• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arpaio Faces a New Sheriff in Town

jamesrage said:
I liked his post because I agree with most or all of what he said.The majority of the 12-20 million plus illegals do come from Mexico.12-20 million trespassing into another country is an invasion.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Especially when they're a) not coming here in a group and b) not coming here in any military capacity. It's hard to take seriously the notion that a bunch of unarmed farm workers and would-be maids constitute a military force.

Here's a cogent discussion of the history of the term invasion as used in the constitution, and as interpreted by its framers:

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_123.shtml

An especially useful quote from the above site (which they took from a relatively recent judicial opinion on the issue):

"In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government."); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
No it's not. Especially when they're a) not coming here in a group and b) not coming here in any military capacity. It's hard to take seriously the notion that a bunch of unarmed farm workers and would-be maids constitute a military force.
Click to expand...

If you're defining "invasion" as "military force," you have a point. But I don't think that anybody means "invasion" in this way.
 
nota bene said:
If you're defining "invasion" as "military force," you have a point. But I don't think that anybody means "invasion" in this way.
Click to expand...

The constitution does, and the courts do. I just posted this quote, but here it is again:

"In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government."); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)
 
Aderleth said:
Good. The guy's been a walking civil rights violation for decades, and he's been nothing but a useless money sucking windbag for the community he allegedly serves. He's already cost his state millions of dollars in damages related to civil rights abuses and other related torts. So from that perspective this is nothing new, just a large scale.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people in AZ, and none of them like him...
 
mike2810 said:
Yet, he keeps getting elected. Seems he is doing something right.
Click to expand...

Something tells me that you probably didn't or wouldn't have seen it the same way when Marion Berry kept getting reelected as Mayor of DC when he was faced with alleged legal indescretions.
 
Baralis said:
Or perhaps it is simply a sign that Arizona citizens are sick and tired of little to nothing serious being done to stem the inflow of illegal immigrants. If you agree with the Sheriff's actions or not we have a real problem with illegal immigrants in AZ and I believe its citizens want something done even if those actions are not always pretty or perhaps even legal.
Click to expand...

It's the scared old retirees that love him that keep putting him in office down there. He's a bigotted idiot who has marginalized latinos and cordoned them off and instead of working with the community to fight real crime, cordones them off out of fear of deportation so that none of them will work with the police to fight the gangs.

He runs on being tough on crime and then represents that with treating people like shyte as evidence of his toughness. And the old people eat it up and are more than willing to turn a blind eye to all the crap going on in his jail.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
I know a lot of people in AZ, and none of them like him...
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people in AZ, and they all like him. So what is your point? If the majority of voters in Maricopa county (who vote), select a new sheriff, that is the right of the voters. Arpaio is slipping in polls, yet the last I say 39% of Maricopa residence say he is doing a good-excellent job.

There are those who dislike Mary Rose Wilcox (country supervisor). She keeps getting elected. That is the right of those that vote in the district she represents. Maybe she should be removed because a minority of people in her district don't like her.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
It's the scared old retirees that love him that keep putting him in office down there. He's a bigotted idiot who has marginalized latinos and cordoned them off and instead of working with the community to fight real crime, cordones them off out of fear of deportation so that none of them will work with the police to fight the gangs.

He runs on being tough on crime and then represents that with treating people like shyte as evidence of his toughness. And the old people eat it up and are more than willing to turn a blind eye to all the crap going on in his jail.
Click to expand...

So are you saying only old people in Maricopa county take the time to vote? What does that say to those who are younger and don't vote? (approx. 12% of the population of Maricopa country is 65+).

Have to ask why you think someone who is in the country legally or a citizen would have fear of deportation? Seems the only ones who should be in fear are the ones in the US illegally.

Yep old folks live in fear in Maricopa country. (now get off my lawn:mrgreen:)
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
It's the scared old retirees that love him that keep putting him in office down there. He's a bigotted idiot who has marginalized latinos and cordoned them off and instead of working with the community to fight real crime, cordones them off out of fear of deportation so that none of them will work with the police to fight the gangs.

He runs on being tough on crime and then represents that with treating people like shyte as evidence of his toughness. And the old people eat it up and are more than willing to turn a blind eye to all the crap going on in his jail.
Click to expand...

I wonder if anyone realizes that anyone calling someone they disagree with as a "bigot" is a fine funny self parody.
 
Aderleth said:
No it's not. Especially when they're a) not coming here in a group and b) not coming here in any military capacity. It's hard to take seriously the notion that a bunch of unarmed farm workers and would-be maids constitute a military force.

Here's a cogent discussion of the history of the term invasion as used in the constitution, and as interpreted by its framers:

The Social Contract - Is It an Invasion? -- Consitution's Invasion Clause Won't Work

An especially useful quote from the above site (which they took from a relatively recent judicial opinion on the issue):

"In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government."); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)
Click to expand...

That would be the Country of Mexico that openly makes it policy to use the US as a population pressure valve, or toilet for undesirables.
 
Somerville said:
Arpaio's justification is "profiling helps us find people who MIGHT have broken the law (because they are brown", that last bit said sotto voce

FBI profiling is used to narrow a search for a criminal offender - little bit different
Click to expand...

The only difference is in your mind.
 
Somerville said:
400+ cases of sex crimes that were not investigated is "nothing compared to a (non-existent) invasion"? For some reason, I think the failure of a government agency (MCSO) to investigate crimes against a minority group just might cause members of the afflicted minority to lose faith in the government that is supposed to be protecting them.
Click to expand...

We know how you lefties are, no-one can ever trust your numbers and manipulations against the majority.
 
Matt Foley said:
That would be the Country of Mexico that openly makes it policy to use the US as a population pressure valve, or toilet for undesirables.
Click to expand...

That's just sad. You're not even trying at this point. You attempted to make a constitutional argument. I've thoroughly disproved that argument, and now you won't even try to defend your own position. Sad.
 
Matt Foley said:
Should an invasion ever occur you'd take the invader's side.
Click to expand...

Not likely. But by all means, keep telling yourself that. It's probably a good way to avoid addressing the fact that you don't know anything about how the constitution works with respect to immigration, the fourth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, or the invasion clause.
 
Aderleth said:
Not likely. But by all means, keep telling yourself that. It's probably a good way to avoid addressing the fact that you don't know anything about how the constitution works with respect to immigration, the fourth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, or the invasion clause.
Click to expand...

This Constitution?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

racial profiling is very reasonable.

This Constitution?

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
 
mike2810 said:
I know a lot of people in AZ, and they all like him. So what is your point? If the majority of voters in Maricopa county (who vote), select a new sheriff, that is the right of the voters. Arpaio is slipping in polls, yet the last I say 39% of Maricopa residence say he is doing a good-excellent job.

There are those who dislike Mary Rose Wilcox (country supervisor). She keeps getting elected. That is the right of those that vote in the district she represents. Maybe she should be removed because a minority of people in her district don't like her.
Click to expand...

A lot of times, running for sheriff doesn't involve a real political campaign or a real challenger. The fact that he is sheriff doesn't mean anybody likes him. It more than likely means he has never had a sufficient challenger, and that's how the sheriff's office works. Usually the officers and deputies wait their turn to run for sheriff, and not challenge the sheriff out of respect, to avoid professional conflict, or to avoid being a target of negativity and hostility at work.
 
Since when does Sheriff Arpaio come under federal jurisdiction? If I was Governor Brewer I'd have my attorney general write a letter back telling Obama, that he's out of his lane.
 
Matt Foley said:
This Constitution?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

racial profiling is very reasonable.
Click to expand...

Not so much. Two of the bigger cases in Arizona in the last 20 years tend to confirm that:

"The first case, in 1997, involved a joint operation between Chandler police and U.S. Border Patrol agents that arrested 432 undocumented immigrants but also swept up hundreds of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent. Chandler paid $400,000 to settle a $35 million civil-rights lawsuit. Federal investigators concluded that Border Patrol agents had not documented basic information about the people they detained, and that they had conducted the sweep in poorer parts of the city.

In 2001, 11 motorists sued the state Department of Public Safety, accusing officers in northern Arizona of targeting minority drivers for traffic stops and searches.

The Republic writes: "The suit was dismissed, appealed and ultimately settled, with the stipulation that DPS launch a data-collection campaign that included information on every stop officers made, including the reason for the stop, characteristics of the driver and vehicle, and the stop's date, time and location. The agency later agreed to give the information to an outside team to evaluate.""

In Arizona, 2 big racial-profiling cases changed policing

Matt Foley said:
This Constitution?

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think this proves. If you're trying to argue that people in the US illegally aren't afforded Bill of Rights protections, you're wrong, and pretty much every case ever on this issue will demonstrate as much.
 
Aderleth said:
No it's not. Especially when they're a) not coming here in a group and b) not coming here in any military capacity. It's hard to take seriously the notion that a bunch of unarmed farm workers and would-be maids constitute a military force.
Click to expand...

Invasion doesn't have to only constitute armed trespassers. It also includes unarmed trespassers. Since the reagan Amnesty that's 461,538-769,230 people invading this country a year.It is still a large number of people invading the US.
 
Baralis said:
If you agree with the Sheriff's actions or not we have a real problem with illegal immigrants in AZ and I believe its citizens want something done even if those actions are not always pretty or perhaps even legal.
Click to expand...

And the perhaps not even legal is the basis of the lawsuit.

6. This Complaint sets out three categories of unlawful conduct: (1) a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unconstitutional law enforcement actions against Latinos in Maricopa County; (2) discriminatory jail practices against Latino prisoners with limited English language skills; and (3) a pattern or practice of retaliatory actions against perceived critics of MCSO activities.

7. This action is brought to enforce the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7; the Title VI implementing regulations issued by the United States Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to 42.112; and Title VI contractual assurances.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/46420125101544060757.pdf
Click to expand...
 
jamesrage said:
Invasion doesn't have to only constitute armed trespassers. It also includes unarmed trespassers. Since the reagan Amnesty that's 461,538-769,230 people invading this country a year.It is still a large number of people invading the US.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, according to the relevant precedent on the subject, and according to Madison, "invasion" as used in the invasion clause does, in fact, have to be an armed invasion by another sovereign. Did you even look at the link I provided? It spells this all out in some detail.
 
Aderleth said:
Not so much. Two of the bigger cases in Arizona in the last 20 years tend to confirm that:

"The first case, in 1997, involved a joint operation between Chandler police and U.S. Border Patrol agents that arrested 432 undocumented immigrants but also swept up hundreds of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent. Chandler paid $400,000 to settle a $35 million civil-rights lawsuit. Federal investigators concluded that Border Patrol agents had not documented basic information about the people they detained, and that they had conducted the sweep in poorer parts of the city.

In 2001, 11 motorists sued the state Department of Public Safety, accusing officers in northern Arizona of targeting minority drivers for traffic stops and searches.

The Republic writes: "The suit was dismissed, appealed and ultimately settled, with the stipulation that DPS launch a data-collection campaign that included information on every stop officers made, including the reason for the stop, characteristics of the driver and vehicle, and the stop's date, time and location. The agency later agreed to give the information to an outside team to evaluate.""

In Arizona, 2 big racial-profiling cases changed policing



I'm not sure what you think this proves. If you're trying to argue that people in the US illegally aren't afforded Bill of Rights protections, you're wrong, and pretty much every case ever on this issue will demonstrate as much.
Click to expand...

Creating the database requires the officers to profile who they stop. :lol:
 
American said:
Creating the database requires the officers to profile who they stop. :lol:
Click to expand...

Funny. (I'm assuming that was intended entirely as a joke and not an actual argument).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom