• 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

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

So what, who cares what unreasonable judges think.


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.

It means that illegals aren't subject to any juristiction, they are outside the law.
 
So what, who cares what unreasonable judges think.

Right. So... you've got nothing. Thanks for playing. Try again when you can back up your assertion with precedent.



It means that illegals aren't subject to any juristiction, they are outside the law.

So I was right. You are making the entirely specious argument that people entering the country illegally aren't entitled to the protections of the Constitution. I'm assuming you can back this up with actual evidence? Caselaw, perhaps?
 
Right. So... you've got nothing. Thanks for playing. Try again when you can back up your assertion with precedent.

Wow, you're unreasonable too. All globalists are unreasonable.




So I was right. You are making the entirely specious argument that people entering the country illegally aren't entitled to the protections of the Constitution. I'm assuming you can back this up with actual evidence? Caselaw, perhaps?

The American Constitution is for American citizens.

What you globalist propose is as lame as some Chinese citizen suing the Chinese government for violating their Right to Bear Arms cause it's in the US Constitution.
 
Wow, you're unreasonable too. All globalists are unreasonable.

I imagine calling me a globalist (whatever the hell that is) is a slur from your perspective, so... shame on you for insulting me? I guess?

The American Constitution is for American citizens.

Again: Surely you have some kind of evidence to back up this claim. It cannot possibly be the case that you're just talking entirely out of your ass... right?

What you globalist propose is as lame as some Chinese citizen suing the Chinese government for violating their Right to Bear Arms cause it's in the US Constitution.

Based on that reasoning, I'm assuming that you also believe a US citizen in China is subject exclusively to US law?
 
I imagine calling me a globalist (whatever the hell that is) is a slur from your perspective, so... shame on you for insulting me? I guess?

'What the hell' globalism is is open borders and free trade.



Again: Surely you have some kind of evidence to back up this claim. It cannot possibly be the case that you're just talking entirely out of your ass... right?

Based on that reasoning, I'm assuming that you also believe a US citizen in China is subject exclusively to US law?

Based on that reasoning a United States citizen cannot demand Chinese rights and privileges that are exclusive to Chinese nationals in China.
 
Perhaps you should learn to read a thread before spouting off with smart-assed remarks, eh?
Perhaps you should learn to check out your facts before posting them on the Internet. That may save you from making more smart-assed remarks in the future, eh?
 
Perhaps you should learn to check out your facts before posting them on the Internet. That may save you from making more smart-assed remarks in the future, eh?

Me making smart-assed remarks??? No, dude, it was YOU with the smart-assed remark.

I made a mistake and I owned up to it. Long after my mistake...and almost 20 posts after my correction...you come along with your smart-mouth.

As I said...try reading the thread.
 
Based on that reasoning a United States citizen cannot demand Chinese rights and privileges that are exclusive to Chinese nationals in China.

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)
 
The American Constitution is for American citizens.

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".

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.
 
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.

Question: How would you descibe the majority of people crossing the Mexican border into the US without permission? When you do is it racial profiling? I am not saying what MCSO does is correct all the time. The issue of illegal aliens from Mexico is a complex problem and not easily addressed.

imo, certain politicians and groups use the term "racial" profiling to bring about their point. Seldom do these politicians address the illegal alien problem and the issues that it presents. Nor do they give credit when LE busts a drop house and arrest the coyotes who have abused women, children and men who were brought into the US illegally by the coyote. Nor do they give recognition when LE rescues illegal aliens from the desert and provide medical treatment.

So I guess for some the solution is for MCSO to completel ignore ID theft, human smuggling, or rescue mission when it comes to illegal aliens. It is just a federal problem.:mrgreen:
 
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.

Too bad "hispanic" isn't a race.
 
Question: How would you descibe the majority of people crossing the Mexican border into the US without permission? When you do is it racial profiling?

That isn't what racial profiling means. Racial profiling means treating people like criminals just because of their race. For example, what Arpaio does is what he calls "immigration sweeps". They surround a majority Hispanic neighborhood and close in arresting every Hispanic person they see on trumped up charges. "Poorly lit license plate" is one of his favorites, but all kinds of things from "disorderly conduct" to "loitering". Every totally subjective "crime" they can just toss at anybody they like. Loitering charges for customers eating in a restaurant and whatnot. Then he announces that he suspects that all of their IDs are fake. They haul them all down to the jail in buses and lock them up in the massive holding pens he has constructed. They process them and run their information through ICE for confirmation of their citizenship status. That sometimes take several days. Then, once they figure out that they're citizens, they release them. A couple months later, they're back doing it all over again to the same neighborhood. That's what the DOJ has exhaustively documented. It isn't remotely equivalent to somebody making assumptions about what race illegal immigrants are, it is a massive orchestrated campaign to persecute Hispanics because of the color of their skin.

I am not saying what MCSO does is correct all the time. The issue of illegal aliens from Mexico is a complex problem and not easily addressed.

The argument that illegal immigration is so bad or so hard to prosecute that we need to resort to racial profiling is completely unacceptable to me. First, just because it is immoral and unconstitutional in the extreme. The harm done by racial profiling is many times greater than the harm done by illegal immigration. If we are going to just throw the constitution, and even the concept that government sponsored racial persecution is bad, out the window, you would need a massively bigger threat than illegal immigration to justify it. Second, I think everybody would agree that say drunk driving is a much more serious problem than illegal immigration, right? Over 10,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers. That is almost as many people as are murdered total in the country each year. Well, statistically whites are far, far, more likely to drive drunk than any other race. More than 85% of drunk driving incidents are committed by whites. About the same as the percentage of illegal immigrants that are Hispanic. So, if illegal immigration is a big enough problem to justify using racial profiling, why not just have the cops start pulling over every white person driving a car, hauling them down to the station, and holding them in a cell until they complete a blood test?
 
Too bad "hispanic" isn't a race.

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.
 
tea:
imo you have overblown what happens in Maricopa country.
we will agree to disagree.
 
tea:
imo you have overblown what happens in Maricopa country.
we will agree to disagree.

Well, that might have made sense before the DOJ released all its findings. Now it's all out on the table in the open. It has been thoroughly documented. They have boatloads of video tape, official records, testimony from victims and officers and bystanders, etc. It is no longer a matter for speculation, it's all been documented.
 
The "racial profiling" carried out by the MCSO has meant that some folks who have lived in the region a bit longer than Sheriff Joe have also been targeted.

April 2008
Members of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona are upset by the immigration tactics of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Tribal members in the town of Guadalupe say they are being pulled over because they look Mexican. It's part of Arpaio's effort to crack down on people who are in the U.S. illegally.

then there is Arpaio's blatant racism which has caused him to run his mouth more than once, probably some of those past words will come back to haunt him in a courtroom
March 2010
What was Arpaio's response to the news that his Kris Kobach-trained deputies has violated the civil rights of a single mother and terrorized her no end?

"That's just normal police work, " he shrugged in a news conference following the raid. "Sometimes you do have probable cause, you do take people in for questioning, and they're released."

So it's arrest 'em if they're brown first, and sort 'em out later. False arrest and imprisonment be damned.

Perhaps the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI should follow Arpaio's way of doing things. There's probable cause enough out there that Arpaio's deprived others of their civil rights and done so under the color of law.

So arrest him, and sort out the details later.

Why not? What's good for the goose should be fine for the gander, right?
 
The "racial profiling" carried out by the MCSO has meant that some folks who have lived in the region a bit longer than Sheriff Joe have also been targeted.

April 2008


then there is Arpaio's blatant racism which has caused him to run his mouth more than once, probably some of those past words will come back to haunt him in a courtroom
March 2010


Why not? What's good for the goose should be fine for the gander, right?



She wasn't arrested, she was detained for questioning. Everyone is subject to the possibility of it happening to them. Obviously it can be an upsetting experience, so can a lot of things in life. Deal with it and move on. You aren't a special snowflake.
 
She wasn't arrested, she was detained for questioning. Everyone has to deal with it. Obviously it can be an upsetting experience, so can a lot of things in life. Deal with it and move on. You aren't a special snowflake.

Nice way to play with words. Tell me, what is the difference between being "arrested" and being "detained"?
 
Nice way to play with words. Tell me, what is the difference between being "arrested" and being "detained"?

Arrested means charges are filed against you. The police can detain a person for up to 48 hours in most areas without filing charges.

Like it or not, there is a difference.
 
Doubtful Old joe will lose the election...
 
Nice way to play with words. Tell me, what is the difference between being "arrested" and being "detained"?

Detaining someone is a relatively short period of time where you are only being asked to supply some information. An arrest requires probable cause and you are actually treated like a criminal until a warrant is issue, then other things can/might happen. The police officer will also tell you if you are being detained or you are being arrested. You shouldnt worry much about being detained if you have done nothing wrong.
 
Arrested means charges are filed against you. The police can detain a person for up to 48 hours in most areas without filing charges.

Like it or not, there is a difference.


Can you provide a legal citation for these definitions? Would the definition be different in different states? If "charges are filed" and later found to be based upon a falsity, either evidential or the words of the arresting officer, would that still constitute an arrest as the "filed" charges were found to be invalid?
 
Detaining someone is a relatively short period of time

Does 'several days" constitute a "relatively short period of time"? What if you lose your job because you have been detained unjustly and can't show up for work?
 
Does 'several days" constitute a "relatively short period of time"? What if you lose your job because you have been detained unjustly and can't show up for work?

Can you provide a legal citation for these definitions? Would the definition be different in different states? If "charges are filed" and later found to be based upon a falsity, either evidential or the words of the arresting officer, would that still constitute an arrest as the "filed" charges were found to be invalid?

The definition isn't different, but the general allowable timeframe is. Most states I know allow a max of 24 hour detainment, and then you must either be let go or arrested formally. MOST detainment are fairly short -- when you are pulled over by a cop you are being detained. How long will they keep you? For as long as they need to verify your insurance/warrant search/etc. But in this case you had a ton of people who all had to be sorted out and their records verified/warrants searched for.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom