Thank you for the informative background. I can illuminate the project manager a bit, she's Kristin Lindsay AKA Princess Reddot or PRD. I think there are some interviews outthere on the intarwebs if you're interested.
I think the 2007 auction was a flop because that was right about when the economy started to crash so people didn't really put as much into it that year. I doubt that previous or following years had similar failings.
Jerry and Mike receive no payments from CPC, that's just wild, speculative bullshit on Itninja's part. Kristen Lindsay (AKA PrincessRedDot or PRD) does, I believe, and maybe one or two others, but those are living wages, not wild profits.
His user page says he has kids, but as a parent I can't believe it. Nobody with kids could be so dense and so callous as to fail to understand, let alone denigrate, the value of any enjoyable distraction to a child in pain. If it's true, I really pity his kids. He's one sick puppy.
Alright, I've lost it. As parent of a child who has benefited from Seattle Children's Hospital's care more than once, let me say you must truly be the most bitter, irredeemable, self-righteous, scum-sucking, ignorant, foolish, truculent, and repugnant bastards I have ever had the misfortune of wasting my time reading. If you can't understand the value of bringing a small amount of fun engagement into the lives of children who may very well die slowly in the most agonizing pain imaginable, then you yourself are worthless, inhumane excuse of a being.
I'm a rabid PA fan and apologist, but even I can admit it's a brand. They run a company to make money. They have a trademark identity as a primary means of accomplishing that goal. That is a brand. The end.
Oh you mean PrincessRedDot (PRD) and maybe one or two others that in fact only make a living wage? I think you radically overestimate the financial scope of CPC's diabolical, faceless administration. You don't know anything other than your wild, baseless assumptions about CPC and its people. Whereas I have met and talked with PRD several times over many years. I have myself volunteered my time and with the help of my wife raised thousands for CPC through community events.
You want every charity to be run like a monastery that's your prerogative, but to act like CPC is some cabal of evil tax-dodging millionaire fat cats feeding off of an army of deluded rubes is so intellectually dishonest as to be disgusting and absurd. That is why your original post is rightly modded into oblivion.
I have never, and will never, understand this mindset. They're just words. Words are giving power and meaning only by the reader. To me, they're not a big deal, if anything they indicate that the authors are being honest and not filtering themselves just to fit in some moralist 'acceptable' box.
Wow. It's hard to find the words. Yeah, there are reasons to be cynical about corporate charities, like how tobacco company Philip Morris spent tons more on advertising about how charitable it was than on actual charity...
But dude, you can't let that cynicism blind you to real charity. I don't think you have any idea how hard volunteers for Child's Play work every year. In the first year before they had any real logistics in place, a whole team of local volunteers worked night and day to physically process, store, load, move, and unload tons of toys for Seattle Children's Hospital. Even though now the toys go to hospitals directly, volunteers still help with the charity dinner, with various fund raising events around the country, with community efforts at PAX like the Cookie Brigade, etc.
Unless you have more evidence than a mere assumption, it is callous and insulting to all those volunteers to paint their hard work as nothing more than a 'tax dodge'. While I don't work for PA Inc, I know a lot of people who do, and I have heard nothing, not even a rumor, of any funds from PA revenues being somehow 'laundered' through CPC.
Blah blah blah, grandstanding, it's not my fault I don't know how to fix things, let's do nothing. Same old, same old, I think we're done here, especially as you've declared me an 'enemy' I doubt you would listen to anything I say. So, let's make it mutual and close the book.
Not having to carry identification is a privilege of being a citizen, a privilege expressly reserved for citizens and not guaranteed to non-citizens by the 14th Amendment. Unless you can demonstrate how either the federal or state law violates due process or equal protection, there is no argument on those grounds.
And as for the old racism bullshit, in 2008-9 alone according to ICE statistics over 5000 people from Canada, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and other mostly white countries have been deported. Now tell me how that's 'racist'. Whoever is in the country unlawfully is liable to be, and should be, deported, and many are, regardless of where they come from. That is due process and equal protection.
(And the semantics about 'aliens' being 'non-human' is disingenuous anachronistic bullshit too. 'Alien' has only begun to mean 'non-human' in the science fiction of the last century, and this has come into colloquial use, but for many, many centuries before that (it's derived from Latin for chrissake) it has simply meant 'foreigner'.)
You obviously don't understand the separation of powers. There is no direct chain of command between legislators and law enforcement. Law enforcement are answerable only to the executive, whether that be the President, governor, county executive, or mayor/city manager. Of course if a LEO or LEA are charged with criminal behavior, then it becomes the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. In any case, no legislator is responsible at any time for what an individual LEO does. Ever. And it doesn't matter how much you want it to be otherwise. If there are systemic problems, and I don't deny that there are, those should be fixed by new legislation, but individual misbehavior and overstepping authority is not, should not be, and will not be the province of legislative intervention. Every crime does not need a new law when it is already covered by existing law. That would be insanity.
The system is in dire need of repair, but that doesn't invalidate immigration law automatically. The justice system can't just shut down because of occasional abuse and corruption. Crime isn't going to 'take five' while the system waits to get fixed. Laws have to be enforced, even if that enforcement is not perfect, or society will break down.
Like I said before, all I see is 'it can't work perfectly so let's do nothing'. Stop whining about what doesn't work and tell me what reasonable alternatives you have to enforcing immigration laws. Anybody can point and say 'that's broken'. If you don't have alternatives, shut up.
Heh, I too have direct experience with PWC. I lived there for five months last year (and I now live next door. There have been some civil rights abuses of Hispanics in the county, I agree, but the law as written is not one of them.
You seem to think that legislators are responsible for the actions of individual LEOs, which I think is insane. It's not up to the legislature to rewrite laws every time some pointy-hat gets badge-heavy. There are existing procedures for handling out-of-line LEOs. In practical terms, yes, they don't work all the time. What does in humanity? You claim to want to set laws 'lower' to prevent abuses, but I don't see you proposing reasonable alternatives to this kind of enforcement. What you're really saying then is 'it can't work perfectly so let's do nothing' but that's not how you maintain order in society.
It must be kept in mind that innocent people are arrested every day for other crimes and exonerated with further investigation. These people only have a chance of successfully prosecuting a 'rights violation' if they can prove that within the context of the alleged charge there was not probable cause for the arrest. The police aren't all-knowing and they cannot always put together air-tight cases on the spot, but there is also liability that they can't let people who are 'probably' guilty get away, which is why LEOs are shielded from prosecution unless their judgment is demonstrably compromised. It is going to be up to the court system to establish precedents for what constitutes probable cause under this law.
I shouldn't need to explain, but a democracy is only as free as the society wants it to be. A dictator can grant as many freedoms as he wants without negating the fact that he is still running a dictatorship, and conversely a democracy can be as restrictive as any other system of government if those who are enfranchised vote authoritarians into power. There are lots of things I don't like about our government, and I'd wager they're not the same things you don't like, but in order for society to function we must both operate within the compromises agreed upon by our representatives or we'll get reamed. That's the way civil society works, and compared to the alternatives, it's far from the worst medicine to be swallowing.
The best system is one that doesn't lend itself to abuse.
Ha ha! Let me know when you've figured out that utopia.
We especially don't need a time machine, because this has already been in effect for several years at a county level in Prince William County, VA. PWC has seen drastic reductions in crime, including if not especially murder, as well as reductions in the financial strain placed on social services. It will be interesting to see if a state law has similar effects, especially in a place as dense with illegal aliens as AZ. I think if it works like PWC's statistically, those who coddle illegal aliens might have an uphill battle to fight to stop this from happening in more places.
Bleh, due to being overly fatigued at all times, I forgot about an important example directly related to your 'why hasn't this been done before?' line of thought: It has been done at a county level already in Prince William County, VA. The results have been drastic reductions in crime, including if not especially murder, as well as reductions in the financial strain placed on social services. It will be interesting to see if a state law has similar effects, especially in a place as dense with illegal aliens as AZ. I think if it works like PWC's statistically, those who coddle illegal aliens might have an uphill battle to fight to stop this from happening in more places.
In the context of the law that is probably enough cause for arrest. It must be kept in mind that innocent people are arrested every day for other crimes and exonerated with further investigation. These people only have a chance of successfully prosecuting a 'rights violation' if they can prove that within the context of the alleged charge there was not probable cause for the arrest. The police aren't all-knowing and they cannot always put together air-tight cases on the spot, but there is also liability that they can't let people who are 'probably' guilty get away, which is why LEOs are shielded from prosecution unless their judgment is demonstrably compromised. It is going to be up to the court system to establish precedents for what constitutes probable cause under this law.
In my mind it's a small price to pay. I live near, but not in, Prince William County, VA where they have passed a county-level law similar to AZ's. PWC has seen drastic reductions in crime, including if not especially murder, as well as reductions in the financial strain placed on social services. It will be interesting to see if a state law has similar effects, especially in a place as dense with illegal aliens as AZ. I think if it works like PWC's statistically, those who coddle illegal aliens might have an uphill battle to fight to stop this from happening in more places.
Yeah, too bad I beat you to the same sentiment elsewhere in this topic.
However, just because a law can be abused does not mean that it just evaporates. Laws are frameworks, frequently imperfect, that must be normalized by legal precedents established in the court system that is tasked with interpreting laws in the real world. These boundaries filter down to the enforcement apparatus on the street. That's how shit works in our democracy.
Guilt or innocence is proven in courts, not on the street to a LEO. Further, no matter how you would like to see the issue of providing identifying information, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it does not violate the 4th Amendment. See Terry and Hiibel.
Also, there is no crime of 'looking like an illegal' defined here, there must be a primary offense, during the investigation of which identifying information is sought. That's already the case for everybody, except now if an alien does not produce proof of legal presence (which they are required to have by the 70 year old federal statute contained in Title 8 of the USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII(e)), then they can be charged with that under AZ law instead of or in addition to the aforementioned federal law.
The way that this law is laid out I think it is justified. It won't be the witch hunt that people are trying to fearmonger. Only in cases where people are already suspected of unlawful behavior is this supposed to be invoked, and that's what we should be focusing on, getting illegal aliens who are also willing to commit other crimes out of the country.
I wholly support immigration reform, including the elimination of all immigration quotas. Criminal history and highly infectious diseases should be the only criteria which can preclude entry and/or citizenship. However until that reform comes, whoever breaks the law needs to leave, and the only way that can be done is through investigations and the requirement of proof of citizenship. I honestly don't like it either, and I would never support any kind of random checks, but I think this is a good balance between what is necessary to actually deal with the problem and what should be avoided to protect all of us from the rise of a totalitarian state (in this dimension anyway).
Laws are best when they are specific, not general. The more general a law, the easier it is to twist, bend, and abuse.
Nothing in the state or federal law here suspends or abrogates the 4th Amendment. Seizure remains reasonable if somebody is breaking the law, the end. The point of the 4th Amendment is to prevent people from being seized for capricious, personal reasons outside of legal procedure.
The point remains semantic, because nothing in the state or federal law here suspends or abrogates the 4th Amendment. Seizure remains reasonable if somebody is breaking the law, the end. The point of the 4th Amendment is to prevent people from being seized for capricious, personal reasons outside of legal procedure.
Your 'other states don't have laws' argument is quite spurious. Somebody has to do it first. Slavery was abolished at the state level first, does that mean that the first state to abolish slavery must have been on some kind of shaky ground? You then go on to say that state law is subordinate to federal law, which is true, and federal law already requires aliens to have proof of legal presence and that it be available to federal agents. There is no priority conflict there. Enabling state agents to do the same thing with state authority if anything is precedented and justified by the federal law.
Funny you mention quotas, though the Emergency Quota Act was passed by a near-unanimous vote and can't be blamed exclusively on one party or the other, the hue and cry on early immigration controls came mainly from republicans organizing against democratic racism. How quickly that is forgotten:
"No more Chinese immigration, except for travel, education, and foreign commerce, and that even carefully guarded."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1880
"American civilization demands that against the immigration or importation of Mongolians to these shores our gates be closed."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1884
"We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1900
That's cute, but court cases are not decided by such generalities. Either a person is guaranteed a right or they are not. The 14th Amendment guarantees privileges and immunities to citizens, but does not guaranty same to non-citizens. It doesn't matter if other guarantees to persons outnumber guarantees to citizens, it doesn't make that specific instance go away. Neither did Moofie make any qualifying statements that he was speaking only 'generally'.
Yes, semantically of course the 4th Amendment applies as it relates to the reasonability of seizures; however, there will be no possibility of a successful defense claiming 4th Amendment protections when a seizure is reasonable and lawful, and in this case has been so federally for seven decades... but now that a mere state has the audacity to do it, that's news! Hue and cry! Totalitarian racism!
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the informative background. I can illuminate the project manager a bit, she's Kristin Lindsay AKA Princess Reddot or PRD. I think there are some interviews out there on the intarwebs if you're interested. I think the 2007 auction was a flop because that was right about when the economy started to crash so people didn't really put as much into it that year. I doubt that previous or following years had similar failings.
Jerry and Mike receive no payments from CPC, that's just wild, speculative bullshit on Itninja's part. Kristen Lindsay (AKA PrincessRedDot or PRD) does, I believe, and maybe one or two others, but those are living wages, not wild profits.
His user page says he has kids, but as a parent I can't believe it. Nobody with kids could be so dense and so callous as to fail to understand, let alone denigrate, the value of any enjoyable distraction to a child in pain. If it's true, I really pity his kids. He's one sick puppy.
Alright, I've lost it. As parent of a child who has benefited from Seattle Children's Hospital's care more than once, let me say you must truly be the most bitter, irredeemable, self-righteous, scum-sucking, ignorant, foolish, truculent, and repugnant bastards I have ever had the misfortune of wasting my time reading. If you can't understand the value of bringing a small amount of fun engagement into the lives of children who may very well die slowly in the most agonizing pain imaginable, then you yourself are worthless, inhumane excuse of a being.
I'm a rabid PA fan and apologist, but even I can admit it's a brand. They run a company to make money. They have a trademark identity as a primary means of accomplishing that goal. That is a brand. The end.
Oh you mean PrincessRedDot (PRD) and maybe one or two others that in fact only make a living wage? I think you radically overestimate the financial scope of CPC's diabolical, faceless administration. You don't know anything other than your wild, baseless assumptions about CPC and its people. Whereas I have met and talked with PRD several times over many years. I have myself volunteered my time and with the help of my wife raised thousands for CPC through community events.
You want every charity to be run like a monastery that's your prerogative, but to act like CPC is some cabal of evil tax-dodging millionaire fat cats feeding off of an army of deluded rubes is so intellectually dishonest as to be disgusting and absurd. That is why your original post is rightly modded into oblivion.
OH NOES! TEH SWEARS!
I have never, and will never, understand this mindset. They're just words. Words are giving power and meaning only by the reader. To me, they're not a big deal, if anything they indicate that the authors are being honest and not filtering themselves just to fit in some moralist 'acceptable' box.
Wow. It's hard to find the words. Yeah, there are reasons to be cynical about corporate charities, like how tobacco company Philip Morris spent tons more on advertising about how charitable it was than on actual charity...
But dude, you can't let that cynicism blind you to real charity. I don't think you have any idea how hard volunteers for Child's Play work every year. In the first year before they had any real logistics in place, a whole team of local volunteers worked night and day to physically process, store, load, move, and unload tons of toys for Seattle Children's Hospital. Even though now the toys go to hospitals directly, volunteers still help with the charity dinner, with various fund raising events around the country, with community efforts at PAX like the Cookie Brigade, etc.
Unless you have more evidence than a mere assumption, it is callous and insulting to all those volunteers to paint their hard work as nothing more than a 'tax dodge'. While I don't work for PA Inc, I know a lot of people who do, and I have heard nothing, not even a rumor, of any funds from PA revenues being somehow 'laundered' through CPC.
Blah blah blah, grandstanding, it's not my fault I don't know how to fix things, let's do nothing. Same old, same old, I think we're done here, especially as you've declared me an 'enemy' I doubt you would listen to anything I say. So, let's make it mutual and close the book.
See here. And BTW, I happen to carry a passport at all times.
Not having to carry identification is a privilege of being a citizen, a privilege expressly reserved for citizens and not guaranteed to non-citizens by the 14th Amendment. Unless you can demonstrate how either the federal or state law violates due process or equal protection, there is no argument on those grounds.
And as for the old racism bullshit, in 2008-9 alone according to ICE statistics over 5000 people from Canada, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and other mostly white countries have been deported. Now tell me how that's 'racist'. Whoever is in the country unlawfully is liable to be, and should be, deported, and many are, regardless of where they come from. That is due process and equal protection.
(And the semantics about 'aliens' being 'non-human' is disingenuous anachronistic bullshit too. 'Alien' has only begun to mean 'non-human' in the science fiction of the last century, and this has come into colloquial use, but for many, many centuries before that (it's derived from Latin for chrissake) it has simply meant 'foreigner'.)
You obviously don't understand the separation of powers. There is no direct chain of command between legislators and law enforcement. Law enforcement are answerable only to the executive, whether that be the President, governor, county executive, or mayor/city manager. Of course if a LEO or LEA are charged with criminal behavior, then it becomes the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. In any case, no legislator is responsible at any time for what an individual LEO does. Ever. And it doesn't matter how much you want it to be otherwise. If there are systemic problems, and I don't deny that there are, those should be fixed by new legislation, but individual misbehavior and overstepping authority is not, should not be, and will not be the province of legislative intervention. Every crime does not need a new law when it is already covered by existing law. That would be insanity.
The system is in dire need of repair, but that doesn't invalidate immigration law automatically. The justice system can't just shut down because of occasional abuse and corruption. Crime isn't going to 'take five' while the system waits to get fixed. Laws have to be enforced, even if that enforcement is not perfect, or society will break down.
Like I said before, all I see is 'it can't work perfectly so let's do nothing'. Stop whining about what doesn't work and tell me what reasonable alternatives you have to enforcing immigration laws. Anybody can point and say 'that's broken'. If you don't have alternatives, shut up.
Heh, I too have direct experience with PWC. I lived there for five months last year (and I now live next door. There have been some civil rights abuses of Hispanics in the county, I agree, but the law as written is not one of them.
You seem to think that legislators are responsible for the actions of individual LEOs, which I think is insane. It's not up to the legislature to rewrite laws every time some pointy-hat gets badge-heavy. There are existing procedures for handling out-of-line LEOs. In practical terms, yes, they don't work all the time. What does in humanity? You claim to want to set laws 'lower' to prevent abuses, but I don't see you proposing reasonable alternatives to this kind of enforcement. What you're really saying then is 'it can't work perfectly so let's do nothing' but that's not how you maintain order in society.
It must be kept in mind that innocent people are arrested every day for other crimes and exonerated with further investigation. These people only have a chance of successfully prosecuting a 'rights violation' if they can prove that within the context of the alleged charge there was not probable cause for the arrest. The police aren't all-knowing and they cannot always put together air-tight cases on the spot, but there is also liability that they can't let people who are 'probably' guilty get away, which is why LEOs are shielded from prosecution unless their judgment is demonstrably compromised. It is going to be up to the court system to establish precedents for what constitutes probable cause under this law.
The best system is one that doesn't lend itself to abuse.
Ha ha! Let me know when you've figured out that utopia.
We especially don't need a time machine, because this has already been in effect for several years at a county level in Prince William County, VA. PWC has seen drastic reductions in crime, including if not especially murder, as well as reductions in the financial strain placed on social services. It will be interesting to see if a state law has similar effects, especially in a place as dense with illegal aliens as AZ. I think if it works like PWC's statistically, those who coddle illegal aliens might have an uphill battle to fight to stop this from happening in more places.
Bleh, due to being overly fatigued at all times, I forgot about an important example directly related to your 'why hasn't this been done before?' line of thought: It has been done at a county level already in Prince William County, VA. The results have been drastic reductions in crime, including if not especially murder, as well as reductions in the financial strain placed on social services. It will be interesting to see if a state law has similar effects, especially in a place as dense with illegal aliens as AZ. I think if it works like PWC's statistically, those who coddle illegal aliens might have an uphill battle to fight to stop this from happening in more places.
In the context of the law that is probably enough cause for arrest. It must be kept in mind that innocent people are arrested every day for other crimes and exonerated with further investigation. These people only have a chance of successfully prosecuting a 'rights violation' if they can prove that within the context of the alleged charge there was not probable cause for the arrest. The police aren't all-knowing and they cannot always put together air-tight cases on the spot, but there is also liability that they can't let people who are 'probably' guilty get away, which is why LEOs are shielded from prosecution unless their judgment is demonstrably compromised. It is going to be up to the court system to establish precedents for what constitutes probable cause under this law.
In my mind it's a small price to pay. I live near, but not in, Prince William County, VA where they have passed a county-level law similar to AZ's. PWC has seen drastic reductions in crime, including if not especially murder, as well as reductions in the financial strain placed on social services. It will be interesting to see if a state law has similar effects, especially in a place as dense with illegal aliens as AZ. I think if it works like PWC's statistically, those who coddle illegal aliens might have an uphill battle to fight to stop this from happening in more places.
Yeah, too bad I beat you to the same sentiment elsewhere in this topic.
However, just because a law can be abused does not mean that it just evaporates. Laws are frameworks, frequently imperfect, that must be normalized by legal precedents established in the court system that is tasked with interpreting laws in the real world. These boundaries filter down to the enforcement apparatus on the street. That's how shit works in our democracy.
Guilt or innocence is proven in courts, not on the street to a LEO. Further, no matter how you would like to see the issue of providing identifying information, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it does not violate the 4th Amendment. See Terry and Hiibel.
Also, there is no crime of 'looking like an illegal' defined here, there must be a primary offense, during the investigation of which identifying information is sought. That's already the case for everybody, except now if an alien does not produce proof of legal presence (which they are required to have by the 70 year old federal statute contained in Title 8 of the USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII(e)), then they can be charged with that under AZ law instead of or in addition to the aforementioned federal law.
The way that this law is laid out I think it is justified. It won't be the witch hunt that people are trying to fearmonger. Only in cases where people are already suspected of unlawful behavior is this supposed to be invoked, and that's what we should be focusing on, getting illegal aliens who are also willing to commit other crimes out of the country.
I wholly support immigration reform, including the elimination of all immigration quotas. Criminal history and highly infectious diseases should be the only criteria which can preclude entry and/or citizenship. However until that reform comes, whoever breaks the law needs to leave, and the only way that can be done is through investigations and the requirement of proof of citizenship. I honestly don't like it either, and I would never support any kind of random checks, but I think this is a good balance between what is necessary to actually deal with the problem and what should be avoided to protect all of us from the rise of a totalitarian state (in this dimension anyway).
That's almost funny enough to be a signature.
Laws are best when they are specific, not general. The more general a law, the easier it is to twist, bend, and abuse.
Nothing in the state or federal law here suspends or abrogates the 4th Amendment. Seizure remains reasonable if somebody is breaking the law, the end. The point of the 4th Amendment is to prevent people from being seized for capricious, personal reasons outside of legal procedure.
The point remains semantic, because nothing in the state or federal law here suspends or abrogates the 4th Amendment. Seizure remains reasonable if somebody is breaking the law, the end. The point of the 4th Amendment is to prevent people from being seized for capricious, personal reasons outside of legal procedure.
Your 'other states don't have laws' argument is quite spurious. Somebody has to do it first. Slavery was abolished at the state level first, does that mean that the first state to abolish slavery must have been on some kind of shaky ground? You then go on to say that state law is subordinate to federal law, which is true, and federal law already requires aliens to have proof of legal presence and that it be available to federal agents. There is no priority conflict there. Enabling state agents to do the same thing with state authority if anything is precedented and justified by the federal law.
Funny you mention quotas, though the Emergency Quota Act was passed by a near-unanimous vote and can't be blamed exclusively on one party or the other, the hue and cry on early immigration controls came mainly from republicans organizing against democratic racism. How quickly that is forgotten:
"No more Chinese immigration, except for travel, education, and foreign commerce, and that even carefully guarded."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1880
"American civilization demands that against the immigration or importation of Mongolians to these shores our gates be closed."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1884
"We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1900
That's cute, but court cases are not decided by such generalities. Either a person is guaranteed a right or they are not. The 14th Amendment guarantees privileges and immunities to citizens, but does not guaranty same to non-citizens. It doesn't matter if other guarantees to persons outnumber guarantees to citizens, it doesn't make that specific instance go away. Neither did Moofie make any qualifying statements that he was speaking only 'generally'.
Yes, semantically of course the 4th Amendment applies as it relates to the reasonability of seizures; however, there will be no possibility of a successful defense claiming 4th Amendment protections when a seizure is reasonable and lawful, and in this case has been so federally for seven decades... but now that a mere state has the audacity to do it, that's news! Hue and cry! Totalitarian racism!