let's try again - when the court says "the questioning of the immigration status didn't violate of the 4th amendment because it was not an independent seizure" - translation: an officer doesn't need a reasonable suspicion to question anyone's immigration status - questioning is not a seizure..

yes, lets try this again. where exactly does the court say that? please reference the actual case, and not someones misinterpretation of it.
the court doesn't say:"the questioning of the immigration status didn't violate of the 4th amendment because it was not an independent seizure", what it does say: "Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful "(they had a warrant to search the property) "and the NinthCircuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by thequestioning," (the questioning did not extend beyong the time it took to conduct the search) "there was no additional seizure within the meaningof the FourthAmendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendmentjustification for inquiring about Mena’s immigrationstatus was required."

do yourself a favor, read the case (including Florida v. Bostick, while you're at it), and then try interpretating it.

The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264-1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning 101*101 constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification;

and request consent to search his or her luggage." Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.
********scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7971847631731056703&hl=en&as_sdt =2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado,466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis forsuspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions ofthat individual; ask to examine the individual's identification;
--------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but Florida v. Bostick held that even though officers were free to ask, the individual had to feel free to refuse to answer and leave. it was not enough for him to be free to refuse, he also had to feel that he was free to do so.

FLORIDA v. BOSTICK
"The more appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable passenger wouldfeel free to decline the officers' request or otherwise terminate theencounter. Thus, this case is analytically indistinguishable from INS v. Delgado,supra. There, no seizure occurred when INS agents visited factories atrandom, stationing some agents at exits while others questionedworkers, because, even though workers were not free to leave withoutbeing questioned, the agents' conduct gave them no reason to believethat they would be detained if they answered truthfully or refused toanswer. Such a refusal, alone, does not furnish the minimal level ofobjective justification needed for detention or seizure."

overruled.. argumentative :-) .. the Arizona law REQUIRES reasonable suspicion.. so all the other arguments and cases are irrelevant here..

there was no additionalseizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officersdid not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date andplace of birth, or immigration status.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
because she was already being legally detained. they had a warrant to search the premises, had the right to cuff her to secure their safety, and to ask her questions only because she was already legally "seized. they didn't need reasonable suspicion because she was already being suspected of a crime - hence the warrant.

you are absolutely cluless when it comes to law, take a law class and then we'll talk.