Sheriff Joe Arapio slapped down by judge.

[RandFan]

I have never consciously broken the law, no.

Most people, being human, make mistakes in their lives. One of the most important aspects of human nature is the ability to forgive and find redemption. Ghandi said that "an eye for an eye" will leave the whole earth blind.

Personally I'm for the enforcement of law and attempt to solve humanitarian problems in a way that doesn't reduce or rob us of our humanity.

In the end these are people. Human beings. We should enlarge our circle and have more compassion. Stop seeing the worst in people and finding ways to make life better for all of us. That will include continuing to deport people as Obama has done.

No one is calling for blanket immunity. No one is calling for us to open our borders and give up our sovereignty. We are saying that we should rely on the best nature of our angels and not give in to ugly xenophobia and excusing it on the fact that people broke a law in order to get a better life.

They are wrong to come here illegally. It's not wrong to treat them with humanity. Saying they all should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law because there is no way to separate the criminal scum from the otherwise kind and decent folks who only want to feed their family is just an emotional reaction to a very real problem that doesn't really solve anything.

Your situations isn't theirs. It's a fallacy to generalize from you to them.

 

[RandFan]

My point actually was that some redneck deputy could easily get it wrong, even if they were trying to profile. I don't know much about what deputies' criteria were for stops. Twenty people in a van with bald tires would be much more specific, for example.

The BP does have a permanent "papers please" checkpoints some distance from the border. So, it must be acceptable to the feds under some circumstances. Also, if you see a bunch of wiry people in sandals carrying gallon jugs of water through brutal desert terrain, then suspicions would be reasonable. In urban areas it would largely be a waste of to target Latinos. I wasn't arguing that such a practice was fair.

Though requests for proof of citizenship seems onerous to a lot of Americans, why in itself would it be so bad? Please be aware, this is a devil's advocate type question.

Having been to the border many times I can tell you that there are many agents along the border looking for those kinds of red flags. While I'm not found of the courts initial ruling making it legal for "papers please", the abuse that was predicted has, in fact, reared it's ugly head. I really don't think anyone at the ACLU or Amnesty International think much of the bill.

We will see what the future holds. I don't see a future with "papers please" to show immigration status in our future as a nations. I think it represents one of the worst things wrong in a totalitarian state. If they don't stop it I see people stripped of their titles and authority.

I think Arapio is to arrogant and stubborn to think the law is anything he has to abide by. The law, for Arapio is for people he knows are here legally.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Not to mention..... I must be a multiculturist too - I live in a neat neighborhood with folks of every "race/grouping" except "oriental'. We'll get there thought - I am pretty sure of that.

Any Toyotas in the driveways?

 

[SezMe]

But it makes sense that people that are here illegally or more likely to be criminal than those that are not.

I'd argue the other way around. If I am illegal and looking for a job, I'm damn sure to keep my nose clean. If I'm here legally, the threat of arrest doesn't carry the additional consequence of deportation, (possible) separation from family, etc.

 

[Mudcat]

Most people, being human, make mistakes in their lives.

You didn't ask if I had made any mistakes though, if you had my answer would have been "Yes", and perhaps the biggest one in the past twenty-four hours was engaging in this discussion.

But, doing what they are doing to get here goes beyond a simple 'mistake', its a ridiculously short sided, ill advised, and stupid mistake because it it is a decision made without stoping to think of the potential consequences.

And for what? A dead end job that barely pays the wages that waitresses get?

And if a man leaves behind their familly to hoof it across the boarder only to get shot by some vigilante red neck than who is going to provide for the family then? What kind of future do they face without him there?

What if he takes his family with him and its his family that pays for his short sidedness?

These are very good reasons to desire that immigrants come here legally as opposed to illegally, wouldn't you say?

 

[Freddy]

If they're here illegally than they're guilty of at least one law. Presumption of innocence need not apply.

Do note that not all violations of law are criminal offenses. Being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense except for repeat offenders (and a couple other exceptions).

Not sure what you mean about "presumption of innocence." If you mean that an illegal immigrant charged with a crime is not entitled to a presumption of innocence with respect to that crime, then you are objectively wrong as a matter of black letter law. In every criminal proceeding, the presumption of innocence applies. The Bill of Rights refers frequently to "the people," not "citizens." The founders knew how to spell "citizen" when they meant "citizen."

Also, propensity to break a particular law does not necessarily indicate a propensity to break other laws. For example, pretty much everybody speeds, but propensity to break the speed limit does not reliably predict propensity to break other laws. So the syllogism that an illegal immigrant is probably a criminal in general, because they are already breaking one law merely by living here, is not sound.

 

[RandFan]

You didn't ask if I had made any mistakes though, if you had my answer would have been "Yes", and perhaps the biggest one in the past twenty-four hours was engaging in this discussion.

I was trying to say you are the only person I know of who has never broken a law. Most people break thousands of traffic laws including running stop signs or speeding. There are laws we can break and not even know about it.

But, doing what they are doing to get here goes beyond a simple 'mistake', its a ridiculously short sided, ill advised, and stupid mistake because it it is a decision made without stoping to think of the potential consequences.

If any of that were true they wouldn't still be coming.

And for what? A dead end job that barely pays the wages that waitresses get?

When your family doesn't have enough food to a father will walk to the ends of the earth to find work. During the recession many men left their families to go find work.

And if a man leaves behind their family to hoof it across the boarder only to get shot by some vigilante red neck than who is going to provide for the family then? What kind of future do they face without him there?

A risk is a risk. Many are able to do just that. I suppose it's a hell of a lot better than watching your children die of starvation.

What if he takes his family with him and its his family that pays for his short sidedness?

How is feeding ones family "short sidedness". We know it works because they have been doing it for decades.

These are very good reasons to desire that immigrants come here legally as opposed to illegally, wouldn't you say?

Of course. How many times must I say that I want them to obey the law before you will believe me?

I just don't see the point of treating them all like they are criminal scum.

If I were in their shoes I damn sure would do the same thing.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

In my immigration class this past semester several of my students interviewed their parents and wrote a paper about the parents' experiences coming to the US from Central America. All are here legally now, but most of them were "illegals" to begin with. They fled Civil War, death squads, lack of food, lack of jobs, crimes, etc. When you don't have enough to eat, you've lost your land, and the head of the local death squad/criminal-gang/guerrilla group warns you to leave or else, well then, minimum wage on a construction site in the US and sleeping on a cousin's floor while you save your money looks pretty damn good.

20+ years later all the parents are working decent jobs, one started his own small company, and their kids are soon to be college graduates. That's a lot of talent and productive labor we would have lost if we'd kicked them out.

I say let them stay so long as they don't break any other laws. Follow what we used to do. We kept out criminals, and those not able to work (I'd include the seriously mentally ill in the later group)*. You want to work and obey our laws, come on in. Want to become a citizen? Great. Pass this basic history/civics test. Don't want to become a citizen. OK, so long as you pay your taxes while you're here that's fine.

* we banned other groups too, but I'm not sure we need worry about anarchists much anymore. And many diseases that could have gotten you banned in 1900 can be treated now.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I
I just don't see the point of treating them all like they are criminal scum.

Dangnabit man! They're not white! are you blind?

 

[newyorkguy]

My point actually was that some redneck deputy could easily get it wrong, even if they were trying to profile. I don't know much about what deputies' criteria were for stops. Twenty people in a van with bald tires would be much more specific, for example.
<snip>

Civil liberty advocates say, the danger with these kinds of incursions is, many people accept it because they presume it will only happen to them not us.

That's seldom the case.

In the attached link KENS-TV in San Antonio Texas does a story about one such immigration checkpoint located thirty miles from the border, manned by Border Patrol agents. Link

The accompanying videos, taken by motorists, reveal troubling factors. The agents sometimes "suspect" motorists may be illegal immigrants or smuggling illegal immigrants because they have a beard or their car could use a trip through a car wash.

In some cases, where agents want to search trailer-trucks or a camper, it seems like they just want to do a search.

The checkpoints are "voluntary," motorists are under no obligation to cooperate and many Texans know this. Here's the problem:

In many cases, with supporting video, when motorists decline to cooperate, agents become belligerent. They ask the person, "What are you hiding?" Some cross the line and become threatening and intimidating. In most of the incidents filmed the agents do not show much professional bearing or conduct. And remember, this is when the agent even knows the person stopped is shooting video.

One agent tells a couple from Arizona, if they do not consent to having their camper searched they will be required to "leave Texas." The agent is making that up.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If they're here illegally than they're guilty of at least one law. Presumption of innocence need not apply.

You're just wrong.

Being in the U.S. as an undocumented alien is not a criminal offense. It is not a crime. Undocumented aliens (in the absence of evidence of any other wrongdoing) are not subject to criminal prosecution.

And in the U.S., anyone accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. The burden of evidence is on the prosecution. No one is presumed guilty of a crime. [ETA: Ironically, this is the sort of thing you'd need to know to pass a citizenship test!]

Where are you getting your misinformation? Perhaps Rush Limbaugh?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do note that not all violations of law are criminal offenses. Being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense except for repeat offenders (and a couple other exceptions).

Not sure what you mean about "presumption of innocence." If you mean that an illegal immigrant charged with a crime is not entitled to a presumption of innocence with respect to that crime, then you are objectively wrong as a matter of black letter law. In every criminal proceeding, the presumption of innocence applies. The Bill of Rights refers frequently to "the people," not "citizens." The founders knew how to spell "citizen" when they meant "citizen."

Also, propensity to break a particular law does not necessarily indicate a propensity to break other laws. For example, pretty much everybody speeds, but propensity to break the speed limit does not reliably predict propensity to break other laws. So the syllogism that an illegal immigrant is probably a criminal in general, because they are already breaking one law merely by living here, is not sound.

Well said.

Apparently, though, it doesn't matter how often we disabuse Mudcat of these erroneous beliefs on matters of fact.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But it makes sense that people that are here illegally or more likely to be criminal than those that are not.

No it doesn't.

By the way, arguing that something "makes sense" isn't valid argumentation. It's pretty much the same as the claim that something is self-evident. (It's one of those statements made that can never be true. If it were so, there'd be no need to assert that it's so--that is, it wouldn't be a controversy. If you're in something that calls itself an "Olde Style Pub", you know it's not!)

In fact, the current policy of focusing enforcement efforts on criminal illegal aliens has been very successful simply because the non-criminal undocumented aliens aren't likely to become criminals. Also, practically speaking, it gives us a great deal of bang for the buck since these people have already been identified by the criminal justice system at all levels of government.

 

[Biscuit]

Not stupid? If they die on the way here who will take care of the family then?

How is that not stupid?

Do you think they undertake such journeys lightly? Imagine how desperate someone must be in order to under go such a journey and look them in the eyes and call them stupid.

You don't have to undergo such a journey because you are already here, most likely by accident of your birth. That accident does not make you smarter, it makes you less desperate. It allows you to live with your mother and look for work, these are not accomplishments of yours these are your good fortune.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I have never consciously broken the law, no.

Never opened that ol' flivver up on the highway to "see what she'll do?"

 

[newyorkguy]

A woman I know who made the journey illegally came because of her older sister. Her older sister was determined to come. They lived in a small village in Guatemala and the economy was stagnant, there were no opportunities. The legal route to immigrating involved a waiting list that was many years long. Her sister, who was about twenty, felt that long a wait was unbearable so she she decided to go illegally.

The older sister did not want go alone. So the woman I knew, the younger sister, agreed to go with her.

She said when they reached northern Mexico and started for the Texas/Mexico border it was absolutely terrifying. They were with a small group led by guides. She said she had no idea whether they could really trust the guides or if they would make it. I don't recall too many of the details except that they did make it across and then they called a relative to come and pick them up.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm looking for work. I don't put myself or my family at risk in a long, hard, potentially dangerous journey to take up illegal residence in a foreign country I have no ties in where everyone looks at me suspiciously and I could be deported if I was caught in order to find work, though.

I think I found a flaw in that plan.

For a U.S. citizen there's not much upside to moving illegally to another country in order to do menial work. If you weren't lucky enough to be born in the USA the cost-benefit picture is different.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

[Minoosh]

The accompanying videos, taken by motorists, reveal troubling factors. The agents sometimes "suspect" motorists may be illegal immigrants or smuggling illegal immigrants because they have a beard or their car could use a trip through a car wash.

Cops like to keep people off balance. I guess it's a policing technique. You ramp up the pressure and see if people start sweating. And of course they want to search your car! They want to find something to justify their salaries.

The checkpoints are "voluntary," motorists are under no obligation to cooperate and many Texans know this.

They are not voluntary in my neck of the woods. Maybe the fact that everyone is stopped serves as some defense against profiling.

In many cases, with supporting video, when motorists decline to cooperate, agents become belligerent. They ask the person, "What are you hiding?"

I don't think being intimidating is seen as a negative in police work, and apparently they don't mind looking like jerks on videotape.

Sheriff Joe is something else altogether. IMO the profiling may be the least of his sins. He is ... a piece of work.

 

[RandFan]

You're just wrong.

Being in the U.S. as an undocumented alien is not a criminal offense. It is not a crime. Undocumented aliens (in the absence of evidence of any other wrongdoing) are not subject to criminal prosecution.

And in the U.S., anyone accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. The burden of evidence is on the prosecution. No one is presumed guilty of a crime. [ETA: Ironically, this is the sort of thing you'd need to know to pass a citizenship test!]

Where are you getting your misinformation? Perhaps Rush Limbaugh?

Thanks for the info.

 

[RandFan]

For a U.S. citizen there's not much upside to moving illegally to another country in order to do menial work. If you weren't lucky enough to be born in the USA the cost-benefit picture is different.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I like your response better.