Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Explain this to me then . While Arpaio was convicted for refusing to stop detaining known illegals who hadn't committed a crime, the feds can do this very same thing. You can be a lawful abiding illegal, and if your workplace is raided the feds can detain you. How would their rights be violated in that case, and then how is Arpaio violating their rights for doing the same thing?
I suppose we should cover the easy part first, even though it has been covered many times. The Constitution specifically states that immigration is a federal enforcement issue. Only the feds can enforce it.
Second, not even the feds can do what you claim. To make a raid on a place of business they have to have probable cause and present it to the courts for a warrant. They can't say, "well they look like they may be illegals so lets raid the place".
Quote:
The issue in the court order was not the rights of the illegals, but of the order given to Arpaio to stop enforcing US immigration law without authorization from US authorities.
No, federal officials can not give this authority to others.
Quote:
The rights of the illegals don't come into play . This is proven by the fact tat the feds can legally do what Arpaio did , simply because that is their jurisdiction.
"Its a big deal to those looking for anything they can find to beetch about . Normal people can see how stupid all this whining is. And no, I didn't vote for Trump".
Someone hired to enforce the law, ignoring the law is a pretty big deal.
So big it only generated a misdemeanor. Yep, GIANT!
I suppose we should cover the easy part first, even though it has been covered many times. The Constitution specifically states that immigration is a federal enforcement issue. Only the feds can enforce it.
Who has disputed this?
Quote:
Second, not even the feds can do what you claim. To make a raid on a place of business they have to have probable cause and present it to the courts for a warrant. They can't say, "well they look like they may be illegals so lets raid the place".
This would apply to the workplace, and not the individual. If you are an illegal who is caught in a workplace sting, you can be detained even though you have not committed a state crime. Stay with the topic please.
Quote:
No, federal officials can not give this authority to others.
As I explain above, they can not.
They can and did. There was a program that deputized local LEOs to act as immigration enforcement. I think it has now been discontinued, but the US can and has done this very thing. Educate yourself before posting such nonsense as is what is contained in your post.
This raises the first point of genuine controversy in the Joe Arpaio case. President Trump did not seek to justify his pardon as an act of mercy or grace. Rather, he portrayed it as reversing an injustice. At his rally in Phoenix last week, he posed a rhetorical question to a supportive crowd: “So was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job?” And in a tweet shortly after issuing the pardon, he characterized Mr. Arpaio as an “American patriot” who “kept Arizona safe.” The president disregarded the court’s finding that the sheriff was doing his job in an illegal manner and that the law specifies not only the ends of public policy but also the permissible means. Mr. Trump’s action tacitly endorses the proposition that the ends justify the means, which is a direct challenge to the rule of law.
This would apply to the workplace, and not the individual. If you are an illegal who is caught in a workplace sting, you can be detained even though you have not committed a state crime. Stay with the topic please.
There can be no sting without probable cause and a warrant. You are not suspected of committing a state crime but rather a federal one when it is a federal raid. That is their jurisdiction to enforce.
If Arpaio had suspected that a business was running drugs in violation of state law, presented evidence, got a warrant, he could arrest everyone there and then demand I.D.
Quote:
They can and did. There was a program that deputized local LEOs to act as immigration enforcement. I think it has now been discontinued, but the US can and has done this very thing. Educate yourself before posting such nonsense as is what is contained in your post.
They can make people a federal law enforcement official. They can not simply pass off their responsibility to others.
There can be no sting without probable cause and a warrant. You are not suspected of committing a state crime but rather a federal one when it is a federal raid. That is their jurisdiction to enforce.
If Arpaio had suspected that a business was running drugs in violation of state law, presented evidence, got a warrant, he could arrest everyone there and then demand I.D.
You are, in classic pknopp fashion, try to dance and dodge and slightly change the point when you face evidence you cant refute. The issue is the supposed rights of an illegal. The judge told Arpaio not to arrest illegals who hadn't committed crimes. The feds CAN arrest illegals who have not committed any crime other than illegal entry into the US. Therefore, the issue is not Arpaio violating an illegals rights, as the feds act exactly as Arpaio did when finding an illegal. The issue with Arpaio was the judge ordering him not to enforce fed immigration law. It had zero to do with an illegals supposed constitutional rights.
Quote:
They can make people a federal law enforcement official. They can not simply pass off their responsibility to others.
Who said they did? You continue to rebut imaginary things no one has said. What has been said is that the feds have in the past deputized local LEO agencies to act as immigration enforcement.
You are, in classic pknopp fashion, try to dance and dodge and slightly change the point when you face evidence you cant refute. The issue is the supposed rights of an illegal. The judge told Arpaio not to arrest illegals who hadn't committed crimes. The feds CAN arrest illegals who have not committed any crime other than illegal entry into the US. Therefore, the issue is not Arpaio violating an illegals rights, as the feds act exactly as Arpaio did when finding an illegal. The issue with Arpaio was the judge ordering him not to enforce fed immigration law. It had zero to do with an illegals supposed constitutional rights.
A federal official can not walk up to someone and say they look illegal and ask for identification either. They must have been caught doing something else first.
Can we stop pretending that violating people's 4th Amendment rights is a minor issue? Can we get some libertarians in here? I know they get it.
A big problem on both sides of the aisle, I've noticed, is that we like to cherry pick which parts of the Constitution to support, but we should always do our best to be consistent.
Regardless of the tap dancing around on C-D, and all the claims about how people were pardoned for far worse things by previous presidents, the federal court told Arpaio to cease and desist.
Arpaio did not.
Federal court held him in contempt.
Trump's pardon was a huge F-U to the federal courts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
