Ask yourself this : If you personally knew a Mexican was here illegally, would you report him or her to La Migra?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Not the usual forktongue wishwash please thx.
[Edited on 9/14/2017 by BrerRabbit]
So a hispanic American was detained because he had no papers (id, drivers license) to prove he wasnt a bad hombre from Mexico im a state overrun with illegals. Clearly a witchhunt against sherriff joe. He deserved his pardon for doing the job he was hired to do - uphold the law.
No, that isn't what happened at all. Research and read the court order. He violated a court order and was convicted of it. For a constitutionalist, you do not seem to believe in the Constitution very much. But then, neither does Trump.
"Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Where does the Constitution state anything about those not born here and the jurisdictional laws they need to follow? There is what the document states, and how the Courts choose to interpret and enforce
If I am to read your response correctly, you feel that as long as there are illegals in this country, Arpaio should be allowed to break the law.
Interesting that you would use the term "Illegals"...referring to one as entering "Illegally" thus "Breaking the law"
Do we agree that both are in violation of the Law?
So a hispanic American was detained because he had no papers (id, drivers license) to prove he wasnt a bad hombre from Mexico im a state overrun with illegals. Clearly a witchhunt against sherriff joe. He deserved his pardon for doing the job he was hired to do - uphold the law.
No, that isn't what happened at all. Research and read the court order. He violated a court order and was convicted of it. For a constitutionalist, you do not seem to believe in the Constitution very much. But then, neither does Trump.
"Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Where does the Constitution state anything about those not born here and the jurisdictional laws they need to follow? There is what the document states, and how the Courts choose to interpret and enforce
If I am to read your response correctly, you feel that as long as there are illegals in this country, Arpaio should be allowed to break the law.
Interesting that you would use the term "Illegals"...referring to one as entering "Illegally" thus "Breaking the law"
Do we agree that both are in violation of the Law?
You are avoiding the issue here. Arpaio was ordered by the court to stop profiling and detaining people based on their race. He was found guilty of detaining American citizens because of their Hispanic heritage. Some people spent time in jail for no reason other than their skin color.
If you feel it is necessary to break the law in order to enforce the laws, then as a society we are in big trouble.
Two points here. First "Some Presidents".....So only the ones whose agenda fits your vision are correct?....Please
Who said anything about being "correct"? That's your word, not mine. Am I not allowed to criticize his method?
Second, you quote "The court of Law".....Does the "Law" not apply to illegal immigrants?...They continue to choose to break the first "law" of the country they are "Hoping" to be a part of for their own benefit. I repeat, for their own benefit...If we uphold the "Law" we are vindictive and mean, just looking to break the backs and families who are just here to make a better life for themselves.
Enter legally or pay the price. That is the Law.
Nice diversion attempt, but Sheriff Joe was not upholding the the law, per a federal judge. What is so hard to understand about that? Do you think it's ok to ignore a judge's order just because you interpret something differently?
I'm fine with his pardon. But he is obligated to follow the order - period. By ignoring it, he became just as bad as the illegals he was trying to deport - both are illegals who deserve to "pay the price".
By ignoring it, he became just as bad as the illegals he was trying to deport - both are illegals who deserve to "pay the price".
Agreed. "Just as bad"......both are illegals who deserve to "pay the price".
You are avoiding the issue here
How so? Not once have I stated that I believe Joe is above the Law. I fully understand what he has done and repeat my question:
"Do we agree that both are in violation of the Law?"
Agreed. "Just as bad"......both are illegals who deserve to "pay the price".
Your semantics don't represent my views. They are just as bad as one another, meaning they both broke a law. And your idea of the right price is surely much different than mine. The only point you've made here is that you believe the illegal immigrants are morally worse than the disgusting behavior of Trump and Sherrif Joe - on that we certainly do not agree.
Agreed. "Just as bad"......both are illegals who deserve to "pay the price".
Your semantics don't represent my views. They are just as bad as one another, meaning they both broke a law. And your idea of the right price is surely much different than mine. The only point you've made here is that you believe the illegal immigrants are morally worse than the disgusting behavior of Trump and Sherrif Joe - on that we certainly do not agree.
My question is this: Do you believe that people who break the law should not get pardons?
Agreed. "Just as bad"......both are illegals who deserve to "pay the price".
Your semantics don't represent my views.
I have never entertained that thought.
They are just as bad as one another, meaning they both broke a law.
There is no hidden "meaning" here. I wanted to establish that both parties chose to break the Law. Therein lies the offense. "I don't care about the rule of Law".
You pay the price as dictated by the statute. Come here Illegally, face deportation.
Did President Obama instruct Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials not to enforce immigration laws in cases where an illegal alien is the primary provider for any minor child—regardless of the child’s immigration status—or the parent or guardian of a child who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident?
I believe he did. Total disregard for the Law, you might even refer to it as "criminal contempt".....
You are 100% correct, it is the law, as it stands today.
If you discovered, say through a casual friendly chat, that the Mexican landscaping your neighbor's yard every week was here illegally would you stand behind your dedication to the law by turning him in? Just wondering.
My question is this: Do you believe that people who break the law should not get pardons?
It would depend.
You are 100% correct, it is the law, as it stands today.
If you discovered, say through a casual friendly chat, that the Mexican landscaping your neighbor's yard every week was here illegally would you stand behind your dedication to the law by turning him in? Just wondering.
I will answer this as honestly as possible and will start with a question for you...
"Where do you live"?
I am now in Northern Arizona, in a beautiful little spot called Sedona, prior to moving here last year, I lived in San Diego for the last three decades.
"Would you stand behind your dedication to the law by turning him in"?
My friend.... Illegals are EVERYWHERE in the Southwest...Do I personally know people who are here Illegally?... Most certainly. Would I turn them in?
Where would I begin?
I believe he did. Total disregard for the Law, you might even refer to it as "criminal contempt".....
"Total disregard for the Law" and "criminal contempt"? LOL. Oh yeah, renegade Obama. Why did Republicans seemingly ignore it if it was so illegal?
Oregon now. Lived in Arizona for over 30 years, worked on the Coconino Forest for 20 years, firefighter on the Mogollon Rim, I know that Secret Mountain Wlderness backcountry of Sedona like the back of my hand, from Sycamore Canyon to West Fork Oak Creek, it is the topography of my mind by now, not accessible by Pink Jeep.
Also lived on the Navajo reservation, worked all over southern Arizona as well, know the state better than most. Voted McCain in, and tried to vote Arpaio out, voted three times for legalizing marijuana in Arizona.
The real immigration problem in Arizona isn't Mexicans, it is the juggernaut droves of people swarming in from all over the US, overpopulating the state, overdeveloping, pushing water resources past the limit, artificially inflating property values, building golf courses in the desert, and whatever other follies they can superimpose on the landscape. That's what drove me out.
I have no difficulty answering the question. NO.
No I would not report anyone who was here illegally. Lived next door to a safe house in Flagstaff where recent arrivals stayed and their secret was safe with me. Even brought them food sometimes, all twenty of them crammed into the front room of a doublewide. Aiding and abetting, right?
I have broken some laws in my time. And paid the price.
[Edited on 9/19/2017 by BrerRabbit]
My question is this: Do you believe that people who break the law should not get pardons?
It would depend.
On what would it depend?
If a person was convicted of burglary, would you allow a pardon for that person?
If a person was convicted of murder, pardon, yes/no?
How about drug smuggling?
What about child molestation/rape?
Do you think those who commit these crimes should be jailed and tried?
On what would it depend?
As someone who was tried and convicted, I can tell you that every detail surrounding the case and the defendant matters a great deal. Factors such as severity of crime, intent, level of harm caused if any, criminal history of defendant, etc.
If a person was convicted of burglary, would you allow a pardon for that person?
If a person was convicted of murder, pardon, yes/no?
How about drug smuggling?
What about child molestation/rape?
Again, it would depend on every little detail. It would be irresponsible to make a decision like that blindly.
Was the burglar an elderly person with no criminal history who broke into a convenient store to get food?
Did the child victim lie about her age with a fake ID? Was the defendant 19 or 68?
Could the murder have been a case of self defense that didn't go his way in court because of a corrupt detective?
Was the smuggler forced to do it by a cartel that already killed his parent?
Do you think those who commit these crimes should be jailed and tried?
Jailed and tried? Of course. After that comes the possible review for a pardon.
____________________
