Phoenix New Times Reports: If you're Hispanic in Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe's goons have probable cause to arrest you on suspicion of being undocumented. Hey, they can always release you later. That's the word from the elephant's mouth after an MCSO raid on four area McDonald's on Friday that netted an American citizen, Viridiana Ramirez, who was cuffed and held for four hours as she pleaded with MCSO thugs that she was born in this country and could prove it. What was Arpaio's response to the news that his Kris Kobach-trained deputies has violated the civil rights of a single mother and terrorized her no end? "That's just normal police work, " he shrugged in a news conference following the raid. "Sometimes you do have probable cause, you do take people in for questioning, and they're released." So it's arrest 'em if they're brown first, and sort 'em out later. False arrest and imprisonment be damned.
Posts
27 comments:
They raided because of a tip that there were illegals working there. The only to find out who was and who wasn't was to question them all. Knock off your brown skinned, whiney, victimhood BS!
Those working there were probably all Hispanic anyway. A white or black person wouldn't have a shot in hell in getting a job there anymore. It is getting like that all over the southwest.
This sort of thing is probably a reaction to the faulty 14th amendment that allows anyone to sneak across the border and drop and immediate citizen. She may well be a citizen and should be released with an apology and a request that she report any illegals who are hired where she works. The story should say something about whether her parents were in the U.S. legally. I think Joe could have handled this better. He needs to haul off the store manager or whoever hired any illegals he detained. That would make a better dent in the problem.
We all sympathize with this young woman but I hope that she understands how this happens and what the root cause is? How does she feel about broken borders offering an open door to terrorists? I am surprised we have not had another incident already. It would be so easy to bring a dirty bomb in. I am puzzled why it hasn't happened. When you look at the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the opportunities for terrorist entry become obvious.
I wonder how this American citizen feels about those who enter our country illegally? As a loyal American shouldn't she be opposed and be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem? If she had proof of her citizenship,knowing Joe's propensity to arrest Hispanics, why didn't she carry that proof with her at all times -- even encased in plastic and hung around her neck like other company IDs. That's what I would do as preferable to handcuffs and even a brief incarceration. Not only that but it might provide the basis for a wrongful arrest case against Joe. Worth a try. Surely the ACLU must have a presence there and could be helpful.
Anon (Annoy) comments; are you so one sided that you actually believe that's what happened, is this really how your brain functions (I hesitate to say) or do you have to work at it.
Why is it so hard to admit the truth that this is reality, that ppl are racial profiled everyday just like your comment about, "A white or black person wouldn't have a shot in hell in getting a job there anymore." You know what, I'm not going to waist my time trying to explain it to you so believe what you want, immigration reform is next on the administration's agenda and I'm sure a solution that's reasonable will get worked out, and the GOP/Tea-baggers can do the crying and babying all they want because they won't get what they want which is Mayberry
If the police shows on TV accurately portray the situation, police can hold a person for 24 hours without charging him or her.
So in that sense this was normal police work. However, Joe seems to enjoy harassing Hispanics and that is not a good thing.
I do however believe in racial profiling. If you want to find Hispanic illegal aliens, it doesn't make any sense raiding establishments where all or most of the employees are anglo. Even, more indicative of the need for a raid is a complaint or tip. Does she speak English? If she was born here, she should be fluent in English. To me that would have been the first clue that should not have been ignored. The second , of course, was her claim that she could prove her citzenship. Joe could have let her call someone to produce the requred documentation.
I wonder how the pro-aliens woudl approach the problem of the illegals flooding into the Southwest. What enforcement mechanism would they use? What if their jobs depended on how effective they were in countering this problem? The best thing they could do is get behind the mandatory use of E-verify by all employers for all employees. Then Joe could raid only those establishments that have a significant number of ssn/name mismatches. In fact they could detain only those identified through this system and citizens would be less likely to be harassed. Works for me.
The question becomes: should we do something or do nothing to deal with illegals? If the former subrosa profiling would enable the focusing of resources in the areas where they are likely to produce results.
At the bottom line a fix of the 14th amendment and E-verify could solve this problem rather quickly. Having said that I would help this young woman if I were in a position to do so.
Okay, LMJ. What elements of immigration reform would you accept as a reasonable solution? I think it is important for you to give us some indication of the depth of your knowledge on this subject and how much thought you have given it. What reforms do you believe to be in the national interest and why? Should immigration laws serve our national interest or the demand of foreigners for admission to or country? How big do you think we should allow our population to get? How would you like it if you had to wait ten years to get a pass to one of our national parks? How do you feel about the additional pollution more people would produce? Do you really care about our country or just your ethnic brethren among the illegals?
Ultima,
Let me in here for a second before LMJ responds.
You and most ANTIs continue to misinterpret the PRO view.
Go to a PRO site. Most say the same thing:
1. Secure Borders
2. Sanction Employers
3. Allow a Path to Citizenship for those here.
What is so difficult to understand??
Yet you continue to pretend to believe we ask for open borders. Not true.
We just are AGAINST Mass Deportation and Racial Profiling and Hate Crimes.
Hear it LOUD AND CLEAR:
WE ARE AGAINST MASS DEPORTATION AND RACIAL PROFILING AND HATE CRIMES!!
CIR =
1. Secure Borders by Trained Border Patrol (NOT mickey mouse Minutemen in their pickup trucks, beer and shotguns in camouflage)
2. Employer Sanctions for those employers that willfully hire undocumented workers for their profit (underpay/exploit them).
3. Allow the 12M here who are felony free to get in line and apply for citizenship.
By doing the above, we will END the Arpaio demonization of Latinos - the racial profiling - the sweeps of Latino neighborhoods. We will end the exploitation of workers. We will end Hate Crimes.
Trust me, if these illegals are given amnesty you will see a rise in hate crimes against Latinos because many Americans are going to be pissed off that immigration law breakers got rewarded once again only this time at least 4 times as many. You know not what you wish for. I don't want to see this happen and I don't condone it but believe me it will. Many Americans are just that pissed off.
But not to worry because CIR will never happen anyway.
Ult, lets not pretend that the lone cause of your questions is immigration, Dee pretty much speaks for a lot of ppl who feel that immigrants aren't ILLEEEGALS, here points on how PRO's feel on immigration are correct, ppl need to stand up to the dumb things ppl say and feel about immigration, so good job Dee for doing just that on this blog
I noticed you didn't answer the questions, LMJ. Why is that? You can call them anything you want but they are illegal. That's the first fact you have to face up to.
I understand perfectly the position of at least some of the so-called pro-aliens as stated by
Dee. The problem is that those who take that position deny us the tools needed to secure the borders so it is easy for them to give lip service to border security, even of some of their followers don't even accept this as desirable. Some pro-aliens really do want open borders and as LMJ stated don't even consider those who violate the borders to be illegal.
As long as border violators think they will be home free if they can escape the immediate environs of the borders they will keep coming. As long as illegals can look forward to yet another amnesty, they will keep coming. As long as they can drop a baby into instant citizenship, they will keep coming. As long as we have no mechanism for identifying miscreant employers, they will keep hiring illegals and they will keep coming.
I don't believe any intelligent person thinks that we can secure borders without vigorous internal enforcement using E-verify for all employers public and private on a mandatory basis. That is the only way we have to identify miscreant employers and illegal aliens and punish both until it stops. We cannot secure the borders just with more border patrol agents. We need that and more infrastructure improvements and some changes in the rules of engagement so that all those who are apprehended at the border or internally have to spend 6 month working on the border roads, fences and other infrastructure.
But most of all we need security in depth that only comes from internal enforcement that denies the illegals employment opportunities. These things are pretty obvious as the essential elements of border security. Everthing else is just lip service.
I have asked a number of times if you were in charge of border security and internal enforcement and your job and livelihood depended on your effectiveness in securing the borders, what would you do? I believe no matter how unpalatable it might be to you, you would soon come to the realization that you would be bound to fail without the measures I have suggested above. It simply can't be done any other way. So let's stop the lip service, and disclose our true colors.
Now LMJ is at least more truthful. She is an open borders person and doesn't believe in national sovereignty or doing what is in the national interest rather than what is in the narrow interest of her illegal brethren.
None of what I have written is intended to be racist or to close the door to some reasonable compromise to enable some illegals to stay and work. Those who have been here for many years, who speak English, who are a credit to their communities, who are sociallly integrated and culturally and linguistically assimilated should certainly be given a chance to make their case. We want and need hard-working Americans who can contribute to our economy and who are intensely loyal to the U.S. I have no problem with them whatsoever regardless of their race or ethnicity. I am very hesitant about rewarding law breakers. Doing that just encourages more lawlessness and who needs that.
The question still come down to how can one secure the borders without the measures I have listed. Even they would not stop the border violations entirely but they certainly could make difference.
Dee wrote,"Go to a PRO site. Most say the same thing:
1. Secure Borders
2. Sanction Employers
3. Allow a Path to Citizenship for those here."
1. Can't be done as long as we reward illegals with a path to citizenship.
2. Yes, identify them using mandatory E-verify.
3. No, not every one of them deserves that opportunity. We must be selective enough to create a disincentive for further incursions by more illegals or this action will be seen as an open invitation to others.
I'm not sure what other pro-alien sites you refer to. The few I have visited are largely open borders types.
Ultima,
LMJ is a he. Just as an fyi I will reveal to my audience he is a relative. I am so sick of Bad Anon saying LMJ doesn't exist, using such profane and ridiculous language in his comments that I don't bother posting them. This is one reason many of my PRO followers don't post comments. Many of the Anons are relentless in their negative attacks.
Ultima,
You know that I have enjoyed having you as a commenter for years and I value your feedback because it helps me with my argument.
However, I do find it disingenous when you respond to my Top 3 CIR recommendations with a cursory "can't be done" or "No".
You have to respect my key three points. This is our LEAD. They are the first point of discussion. Merely saying NO or Can't be done is dismissive.
I think you agree with Number 1. We must enforce all borders and ports and points of entry. Accept it, then let's start a discussion on HOW.
As for number three: Most of the ANTIs (other than you) demand Mass Deportation. You and I know that will not work.
I say we need some path to citizenship for those here that are eligible. Let's sit down and discuss eligibility. Maybe that is the starting point. AND maybe then you can support me in convincing the ANTIs who believe Mass Deportation is the ONLY answer that Mass Deportation is NOT an option.
YOU AND I CAN DISCUSS THIS CIVILLY AND LIKE ADULTS, however in order to do so, we need to respect each other and dialogue.
I guess everyone would like to have Mayberry but know it is not possible for most. In some small towns it still exists to some extent. Certainly, Mayberry is preferable than Juarez, Reynoso, Tia Juana, or Laredo yet that is where we are headed with the flood of illegals from south of the border.
Dee wrote, "I think you agree with Number 1. We must enforce all borders and ports and points of entry. Accept it, then let's start a discussion on HOW."
Yes, I do agree. My point is simply that we have reached the point at these locations where we can add a lot more resources and not get much of a payoff. I do believe that a change in the rules of engagement at the border and ports would help. I don't have any first hand knowledge of what the rules actually are but it seems like those apprehended at the border are frequently just escorted back across the border without any other penalty. Coyotes often offer a guarantee that for the price paid they will keep trying until they succeed in delivering their clients across the border. Some say 94% of those who wish to cross the border are ultimately successful. What does that tell you about our ability to secure the borders and ports with just the current approaches, agents and infrastructure. I believe that inspite of major increases in the number of agents and spending on border infrastructure our policy is failing.
So what else can we do? Those are the ideas I mentioned:
1. No catch and release. Anyone caught in the immediate environs of the border must serve six months working on border infrastructure. Without some sort of penalty of this type, they have nothing to lose if they keep trying as apparently they do. So that is the first thing we need to do to buttress the improvements we have already made at the border.
2. We have to think outside the box. We can't solve this problem by simply focusing on the border and ports themselves. We have to ask ourselves how can we induce the understanding among border violators that even if they escape the net at the border, they will be apprehended, they will be denied access to jobs, and they will serve time when we catch them.
If you support secure borders and ports then you must devise or accept measures that go beyond simple border patrols and port inspectors. What do you suggest?
What we are currently doing is not working.
Taking as a given current conventional means and deterrents are inadequate as evidenced by the number of illegals in this country, what else can we do? I am really interested in what you do if you were in charge of that component of Homeland Security charged with solving this problem once and for all. If you say "secure the borders", that is not enough because we know what we are currently doing is not working. It would be wonderful if we truly shared this objective and the realization that we have to think outside the box. We have to focus some of our attention to the interior. Although I am amenable to a process that assures an adequate supply of agricultural labor, I believe a blanket amnesty or mass legalization sends the wrong message and will encourage rather than discourage new border violations.
I don't underestimate the difficulty of solving this problem. Some believe it can't be solved period and therefore we should just open the borders and fire all the ICE agents.
One of the most difficult aspects of the problem is the sheer volume of legal pedestrian and vehicular traffic. No one seems to want to do anything to reduce that flow to a level that gives the BP a prayer of stopping illegals and potential terrorists. In some sense, this volume of traffic is tantamount to open borders.
We could begin by making sure that all the pedestrians have a biometric ID that can be checked instantaneously against a data base of known criminals, aliens previously deported or under a removal order, and a registry of those who actually have the necessary applicaitons and documents for a legal visit across the border. The latter should have a time line line like 12 hours.
The ID should be checked on the return trip to find who has failed to observe the approved time limmit. All this has to be done quickly by inserting the biometric card into a computer. An alarm should sound if the ID is rejected.
Frankly, I don't know what to do about vehicular traffic. This is the most worrisome because it would be so easy to bring a dirty bomb into this country in one of those trucks. I like the idea of separating the trailers from the tractors and re-attaching them to American tractors. This at least would break the control of the cargo at the border. Drivers on the American side could be assigned at random so no one would have a guaranteed chance to acquire the lethal cargo except by chance. Trailers could also be redesigned to permit easier access to the interior of the cargo so that they could be inspected lfor radioactive materials.
Securing the borders III. Here is the biggest sticking point. If what we are currently doing is not working, we have to do something additional. I believe that involves creating disincentives for employers and illegals. Both are hard nuts to crack because employers have the ears of members of Congress and would raise cane if the penalties were too stiff or if some of them were actually sent to jail. I am in favor of that and that by itself would create a major disincentive for hiring illegals.
But what about the illegals themselves. Everyone that we excuse or grant amnesty to constitutes a green light for others wishing to come. So perhaps the first thing we need to do is have a cutoff date. If you haven't been here for at least 5 years, you will be automatically and involuntarily repatriated after working for six months on border infrastructure. Those who have been here for 5 years or more and who can prove it should be subject to close scrutiny for DUIs and criminal activity. If they have children in American schools learning English and civics that would be a plus. I think the parents should be required to appear in their childrens' schools and stand before the class to admit that they violated the U.S. immigration laws and are opposed to any further such violations and have paid any penalties prescribed by law. This perhaps should even include an apology for their violations. An interpreter could be provided so that the English-speaking children can hear and understand the admission and apology. They could say, "If we are allowed to stay, we will renounce any allegiance to our homeland and any dual citizenship. Our sole and entire allegiance will be to the United States and we will observe and obey all of its laws and make every effort to integrate socially and assimilate culturally and linguistically.
So what else should we require of these senior illegals? A significant fine if they cannot prove that they have paid all relevant taxes? An admission of any use of fraudulent documents or ssns and a listing of any such ssns they used?
So the question comes down to what measures you are willing to take to secure the borders given that the current measures are not working? Let's discuss that to see how far you would be willing to go as a middle manager in charge of border security.
I have dealt with the question of mass deportations many times before. While it is logistically feasible, it is not politically or economically feasible. This means we must find a way to provide the source of the labor our economy requres while protecting the right of citizens to have first dibs on all jobs whether they are currently open or held by illegals. This doesn't mean some arbitrary number of workers to be admitted or legalized. It means the precise number our economy needs in the light of the unemployment rate by sector.
Those are some of my ideas that are on the table. What are yours?
Ultima said "is not politically or economically feasible. This means we must find a way to provide the source of the labor our economy requres while protecting the right of citizens to have first dibs on all jobs whether they are currently open or held by illegals."
Ultima, I agree. Mass Deportation is not feasible. I also agree that America requires a Labor source. I even agree that American citizens have 1st dibbs on jobs. What I don't agree with is the continued exploitation of workers by greedy employers. The workers are so desperate for escape from their previous hardships that they are willing to be exploited, but it still isn't right.
I know it is a catch-22 dilemma.
ex: small contractors are only in business if they can pick up contractors for $5 - 10 an hour with no benefits.
or
small farms can only stay in existence if they hire pickers for $5 an hour with no benefits.
I still say big business should stop outsourcing off-shore the tech/business jobs taking jobs away from middle income America. That's the source of jobs Americans want and big business can afford to pay.
Americans do not want the agjobs or day labor jobs offered by small business america.
The super ultra hyper antiLatino for Governor
New York Daily News : Former NY GOP Governor George Pataki said that Steve Levy will turn off the Latino voters who helped Pataki win a third term in 2002, "disaster" if Republicans do not support Rick Lazio
And the the millionaire developer and attorney Carl Paladino from Buffalo will officially announce his candidacy for governor of New York on Monday, another Republican in the race. Things are not easy for Steve Levy, he is strongly disliked by Latinos, for not protecting them from thugs and scoundrels, and instead preaching against them.
New York Daily News
Party-switching GOP hopeful Steve Levy picks fight with Lazio pal Pataki
By Elizabeth Benjamin
March 22nd 2010
Party-switching GOP hopeful Steve Levy picks fight with Lazio pal Pataki
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/22/2010-03-22_a_grand_ol_party_crasher_levy_picks_fight_with_lazio_pal_pataki.html
Some excerpts :
Party switching gubernatorial hopeful Steve Levy wasted no time mixing things up with his fellow Republicans, sniping Sunday that George Pataki, the state's last GOP governor, was "too politically expedient."
The comment came after Pataki, who has endorsed Rep. Rick Lazio for governor, questioned Levy's record on taxes and immigration in an interview with the Daily News.
The Suffolk County executive who ditched the Dems so he could run as a Republican for governor quickly blasted back.
Levy - who has been a Republican for all of three days - called the three-term governor "too politically expedient," saying he "alienated not only the Republican base, but the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers who favor legal immigration but strongly oppose illegal immigration."
Pataki said he's happy Levy switched parties and believes a primary fight could energize the moribund GOP. But he questioned the wisdom of his party's rush to embrace the turncoat Dem - a step that has roiled the GOP and its longtime ally, the state Conservative Party.
The former governor said he has "reservations" about Levy, noting the ex-legislator voted to hike taxes while in the Assembly from 2001 to 2003. "One of the defining differences between Democrats and Republicans should be on taxes," Pataki said.
Pataki also said he's concerned Levy will turn off the Latino voters who helped Pataki win a third term in 2002. And he predicted "disaster" if Republicans aren't aligned this fall with the Conservative Party, which is so far supporting Lazio.
Youth, Minorities, Politics :
Milenials.com
Vicente Duque
Americans may not want ag job or day labor jobs but that is what we have legal immigration for. There are many jobs that Americans will do that the illegals have taken. Convenient that you don't mention those.
Fuck whitey . Racist bastards . I hope once that racist ass , saggy dog face sheriff Joe gets all the hard working Mexicans out, he fucks all you white ppl in the ass . When have u seen a Mexican bumming for money ? NEVER! all I see on every corner is a fucking hick ass Bum Begging for money Lmao! You lazy crackers are soo pathetic lol you pale ass losers are jealous of our ppl and their significant beauty . I'm an American citizen with Mexican parents and I thank the lord every day for not condemning me with your nasty race. I am personally not a racist but thought I'd give you mother fuckers a taste of how fucked up you sound to us . And be honest with your selves, your NEVER gunna get rid of Mexicans your just scared shitless that were taking over :)
Post a Comment