• 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!

DHS Napolitano orders Sheriff Arpaio to stop looking for illegal aliens



Actually, it doesn't depend on anything at all. It is written in black and white, in the Constitution, that all powers not expressly given to the Federal government belong to the states, and to the people.

It's quite simple, actually. No need to look for a reason to believe otherwise. It is stated to a certainty in the Constitution.


And if they are exercising one of those express powers, they have every right to step in.

The one I was thinking of was civil rights. If, for instance, the police were stopping every (or exclusively) Hispanic drivers looking for illegal activity, and stopping them based upon their complexion and nothing else, the Federal government can and should step in to stop such activity.
 
Wow, you're a ****ing idiot.

Where have I said *anything* about not appreciating the *actual* criminals he's apprehending?

Nowhere, so please simmer down the ****ing stupidity.

His methods are extremely unconstitutional and I don't agree with them.

Sheriff's deputies arrest 'New Times' owners

Case was dropped btw... nevermind the other bull**** he's doing.

So I take that as a no you can not support your claims he files trumped up charges.
 
And if they are exercising one of those express powers, they have every right to step in.

The one I was thinking of was civil rights. If, for instance, the police were stopping every (or exclusively) Hispanic drivers looking for illegal activity, and stopping them based upon their complexion and nothing else, the Federal government can and should step in to stop such activity.

And that is exactly what's happening.

I've been stopped, and quite a few of my friends have been stopped.

It's like a DUI checkpoint, except for Hispanic looking people... not drunks
 
The question is if a state has the power to enforce federal law, absent a request from the federal government to do so and/or in the face of a request by the federal government to NOT do so.

However that question is answered, the DHS director hgas NO power to order a sheriff to NOT enforce any related state laws.

Nor does anyone else in the Executive or Legislative branches, and the Supreme Court ONLY if the state laws violate the US Constitution.
 
The one I was thinking of was civil rights. If, for instance, the police were stopping every (or exclusively) Hispanic drivers looking for illegal activity, and stopping them based upon their complexion and nothing else, the Federal government can and should step in to stop such activity.
But, that's not the activity he was ordered to stop:
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has just ordered Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to stop arresting suspects based solely on the fact that they are illegal aliens.
 
Sheriff Arpaio may lose some immigrant authority

The above article is more detailed and not biased like the OP. The Sheriff has currently been operating under 287g, which gives him the authority for immigration related crimes. The ICE has drawn up a new agreement curtailing his powers somewhat. He can still process illegals that end up in his jails, but street sweeps are not longer allowed. Arpaio also can arrest illegals under state laws against human smuggling.

It would also appear that the street sweeps are racially profiled and without probable cause. Here is lawsuit in which a legal resident and a U.S. citizen were targeted under such a sweep.

Sheriff Arpaio Slapped With Another Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Arrests | The Public Record
 
Sheriff Arpaio may lose some immigrant authority

The above article is more detailed and not biased like the OP. The Sheriff has currently been operating under 287g, which gives him the authority for immigration related crimes. The ICE has drawn up a new agreement curtailing his powers somewhat. He can still process illegals that end up in his jails, but street sweeps are not longer allowed. Arpaio also can arrest illegals under state laws against human smuggling.

It would also appear that the street sweeps are racially profiled and without probable cause. Here is lawsuit in which a legal resident and a U.S. citizen were targeted under such a sweep.

Sheriff Arpaio Slapped With Another Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Arrests | The Public Record


Only one of many lawsuits that have been brought against him.
 
But, that's not the activity he was ordered to stop:
So how exactly does a police officer tell who is an illegal alien and who isn't?
 
So how exactly does a police officer tell who is an illegal alien and who isn't?
Beats me -- but arresting, not stopping, the illegals is the issue.
 
And that is exactly what's happening.

I've been stopped, and quite a few of my friends have been stopped.

It's like a DUI checkpoint, except for Hispanic looking people... not drunks

Try living in Washington state. Pushing the racial issues aside also. Here they can pull you over just to check if you are wearing a seat belt. So if they wrongfully pull you over now they can just rely on the seat-belt check law.
 
Try living in Washington state. Pushing the racial issues aside also. Here they can pull you over just to check if you are wearing a seat belt. So if they wrongfully pull you over now they can just rely on the seat-belt check law.

Yep.

It's funny how all the conservatives are for preservation of specific rights.
 
Beats me -- but arresting, not stopping, the illegals is the issue.
No, the method of determining who is and is not here illegally would be the issue. That's why he was instructed to stop.
 
No, the method of determining who is and is not here illegally would be the issue. That's why he was instructed to stop.
Not according to the story, which notes "arresting" not "stopping".
The "arresting" necessarily comes -after- the stop and the determination.
 
Not according to the story, which notes "arresting" not "stopping".
The "arresting" necessarily comes -after- the stop and the determination.
Are you referring to rathi's story?
 
CNN has some better information available. Apparently DHS is not ordering him not to enforce laws. There was an agreement between DHS and Arpaio that Arpaio would enforce federal immigration law as a delagation of DHS's authority. DHS is now terminating that agreement.

Source [CNN | Tough sheriff's immigration duties face limits after complaints]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff's department have had an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security since 2007 that allows his department to enforce federal immigration laws. But Arpaio says the federal agency is moving to revise the agreement to limit that power to checking the immigration status of inmates already in his Phoenix jail.

That distinction has direct impact on a lot of the posts in this thread - mine included. Given the situation, I have no problem with DHS or Nopolitano's actions
 
If his stops were handled like a DUI checkpoint where every car or every third car was stopped and drivers license, registration and insurance were checked, he would have probable cause to check the immigration status of all who could not provide those documents that are required by state and federal laws.

Anyone have a problem with this style of check since it is not based on race but on required documents that we all must carry with us when we drive?
 
How exactly does one conduct a "street patrol" looking for illegal immigrants?
Given Arpaio's other publicity seeking and highly unethical behavior, I am not exactly trusting of his actions. However, I don't like the Homeland Security getting involved either. Arpaio is a local problem that should be dealt with using local power.

Perhaps he isn't a local problem at all...
 
Sure does.

I attribute it to "stupid old people", and note that the problem will eventually solve itself.

:rofl

I laughed at that real good...
 
The executive branch is under no obligation to enforce any law it doesn't feel like enforcing.
actually, isn't that exactly what the Presidents job is?
Basically anyone locally who's disagreed with Arpaio has had some charges trumped up on them... and been attacked.

you posted 2 articles
what LEO in charge does not have numerous claims filed.
you have proved jack ****
 
If his stops were handled like a DUI checkpoint where every car or every third car was stopped and drivers license, registration and insurance were checked, he would have probable cause to check the immigration status of all who could not provide those documents that are required by state and federal laws.

Anyone have a problem with this style of check since it is not based on race but on required documents that we all must carry with us when we drive?
What do you carry with you to prove your citizenship?
 
actually, isn't that exactly what the Presidents job is?

Yes, the executive branch is in charge of enforcing the law. Each president's method of enforcement differs slightly, including which laws are the highest priority and which won't be enforced at all.
 
If his stops were handled like a DUI checkpoint where every car or every third car was stopped and drivers license, registration and insurance were checked, he would have probable cause to check the immigration status of all who could not provide those documents that are required by state and federal laws.

Anyone have a problem with this style of check since it is not based on race but on required documents that we all must carry with us when we drive?

That would be unconstitutional. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz established that sobriety checkpoints do violate the 4th, but allowed them, claiming that public safety from DUI prevention was more important. With no public safety at stake, stopping cars and checking ID without cause would not be legal.
 
What do you carry with you to prove your citizenship?

I don't carry anything to prove my citizenship. But I do carry the documents to legally drive in this country. If I were to go through a DUI type checkpoint, (we have them regularly around here) and could not produce those documents, then I could, upon request, provide a valid birth certificate, passport, etc.

My point was that if you are caught for some other infraction, like driving without license and insurance, then it gives the LEO opening to also check immigration status.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom