reality. the biggest crime that most illegals commit is being here illegally) my issue is that people are trying to change facts and put spin on things to make it seem like the big bad americans are trying to hurt a group of people. "undocumented aliens" is the same word as "illegal immigrants", they're here ILLEGALLY, not using the word "illegal" just helps to confuse the uneducated masses that have no idea what's going on. it allows a group of people to be suckered into ascribing to a specific belief that "these people" (no that's not the same as "you people") are being descriminated against because of their nationality. they're not, if you come from canada and you're as white as the driven snow, but you don't follow the legalization process and actually immigrate here legally, guess what, you're an illegal alien.

granted i know the US immigration process is flawed, and it can sometimes take 15 years to be a full citizen, but that's the process we have at the moment and it should be followed. GENERALLY anyone willing to work and pay taxes can get temporary work visas and the like to stay here LEGALLY.
DJ Radio6 years ago
Does anyone want to tell me why we have laws restricting immigration?  I mean we should give foreigners a chance.  They can't help it if they are born out of the country or if their parents aren't American citizens.
With all due respect I think it is stupid that you think that we should let illegal imigrants into our state and country. If you live here in Arizona, you would think the same as me.
Glad(to-meet-ya)ys (author)  DJ Radio6 years ago
The law allows officers pull over suspects that look like they are hrer illegally, I put a link to the law, check it out =D
I know, but I wonder why we are making some immigration illegal in the first place. 
Glad(to-meet-ya)ys (author)  DJ Radio6 years ago
There is a lot of reasons; taxes, violence; population size; RACISM!!
.  While I am sure that racism is the motivation behind some ppl wanting to limit immigration, there are more than enough valid reasons (the main one being limited resources) that playing the race card is unnecessary.

.  And I find it rather ludicrous to shout RACISM!! at the same country that:
  • So many ppl seem to be willing to literally die to move to
  • Has allowed so many ppl to immigrate already
  • Has shown a commitment to maintain its liberal immigration policy
  • So freely gives of its money and labor to help those in trouble the world over
  • &c, &c, &c, ad nauseum
.  Are there bigots in the US? Of course there are - just like every other region on Earth that contains humans. Is the US a racist country? Pffffttt! Quite the contrary.
Then why do we try and restrict immigration?
.  "the main one being limited resources"
Glad(to-meet-ya)ys (author)  NachoMahma6 years ago
I didn't say it like that because it's tmain reason, I said it like that because I think that it is such an ugly thing................ many officers will do their job and others will use the law for their own racist reasons
NachoMahma6 years ago
.  Read the bill song

caitlinsdad6 years ago
NachoMahma6 years ago
.  OK. Assuming that the following (from your second link above) are accurate summaries:

The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws.  A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws.  The question now becomes will these same people ignore the new Arizona law?

One of the most controversial provisions of the new law is the requirement that people must prove they are legally in the U.S. when asked by a police officer.  For most people, they can prove legal status merely by showing the officer a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a valid  Arizona nonoperating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.


.  Hopefully we can agree that the first paragraph is just common sense. Whether you or I agree with the whole body of law or not, it is really not a police officer's job to decide which laws are good and which are bad. His/her job is to enforce the law as promulgated by the legislators and interpreted by the courts.
.  I have to prove I have a driver's license (and insurance) if a police officer asks for it. In order for me to leave or enter the country, I have to present a passport or visa (are visas still used?). In order to open a bank account, I have to provide a Social Security Number. I have to prove who I am on almost a weekly basis.
.  Do I like the Big Brother atmosphere? No, but, unfortunately, it seems to be a part of modern life. For everybody, regardless of race, color, creed, or national origin.
.  Should a person be stopped and IDd for having black hair and dark skin? Of course not! This is America - the place where everyone wants to immigrate. If a person (of any race) is causing trouble and the police are already there? Go ahead and check.
.  When I went to MX (way back in the early '70s), the first thing MXn authorities did when I landed was ask for my papers. ;)
Glad(to-meet-ya)ys (author)  NachoMahma6 years ago
This makes a good forum topic I think (another reason why I posted this).

I will stand by my opinion, although what you have said so far does make sense. I see your side of this but I still do not agree with the law (which ratifies the 4th amendment).
.  Whether you subscribe to the "Constitution never mentions immigration, so it's States rights" or the "Congressional power to regulate naturalization includes the power to regulate immigration" theory, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to illegal aliens.
Actually, many argue it does. (To steal from somebody I can't recall in order to credit) Nobody can take rights away (only infringe upon them); otherwise they'd be privileges. Rights cannot logically be bestowed on the basis of one's status in the country - legal or otherwise. 

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.

I see nothing specifying "citizen" in there. Before you argue they are here illegally and therefore criminals, criminals still have rights. 
> The right of the people ... I see nothing specifying "citizen" in there.
.  Look again. Right at the git-go it tells you who "the people" are - We the People of the United States.
Before you argue they are here illegally and therefore criminals,
.  There's really no argument there. If you are doing something illegal, you are a criminal by definition - "someone who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime" (wordnetweb.princeton.edu). If you are here illegally, you are a criminal.

> criminals still have rights.
.  Yep. But foreign criminals don't have the same set of rights as domestic criminals.
>People of the United States.

People ! = = citizens.

of, prep.
1. Derived or coming from; originating at or from: customs of the South.
5. From the total or group comprising: give of one's time; two of my friends; most of the cases.
7. Associated with or adhering to: people of your religion.
8. Belonging or connected to: the rungs of a ladder.
13. Produced by; issuing from: products of the vine.

So "People of the United States" can very well be restated as "People coming from the United States", "People associated with the United States","People from the total group comprising the United States", "People belonging or connected to the United States", or "People issuing from the United States".

>No argument
I'm not arguing the legality of being here illegally...that wouldn't make any sense (even for me). :D I meant, before you argue that there are criminals and don't have rights.

>Foreign criminals don't have the same set of rights as domestic criminals.

Perhaps not the exact same set, but many of them. The exclusionary rule, for example, a due process right drawn from the 4th Amendment, applies to everyone - regardless of legal status. 

And aside from all this, how do you determine probable cause to demand proof of citizenship? What does an illegal immigrant "look" like? The fact is they look exactly the same as legal immigrants. Thusly the problem. The courts have ruled that similar (inland) searches looking for illegal aliens violate, of all things...privacy rights. ;)  

> People ! = = citizens.
.  It doesn't just say "people." It says "the People of the United States." Nothing about Canadians, Brits, Japanese, &c.
> So "People of the United States" can very well be restated as "People coming from...
.  Now you're just being disingenuous.

> The exclusionary rule, for example, a due process right drawn from the 4th Amendment, applies to everyone - regardless of legal status.
.  Through law and custom, foreigners are accorded many of the rights that citizens have, but those rights do not come from The Constitution itself.

> And aside from all this, how do you determine probable cause to demand proof of citizenship?
.  I don't. :) But officials do it the same way they determine when to ask for my driver's license. Same way they determine whether to question someone about a bank robbery. &c, &c, &c. (Clues and evidence, BTW)
.  I have yet to see where that law authorizes anybody to ID/search/&c someone based on looks alone. If I missed it, please point it out.
Please explain how I am being disingenuous, as I fail completely to see it. I am arguing my point honestly, and find your assertion to the contrary to be frankly arrogant. You may think I am a little weinie, you may disagree with everything I say, and you may think I am an idiot, but none of that makes me disingenuous. Besides, an ad hominem without any counterargument makes me think you have none. ;)

In any event, the US Supreme Court ruled in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032) that the 4th Amendment indeed applies to illegal immigrants. One can argue until the cows come home about if it was the "right" decision, but it was the Court's decision - and therefore part of the law of the land.

(Um. Why else does anyone ID/search someone except on looks ? What else is it based on other than what they see? Telepathy? Are you ever going to hear "Yes Sir, I pulled you over because I SENSED YOU WERE THINKING NAUGHTY THOUGHTS." No, you hear "Yes Sir, I pulled you over because I saw your taillight is out/you were swerving all over the road/your license plate is invalid/something else I *saw*")
1-100 of 146Next »