Candidate for Arizona utility commission wants to cut off utilities of illegals

[QUOTE="Mario2007"][QUOTE="StopThePresses"] So if someone did that in your house, it would not bother you considerably more than illegal immigrants being in the country? That is the analogy you're going to go with, huh?GabuEx

So, wait, hold on a second, are you saying that the head of a country owns or should own the water and television services within that country?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Mario2007"]If I was the head of a country it would bother me all the sameMario2007

So, wait, hold on a second, are you saying that the head of a country owns or should own the water and television services within that country?

I'm fairly certain that the body in charge of those services (which in the case of TV is a private company) does not own the country in which an illegal immigrant resides.

[QUOTE="Mario2007"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

So, wait, hold on a second, are you saying that the head of a country owns or should own the water and television services within that country?

GabuEx

I'm fairly certain that the body in charge of those services (which in the case of TV is a private company) does not own the country in which an illegal immigrant resides.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Mario2007"]let's say im the body that is in charge of those services

Mario2007

I'm fairly certain that the body in charge of those services (which in the case of TV is a private company) does not own the country in which an illegal immigrant resides.

Your point was... what?

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Mario2007"]If I was the head of a country it would bother me all the sameMario2007

[QUOTE="Mario2007"][QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

So basically you would live in a state of constant panic.StopThePresses

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="Mario2007"]Unless we cut their utilities... that's the pointMario2007

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Then they are legally there if they have a child there.. :| Hence they shouldn't fit int hat catagory, hence they should not have power or water turned off if they are paying for it.

sSubZerOo

But the government allows them to be there due to their child being legally born.. Hence ANCHOR..

If the location of an illegal immigrant's resident is known, then why not just deport him/her?

Good..hopefully it helps..

Good..hopefully it helps..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

It won't. Nor, if passed, would the law stand. It would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Good..hopefully it helps..

worlock77

It won't. Nor, if passed, would the law stand. It would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

Good, They can't watch T.v. or play games now :P

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Good..hopefully it helps..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

It won't. Nor, if passed, would the law stand. It would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

It won't. Nor, if passed, would the law stand. It would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] They're not here legally..they have no rights..Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] They have basic human rights though, especially to things that they need to live like electricity, and water utilities. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] ..who's going to pay for said utilities?..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] They don't just move into a house for free and have free utilities. They or someone else pays for the utilities or else the water and electric companies would not route the water to their house. The water gets paid by some individual. If they can't afford it then they obviously won't have it. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] But then what happened to the aforementioned human rights?...I thought you said it was wrong to take these things away and that they needed them?..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Good..hopefully it helps..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

It won't. Nor, if passed, would the law stand. It would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

Yeah they do. Read back through this thread, this has been gone over.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Obviously we have to provide for ourselves. We cannot just sit back and hope things are provided for us. If they pay for it there shouldn't be a law that prohibits them from having it. However if they expect to receive it for free without working to provide themselves with it, then obviously they don't need it. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Wait what...Didn't you say that they had the right to it?..Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Sure they have a right for it to be made available to them, they shouldn't be barred from having it.

ferrari2001

forcefully depriving them of human needs is not the way to go. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Good..hopefully it helps..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

It won't. Nor, if passed, would the law stand. It would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

Unless the Constitution explicitly states "citizens" or otherwise qualifies its reference to "persons" or "people" (and these sections are in the minority), it applies to everyone. See Plyler v. Doe. Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, and I'm a bit bothered by the way in which people try to assert that they don't.

It's still not half as bad as what Mexico does to illegal immigrants. Damn hypocrits.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] So we just accept their illegal status?...Xx_Hopeless_xX

It's still not half as bad as what Mexico does to illegal immigrants. Damn hypocrits.

br0kenrabbit

We are not Mexico.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]forcefully depriving them of human needs is not the way to go. Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

It won't. Nor, if passed, would the law stand. It would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

GabuEx

Unless the constitution explicitly states "citizens" or otherwise qualifies its reference to "persons" or "people" (and these sections are in the minority), it applies to everyone. See Plyler v. Doe. Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, and I'm a bit bothered by the way in which people try to assert that they don't.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] No, they are here illegally, they are breaking the law but forcefully depriving them of human needs is not the way to go. Work with law Enforcement, Deportation etc. Just don't put them in a situation where they could be endangered because of lack of resources like water. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

It's still not half as bad as what Mexico does to illegal immigrants. Damn hypocrits.

worlock77

We are not Mexico.

I never said we were. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy. Damn, people. :roll: Reading comprehension?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] They're not here legally..they have no rights..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Unless the constitution explicitly states "citizens" or otherwise qualifies its reference to "persons" or "people" (and these sections are in the minority), it applies to everyone. See Plyler v. Doe. Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, and I'm a bit bothered by the way in which people try to assert that they don't.

The Constitution very clearly states which rights belong expressly to citizens and which rights belong to people. Claiming that someone who isn't a citizen doesn't have Constitutional rights is not correct.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

It's still not half as bad as what Mexico does to illegal immigrants. Damn hypocrits.

br0kenrabbit

We are not Mexico.

I never said we were. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy. Damn, people. :roll: Reading comprehension?

This so-called "hypocrisy" is irrlevant.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] But didn't you say that the companies providing said "necessary" things could stop providing them if they don't receive payment from the individual in question?..So then what..do we sue the company for not providing these "necessary" things?..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] They're not here legally..they have no rights..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Unless the constitution explicitly states "citizens" or otherwise qualifies its reference to "persons" or "people" (and these sections are in the minority), it applies to everyone. See Plyler v. Doe. Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, and I'm a bit bothered by the way in which people try to assert that they don't.

Did you read the case and its ruling? It's about depriving an illegal immigrant access to a public service on account of the fact that they are illegal immigrants - whose purpose was exactly the same as this, to try to get illegal immigrants to leave - and was struck down on the basis that it discriminatorily violated the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause without providing any substantial state benefit. The law was found un-Constitutional; hence, it was struck down. That is how the courts strike down laws, by finding them un-Constitutional. They don't just strike down laws because they feel like it.

There is a legal venue through which illegal immigrants may be dealt with. Denying them public services in an effort to make their life in America unliveably bad is not it. Plyler v. Doe established that fact.

This law is stupid

This so-called "hypocrisy" is irrlevant.

worlock77

No, it's not. When their National Leaders criticize our laws it becomes relevant. When they gather on our capitol to protest, it becomes relevant.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Unless the constitution explicitly states "citizens" or otherwise qualifies its reference to "persons" or "people" (and these sections are in the minority), it applies to everyone. See Plyler v. Doe. Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, and I'm a bit bothered by the way in which people try to assert that they don't.

worlock77

The Constitution very clearly states which rights belong expressly to citizens and which rights belong to people. Claiming that someone who isn't a citizen doesn't have Constitutional rights is not correct.

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

This so-called "hypocrisy" is irrlevant.

br0kenrabbit

No, it's not. When their National Leaders criticize our laws it becomes relevant. When they gather on our capitol to protest, it becomes relevant.

No, it doesn't. Those people protesting do not make the laws in Mexico.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

This so-called "hypocrisy" is irrlevant.

worlock77

No, it's not. When their National Leaders criticize our laws it becomes relevant. When they gather on our capitol to protest, it becomes relevant.

No, it doesn't. Those people protesting do not make the laws in Mexico.

10% of Mexicos population is in the U.S. That's plenty enough to swing a vote one way or another. They should be fixing their country, not try to change ours.

I don't see anything in the constitution pertaining to their rights as illegals..

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

Everything in the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of their status as citizens or lawfully admitted residents, unless it explicitly states otherwise. This view has been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court, in cases such as the one I have already linked to.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] That's about education...also the judges said it was not unconstitutional to do such a thing...the only reason they didn't allow it was because they didn't want to create an issue in regards to illiteracy amongst illegals...which i still don't understand..they deserve nothing if they come here under false auspices..Xx_Hopeless_xX

The Constitution very clearly states which rights belong expressly to citizens and which rights belong to people. Claiming that someone who isn't a citizen doesn't have Constitutional rights is not correct.

Edit: I have to re-read the part on Equal protection..

"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.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Unless the constitution explicitly states "citizens" or otherwise qualifies its reference to "persons" or "people" (and these sections are in the minority), it applies to everyone. See Plyler v. Doe. Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, and I'm a bit bothered by the way in which people try to assert that they don't.

GabuEx

Did you read the case and its ruling? It's about depriving an illegal immigrant access to a public service on account of the fact that they are illegal immigrants - whose purpose was exactly the same as this, to try to get illegal immigrants to leave - and was struck down on the basis that it discriminatorily violated the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause without providing any substantial state benefit. The law was found un-Constitutional; hence, it was struck down. That is how the courts strike down laws, by finding them un-Constitutional. They don't just strike down laws because they feel like it.

There is a legal venue through which illegal immigrants may be dealt with. Denying them public services in an effort to make their life in America unliveably bad is not it. Plyler v. Doe established that fact.