The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

I didn't think that was an argument at all, much less essential in any way. I'm simply suspicious of suspending the ethical dimension of the legal order. The judges who convicted Arpaio determined that there were justifiable reasons to prevent him from carrying out his obligations. I don't think that's an argument against enforcing immigration procedures; it's a rejection of enforcing them in a particular way.

Arpaio detained legal immigrants in 140 degree tents. Who cares if they had a broken tail light? That's not an acceptable method of law enforcement.

 

[Dak]

You have proof he detained legal immigrants in 140 tents with no charge? Doubt it (Partially because 140 degrees is maybe a 1 day extreme in some random year incorporating "REALFEEL") . Partially because I doubt he detained people who were only guilty of being illegal.

There's no evidence he was detaining people with ID for only having broken taillights.

 

[Einherjar86]

Are you saying I need the proof in my hands? I don't have it, but the findings speak volumes. Investigations have determined that he detained immigrants, many of whom were not guilty of any serious crime, if any crime at all. This is what's being reported, and I don't share your conspiratorial suspicion that all the media is somehow getting this wrong.

 

[UltimateApathy]

It's a favorite tactic of these alt-right imbeciles (including the so-called "President" himself) to call any news that they don't like, "fake news." But they'll turn around in the same sentence and link a Breitbart article, ahahahahaha. It's got all the makings of a whacky cult where the Nutcase Great Leader is the only one that is right all the time. This kind of stupidity is pathetic and disturbing.

 

[CiG]

conspiratorial

Debate over. He used the magic c word.

 

[Dak]

Are you saying I need the proof in my hands? I don't have it, but the findings speak volumes. Investigations have determined that he detained immigrants, many of whom were not guilty of any serious crime, if any crime at all. This is what's being reported, and I don't share your conspiratorial suspicion that all the media is somehow getting this wrong.

I don"t know what you're talking about, all I'm seeing is the charge/judge decision, which doesn't back up your claim, despite a specious decsion

 

[UltimateApathy]

Debate over. He used the magic c word.

"It's all a conspiracy to create fake news" - Cassette, Orange Clown, and all the other related alt-right buffoons.

 

[rms]

I don"t know what you're talking about, all I'm seeing is the charge/judge decision, which doesn't back up your claim, despite a specious decsion

Articles I read said he was the dude who said prisoners shouldn't have better living conditions than servicemen. it's not too far fetchd to think some people didn't deserve to be in those tents, at the very least

 

[Einherjar86]

Debate over. He used the magic c word.

I mean, he's admitted elsewhere he doesn't trust journalists. I'm using poetic license, but harboring a sneaking suspicion of most, if not all, journalists borders on conspiratorial thinking, I have to say.

Dak would probably prefer to call it Cathedral-ish thinking. I'm fine with that, since it doesn't necessarily equate to false reporting.

I don"t know what you're talking about, all I'm seeing is the charge/judge decision, which doesn't back up your claim, despite a specious decsion

That's all you're seeing? There have been investigations into his practices, which are why the judges demanded he stop. He continued, and so they threw the book at him. This doesn't discount or diminish the previous charges, it just means this is what they currently have legal precedent for which to go after him.

Articles I read said he was the dude who said prisoners shouldn't have better living conditions than servicemen. it's not too far fetchd to think some people didn't deserve to be in those tents, at the very least

Right, and this is just one piece of evidence in the investigation that led to judges ordering him to stop.

 

[Dak]

Show me something, anything (not even "proof", just a firsthand claim), that says Arpaio detained a legal immigrant on no charges.

 

[Einherjar86]

DECEMBER 2007 A Mexican citizen legally in the United States suedSheriff Arpaio and his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office deputies, claiming to have been unlawfully detained for nine hours after a traffic stop because of his ethnicity. Others joined the lawsuit, and the allegations were expanded to include several other examples of treatment that plaintiffs said unfairly singled out Latinos.

Judge G. Murray Snow of United States District Court in Phoenix eventually gave the lawsuit class-action status, allowing any Latino stopped by Sheriff Arpaio’s deputies since Jan. 1, 2007, to be represented in the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/sheriff-joe-arpaio-arizona.html?mcubz=1

 

[Dak]

I said legal immigrant. Mr. Melendres was a tourist from Mexico. He was in a vehicle that was speeding (not something I give a shit about most of the time, but it's not like there was no cause for the stop). He was leaving a day laborer locale in a pickup with other Hispanic males which was why there were deputies in the area to begin with.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...endres-joe-arpaio-profiling-lawsuit/95041534/

In court records, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office contended Ortega Melendres told the deputy he was working, in violation of his tourist visa.

One problem is they didn't accept his visa. The contention though is was he working in violation of the visa. Word against word.

But this is one case. That "class action" only netted 6 total persons out of hundreds of thousands of stops + workplace sweeps over 5+ years. Here's testimony on those stops:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/us/sheriff-joe-arpaio-trial-opens-in-phoenix.html

During four hours of testimony, Dr. Taylor concluded that they were, and that stops involving people with Hispanic names lasted, on average, two minutes longer than stops of others. He analyzed about 108,000 stops between January 2007 and October 2009, where the names of roughly 126,000 drivers or passengers had been checked.

Although not controlling for number of persons in the vehicle (or that control wasn't reported) which is kind of important. Still, 2 minutes is less time than it took to read and link this and they are near the border and there was (less so now) a major illegal immigration problem from Mexico.

I don't see this supposedly glaring racism. The fact that Border Patrol is comprised of something like 50% Hispanics, and that caught illegals complain about treatment from them, should be factored into the breathless claims of racism in immigration enforcement (but it won't).

 

[Einherjar86]

I said legal immigrant. Mr. Melendres was a tourist from Mexico.

My mistake. But that somehow makes it better?

The word of Arpaio and his department is precisely one of the elements that's in question here. They've faked documents, ignored cases, and planned a fake plot to have their sheriff assassinated to make him look better. Why should we trust these people? There's a system of behaviors and practices that is impossible to ignore. Your commitment to factual exactitude is admirable, but it strikes me that you're looking for inconsistencies in what is at large a repeating pattern.

You're inclined to discount the testimony of six plaintiffs, but with no consideration for the many individuals who likely don't want to be dragged into litigation. I can hear the comeback already--"because they don't want to be deported." But I think an equally likely answer is that they're documented citizens who simply don't want to be the center of a media sensation.

It's one case with six plaintiffs representing potentially many more instances. But it doesn't matter if there aren't any other cases. It's not effectively enforcing immigration procedures if you're detaining people who are here legally, just like it's not effectively enforcing drug policy if you're detaining pot smokers with a medical license. Arpaio's methods made it increasingly likely that he would detain documented immigrants or travelers, and it looks like that's exactly what happened.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Oh man, this is hilarious:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-apos-fires-longtime-120835370.html

 

[Nate Skalman]

Joe Apaio has ran the same "It sucks to be a criminal here" campaign since he's been in...once again, here comes the thought police to hover over Arizona with their liberal magnifying glass and tell the people of Arizona what to think. The voters would've got him out already if they needed the left to tell them that he's a piece of shit. This guy was old news 15 years ago...the left just wants to put pressure on border states by bringing exposure to agencies that enforce any kind of immigration laws.

 

[Nate Skalman]

All the Godzillary supporters said they were moving to Canada if Trump got elected...how come none of them offered to move to Mexico???

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, Trump put the spotlight back on Arpaio when he pardoned him.

 

[Nate Skalman]

True, but Arpaio has always been on the liberals shit list- it's only natural that the left is now gonna gear up to re-attack him in the media....again....they just keep coming full circle in what they perceive as injustices. Protecting illegal hispanics isn't going to bolster the lefts voting base- almost all hispanics are FUCKING CATHOLIC!!...they DON'T like gays, lesbians, transgender, etc.- voting Hispanics don't care about the lefts agenda- the focus to push liberalism centers around promising the underclass free living at someone else's expense, and attacking through the media, any threat or talk of forced responsibility. For being against "profiling" the liberals sure have no problem labeling everyone else...?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

True, but Arpaio has always been on the liberals shit list- it's only natural that the left is now gonna gear up to re-attack him in the media....again....they just keep coming full circle in what they perceive as injustices. Protecting illegal hispanics isn't going to bolster the lefts voting base- almost all hispanics are FUCKING CATHOLIC!!...they DON'T like gays, lesbians, transgender, etc.- voting Hispanics don't care about the lefts agenda- the focus to push liberalism centers around promising the underclass free living at someone else's expense, and attacking through the media, any threat or talk of forced responsibility. For being against "profiling" the liberals sure have no problem labeling everyone else...?

So why do you think "the left" is generally supportive of amnesty programs for illegal immigrants and etc? Hispanics definitely represent a decent Democratic voting bloc, even though you are partially right in that Hispanic men are (iirc; maybe white women edge them out) the second strongest Republican bloc behind white men. Illegal immigration is why Texas may become a swing state in one more generation.

 

[Nate Skalman]

I understand their intent, my point was that the left believes they have Hispanic voters in pocket when they really don't.