Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:11:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm sure many of you know who this guy is. He's a sheriff in Arizona who's being investigated for racial profiling. Basically, he rounds up Mexicans and asks them to show ID. When they can't, he sends them to ICE and has them deported. I've seen him on CNN and even Fox News (I watch it from time to time literally for a laugh); surprisingly even that joke of a station noted that what he was doing was wrong.

The sheriff maintains that he's merely upholding the law and that he's doing NOTHING wrong. When asked about why he stops these people, he literally cited them wearing trashy clothing as enough indication that they're probably illegal immigrants. He admitted that he doesn't only detain those who have committed other crimes (other than being here illegally). To me, it seems like he's obviously doing something wrong. However, I'm sure there must be at least a few supporters here. Thoughts?
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:48:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ick, enforcing oppressive immigration law. Whether he's a racist or not is largely irrelevant next to that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 7:26:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If he does what you describe then he's clearly breaking the 4th amendment. Personally I think we should pass laws that state that legislators and law enforcers who knowingly violate the constitution ought to go to prison, and not simply liable to civil suit, which is often the only recourse for police misconduct.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 5:18:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
How is what he is doing wrong?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 7:29:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 5:18:44 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How is what he is doing wrong?

Read the Constitution :)
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 7:47:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
But asking someone for ID is not a violation of the fourth amendment is it?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 7:59:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 7:47:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
But asking someone for ID is not a violation of the fourth amendment is it?

Yes, it is. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You are allowed to do this kind of thing (ask for a SS card, etc.) if you have probable cause. In other words, say you saw a Mexican engage in what looked like a drug deal. A cop would have every right to stop him and question him, ask for ID, etc. But if they're just walking down the street and someone does this, it could be considered harassment. Joe has been getting away with this because he targets Mexicans. When asked how or why he stops them, he says "you can just tell" they're illegal immigrants because of how they're dressed and whatnot. That's not probable cause. If he did this to an American citizen (and he has), that's a violation of our protections. You can't just stop someone on the street because they look Mexican and infringe upon their rights, even if they are illegal immigrants. We can't forfeit our rights and privacy expectations; doing so would lead a slippery slope towards our own loss.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:18:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you have a system of ID it is implied that someone may have the right to ask to see it at some point otherwise what is the point?

The fourth amendment only covers a reasonable expectation of privacy. It does not seem unreasonable to challenge someone for ID unless you argue that ID itself is unconstitutional.

How is this sheriff expected to clamp down on illegal immigrants?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:24:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 8:18:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If you have a system of ID it is implied that someone may have the right to ask to see it at some point otherwise what is the point?

The fourth amendment only covers a reasonable expectation of privacy. It does not seem unreasonable to challenge someone for ID unless you argue that ID itself is unconstitutional.

How is this sheriff expected to clamp down on illegal immigrants?

I lost my SS card years ago. If I were asked for it on the street, I wouldn't be able to produce it. Does that mean they should take me down to ICE and hold me there for hours until I can prove that I'm a citizen? That's what you're arguing for. The only difference is that like Joe, you seem to think that this is okay so long as the individual looks Mexican. That's discrimination. It's not his job to crackdown on illegal immigrants; it's his job to protect the citizens of his county.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:32:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 8:24:42 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/27/2009 8:18:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If you have a system of ID it is implied that someone may have the right to ask to see it at some point otherwise what is the point?

The fourth amendment only covers a reasonable expectation of privacy. It does not seem unreasonable to challenge someone for ID unless you argue that ID itself is unconstitutional.

How is this sheriff expected to clamp down on illegal immigrants?

I lost my SS card years ago. If I were asked for it on the street, I wouldn't be able to produce it. Does that mean they should take me down to ICE and hold me there for hours until I can prove that I'm a citizen? That's what you're arguing for.

If those are the rules then shouldn't you get a new card? If they aren't the rules then why is this occurring?

The only difference is that like Joe, you seem to think that this is okay so long as the individual looks Mexican. That's discrimination. It's not his job to crackdown on illegal immigrants; it's his job to protect the citizens of his county.

It is clearly his job to do both, what I don't understand is that you seem to be demanding either that he does do his job, or that he pretends to be somehow handicapped whilst doing so.

If there is a problem with illegal mexican immigrants surely you can expect law enforcement agents to do a double take on mexicans?

Again what is he meant to do?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:46:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't need a new card because there are other ways of verifying my identity in situations where a SS card is often asked (i.e. job applications). Fortunately I'm not asked to produce this card because I don't look Mexican. No, I don't think it's fair that Mexicans are targeted in this regard, the same way it wouldn't be fair if everyone who looked Middle-Eastern had to revoke some rights because of problems overseas. Where I'm form (NY/NJ), they have a lot of problems with the mob. Should I be a target because I'm 100% Italian-American? Should every black be a target because blacks in urban areas commit the majority of crimes? No. He enforces racial profiling, which is unconstitutional. Also, his prisoners are housed in tents and forced to wear pink underwear, and he once boasted of feeding them on less than a dollar a day. He literally stops Hispanics on the street and rounds them up to take them to ICE. He doesn't work for Border Patrol: He's a sheriff.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:57:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 8:46:06 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I don't need a new card because there are other ways of verifying my identity in
situations where a SS card is often asked (i.e. job applications).

So the point is moot then, citizens have ID non-citizens don't.

Fortunately I'm not asked to produce this card because I don't look Mexican. No, I don't think it's fair that Mexicans are targeted in this regard, the same way it wouldn't be fair if everyone who looked Middle-Eastern had to revoke some rights because of problems overseas.

But they do, those of middle easten appearence do get subjected to more stringent security at airports, and people accept that as being fairly logical.

Where I'm form (NY/NJ), they have a lot of problems with the mob. Should I be a target because I'm 100% Italian-American? Should every black be a target because blacks in urban areas commit the majority of crimes? No. He enforces racial profiling, which is unconstitutional.

This is political corrrectness to the point of absurdity.
If there is a problem with illegal mexican immigrants what is he supposed to do? Stop every white, black or Jewish person in the hopes they are a an illegal mexican immigrant?

Also, his prisoners are housed in tents and forced to wear pink underwear, and he once boasted of feeding them on less than a dollar a day. He literally stops Hispanics on the street and rounds them up to take them to ICE. He doesn't work for Border Patrol: He's a sheriff.

Then move him to border patrol. But at the moment you have nothing on him!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 9:00:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 8:57:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/27/2009 8:46:06 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I don't need a new card because there are other ways of verifying my identity in
situations where a SS card is often asked (i.e. job applications).

So the point is moot then, citizens have ID non-citizens don't.

No, the point is that these people aren't in situations where this ID is typically asked of them.

Fortunately I'm not asked to produce this card because I don't look Mexican. No, I don't think it's fair that Mexicans are targeted in this regard, the same way it wouldn't be fair if everyone who looked Middle-Eastern had to revoke some rights because of problems overseas.

But they do, those of middle easten appearence do get subjected to more stringent security at airports, and people accept that as being fairly logical.

I am not "most people." You can't treat every American of Middle Eastern descent like a terrorist.

Where I'm form (NY/NJ), they have a lot of problems with the mob. Should I be a target because I'm 100% Italian-American? Should every black be a target because blacks in urban areas commit the majority of crimes? No. He enforces racial profiling, which is unconstitutional.

This is political corrrectness to the point of absurdity.
If there is a problem with illegal mexican immigrants what is he supposed to do? Stop every white, black or Jewish person in the hopes they are a an illegal mexican immigrant?

You didn't answer my questions :(

Also, his prisoners are housed in tents and forced to wear pink underwear, and he once boasted of feeding them on less than a dollar a day. He literally stops Hispanics on the street and rounds them up to take them to ICE. He doesn't work for Border Patrol: He's a sheriff.

Then move him to border patrol. But at the moment you have nothing on him!

Fine, move him to border patrol. There, his actions would be legal. As a sheriff, they are not. Lol - why do you say I have nothing on him? He's acting illegally and breaking the law. If that's not "something" then what is?
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 9:08:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
No you are right, I did dodge the question!

But seriously how would his actions be legal in border patrol, but illegal as a sheriff? Surely they both work from the same rule book just have differing priorities?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 9:14:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, the Border Patrol is set up specifically to prohibit immigrants from entering this country. They line the border and stop anyone who they witness entering illegally. Once you're hanging about in town though, the rules change. Nobody witnessed you committing a crime and therefore you have rights.

Criminal profiling is legal. Bias-based profiling (the use of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, background, age, or culture as the sole basis for police activity) is ILLEGAL. The absence of facts, or specific criminal information is what separates bias-based profiling from legitimate criminal profiling. You can be as anti-immigration as you want, but rounding up people in large groups for interrogation based on the color of their skin or how they're dressed is a CRIME prohibited by law, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.

Not only is it blatant discrimination that pisses off the public, but people can easily file lawsuits for constitutional and civil rights violations. The sheriff has been sued in this regard a total of 2,150 times in a three year period alone (2004-2007)! This was more than $50 million in claims being filed. Now, surely a Libertarian like yourself would see that as a huge misspending of tax payer dollars :|
President of DDO
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 11:03:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 9:14:04 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Not only is it blatant discrimination that pisses off the public, but people can easily file lawsuits for constitutional and civil rights violations. The sheriff has been sued in this regard a total of 2,150 times in a three year period alone (2004-2007)! This was more than $50 million in claims being filed. Now, surely a Libertarian like yourself would see that as a huge misspending of tax payer dollars :|

These people should be happy they are being sent back to Mexico; they are going back as millionaires after they sued the Police officer and the county for millions.

Anyways, there is a specific rule that if you consent without coercion, the search is not illegal. Therefore, im guessing that for most of the instances where this sheriff asked for ID, most of the people in question, gave them up willingly. Of course, those that refused, but were arrested for refusing, is against the law.

What this Sheriff should have done, was pose as a public person and approach those who refused to ID themselves, under false pretenses, and get their names legally via simple conversation. Then, he couldve cross-referenced the name with the database they have on file, and found out if he was an illegal alien.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 11:41:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 11:03:03 AM, tkubok wrote:

These people should be happy they are being sent back to Mexico; they are going back as millionaires after they sued the Police officer and the county for millions.

I'm pretty sure a non-citizen can't sue... Plus, if they're here illegally and try to do that, they'll get deported. This is non-sensical?

What this Sheriff should have done, was pose as a public person and approach those who refused to ID themselves, under false pretenses, and get their names legally via simple conversation. Then, he couldve cross-referenced the name with the database they have on file, and found out if he was an illegal alien.

Well, if the Mexicans wisened up, they'd ask if he was a cop. Then they could get him for entrapment...?
President of DDO
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 12:33:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 11:41:56 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I'm pretty sure a non-citizen can't sue... Plus, if they're here illegally and try to do that, they'll get deported. This is non-sensical?
People can file lawsuits even if they are not part of the country.

Well, if the Mexicans wisened up, they'd ask if he was a cop. Then they could get him for entrapment...?

Entrapment only entails if the party involved is convinced to commit an offense. In this case, the offense is already commited; he is already an illegal alien.

If the police officer was at the Border, standing infront of an open chain-linked fence, shouting out "Hey mexicans! Get across the border now while you have the chance!" THAT would be entrapment.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 12:55:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 12:40:58 PM, Nags wrote:
Eww, what a d-bag. Who enforces the law nowadays?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 8:04:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The 4th amendment says that we are to be secure in our persons, papers, possesions, etc. from unreasonable search and seizure, and by the letter states that such reasons must be evaluated and approved by a judge before such impositions can take place. According to S.C. precedent the govt. can detain, arrest,and search people, without a warrant from a judge, if they have probable cause that a crime has been committed, that is if they see a person commit a crime, or can relate strong reasoning for believing that that particular person has commited a crime.
If Arpaio is not apprehending people whom he can reasonably believe to have committed a specific crime which he is investigating, but is instead demanding things of people whom he has no evidence against, then he is breaking one of the most important laws of our country, and is a criminal himself.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."