• 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

Somerville said:
Can you provide a legal citation for the difference between "detention" and "arrest"? I do agree that holding someone in the back of a patrol car for an hour or so would be "detention". However I would hold that taking a person to a detention facility, stripping, frisking, photographing and then holding for even 24 hours would constitute an arrest.
Click to expand...

Where are you coming up with these numbers and how is it relevant to what you posted about supposedly "arresting brown people".
 
lpast said:
Doubtful Old joe will lose the election...
Click to expand...

Well he is getting "older", and I looked at the numbers, in each consecutive election he keeps losing like 5% of the vote. When he gets replaced property values are gonna plummet and taxes are gonna go up to pay for building new 5 star prisons.
 
teamosil said:
Ethnicity has all the same moral and legal protections that races do, so not sure what your point is. People use the term "racial profiling" to encompass both.
Click to expand...

Hey I like that, "Hispanic is not a race." We can rename racial profiling to facial profiling. And it rhymes too, lol.
 
teamosil said:
Actually, its more complicated than that. There are rights the constitution grants to citizens only. For example, the 14th amendment reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

Then there are rights that the constitution grants to all people, regardless of whether they are citizens or here legally or anything. For example, the 5th amendment reads "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
Click to expand...

That's nice, but a Chinese citizen cannot sue the Chinese government for depriving them of "life, liberty, or property, without due process". That's just silly talk.
 
Aderleth said:
I'm not aware of any such rights. Just like the Constitution is not exclusive to US citizens. This is a common misconception. Again: you've convinced yourself that's the case, can you back it up with anything? Anything at all? (hint: the answer is no, because it's not true)
Click to expand...

The Constitution is exclusive to US Citizens, globalist.
 
Somerville said:
Maybe you should read earlier posts before commenting?
Click to expand...

Oh, it was just a red herring because I totally destroyed your point and you had nothing else to say relevant. Ok, gotcha.
 
Matt Foley said:
That's nice, but a Chinese citizen cannot sue the Chinese government for depriving them of "life, liberty, or property, without due process". That's just silly talk.
Click to expand...

No of course not. The constitution deals with the goings on within the US and the actions of the US government no matter where it acts.
 
Originally Posted by teamosil
Actually, its more complicated than that. There are rights the constitution grants to citizens only. For example, the 14th amendment reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

Then there are rights that the constitution grants to all people, regardless of whether they are citizens or here legally or anything. For example, the 5th amendment reads "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
Click to expand...


To which we read the following reply
Matt Foley said:
That's nice, but a Chinese citizen cannot sue the Chinese government for depriving them of "life, liberty, or property, without due process". That's just silly talk.
Click to expand...


followed at 5:00 PM, also from Matt Foley
The Constitution is exclusive to US Citizens, globalist.
Click to expand...

The last comment would appear to indicate the commenter didn't actually bother to read the citation in teamosil's comment - You know - that part about "No person ..."

For some reason, I do not believe that Matt Foley is a constitutional scholar.
 
Somerville said:
For some reason, I do not believe that Matt Foley is a constitutional scholar.
Click to expand...

The really funny part is that he's currently arguing with two lawyers about who gets constitutional protections.
 
mike2810 said:
Question: How would you descibe the majority of people crossing the Mexican border into the US without permission?
Click to expand...

I know the answer to that one.

Losers.
 
Matt Foley said:
No, the Constitution deals with American citizens on American soil.
Click to expand...

No. That is incorrect. There are rights the constitution grants to citizens only. For example, the 14th amendment reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

Then there are rights that the constitution grants to all people, regardless of whether they are citizens or here legally or anything. For example, the 5th amendment reads "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Then there are things that the government is simply forbidden from doing without any consideration of who it is doing it to. For example, the 1st amendment reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".

But, putting that aside, what Arpaio is accused of doing, amongst other things, is using racial profiling. Racial profiling means deciding to target an entire race rather than just those who are here illegally. He is violating the constitutional rights of Hispanic US citizens every single day.
 
tea:
You keep saying MCSO is racial profling. Help me out here. It is a known fact that some Mexicans citizens enter the US illegally daily. It has been captured on video and shown on the news. Knowing that how would would you have law enforcement (I don't care what level local/state/fed) go about catching those individuals without racial profiling (as you call it).

It is also known there are portions of Maricopa county that are hispanic communities. It is known that some illegal aliens live in those communites. How should ICE or any LE go about apprehending the illegal alien.

It seems to be a matter of symantics to say racial profiling vs broad suspect profiling. Please don't sidetrack by responding LE has more important activities to carry out. MCSO is not the only LE agency within the county.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
tea:
You keep saying MCSO is racial profling. Help me out here. It is a known fact that some Mexicans citizens enter the US illegally daily. It has been captured on video and shown on the news. Knowing that how would would you have law enforcement (I don't care what level local/state/fed) go about catching those individuals without racial profiling (as you call it).

It is also known there are portions of Maricopa county that are hispanic communities. It is known that some illegal aliens live in those communites. How should ICE or any LE go about apprehending the illegal alien.

It seems to be a matter of symantics to say racial profiling vs broad suspect profiling. Please don't sidetrack by responding LE has more important activities to carry out. MCSO is not the only LE agency within the county.
Click to expand...

Consider the example I gave earlier about drunk driving. Bigger problem than illegal immigration obviously, and the percentages of people committing it that are white/non-hispanic are about the same (slightly higher) than the percentages of illegal immigrants that are hispanic. Should we start having the police just arrest every white person they see driving and haul them down to the police station for a blood test? How about if that test sometimes took 3 days and some white US citizens were being held that way 3-4 times per year? Would that be something you would support?

In this country we just plain don't believe in punishing people for things other people did just because they have the same color of skin. Period. It is morally wrong and unconstitutional.
 
teamosil said:
Consider the example I gave earlier about drunk driving. Bigger problem than illegal immigration obviously, and the percentages of people committing it that are white/non-hispanic are about the same (slightly higher) than the percentages of illegal immigrants that are hispanic. Should we start having the police just arrest every white person they see driving and haul them down to the police station for a blood test? How about if that test sometimes took 3 days and some white US citizens were being held that way 3-4 times per year? Would that be something you would support?

In this country we just plain don't believe in punishing people for things other people did just because they have the same color of skin. Period. It is morally wrong and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Only difference is that Americans have American rights and privileges, foreign nationals do not.
 
teamosil said:
No. That is incorrect. There are rights the constitution grants to citizens only. For example, the 14th amendment reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

Then there are rights that the constitution grants to all people, regardless of whether they are citizens or here legally or anything. For example, the 5th amendment reads "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Then there are things that the government is simply forbidden from doing without any consideration of who it is doing it to. For example, the 1st amendment reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
Click to expand...

Oh brother, not that lame-ass lawyer-trick argument again. Do you know how long the Constitution would have to be if "citizens of the United States" replaced every instance of "person"?

You realize the English languages utilizes nouns and pronouns for brevity, yeaaaaaaah.

Foreign nationals have ZERO rights, if they are ever extended it's through the pleasure of of the government through laws and acts, not fundamental by way of the Constitution.

But, putting that aside, what Arpaio is accused of doing, amongst other things, is using racial profiling. Racial profiling means deciding to target an entire race rather than just those who are here illegally. He is violating the constitutional rights of Hispanic US citizens every single day.
Click to expand...

Fine, put that aside. That's the only ****ing leg you got to stand on, which is why I'm not going to talk about it. :)
 
Last edited:
Matt Foley said:
Oh brother, not that lame-ass lawyer-trick argument again. Do you know how long the Constitution would have to be if "citizens of the United States" replaced every instance of "person"?

You realize the English languages utilizes nouns and pronouns for brevity, yeaaaaaaah.

Foreign nationals have ZERO rights, if they are ever extended it's through the pleasure of of the government through laws and acts, not fundamental by way of the Constitution.

Fine, put that aside. That's the only ****ing leg you got to stand on, which is why I'm not going to talk about it. :)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what to tell you buddy. You're just flat out wrong. That isn't what the constitution says and that isn't what the courts have ever said. That isn't some debatable point. Nobody that knows anything about the law would disagree with what I am explaining to you whether they are conservative or liberal or anything else.
 
teamosil said:
Consider the example I gave earlier about drunk driving. Bigger problem than illegal immigration obviously, and the percentages of people committing it that are white/non-hispanic are about the same (slightly higher) than the percentages of illegal immigrants that are hispanic. Should we start having the police just arrest every white person they see driving and haul them down to the police station for a blood test? How about if that test sometimes took 3 days and some white US citizens were being held that way 3-4 times per year? Would that be something you would support?

In this country we just plain don't believe in punishing people for things other people did just because they have the same color of skin. Period. It is morally wrong and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Not what I was hoping for in a response. More questions and no explanation on how LE should address the illegal alien issue.
Your last sentence guess says it all. What I read into it is ignore the issue. If so, we will disagree. There are ways for LE to enforce immigration laws without violating citizens and legal alien rights. I was looking for your opinion on how you see LE carrying that out.
 
mike2810 said:
Not what I was hoping for in a response
Click to expand...

Same except I asked my question first and have been waiting for an answer for longer! :)

mike2810 said:
More questions and no explanation on how LE should address the illegal alien issue.
Click to expand...

Ok, well, I'll answer, but on the condition that you answer my question too.

By far the most realistic way to go after illegal immigration without doing tons of collateral damage is to go after employers. Racial profiling means harming US citizens, severely, just because of the color of their skin. Carding the parents of school children means creating a permanent underclass of US citizens kids who can't go to school. An enforcement focused strategy means spending absurd amounts of money losing the war like with the drug war. It also means a whole class of people who don't feel that they can report crimes to the police which creates massive hurdles to law enforcement. Etc. But going after employers doesn't have those impacts. It is cheap, it doesn't undermine law and order, it doesn't have as serious of impacts on the next generation, etc. But, there is a catch. If we just suddenly rolled out a system nationwide that effectively made it impossible for any company to hire an illegal immigrant we would collapse the economy overnight. Literally tens of thousands of businesses would immediately be unable to operate at a profit. Entire industries like fruit would shut down and hundreds of thousands or even millions of US citizens would lose their jobs in the crash. That really is not an exaggeration. There are hundreds of studies on it. All policy makers know that. That is why even Republican governors and mayors in deeply Republican jurisdictions never actually pull the trigger on something like that. They campaign about it because their base like the sound of it, but they never actually do it. That's why- because they know if would collapse their economy.

So, before we can actually shut off the employment we need something to fill in the gap. A real guest worker program. Much larger than what we have now and much more focused on manual labor. Those are the jobs that we are leaving behind as we progress economically. We want citizens doing information economy jobs, but the manual labor still needs to get done. That is the niche a guest worker program should be filling. But, any attempt to do that gets killed immediately by the kneejerk reaction of the right. Somebody calls it "amnesty" and it becomes too politically toxic to go near. So, we're caught in this catch-22. The aggressiveness with which the the right is demanding that we solve the illegal immigration problem is preventing us from solving the illegal immigration problem. What we need is for the right to calm itself down. It needs to take a realistic, practical, look at the issue and get on board with reform. Until that happens, we're stuck with the status quo and people like Arpaio just make the status quo worse by blowing money on ineffective, pointless, tormenting of people, including US citizens.
 
teamosil said:
Consider the example I gave earlier about drunk driving. Bigger problem than illegal immigration obviously, and the percentages of people committing it that are white/non-hispanic are about the same (slightly higher) than the percentages of illegal immigrants that are hispanic. Should we start having the police just arrest every white person they see driving and haul them down to the police station for a blood test? How about if that test sometimes took 3 days and some white US citizens were being held that way 3-4 times per year? Would that be something you would support?

In this country we just plain don't believe in punishing people for things other people did just because they have the same color of skin. Period. It is morally wrong and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

No. LE without resonalble suspiction should not haul in everyone for a blood test for drunk driving. I also think that is an apple/orange example.

Are you a lawyer? If so, it explains how you answer and the questions you pose. MCSO is being sued. Does that mean they are guilty, just because DOJ filed the suit? Seems to me they deserve their day in court. Innocent till proven guilty in a court of law.

I also don't agree with you 100% on how you think MCSO sweeps are being conducted.

I will agree with you on going after more on the employers of illegal aliens. That is what MCSO has done in many cases. They also then arrest individuals suspected of ID theft or being here illegally. The arrest are done with cause. Guess it will be interesting once the SC rules on SB1070 and State rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom