NCAAbbs

Full Version: No political will....
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
to curb illegal immigration. cue charges of racism in immigration law enforcement in 5...4...3.......

White House strips immigration policing powers from Arizona sheriff
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has previously been attacked by critics for racial profiling among illegal immigrants

Daniel Nasaw in Washington guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 17.04 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct...na-sheriff

A controversial Arizona sheriff known for taking a hard line against illegal immigrants has been stripped of some of his powers in what he described as a political move by the Obama administration.

Joe Arpaio, a gruff lawman who styles himself as America's toughest sheriff, has won acclaim from US anti-immigrant forces for his relentless pursuit of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants in Maricopa county, Arizona, a fast-growing county of 4 million people that is home to Phoenix, the nation's fifth largest city.

Arpaio's aggressive tactics include the jailing of illegal immigrants in tent cities surrounded by barbed wire in the middle of Arizona's searingly hot summers, the reduction of meal costs to 20 cents per day, the use of pink jail clothing for men, and chain gangs for women inmates.

Arpaio also came in for criticism when he appeared on the Fox reality show Smile: You're Under Arrest.

Under a two-year-old agreement with the federal department of homeland security, Arpaio and his deputies had been authorised to enforce federal immigration law by arresting suspected illegal immigrants in the field and by checking the immigration status of people arrested on other offences.

But after drawing thousands of complaints and a civil rights investigation from the justice department, Arpaio was this week stripped of his federal authority to make immigration arrests. County attorney Andrew Thomas, one of Arpaio's supporters, condemned the "setback in the fight against illegal immigration".

For his part Arpaio has promised to continue chasing illegal immigrants using state laws. In an angry press conference, he called US homeland security officials "liars" and said he would personally drive those caught on the streets to the border if federal officers refused to take arrested illegal immigrants into custody. "I'll take a little trip to the border and turn them over to the border," he said.

Arpaio's critics decried his continued plans to arrest illegal immigrants and said the Obama administration should sever all ties with him.

The now-rescinded authority to conduct field sweeps of illegal immigrants yielded only about 300 out of the roughly 33,000 total arrests of illegal immigrants since 2007, the Obama administration has done little to curtail Arpaio, said Frank Sharry, executive director of immigration reform advocacy group America's Voice.

"He's going to go down in history as a man who terrorised the Latino community for the sake of his own visibility and political popularity," Sharry said. "The fact that the Obama administration would lend any of its legitimacy to any of his activities is surprising and disappointing."

Arpaio was first elected sheriff in 1993.

"The department of homeland security is making a historic mistake if it continues its relationship with Sheriff Joe Arpaio," said Paco Fabian, spokesman for immigration reform advocacy group America's Voice. "The federal government is lending its full force and legitimacy to a rogue cop certain to go down in history as a serial violator of civil rights and an enemy of the Latino community."

An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants live in the US. The federal government is virtually paralysed over how to react, with conservatives like Arpaio calling for the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement. Obama, many Democrats and some Republicans call for a system that will allow most to gain legal status after paying a fine and learning English, but reform efforts in 2006 and 2007 withered under sustained rightwing opposition.

More than 60 law enforcement agencies across the country have signed onto the same programme under which local officers are effectively deputised to enforce immigration law. But critics of the programme say it wastes police resources needed to fight street crime, promotes racial profiling of Hispanics, targets peaceful workers, breaks up families and breeds distrust of police among immigrants, who become afraid to report crime for fear they will be asked for immigration papers.
what arpaio was doing was borderline racist. anyone with brown skin got rounded up or harassed by his deputies and were required to prove their identity and citizenship. if the police around here did that to every white person there would be riots in the street.
I know, it's like every single one of the illegal immigrants he arrested was a Mexican!

(10-12-2009 12:15 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]what arpaio was doing was borderline racist. anyone with brown skin got rounded up or harassed by his deputies and were required to prove their identity and citizenship. if the police around here did that to every white person there would be riots in the street.

Do you really belive that? He's in freaking ARIZONA. If he really rounded up "anyone with brown skin," he would have to work 24/7/365 to even make a dent. Hell, a lot of the officers that work for him are probably Hispanic.

Where's the outrage over AG Holder dropping blatant voter intimidation charges against Black Panthers? If the skin colors were reversed in that situation, there would definitely be riots in the streets.
03-melodramatic and right on cue.
Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone would have much success in stemming the invasion
over our southern border by profiling Asian, African or Caucasian complexion types.
of course, there aren't many [if any] of those types crossing our southern border, either.
(10-12-2009 01:42 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]03-melodramatic and right on cue.
Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone would have much success in stemming the invasion
over our southern border by profiling Asian, African or Caucasian complexion types.
of course, there aren't many [if any] of those types crossing our southern border, either.

That doesn't make profiling legal. The Constitution that you love to wrap yourself in so often doesn't say that we're entitled to protection from unreasonable search and seizure unless you're hispanic or black. It says all men are created equal. It says equal protection under the law. The Hoover Police Department or the Maricopa Sheriff Department only asking hispanics for proof of citizenship is not equal protection under the law.
I suspect illegal Canadians in Arizona are pretty rare.
(10-12-2009 02:51 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect illegal Canadians in Arizona are pretty rare.

Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. This is the exact treatment that our Constitution was setup to prevent. If you want to crawl all over "socialism" being unconstitutional, you have to take the social libertarianism as well. You can't have it both ways.
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.
Federal authorities can't curb the local sheriff from enforcing state and local laws UNLESS the said laws are contrary to the Federal laws and U.S.Constitution or are enforced in a way that violates civil rights. A good example of the latter was the way "Bull" Conner chose to enforce laws during the demonstrations in B'ham during the 1960s. He would refuse to issue the demonstration leaders a parade permit and then arrest them for "parading" without a permit.

It appears to me that the sheriff combined zeal to curb illegal immigration with more than a touch of discriminatory and hostile meaness. His behavior reminds me very much of the B'ham City Commissioner in his tactics and attitude toward his targets.
(10-12-2009 03:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.

That doesn't make it legal to profile them. The entire point of the constitutional protections of our civil rights is that we err on the side of letting criminals go to avoid trampling the rights of the innocent. That's why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government. That's why the burden of reasonable suspicion in a search or seizure is on the government. You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Not "Innocent until proven guilty unless you're Mexican or black." I love how you can have such a hard-on for being against the government and holding up the constitution when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to trampling all over the rights of a group of people you happen to not be a part of, or worse yet have a racial prejudice against, you are all for throwing the constitution out the window and putting the screws to them.
(10-12-2009 04:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.

That doesn't make it legal to profile them. The entire point of the constitutional protections of our civil rights is that we err on the side of letting criminals go to avoid trampling the rights of the innocent. That's why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government. That's why the burden of reasonable suspicion in a search or seizure is on the government. You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Not "Innocent until proven guilty unless you're Mexican or black." I love how you can have such a hard-on for being against the government and holding up the constitution when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to trampling all over the rights of a group of people you happen to not be a part of, or worse yet have a racial prejudice against, you are all for throwing the constitution out the window and putting the screws to them.

Since when do our constitutional rights apply to illegals? Kinda hard when YOU HAVE TO BE A US CITIZEN IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY OUR CONSTITUTION!!!
(10-12-2009 03:59 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Federal authorities can't curb the local sheriff from enforcing state and local laws UNLESS the said laws are contrary to the Federal laws and U.S.Constitution or are enforced in a way that violates civil rights. A good example of the latter was the way "Bull" Conner chose to enforce laws during the demonstrations in B'ham during the 1960s. He would refuse to issue the demonstration leaders a parade permit and then arrest them for "parading" without a permit.

It appears to me that the sheriff combined zeal to curb illegal immigration with more than a touch of discriminatory and hostile meaness. His behavior reminds me very much of the B'ham City Commissioner in his tactics and attitude toward his targets.

How surprising. What's the tally on the number of people you've compared to Bull Conner up to these days?
(10-12-2009 04:30 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 04:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.

That doesn't make it legal to profile them. The entire point of the constitutional protections of our civil rights is that we err on the side of letting criminals go to avoid trampling the rights of the innocent. That's why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government. That's why the burden of reasonable suspicion in a search or seizure is on the government. You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Not "Innocent until proven guilty unless you're Mexican or black." I love how you can have such a hard-on for being against the government and holding up the constitution when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to trampling all over the rights of a group of people you happen to not be a part of, or worse yet have a racial prejudice against, you are all for throwing the constitution out the window and putting the screws to them.

Since when do our constitutional rights apply to illegals? Kinda hard when YOU HAVE TO BE A US CITIZEN IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY OUR CONSTITUTION!!!

You are completely missing the point. Citizens are getting caught up in the profiling. Not every single person that looks Mexican is an illegal immigrant, or even Mexican for that matter. My problem isn't that illegal immigrants are getting rounded up and sent back. That's the current law. My problem is that completely legal citizens are being detained, searched, and arrested because they can't immediately prove that they are citizens and it is purely based on the color of their skin. Put it this way: If I were driving through Arizona, and got pulled over and didn't have a lick of ID, the cop would probably write me a ticket for driving without my license and let me go. If I had brown skin and spoke with a Mexican accent but still a natural born citizen, I'd be hauled to jail and be denied my basic constitutional guarantees of due process and the right to speak to a lawyer--all based solely on the color of my skin. That is wrong.
(10-12-2009 04:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.

That doesn't make it legal to profile them. The entire point of the constitutional protections of our civil rights is that we err on the side of letting criminals go to avoid trampling the rights of the innocent. That's why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government. That's why the burden of reasonable suspicion in a search or seizure is on the government. You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Not "Innocent until proven guilty unless you're Mexican or black." I love how you can have such a hard-on for being against the government and holding up the constitution when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to trampling all over the rights of a group of people you happen to not be a part of, or worse yet have a racial prejudice against, you are all for throwing the constitution out the window and putting the screws to them.

Why do you keep bringing black people into this conversation?
(10-12-2009 04:38 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 04:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.

That doesn't make it legal to profile them. The entire point of the constitutional protections of our civil rights is that we err on the side of letting criminals go to avoid trampling the rights of the innocent. That's why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government. That's why the burden of reasonable suspicion in a search or seizure is on the government. You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Not "Innocent until proven guilty unless you're Mexican or black." I love how you can have such a hard-on for being against the government and holding up the constitution when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to trampling all over the rights of a group of people you happen to not be a part of, or worse yet have a racial prejudice against, you are all for throwing the constitution out the window and putting the screws to them.

Why do you keep bringing black people into this conversation?

Because historically they are a group that has been discriminated against in violation of our constitution? Care to actually address any of the points in the debate or are you going to just deflect the issue?
(10-12-2009 04:40 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 04:38 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 04:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.

That doesn't make it legal to profile them. The entire point of the constitutional protections of our civil rights is that we err on the side of letting criminals go to avoid trampling the rights of the innocent. That's why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government. That's why the burden of reasonable suspicion in a search or seizure is on the government. You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Not "Innocent until proven guilty unless you're Mexican or black." I love how you can have such a hard-on for being against the government and holding up the constitution when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to trampling all over the rights of a group of people you happen to not be a part of, or worse yet have a racial prejudice against, you are all for throwing the constitution out the window and putting the screws to them.

Why do you keep bringing black people into this conversation?

Because historically they are a group that has been discriminated against in violation of our constitution? Care to actually address any of the points in the debate or are you going to just deflect the issue?

Pot, meet Kettle.

It's hard to debate you when you keep making assumptions and exaggerations like "they're rounding up all the brown people" and "if I were Hispanic and got caught driving without an ID, I'd be hauled to jail."
(10-12-2009 04:35 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:59 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Federal authorities can't curb the local sheriff from enforcing state and local laws UNLESS the said laws are contrary to the Federal laws and U.S.Constitution or are enforced in a way that violates civil rights. A good example of the latter was the way "Bull" Conner chose to enforce laws during the demonstrations in B'ham during the 1960s. He would refuse to issue the demonstration leaders a parade permit and then arrest them for "parading" without a permit.

It appears to me that the sheriff combined zeal to curb illegal immigration with more than a touch of discriminatory and hostile meaness. His behavior reminds me very much of the B'ham City Commissioner in his tactics and attitude toward his targets.

How surprising. What's the tally on the number of people you've compared to Bull Conner up to these days?

Have you been keeping count? Why?

"If the shoe fits, the Arizona Sheriff should have to wear it" I got the impression from his behavior that he is, like "Bull" Conner, running for higher state office using the immigration issue the way Conner used the Civil Rights demonstrations in 1963-1964 to win state credibility for a 1966 run for Governor. Conner handled the C-R folks just like the Wallace Administration did the "Selma to Montgomery" marchers at the Pettus Bridge on "Bloody Sunday" and B'ham still hasn't recovered.
(10-12-2009 04:36 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 04:30 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 04:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 03:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Just because most illegal immigrants are Mexican does not mean that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

But in Maricopa County, AZ? I think it's a pretty safe bet.

That doesn't make it legal to profile them. The entire point of the constitutional protections of our civil rights is that we err on the side of letting criminals go to avoid trampling the rights of the innocent. That's why the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government. That's why the burden of reasonable suspicion in a search or seizure is on the government. You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Not "Innocent until proven guilty unless you're Mexican or black." I love how you can have such a hard-on for being against the government and holding up the constitution when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to trampling all over the rights of a group of people you happen to not be a part of, or worse yet have a racial prejudice against, you are all for throwing the constitution out the window and putting the screws to them.

Since when do our constitutional rights apply to illegals? Kinda hard when YOU HAVE TO BE A US CITIZEN IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY OUR CONSTITUTION!!!

You are completely missing the point. Citizens are getting caught up in the profiling. Not every single person that looks Mexican is an illegal immigrant, or even Mexican for that matter. My problem isn't that illegal immigrants are getting rounded up and sent back. That's the current law. My problem is that completely legal citizens are being detained, searched, and arrested because they can't immediately prove that they are citizens and it is purely based on the color of their skin. Put it this way: If I were driving through Arizona, and got pulled over and didn't have a lick of ID, the cop would probably write me a ticket for driving without my license and let me go. If I had brown skin and spoke with a Mexican accent but still a natural born citizen, I'd be hauled to jail and be denied my basic constitutional guarantees of due process and the right to speak to a lawyer--all based solely on the color of my skin. That is wrong.

Can you give a link to any story that backs your claims?

It's not that hard to spot illegal aliens. They live in the same areas. Work the same types of jobs. Hell, just drive down Lorna Road and take a look. There's a reason why they're standing on the side of the road waiting to get picked up for day labor. It's under the table and tax free, which means that there's no tax paperwork to be filled out.

I'm also willing to bet that the illegals don't speak with a Mexican accent. They don't speak a lick of English. There's a difference between having a cultural accent (see Cubans in Miami) and not speaking English at all. Immigrants who want to become US citizens learn English. Ones who just want to break our laws for a day job don't.
(10-12-2009 02:51 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2009 01:42 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]03-melodramatic and right on cue.
Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone would have much success in stemming the invasion
over our southern border by profiling Asian, African or Caucasian complexion types.
of course, there aren't many [if any] of those types crossing our southern border, either.

That doesn't make profiling legal. The Constitution that you love to wrap yourself in so often doesn't say that we're entitled to protection from unreasonable search and seizure unless you're hispanic or black. It says all men are created equal. It says equal protection under the law. The Hoover Police Department or the Maricopa Sheriff Department only asking hispanics for proof of citizenship is not equal protection under the law.
You are correct. Law enforcement personnel may not merely ask for ID just for the sake of asking.
The question is, were these people detained legally? Apparently so, which is why I say we have no political will.
Sheriff Arpaoi has not been convicted in any of the >2,100 cases brought against him.
The seriousness of the charges have [to this point] been trumped by the nature of the evidence.
Just because someone claims their civil rights have been violated doesn't make it so.
You may want to familiarize yourself with Immigration Law, IIRAIRA of 1996, and in particular section 287 (g)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Reference URL's