• 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!

Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces an April 14 deadline for concluding talks with the U.S. Justice Department to settle a wide range of civil rights allegations, including that the sheriff launched some immigration patrols based on letters from people who complained about people with dark skin congregating in a given area or speaking Spanish but never reporting an actual crime. The sheriff has become nationally known for his tough stance against illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

If Arpaio fails to settle the cases, he is going to be dragged into court in a pretty massive lawsuit. But I believe he will settle the cases before it gets that far. First of all, I like his tough stances against illegal immigration, but enforcement has to be done according to the Constitution. You cannot go after someone just because he looks "Mexican" or just because he speaks Spanish. That is profiling, which is illegal. However, if he goes about what he is doing lawfully, then I have no gripe at all with him. We need tough cops on our borders who will stop the inflow of illegal aliens. If Arpaio does that, and does it according to the law, then I will support what he is doing. This is the road I believe that he is going to take, and if he takes this road, he will not only still be America's toughest sheriff, but he will be a Constitutional one as well, which must be the bottom line, here in America. And as far as his actually rounding up illegal aliens, the Federal government needs to just butt out and let him do his job, which is to enforce the law. It may be a Federal law, but EVERYBODY must abide by it, which means that Federal agents don't have a monopoly on enforcement. They can still ensure that it is done Constitutionally, with no rights being violated, but if Sheriff Joe wants to "round them up", then he is in the right, and unless there is an issue of civil rights being violated, then the Feds have no right to stop him.

Article is here.
 
Matt Foley said:
Really? Where is racial profiling prohibited in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Well, according to the fourth amendment:

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.
Click to expand...

How can a person be secure in their persons, houses, papes and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures if these things are done solely on racial profiling?

Also the 14th amendment which says all people in the jurisdiction of the US have the right to equal protection under the law. Racial profiling does not give equal protection under the law for those in the jurisdiction of the US.
 
Peter King said:
Well, according to the fourth amendment:



How can a person be secure in their persons, houses, papes and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures if these things are done solely on racial profiling?

Also the 14th amendment which says all people in the jurisdiction of the US have the right to equal protection under the law. Racial profiling does not give equal protection under the law for those in the jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...
You seem to be presuming what "unreasonable" means. If a inordinate amount of crime is committed by people of certain identifiable characteristics. is it then "unreasonable" for the police to focus on them?

"Unreasonable" is clearly a relative term open to interpretation and that interpretation is in the realm of SCOTUS.
 
Matt Foley said:
Really? Where is racial profiling prohibited in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

4th Amendment

"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."
 
Meathead said:
You seem to be presuming what "unreasonable" means. If a inordinate amount of crime is committed by people of certain identifiable characteristics. is it then "unreasonable" for the police to focus on them?

"Unreasonable" is clearly a relative term open to interpretation and that interpretation is in the realm of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Are you really a libertarian?
 
Meathead said:
You seem to be presuming what "unreasonable" means. If a inordinate amount of crime is committed by people of certain identifiable characteristics. is it then "unreasonable" for the police to focus on them?

"Unreasonable" is clearly a relative term open to interpretation and that interpretation is in the realm of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do presume what unreasonable means. It means that with no justification someone is being stopped and searched. Now if he commits a traffic violation than this goes out the window. The police is under those circumstances given a wide berth to search and stop. But if I am walking home from my job from work and I speak spanish to a co-worker there is no reasonable reason to stop and search me purely because of the language I spoke.

What's next, staking out a school for people learning english to flush out the illegals?
 
Peter King said:
Yes, I do presume what unreasonable means. It means that with no justification someone is being stopped and searched. Now if he commits a traffic violation than this goes out the window. The police is under those circumstances given a wide berth to search and stop. But if I am walking home from my job from work and I speak spanish to a co-worker there is no reasonable reason to stop and search me purely because of the language I spoke.

What's next, staking out a school for people learning english to flush out the illegals?
Click to expand...
The legal definition of "unreasonable" is not yours a assume. However, I think most would agree that simple the speaking of any foreign language would not be reasonable. What is reasonable and is not is something which should be dictated by common sense, rather than some application of self-righteous or moral principle which is far more subjective. While walking down a street, people have a mechanism which is imbedded in the instinct of survival which observes and analyzes every animate object that we pass. Those actions of a "reasonable" person should apply rather than the politically correct who assume themselves to be the arbitrators of morality.
 
Last edited:
Meathead said:
The legal definition of "unreasonable" is not yours a assume. However, I think most would agree that simple the speaking of any foreign language would not be reasonable. What is reasonable and is not is something which should be dictated by common sense, rather than some application of self-righteous or moral principle which is far more subjective. While walking down a street, people have a mechanism which is imbedded in the instinct of survival which observes and analyzes every animate object that we pass. Those actions of a "reasonable" person should apply rather than the politically correct who assume themselves to be the arbitrators of morality.
Click to expand...

but that was the whole issue here, men were targeted by immigration patrols because of the color of their skin or the fact that they spoke spanish, and that IMHO is very unreasonable if there is not even any suspicion of a crime.

the sheriff launched some immigration patrols based on letters from people who complained about people with dark skin congregating in a given area or speaking Spanish but never reporting an actual crime.
Click to expand...

That is according to me racial profiling and that is (at least according to me) prohibited by the constitution.
 
Meathead said:
The legal definition of "unreasonable" is not yours a assume. However, I think most would agree that simple the speaking of any foreign language would not be reasonable. What is reasonable and is not is something which should be dictated by common sense, rather than some application of self-righteous or moral principle which is far more subjective. While walking down a street, people have a mechanism which is imbedded in the instinct of survival which observes and analyzes every animate object that we pass. Those actions of a "reasonable" person should apply rather than the politically correct who assume themselves to be the arbitrators of morality.
Click to expand...

Does being anti-politically correct make you an arbitrator of morality?

1. Arizona law forbids racial profiling.
2. Federal law forbids racial profiling.
3. Supreme Court precedent forbids racial profiling.
4. The Constitution forbids racial profiling.

It is against the law. I find it strange that people who are so concerned about the legality of illegal aliens are so willing to overlook the legality of racial profiling. There is nothing that makes it legal.
 
If illegal aliens are known to congregate in certain areas, as roadsides waiting to be hired out as day laborers, it would be very reasonable to assume that a number of those doing so are here illegally and have therefore broken the law. It would not be unreasonable to verify by asking for identification or other documentation. If you think that immigration officials should monitor employees of a federal building or a law firm as often as they do the restaurant kitchens or farm fields in an effort to round up illegal aliens in the spirit or morality or political correctness, then we most decidedly disagree.
 
CriticalThought said:
Does being anti-politically correct make you an arbitrator of morality?

1. Arizona law forbids racial profiling.
2. Federal law forbids racial profiling.
3. Supreme Court precedent forbids racial profiling.
4. The Constitution forbids racial profiling.

It is against the law. I find it strange that people who are so concerned about the legality of illegal aliens are so willing to overlook the legality of racial profiling. There is nothing that makes it legal.
Click to expand...
I am certainly not moralizing, I am discussing the term "unreasonable" which I believe should not be subject to arguments of morality. "Unreasonable" is simply not tantamount to "immoral", as I see it anyway.
 
Meathead said:
I am certainly not moralizing, I am discussing the term "unreasonable" which I believe should not be subject to arguments of morality. "Unreasonable" is simply not tantamount to "immoral", as I see it anyway.
Click to expand...

Relying alone on a person's appearance is not reasonable grounds to develop a suspicion that someone is here unlawfully. I don't know what that has to do with morality. It is common sense.
 
CriticalThought said:
Relying alone on a person's appearance is not reasonable grounds to develop a suspicion that someone is here unlawfully. I don't know what that has to do with morality. It is common sense.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you on that one, appearance alone must never be grounds for police involvement.
 
Peter King said:
How can a person be secure in their persons, houses, papes and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures if these things are done solely on racial profiling?
Click to expand...

Racial profiling is reasonable.

Also the 14th amendment which says all people in the jurisdiction of the US have the right to equal protection under the law. Racial profiling does not give equal protection under the law for those in the jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...

That's nice but you get rid of profiling and nobody will have any "protection under the law".
 
Peter King said:
I have to agree with you on that one, appearance alone must never be grounds for police involvement.
Click to expand...

Appearance alone is sometimes the only "grounds for police involvement."

lineup-big%282%29.jpg


Political Correctness has got you all chasing your own tail.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
1. Arizona law forbids racial profiling.
2. Federal law forbids racial profiling.
3. Supreme Court precedent forbids racial profiling.
4. The Constitution forbids racial profiling.
Click to expand...

1. Arizona is bankrupt
2. Feds are bankrupt
3. Supreme Court is morally bankrupt
4. Constitution says nothing of the sort
 
Matt Foley said:
The Constitution is for American citizens not foreign nationals.
Click to expand...

and you can see that by their appearance? Or do only illegal immigrants want to learn better english?
 
"The Constitution was written by a bunch of slave owning crackers!"

"The Constitution forbids racial profiling!"

*scratches head*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom