Personal - #501 - #60 - Finger printing doesn't "show cause"

To “show cause” in court, you must have a good reason to arrest someone.
The fact that you have finger prints doesn’t mean you have “cause” to arrest or detain somebody.
The fact that somebody doesn’t speak English doesn’t mean you have “cause”
The fact that you assume somebody came into the States doesn’t mean anything unless you caught them in the “act” of committing the crime.
The courts have strict Constitutional limits!

The supposed fact that you are “illegal” or have ties to a “sabotage” group must be proved in court! Finger prints are not enough. You can’t stop someone in the streets and just finger print them without having “cause”! You can’t assume someone is guilty unless you prove the “act” in accordance with the law.
You can restrict the license of somebody to drive a car or a liquor license by making it mandatory that you first must be “finger printed”. That is a “regulation”. But you can’t prove the innocence of somebody without showing “cause” in a court of law. You must have a reason or actual evidence of breaking the law before you can stop someone.
The Constitution says so. That is America. No arrest without “cause”.

What of the “illegal”? …... You must “first” prove that he came and broke the law.
What of the “terrorist”? … You must “first” prove that he came and broke the law.
There is no substitute for “first” prove he broke the law… (No!.. “I thought so”, no “he looked like”, etc.)
To disprove the values of the U.S. Constitution. you would have to change the very things we count on!

Again…. To “show cause ” in court, you must have a good reason to arrest someone.

(Having or not having “finger prints” does not show “cause!”)