DHS strips Arizona sheriff of authority to patrol for illegal immigrants

reply to post by Erasurehead
I've disagreed with Arpaio's methods for treatment of detainees, as opposed to prisoners, for quite some time. He confuses "charged" with "convicted" to easily, it seems.

But, no one can argue that he has been EFFECTIVE in crime fighting in a tough location.

As a former law enforcement professional, I understand the difference between a "stop" and an "arrest." Rudy Giulianni took the right approach with his "broken windows" policy in New York of heading off minor crimes as a deterrent to bigger ones.

Arpaio's effectiveness must just gall those in Obama's administration who would rather turn our streets and cities over to criminals, in the name of "equality."

Since when are crimminals or potential criminals entitled to "special treatment?"

His methods have been studied, applauded and criticized here and elsewhere:

"Police Stop One Million People on the Street"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If real crooks know cops are out and about, actively looking for potential problems, they'll take their "business" elsewhere. (Like keeping the lights on, to stop the roaches from coming out.)

Crime dropped dramatically as a result of these tactics in New York and elsewhere.

Even I've been involved in "stops" by wary police. It didn't upset me, as I was out late, alone, and felt a little safer knowing they were close by during my jogs.

The same methods have been tried elsewhere to similar success. One of the remarkable failures was in the hands of the thuggish, corrupt, LAPD.

Most PDs using these tactics keep detailed records of the nature of these events, and outside reviews have found them fair and effective, even when balanced against the "intrusions" involved in each encounter.

Arpaio's crime patrols were just as effective. Most cops know to use a legitimate means to establish a "reasonable suspicion" to justify the stops. Or make one up.

"Burned out taillight," "we got a call ... " and other excuses permit a temporary detention.

So what?

If you didn't do anything in otherwise "suspicious" circumstances, what's the big deal?

I'd rather have THEM stop me during a jog or walk than a couple of guys who want to rob me. Maybe their presence keeps the bad guys away.

Arpaio's guy's will continue to use lawful tactics, but for some reason, the Obama administration would rather just turn the streets over to criminals.

My community benefits from "active policing." We have LOW crime rate. People feel safe out at night. We walk, talk, and enjoy our homes, restaurants and bars, parks and shops ANYTIME, day or night, without fear of becoming a victim or statistic.

No one will ever convince me that this isn't effective, despite the "hassle."

jw

Originally posted by ecoparity
Actually the power to enforce immigration laws does fall within the State's area of responsibility in different forms depending on what the arrangement is with ICE / DHS.

Power is not responsibility. I do not dispute that the federal government has delegated the power. I dispute that the federal government can escape or delegate it's constitutional responsibility to establish a uniform rule of naturalization- an enumerated power of the Congress under Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution which is not covered by a State's 10th amendment rights, which apply to "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

Furthermore, though there's slightly more room for argument on this next point, it could easily be contended that when a state practices a different enforcement of the same laws, that it is effectively not providing equal protection under the law- a right of ALL PEOPLE (not just citizens) according to the 14th amendment.

Please note that the extra-constitutional delegation of powers is an extremely popular method for politicians to escape accountability for their actions and ensure that voters can't end abuses simply by voting in reformers (for example a Democrat controlled congress effectively delegated its power to approve or deny a presidential invocation of the War Powers Resolution in 2003, thus violating separation of powers to unconstitutionally ensure that the voters couldn't stop the war as the text of the War Powers Resolution would seem to make possible.) and in all cases this is an affront to constitutional government and should be ended.

And last but not least, you point out that this is claimed by the government to be merely a problem of resources. So they would seem to affirm my earlier contention that Joe Arpaio is using the tax dollars of the citizens of Maricopa County to address a federal problem, quite possibly at the expense of other initiatives which might improve the safety of the local people in a more direct way.

The problem with illegal aliens is...............they are breaking the law.

Over 33% of the inmates in the Maricopa County jail are illegal.

More than 53% of violent crimes committed in Maricopa County are committed by illegals.

Enforce employment laws and illegals will go home automatically.

At this time of record unemployment, it is ashame that our own government doesn't enforce its own laws so legal Americans can work.

Precisely. I've been talking about addressing illegal immigration from the demand side via jobs policy for a while. One more reason that Arpaio's methods are wasteful.

We need to find a solution and unfortunately the current proposals from both sides will not fix anything, especially long term.

As long as Mexico (where the majority of illegal aliens come from) and other Latin American countries continue to operate under the same corrupt, two tier systems no amount of amnesty in America will work.

These people live in crushing poverty and even if we crank up the enforcement, even to the point of treating illegals as felons similar to how other countries do it quite a few will still try to return. The only comparison of poverty in America that comes close to the way millions of people live in these places is the homeless. They don't just have unemployment, they have no employment, period and no education leading to opportunity for the "common people". Even the most basic middle class existence in these places is considered to be very wealthy.

I understand, really. A lot of these people have no choice but to leave. There just aren't enough legal immigration slots to service the number of people who want to escape poverty, starvation and misery.

As sensitive as we are to their plight the fact remains that the US just cannot handle the number of people who want to come here. Its just not economically viable nor socially workable.

The most reasonable long term solution is to work diligently to establish improved social systems in the home countries. As poor as Mexico claims to be there is plenty of money going to the wealthy to be able to establish a safety net for their own populace. They need to set up a welfare / social security system, build safe housing for the poor and replace the water and sewage treatment systems. They need to implement population controls as part of acceptance into these programs and work to build an educational system and a real economy.

Right now, these countries operate as modern day fiefdoms where the extremely wealthy rape the resources of the nations and the number of living wage jobs are far fewer than the population in need.

We've tried granting amnesty before, back in the 80's. Here we are not even 50 years later and we have yet another 50 million impoverished people wanting (no make that demanding) another amnesty.

We cannot do this every 20-30 years. Its a huge drain on our economy and resources for our own citizens.

Look, I don't pretend to have all the answers but what we have is a huge group of people who are basically stealing from the citizens and on top of that demanding they be given special considerations.

For example, illegals come here and have children while they are here illegally and we grant those children citizenship. Now they claim if we deport them we're breaking up the family. It's like being told to pass out citizenship at gunpoint. No one seems to care that they knew they were illegal and despite that we give the children status, educate them, give them free healthcare and even feed them if needed. No, now we have to give the entire family legal status and why? Because they decided to have kids while here illegally.

If I go out and commit a felony and get sent to prison will they let me out of going because I have a child? What if there's no one else to take care of said child? 100% of the time I'm going to go to prison and my child will go to CPS and a foster family or group home.

So why should it be any different for the people who commit the felony offense of being in the country without permission? At least they have choices. For one they get deported rather than sent to prison and if they want to keep their children with them they can choose to take them with them.

It sure seems like an unjust system where the criminals have more rights than the citizens, doesn't it? Better still these felons angrily demand they be given this extra consideration and if you don't want to you are called a racist. It sure reminds me of a toddler throwing a fit who has an over developed sense of entitlement. This is just a single example. I can list a hundred examples or more of this.

So let's just give in to the toddler. Let's allow tens of millions of people who think they are above the law and entitled to more consideration than the legal citizens. If you think we can do that and still maintain a decent society I really don't know what to say to you.

I don't support Sheriff Joe in general but on this issue I'll back up anyone willing to actually do something about it. Until people are willing to start talking about viable solutions the unofficial federal amnesty should be answered with state enforcement. Start deporting enough people and perhaps the illegals and the feds will start discussing reasonable solutions.

reply to post by jdub297


"Most cops know to use a legitimate means to establish a "reasonable suspicion" to justify the stops. Or make one up. "

Right, and you totally miss the point that, making up a reason to detain someone "is" a crime. It's a violation of your Constitutional rights.

How do you "legitimately" establish "reasonable suspicion" by making up a reason for the stop? Great logic.

You can't right a crime with a crime. That's not law enforcement, that's vigilantism.

Need a reason? Just make one up.

Awesome!

Originally posted by jdub297


Since potential criminals entitled to "special treatment?"

We are all potential criminals and we are all granted certain rights against illegal searches. Why does anyone think it is ok to stop "potential" criminals when that potential is based solely on perception and all the while actual felons are left to just wander the streets?

Hmmm do I want my kids protected from Mexicans in the Home Depot parking lot more than I want them protected from rapists and murderers?

You all fail to miss the point.

Just by being here they have committed a crime, therefore, the 14th amendment does not come into play.

What you are basically saying is that there should be no prisons whatsoever

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Could you please explain how anything anyone has said comes out to mean that we should not have prisons....

Being an illegal immigrant means they are breaking the law but their has to be proof of this before being arrested. If they were speeding and got pulled over then they are busted hall them into jail, then deport them. But if not, anyone who sets foot into American soil has rights which cannot be taken away without due process meaning get some proof that they are illegal

Originally posted by saber13
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

Could you please explain how anything anyone has said comes out to mean that we should not have prisons....

Being an illegal immigrant means they are breaking the law but their has to be proof of this before being arrested. If they were speeding and got pulled over then they are busted hall them into jail, then deport them. But if not, anyone who sets foot into American soil has rights which cannot be taken away without due process meaning get some proof that they are illegal

If liberals wouldn't keep us from putting up the giant wall with machine gun-equipped bullet-resistant cameras + barbed wire and landmines, etc...

We wouldn't need people like Arpaio doing what he is doing.

As far as proof goes? What? Do you expect all cops to be mind-readers? And where does it say anyone who sets foot into American soil has rights? Last time I checked you had to be a legal citizen in order to have rights.

Any liberal who wants to do things like compare America's incarceration rate to that of the rest of the world (yes, America ranks #1 as having the highest incarceration rate) as opposed to a country like China.

*ahem*

That's because most crimes committed in places like China are punished by getting shot and killed on site. Or run over by a tank. Etc..

And ask the Chinese how they deal with illegal immigrants. Ask Mexicans (in Mexico) how illegal immigrants are dealt with. Ask Russians about how they deal with illegal immigrants. None of those people f*** around.

Take for example, in Mexico. You don't have rights.

Why can't America do the same? Somebody tell me.

The answer is because America is more 'humane'. Contrary to how some like to label America is 'inhumane' because we 'invade countries over oil' have the 'highest incarceration rate'. Etc. Etc.

So before you point fingers? Do your research.

See the following video of Rush Limbaugh on his stance on immigration issues.

Rush Limbaugh on immigration..

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by jdub297

 

"Most cops know to use a legitimate means to establish a "reasonable suspicion" to justify the stops. Or make one up. "

Right, and you totally miss the point that, making up a reason to detain someone "is" a crime. It's a violation of your Constitutional rights.

How do you "legitimately" establish "reasonable suspicion" by making up a reason for the stop? Great logic.

You can't right a crime with a crime. That's not law enforcement, that's vigilantism.

Need a reason? Just make one up.

Awesome!

Actually thats mostly correct.

Any not so clever cop can grab a handful of recent crime teletypes before briefing and leave the station with probable cause (PC) to stop just about anyone..

Then there is a legally allowable "consensual contact", the police can approach you on the street and ask "hello fine citizen, anything suspicious going on, eh?".. upon contact form PC by noticing something like; pinpointed pupils, slow and deliberate mannerisms, odor of alcohol, red watery eyes.. or you have the misfortune of baring a strong resemblance to one of americas most wanted or a suspect described in a teletype.

There is also the "based on my training and experience" line DRE (drug recognition expert) trained officers can use.

None of which delves into the insane minutia that is the vehicle code which makes traversing the roadways in a legal manor nearly impossible.

You are pretty much stoppable anytime you are in public. No its not cool or fair, and yes it sucks.

Originally posted by Marked One
Take for example, in Mexico. You don't have rights.

Why can't America do the same? Somebody tell me.

So America would be better if it were more like China, Russia, or Mexico? Please explain again just what country it is that you are trying to pretend to be patriotic about because I thought it was the U.S. but no good American would wish that America was run more like Mexico.

There are numerous border region checkpoints where every vehicle is pulled over and the people inside asked to provide proof of citizenship (or asked to declare legal status). The agents can select to ask for documentation or search you and your vehicle based on probable cause and a certain number of random selections.

I recently went through a DHS checkpoint in order to use the ferry in Galveston.

Our airports have DHS checkpoints where not only are you required to show identification but every person is searched to some extent with additional screening based on - you guessed it. Probable Cause.

I don't see where checkpoints set up in high crime areas and areas known to have a high percentage of illegal aliens violate the constitution any worse than these previous examples.

I cannot accept the Hispanics are being "picked on" given all the examples I've listed and the numerous others I have not.

If the Sheriff's dept in Phoenix is violating people's rights then they certainly have the right to take their case to the courts and better yet, they'll get plenty of legal representation for free to do so.

As usual, the illegal aliens are special and should be given special consideration above and beyond what citizens get. There's that sense of entitlement again.

reply to post by angus1745

If, as you say, you are a LEGAL immigrant, then you need to go back and re-read the constitution. The 10th ammendment is the one that gives Sheriff Joe and all of the county sheriffs their authority. Most of the readers on ATS probably need to study up on the powers of the local sheriff. You might be surprised at how much power they actually have. And Sheriff Joe isn't abusing his power; he's just doing his job. Maybe we would have less crime if more sheriffs took their jobs that seriously.

reply to post by ecoparity


Is anyone forcing you to use the ferry or airports? Do the ferry or the airports suddenly drive up on you? I am not advocating special treatment for anyone. I am a natural born American citizen and I will be damned if the cops are going to begin stopping me to ask me for ID whenever the mood strikes them.

reply to post by Lillydale


The illegal aliens can choose to get legal, not come here or leave. No one forced them to immigrate illegally either. I'm perfectly aware of the reality which forces many of them to do so but American citizens did not create that problem, the culture and political environment of their home countries did.

Good luck with that refusing to identify thing. I don't think the courts have looked too favorably on that case so far but you might have better luck or better legal counsel.

Unfortunately the police can, have and will continue to set up checkpoints in specific areas. Should those checkpoints result in the capture and deportation of illegal aliens then it becomes hard to argue against the usefulness of said checkpoints.

The truth is that those who support illegal immigration will fight against any enforcement action. Employment verification, requirement to prove identity for housing, banking, etc.

If you or I want to go open a bank account without legal identification I can promise you it won't happen. Any illegal alien in the US can do so.
Why?
Why does the federal government establish one set of regulations and laws for citizens and another for criminals?

Like it or not the Sheriff had the legal right and permission from DHS to do what he has been doing. The only reason they are changing that arrangement now is simple. It was working.


[edit on 10-10-2009 by ecoparity]

That sheriff was on Glen Beck yesterday telling Beck he would still arrest them he said thier is a state law and he will follow the state law, he even said e didn't need them they did nothing for him it was rather kind of funny.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by Lillydale

 

The illegal aliens can choose to get legal, not come here or leave. No one forced them to immigrate illegally either. I'm perfectly aware of the reality which forces many of them to do so but American citizens did not create that problem, the culture and political environment of their home countries did.

Rant about illegals all you like. I am talking about cops stopping people for no reason at all other than the hope that 10 percent of them will turn out to be guilty of something.

Good luck with that refusing to identify thing. I don't think the courts have looked too favorably on that case so far but you might have better luck or better legal counsel.

I guess that is because you live in a state that tossed the constitution out the window. No one is randomly stopping me for my papers in NY and I have been around long enough for them to have plenty of opportunities.

Then again, I guess the law here is more concerned with people that are a danger to society instead of just where they came from. I cannot remember the last article I read about a home invasion victim down there proclaiming how glad they were it was not done by illegals.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Marked One
Take for example, in Mexico. You don't have rights.

Why can't America do the same? Somebody tell me.

So America would be better if it were more like China, Russia, or Mexico? Please explain again just what country it is that you are trying to pretend to be patriotic about because I thought it was the U.S. but no good American would wish that America was run more like Mexico.

You can't pick and choose what part of my post you want to read. This a message forum not Golden Coral. Read my WHOLE ENTIRE post before you make hasty assumptions.

I never said America should be run more like another country. You're putting words in my mouth.

Thank you.

EDIT: Now before I head off to work. I just want to say that if it were my way I would have a couple of ICBMS launched at Mexico City. (And I'm going to need plenty because Mexico City is the largest city in the world.)

Why? Because Mexican government officials PURPOSELY distribute pamphlets with information on how to sneak pass the border and outsmart the border patrol, etc. They don't care. What better way to unload their crap on US.

And Canada damn well better be on board with my plan. Because before you know it? America will be so overrun with illegal Mexicans, eventually they'll spill into Canada.

Now I will head off to work...

[edit on 10/10/09 by Marked One]

Originally posted by Marked One

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Marked One
Take for example, in Mexico. You don't have rights.

Why can't America do the same? Somebody tell me.

So America would be better if it were more like China, Russia, or Mexico? Please explain again just what country it is that you are trying to pretend to be patriotic about because I thought it was the U.S. but no good American would wish that America was run more like Mexico.

You can't pick and choose what part of my post you want to read. This a message forum not Golden Coral. Read my WHOLE ENTIRE post before you make hasty assumptions.

I never said America should be run more like another country. You're putting words in my mouth.

Thank you.

I did read the entire post. I took this statement as is from it. Why do you people whine so much when someone actually responds to what you say the way you said it? Did you or did you not claim that Mexico and Russia do a better job of dealing with illegal immigrants?