When does it become OK to deport someone from a country that is not a US state?

When you’re a migrant from a foreign country and you’re detained, it’s time to get out.

That’s what a new federal court ruling said Friday in Arizona, where a federal judge ruled that the U.S. must consider whether to send someone from one of the 50 states to a federal prison, or deport them.

The court said that under current law, it is unconstitutional to send people back to their home countries.

If the court’s ruling stands, it would set a legal precedent that would let a state choose whether or not to send them back.

The ruling was issued by a federal magistrate judge who is part of the Trump administration, and it was issued as a response to a lawsuit brought by Arizona, which has been on the receiving end of hundreds of thousands of people trying to cross the border into the U,S., each year.

The state has argued that its laws are in place to prevent people from entering the country illegally.

Trump has said that those laws should be changed to ensure the safety of the country.

In his order, the judge ruled against the state’s request that the government allow it to send its people to prison in the state.

Arizona had been in court for two weeks over the issue, which it had asked the federal government to delay.

Arizona argued that the Trump Administration’s new immigration policies are not consistent with the U:A state of permanent residence, not a state of citizenship.

That means the state is not subject to the federal immigration law, which would require it to return people who have committed serious crimes.

The judge disagreed, saying that Arizona’s new policies are inconsistent with the immigration law.

“If Arizona’s laws are enacted as they are now, then the Court is persuaded that they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore it would follow that Arizona should be permitted to deport the individuals who have entered the United States unlawfully, absent a showing of a substantial and particularized danger of imminent danger to the public welfare,” Judge Andrew Hanen wrote.

It’s not the first time the court has been critical of Arizona’s policies.

In August, the court issued a decision that allowed Texas to send a man back to Mexico.

At the time, the man said he wanted to return to his home country because he felt unsafe in the United State, where he’s been living since being deported.

He appealed that ruling, saying it violated the equal protection clause.

“In the absence of an articulable claim of a danger to public welfare, the Court finds the State’s action to be ‘not just cruel but also arbitrary and capricious,'” Judge Hanen said in his opinion.

He also said that Arizona was not entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the case.

“The only plausible explanation for the failure to find that there is a substantial risk of serious harm from the proposed deportation of petitioner, which was not supported by any evidence, is that Arizona has failed to provide an adequate showing of any particularized and specificized threat to public safety.”

Arizona’s case, however, was not about the law.

It was about whether or the state was being too harsh on a small group of people, which Arizona had already done.