• 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!

Arizona sheriff launches immigration sweep

America's Sheriff and the best example of a HERO lawman who follows the law and doesn't bow to the wacko left ever is out doing his job even in the face of opposition from Arizona's Governor to the White House.
Doesn't look like many people are protesting what he's doing right now. Only a few people who say he's "racially profiling hispanics". Other than that, where's the outcry? More melodrama from Councilman.
 
Actually Joe Arpaio is a moron because he's housed illegals in jail on Arizona tax dollars in order to "teach them a lesson". He should send them back across the border, not waste money trying to "rehabilitate them".

Isn't Arizona a border state, so how is sending them home so they can come right back across a porous border a punishment or even a deterrent. Proving a free bus ticket hardly sounds like a deterrent.Maybe if Arizona was near the Canadian border sending them home might be some inconvenience.
 
Sheriff Joe has raided business and arrested owners the last few years that hired illegals. He got flack for that also.

Is there any articles of Joe Arrested these people?
 
Isn't Arizona a border state, so how is sending them home so they can come right back across a porous border a punishment or even a deterrent. Proving a free bus ticket hardly sounds like a deterrent.Maybe if Arizona was near the Canadian border sending them home might be some inconvenience.
They won't be in jail forever, so once they're released they still might just come back. Personally I think that's a waste of tax dollars but to each his own.
 
They won't be in jail forever, so once they're released they still might just come back. Personally I think that's a waste of tax dollars but to each his own.

For the first offense they can be put in jail up to six months and repeat offenders up to two years in prison. So I do not think illegals would look at getting caught only as a free ticket home.
 
Is there any articles of Joe Arrested these people?

Press release from MCSO

http://www.mcso.org/include/pr_pdf/Royal%20Paper%20Release.pdf

"Today’s raid marks the 23rd investigation of local businesses knowingly hiring illegal aliens that has been conducted by the Sheriff’s Office since 2008. Of those investigations, nearly 50% of the businesses involved have been located inside the city of Phoenix."

MCSO during these investigations will also arrest the illegal employee. Many of them on ID theft charges.
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting the number of self proclaimed Liberals and closet Liberals that hide behind other names that don't care about violations of our laws, and it's not limited just to illegal aliens either.

Of course they scream bloody murder when ever someone who is not one of them does anything remotely wrong but when it's and illegal or a Barney Frank they give them a pass or pretend nothing happened.

But here in this forum the preferred method is to cast aspersions on others because they lack the intelligence or intellectual knowledge to post a cogent response based on a well thought out logical argument.

And in answer to the idea that Sheriff Joe has only a few protesters read the AZ news papers or watch Phoenix TV. They bash hell out of him all the damn time. I lived in and was involved with AZ politics prior to returning to the Granola State I've seen it up close.
 
I find it interesting the number of self proclaimed Liberals and closet Liberals that hide behind other names that don't care about violations of our laws, and it's not limited just to illegal aliens either.

Of course they scream bloody murder when ever someone who is not one of them does anything remotely wrong but when it's and illegal or a Barney Frank they give them a pass or pretend nothing happened.

But here in this forum the preferred method is to cast aspersions on others because they lack the intelligence or intellectual knowledge to post a cogent response based on a well thought out logical argument.

And in answer to the idea that Sheriff Joe has only a few protesters read the AZ news papers or watch Phoenix TV. They bash hell out of him all the damn time. I lived in and was involved with AZ politics prior to returning to the Granola State I've seen it up close.

They just don't care who the illegals hurt either in wages or crime not to mention our laws. Its that simple.
 
Litigation is a horrible reason to ignore the law.Should we be leniant on child molesters or not arrest them at all if NAMBLA and NAMGLA started suing left and right every time a child molester was locked up?
If Arpaio was rounding up child molesters, he'd be celebrated as the conquering hero. But since it's political votes for the left, he's a scumbag.
 
Of course not. That would be like saying that all whites look alike.



No one will detain an actual Spaniard, as Spaniards are white. They will detain plenty of migrant laborers, as a substantial number are Mexican and the majority of the Mexicans are some type of Mesoamerican Indian or mestizo related to various Nahua groups. A few are our brethren of the Southwestern Indian cultural category, but the white presence increases in northern Mexico, so they're not as prevalent.

It's objectionable for the oldest residents of the Southwest to be detained and harassed by law enforcement because they resemble their brethren and cousins in Mexico or Central America. And even appeasing your nationalism, it's objectionable for mestizo U.S. citizens to be detained and harassed by law enforcement because of that physical resemblance. AP IMPACT: Citizens held as illegal immigrants



Now, you want the United States to be a white nationalist haven. There's no precedent for that, since the territory and resources of the Americas were unjustly acquired from the indigenous inhabitants if we want to play that game. Personally, I don't. I'm color-blind.

Being asked to show your ID by LEO is CONTACT, not DETAINMENT......;)
Once again, any LEO that CONTACTS me will get to see my vaid ID.....
The 'hero' of your story, initiated CONTACT by trespassing & stealing a car, he was then DETAINED.....;)
Do I think that what happened to him after that contact was unjust?....
YES, I do.......
But mistakes can & will be made.....
*Note: Local law enforcement doesn't deport anyone, that task is for federal authorities........;)
 
I find it interesting the number of self proclaimed Liberals and closet Liberals that hide behind other names that don't care about violations of our laws, and it's not limited just to illegal aliens either.

This is a false dichotomy. I'm very hard on crime, personally. However, having worked in the field, I understand how important it is for law enforcement officers to support and uphold constitutional rights. The goal of arresting bad guys does not justify undermining the constitution. Solid police work can be performed without violating the bill of rights. Law enforcement officers are public servants. I expect them to be held to professional standards, as I am. I also expect that those who are entrusted with public funds will use them wisely and not waste them on publicity stunts that generate expensive lawsuits whose end result is removing officers from the streets.

But here in this forum the preferred method is to cast aspersions on others because they lack the intelligence or intellectual knowledge to post a cogent response based on a well thought out logical argument.

It's hard to be tolerant of blatant stupidity, particularly when key posters brag about it as if it's a badge of honor.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting the number of self proclaimed Liberals and closet Liberals that hide behind other names that don't care about violations of our laws, and it's not limited just to illegal aliens either.

Of course they scream bloody murder when ever someone who is not one of them does anything remotely wrong but when it's and illegal or a Barney Frank they give them a pass or pretend nothing happened.

But here in this forum the preferred method is to cast aspersions on others because they lack the intelligence or intellectual knowledge to post a cogent response based on a well thought out logical argument.

And in answer to the idea that Sheriff Joe has only a few protesters read the AZ news papers or watch Phoenix TV. They bash hell out of him all the damn time. I lived in and was involved with AZ politics prior to returning to the Granola State I've seen it up close.

Give me an example of liberals who hide behind other names. What are you saying?

BTW your post was very well thought out and you are sooooooooo intelligent that I cringe in your very presence.:roll:
 
Stuff this in your liberal bongs, and smoke it! The State is being forced to perform the Constitutional Duties of the Federal Government.

"Arizona Law Promises to Be 'Toughest' on Illegal Immigration"

I guess that all of the seeming eruditeness in this post was not enough to disuade all the people of Arizona who back Joe to the max.

Arizona State Law Promises To Be 'Toughest' on Illegal Immigration - ABC News
 
Last edited:
Stuff this in your liberal bongs, and smoke it! The State is being forced to perform the Constitutional Duties of the Federal Government.

"Arizona Law Promises to Be 'Toughest' on Illegal Immigration"

I guess that all of the seeming eruditeness in this post was not enough to disuade all the people of Arizona who back Joe to the max.

Arizona State Law Promises To Be 'Toughest' on Illegal Immigration - ABC News

About time for this legislation.....;)
Actually way overdue.....;)
 
Stuff this in your liberal bongs, and smoke it! The State is being forced to perform the Constitutional Duties of the Federal Government.

Where in the constitution are there any statements describing the duties of the Federal government regarding immigration? Please cite that reference, I can't seem to find it.

And don't bother with the Article IV, section 4 line of bull****. The "invader" line in that refers specifically to those who enter by force for the purposes of conquering and pillaging. As in a military force.

Not foreign immigrants.

The states themselves are the only one's in charge of keeping non-military foreigners off of their soil.

This is backed up by the statements of Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

That's the only reason why Arizona can pass such legislation in the first place.

I guess that all of the seeming eruditeness in this post was not enough to disuade all the people of Arizona who back Joe to the max.

Considering that was not the purpose of the "seeming" eruditeness in my posts, I'm not at all surprised that it didn't do something other than what was intended.

Frankly, I would be surprised if it had any affect on the legislation.



But lets get right down to it: It seems to me that all Arizona is doing is exercising it's right to pass immigration legislation.

Why should I care if Arizona exercises it's right to pass immigration legislation, even if I disagree with it?

Are you one of those liberals who believes the power should be taken form the states and given to the feds even though there are no Federal duties regarding immigration outlined in the constitution?

There are lots of so-called conservatives who are actually liberals like that. Always trying to reinterpret the constitution to mean something other than the expressly delegated responsibilities the Federal government has. Including issues like Immigration, which should be the sole responsibilities of the States.

The main problems I have with the legislation and practices are moral in nature, not legal (although my guess is that there will be a supreme court battle over the detainment on suspicion of illegal immigration, personally, I don't give a **** about that legal/illegal aspect of the debate)

I just like to point out that most anti-illegal immigrant "conservatives" are usually entirely liberal on this issue. Here's why:

1. They feel entitled to have something they didn't even earn in most cases.
2. They want to take it away form people who did do something to earn it.
3. They want to reinterpret the constitution to mean something it doesn't in order to extend more authority to the federal government and take that authority from the states


My stances on the issue (which you consistently, and incorrectly label as "liberal"

1. People who didn't earn the right to be should not feel "entitled" to it. they should look a tit as a gift.
2. Those who have earned that right should not have it taken away by those who haven't.
3. Illegal immigration legislation should be the sole purview of the States. I may disagree with the legislation made in other states, but it is there right to pass such legislation.

Now, put that in your liberal bong and smoke it. ;)
 
Last edited:
.....And don't bother with the Article IV, section 4 line of bull****. The "invader" line in that refers specifically to those who enter by force for the purposes of conquering and pillaging. As in a military force......

Hmmmm? I don't see where that section defines invaders as those who enter by force while conquering us and pillaging us.:confused:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

According to Dictionary.com, one of the several definitions of 'invasion' is this:

"infringement by intrusion."
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm? I don't see where that section defines invaders as those who enter by force while conquering us and pillaging us.:confused:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

Could the foothold of Mexican drug gangs be considered a clear & present danger & a harbinger of domestic violence?......:confused:
 
Where in the constitution are there any statements describing the duties of the Federal government regarding immigration? Please cite that reference, I can't seem to find it.

And don't bother with the Article IV, section 4 line of bull****. The "invader" line in that refers specifically to those who enter by force for the purposes of conquering and pillaging. As in a military force.

Not foreign immigrants.

The states themselves are the only one's in charge of keeping non-military foreigners off of their soil.

This is backed up by the statements of Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:



That's the only reason why Arizona can pass such legislation in the first place.



Considering that was not the purpose of the "seeming" eruditeness in my posts, I'm not at all surprised that it didn't do something other than what was intended.

Frankly, I would be surprised if it had any affect on the legislation.



But lets get right down to it: It seems to me that all Arizona is doing is exercising it's right to pass immigration legislation.

Why should I care if Arizona exercises it's right to pass immigration legislation, even if I disagree with it?

Are you one of those liberals who believes the power should be taken form the states and given to the feds even though there are no Federal duties regarding immigration outlined in the constitution?

There are lots of so-called conservatives who are actually liberals like that. Always trying to reinterpret the constitution to mean something other than the expressly delegated responsibilities the Federal government has. Including issues like Immigration, which should be the sole responsibilities of the States.

The main problems I have with the legislation and practices are moral in nature, not legal (although my guess is that there will be a supreme court battle over the detainment on suspicion of illegal immigration, personally, I don't give a **** about that legal/illegal aspect of the debate)

I just like to point out that most anti-illegal immigrant "conservatives" are usually entirely liberal on this issue. Here's why:

1. They feel entitled to have something they didn't even earn in most cases.
2. They want to take it away form people who did do something to earn it.
3. They want to reinterpret the constitution to mean something it doesn't in order to extend more authority to the federal government and take that authority from the states


My stances on the issue (which you consistently, and incorrectly label as "liberal"

1. People who didn't earn the right to be should not feel "entitled" to it. they should look a tit as a gift.
2. Those who have earned that right should not have it taken away by those who haven't.
3. Illegal immigration legislation should be the sole purview of the States. I may disagree with the legislation made in other states, but it is there right to pass such legislation.

Now, put that in your liberal bong and smoke it. ;)

Wow, which side of the fence are you on?
 
Wow, which side of the fence are you on?

I'm a conservative, so I think the issue is one of State's rights.

While I disagree with Arizona's Legislation, I think they are correct in passing legislation about immigration in their state, because it's not a federal issue, contrary to what liberals who don't understand the definition of "invasion" within the context of the constitution will tell you.

This is what I mean about not allowing my personal views to cause someone to jump to a totally retarded conclusion about my political leanings. I'm much more of a small-government conservative than any of the liberals who argue for a reinterpretation of the constitution to give the Federal government authority over that which is expressly retained by the states because the Federal governemnt only has authority over military matters (hence the correct definition of "invasion" I alluded to earlier, matters of interstate commerce, and diplomatic issues with foreign nations.

That is it. Only the individual State has a right to decide who is a legal resident of that state.

But these hyper-liberal anti-illegal immigration types who want the federal government to have the authority over the states are the biggest problem in this country because they dishonestly refer to themselves as "small-government" conservatives when they regularly **** on small-government conservative principles.

Personally, I will support legislation even if I don't agree with it when it upholds true small-government principles.

That's why I oppose the federal government stepping in and offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. It is not their purview.

Even though I am very much in favor of simplified immigration laws, I prefer them to be instituted by the states. I support any legislation in Illinois that makes it easier for Illegal immigrants to find amnesty here. Let other states decide if they want to bar these people at their leisure, and let the federal government keep their goddamn noses out of it.
 
Could the foothold of Mexican drug gangs be considered a clear & present danger & a harbinger of domestic violence?......:confused:

They only exist due to the hyper-liberal drug laws in this country. That should also be up to the states.
 
Hmmmm? I don't see where that section defines invaders as those who enter by force while conquering us and pillaging us.:confused:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

According to Dictionary.com, one of the several definitions of 'invasion' is this:

"infringement by intrusion."

But that is not the one that fits the context of a document that limits the federal government's authority to military, interstate and international commerce, and international diplomatic matters.

But at this point I expect hyper-liberals such as yourself to continue to argue the "living document" reinterpretation nonsense though so that you can expand the federal authority. You libs always do that, regardless if the definitions you are using make no sense in the context of the document.
 
I'm a conservative, so I think the issue is one of State's rights.


That is it. Only the individual State has a right to decide who is a legal resident of that state.

I disagree. Article IV Section. 2.

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The ninth and tenth amendments have never been fully tested in the Court. I doubt that an argument about states rights could ever be won by citing these two amendments. After all, corporations are people.

I would not mind an amendment to make supreme court justices constitutional officers instead of picked for life by the president.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Article IV Section. 2.

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The ninth and tenth amendments have never been fully tested in the Court. I doubt that an argument about states rights could ever be won by citing these two amendments. After all, corporations are people.

I would not mind an amendment to make supreme court justices constitutional officers instead of picked for life by the president.

Notice the terminology: Citizen of each state. Not Citizens of the United States.

That clearly and obviously means it is up to each State to determine who comprises their own citizens. Once they become a citizen of a state, they become a citizen of the US. NOT the other way around. That's how we started ****ing up the country. We flipped the hierarchy and gave more authority to the feds.



On top of that, I said "legal resident", not "citizen", so even though Article IV section 2 makes it obvious that it is the individual State that decides who its own citizens are, it becomes a moot point anyway when discussing legal residency.



And I point everyone to the words of Thomas Jefferson, again:

That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

"...that no power over them has been delegated to the United States."


Pretty clear statement. Now, I realize that this simple fact is obvious as all hell, given the terminology and powers delegated to the Federal government in the constitution.

The only foreigners that fall under federal authority are those from countries that are enemy nations. These would be nations such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba etc. Because that would be a military/diplomatic matter (which are matters that the Federal government does have authority over)

Not Mexico, not Poland, not Haiti, etc. Those are nations we have friendly relations with, and thus their people are classified as Friendly aliens.

Thus, they are left to the jurisdiction of the States they reside in.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom