Homeland Security decertifies Arizona sheriff for immigration enforcement

posted at 1:36 pm on October 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Say, isn’t the primary mission of the Department of Homeland Security to, er, secure the homeland?  Someone needs to remind Janet Napolitano of that mission, which includes enforcing immigration laws, after her agency decertified Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies for acting as ICE agents in that specific mission.  Arpaio’s sin?  He apparently had too much enthusiasm for the job (via USA Today blog On Deadline):

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has stripped Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio of his authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants based solely on their immigration status.

But Arpaio said Tuesday he plans to continue his controversial “crime suppression operations,” despite DHS’s decision to not renew an agreement that would allow the sheriff to continue immigration enforcement on the streets. …

Arpaio said he believes DHS made the changes to stop his “crime suppression operations,” which are saturation patrols in designated areas where deputies would find illegal immigrants by stopping them for traffic infractions and minor violations.

The Department of Justice and other federal agencies are investigating the sheriff’s office on accusations of racial profiling during the crime suppression operations.

In a Pulitzer Prize-winning series published in July 2008, the Tribune found the sheriff’s office’s illegal-immigration sweeps violated federal regulations intended to prevent racial profiling. The five-part series also found that the sweeps diverted resources from core law-enforcement functions, which in some cases caused response times to increase.

The Tribune’s point about resource allocation within the sheriff’s department is well taken — and completely irrelevant.  The DHS does not have the authority to dictate resource allocation of county sheriffs anywhere.  The people of Maricopa County make the determination of whether their sheriff has allocated resources to their liking, not the federal government.  Arpaio stands for election every four years, and so far no challenger has come within 10 points of Arpaio.  If Maricopa County residents are unhappy with Arpaio’s management of resources, they’re not demonstrating it.

If the Maricopa County Sheriff Department violated civil-rights rules, then the Department of Justice has the duty to investigate and to take corrective action.  So far, though, no one has proven anything of the sort — and that still wouldn’t be the jurisdiction of DHS.  Instead of working with Arpaio, whose publicity-seeking manner admittedly makes cooperation somewhat more unlikely on the issue of methods, the DHS instead cut off Maricopa County from assisting DHS from enforcing immigration law, which tends to give an indication of the priority of such enforcement in this administration.

Update: I got an e-mail questioning whether the front-page pic was Arpaio.  Just in case, I’ve substituted another.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Most of us AZ folks love Sheriff Joe, even if the most dangerous place in the universe is standing between Joe & a TV camera.

jgapinoy on October 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM

The point is that you don’t HAVE to profile to catch them. They profile themselves.

MikeA on October 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM

A law abiding illegal alien. An oxymoron.

Johan Klaus on October 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM

U.S.CODE, TITLE 8, SECTION 1325:
Improper entry by alien;
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

nelsonknows on October 8, 2009 at 1:29 AM

Joe Arpaio doesn’t need permission, certification or grant by the Federal Government to arrest, detain of collect evidence against ANY illegal alien and anyone, INCLUDING those in the Federal Government, who try to in ANY way impede a law enforcement officer from carrying forth his or her duties or the duties of those he or she is in command is guilty of violating U.S. Code, Title 18, chapter 73; SS1510, Obstruction of criminal investigations. SS1511, Obstruction of State or local law enforcement, and SS 1503, Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally all 3 are Obstruction of Justice and are FELONIES.

nelsonknows on October 8, 2009 at 1:41 AM

The irony, in sheriff Joe’s case is that he supported Janet in her bid to be governor. In fact, it was his support that allowed her to win a very close election bid.

Now, she is putting the screws to him. Of course, we could have told him that. I do support him, but he was rather brain-dead during that election cycle.

Natrium on October 8, 2009 at 5:05 AM

Now, she is putting the screws to him. Of course, we could have told him that. I do support him, but he was rather brain-dead during that election cycle.

Natrium on October 8, 2009 at 5:05 AM

A good sheriff may not be good at politics.

JellyToast on October 8, 2009 at 7:16 AM

A good sheriff may not be good at politics.

JellyToast on October 8, 2009 at 7:16 AM

When you play with tarantulas you can expect to get bitten.

MaiDee on October 8, 2009 at 7:28 AM

I lived in Maricopa Country for 6 years, we respect Sheriff Joe and like his style of being tough on crime.
He has saved taxpayers millions.
‘His volunteer posse of 3200 is the biggest in the nation and saves taxpayers the cost of paying deputies, costing nothing except for training posse members.
The female inmates also paint curbs, remove graffiti, and pick up litter, saving taxpayers upwards of $500,000 over three years.
His tents cost taxpayers $100,000, a fraction of the $70 million it would have cost to build another jail.
Inmate meals cost 22 cents each, the cheapest in the nation, and are served only twice a day. Most other jails spend $4-5 dollars per day on inmate meals.
Arpaio generates publicity because he implements innovative programs that save taxpayers money and deter criminal behavior. If he was a passive sheriff who simply coddled inmates and gave them their cable television and pornography, so there weren’t any complaints, he wouldn’t make news.
His drug prevention and treatment program has been a success; a recidivism study found that only eight to ten percent of the 2000 men and women who graduated from it have returned, vastly better than the nation’s 60-70 per cent recidivism rate. He started the only high school in the nation for inmates’.

Jason58 on October 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM

His drug prevention and treatment program has been a success; a recidivism study found that only eight to ten percent of the 2000 men and women who graduated from it have returned, vastly better than the nation’s 60-70 per cent recidivism rate. He started the only high school in the nation for inmates’.

Interesting….thanks for the info. Otherwise, I can’t stand the guy. But it’s good to hear he’s doing some good.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM

A good sheriff may not be good at politics.

JellyToast on October 8, 2009 at 7:16 AM

That’s a laugh! If there is one thing Sherriff Joe is good at it’s politics! He and Janet have a long standing feud. I knew it was going to be rough when she was picked for Home Land Security.

If anything displays the difference in the opposing forces in America this relationship is it.

Go Joe Go.

petunia on October 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Sec. Napolitano could not tell Sheriff Joe what or how to do anything as Gov. of Arizona. What makes her think she can make him do something as Sec. of DHS (Department of Hopeless Stupidity).

MSGTAS on October 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Thanks for the links, Granny, although I expected you to lnk them to your original comment. No matter, though, because you forgot to mention that the ethically challenged Lacey & Larkin printed Sheriff Joe’s HOME ADRESS for public consumption. See this quote from this duo of libduds
The seemingly picayune matter of Sheriff Arpaio’s home address getting printed at the bottom of an opinion column on our Internet site —…

Let me repeat: Lacey and Larkin of the Phoenix news printed Sheriff Joe’s HOME ADDRESS so that it was available for use by narco-gang and human trafficking hit-squads.

This linking references stuff is pretty good, huh, Granny?

ExpressoBold on October 7, 2009 at 11:05 PM

 
Expresso, Yes, it was wrong of the New Times to publish Sheriff Joe’s home address. It’s available through public records but did not belong in the paper. However, his retaliation was a misuse of taxpayer dollars and an abuse of the privacy laws.

GrannySunni on October 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Arpaio generates publicity because he implements innovative programs that save taxpayers money and deter criminal behavior. If he was a passive sheriff who simply coddled inmates and gave them their cable television and pornography, so there weren’t any complaints, he wouldn’t make news.

Actually, he might make news because of the large amount of deaths and injuries of people in his custody, or the fact that Amnesty International says that his facilities are inhumane, or maybe the massive amount of lawsuits brought against him. It could also be the times when he illegally arrests his critics. Also, there’s this:

The Arizona East Valley Tribune Pulitzer Prize-winning report on Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office suggests that the increasing focus on immigration has led to a decreasing efficacy of law enforcement for more serious crimes.[54] The report suggests that response times have increased, arrest rates for non immigration crimes have dropped, and investigations have suffered as a result of the Sheriff’s focus on immigration.[54] Emergency response teams arrived too late for 2/3 of over 6,000 of the most serious cases and arrest rates for criminal investigations dropped from 10 percent in 2005 to 3.5 percent in 2006.[54] Other sources have also cited Arpaio’s immigration focus as impacting crime in Maricopa County, and cite FBI statistics of about a 70% increase in violent crimes and a 166% increase in homicides from 2004 to 2007, much larger than FBI statistics for surrounding areas.[59] The East Valley Tribune report also states that the number of cases cleared by exception increased 37% after Arpaio’s immigration targeted policies.[54]

And this:

New reports show that the county may be improperly clearing as many as 75% of cases without arrest or proper investigation.[49][50][51] According to recent reports, the sheriff’s office has failed to properly investigate serious crimes, such as the rape of a 14 year old girl by classmates,[52][53] the rape of a 15 year old girl by two strangers,[54][55] and the rape of a 13 year old girl by her father.

The guy is scum, a real piece of work.

HeroesforGhosts on October 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Quick Sheriff Joe Story: The Wife and I are at a party. She notices a guy is not drinking, and asks why.

He replies that he has to drive later and then goes off about Sheriff Joe’s draconian drunk driving enforcement and how he doesn’t want to get caught. He hates Sheriff Joe, blah blah blah.

The wife replies: Well, he stopped you from drinking and driving tonight, didn’t he?

The Response: Huh, I never thought about it that way.

Bottom Line – We love Sheriff Joe around here.

MNExpatriate on October 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Not only what ExpressoBold said at 11:05 PM, but

1. What part of I went to tent city and the jails don’t you understand?

2. Illegal Chinese migrants arrested by the Sheriff
3. Mesa City Hall raid. There were more than 1 illegal arrested and the arrested the contracting company and illegal aliens that worked at City Hall. Of course the mayor and Gascon (the worst Chief of Police, he had to leave LA because the rank and file hated him) were pissed, Arpaio upstaged them.

4. Contrary to your article on the vehicles purchased with RICO funds, it was legal and the vehicles are needed. He cannot use the money to fund payroll.

5. As to the Mora lawsuit, Joe hasn’t said anything about it yet, just that the detentions were necessary. I can think of a lot of reasons they were detained, but I will not comment on the reasons.

6. The New Times staff are exactly what the accuse Arpaio of. Not only did they publish Arpaio’s address, but they decided to attacke the Posse, for no reason other than the some of the Posses assist the Department with sweeps.

JackofNoTrades on October 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Jack,

Sheriff Joe said if our military can live in tents in Iraq, then the prisoners can live in tents too. This I absolutely agree with. Regarding other jails, there have been reports and lawsuits over poor jail conditions, lack of medical care, etc. I do not personally know anyone that has ever been in jail or been able to inspect the jails, so I’ll take your word that they’re acceptable
Also, as I stated earlier, it was not acceptable for the New Times to publish Sheriff Joes address. It is available through public records but did not belong in the paper for all to see. But that didn’t warrant his costly retaliation at taxpayers expense.

I’m not going to get into a p*ssing match here about Sheriff Joe. I think some of the things he’s done are great, some not acceptable. I don’t care for Napolitano either, she’s in way over her head.

GrannySunni on October 8, 2009 at 11:10 AM

This makes absolutely 100% sense that the obama(pbuh) administration would do this. Maybe Eric Holder will send down a hundred US marshals to make sure the immigration laws aren’t enforced. True enforcement equals the suppression of possible Democratic voters in obama’s(pbuh) opinion.

cjk on October 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Sheriff Joe is one of my heros ever since he started the PBJ lunches.

barnone on October 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM

I think we found McCain’s replacement.

huckleberryfriend on October 8, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Jason58 on October 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM

I heard Sheriff Joe on the radio yesterday. He said from his drug program the recidivism rate is 15%. What I want to know is why every county in the country hasn’t copied it. I am personally in favor of chain gangs. The part about DHS refusing to release the ICE audit of the Sheriff’s office was the best part. ICE gave the Maricopa County Sheriff an A+. Janet Napo tanked it and refused to let it out.
 
GO JOE!
btw Sheriff Joe used to be the DEA Agent in charge of San Antonio, twenty years ago.

Blacksmith8 on October 8, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Thanks for the response, GrannySunni. You came off a little irrational, and maybe it’s because you cited the NewTimes article. As I stated before, I give the New Times no credence, since thy decided to publish the names of all the Posse members, needless to say it’s a little frightening especially given what some people wrote in the comments.

JackofNoTrades on October 8, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Our Constitution was based on rights that were endowed by the creator; they exist, even for illegal aliens. They exist for us, because we will kick the a$$ of anyone who tries to make them non-existent. However, if they are illegal in this country, we may, but are not obligated, to use our resources to enforce those tights for them. That is up to them or the government of the country from whence they came. If you don’t believe that everybody is entitled to the inalienable rights bestowed by the creator, then you don’t believe in the founding principles of Constitution and this country.

Old Country Boy on October 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM

That was thought provoking. The illegals have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The illegals DO NOT have the PRIVILEGE of entering this country illegally.

Blacksmith8 on October 8, 2009 at 12:51 PM

A Dysfunctional Justice System when Sheriff Joe gets punked by Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder & Company.

America You are On Your Own. Back to the Wild West System.
Women & Children stay off the streets. The Obama crew vs America.

old trooper2 on October 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM

This basically says that anyone who actually enforces the immigration laws of this country will immeditaely be prevented from doing so. Obama and his band of socialists hate you America!

TrickyDick on October 8, 2009 at 1:39 PM

However, his retaliation was a misuse of taxpayer dollars and an abuse of the privacy laws.

GrannySunni on October 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Unfortunately you have, once again, stated something that is at odds with many other commenters here who have a much different experience than you. I don’t live in the area so I’m just trying to get a feel for the truth. I can’t do that if I have conflicting stories with partisan, one-sided viewpoints. To much of what you say has a vague, general, not-too-accurate feel about it.

For instance, which “privacy laws” would you be referencing in which particular occurrences?

BTW, if I may be so bold, what is the “Sunni” part of your name all about (I don’t call myself ExpressoBold for nuttin!”)?

ExpressoBold on October 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Got a letter from Reelect Joe Arpaio 2012 two days ago detailing how Napolitano has tried to cut his authority. Joe says,

Now I have the President of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security trying to keep me from doing my job and from speaking out about this travesty publicly. This is America and I will speak. You have a right to know the truth. But none of this will deter me and I won’t back down one inch. All I’m doing is enforcing the laws of this state. In short, I’m doing my job that the voters elected me to do. As ludicrous and baseless as these attacks are, I have to respond to them and prepare for whatever future actions my opponents may take, including the latest recall campaign. Right now, petitions are being circulated to collect enough signatures to recall me. National open-borders organizations are coordinating their efforts to remove me from office to stop me enforcing the immigration laws. I promise you I will fight this battle with all my heart and soul.

Hey, I live in OK not AZ but I will support Joe. For those of you who want to do the same, the address is Sheriff Joe Arpaio, P.O. Box 5066, Scottsdale, AZ 85261

Christian Conservative on October 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Randy

williars on October 8, 2009 at 1:47 PM

A lot of people didn’t like Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson, to name a few.
But they were there to do the dirty job of cleaning up places of rotten criminal elements that no one else had the guts to do.

Badger40 on October 8, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Otherwise, I can’t stand the guy. But it’s good to hear he’s doing some good.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM

I meant to quote you:
NOT :

Randy

williars on October 8, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Badger40 on October 8, 2009 at 2:01 PM

The illegals have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The illegals DO NOT have the PRIVILEGE of entering this country illegally.

Blacksmith8 on October 8, 2009 at 12:51 PM

If you don’t believe that everybody is entitled to the inalienable rights bestowed by the creator, then you don’t believe in the founding principles of Constitution and this country.

Old Country Boy on October 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Hm. I’ve read a lot on all the founding fathers.
Many of them struggled with this bcs many of them considered the problems this would bring.
I think everyone in the world, whatever govt you are under has certain basic ‘rights’, like what is enumerated in the Constitution.
But you have to fight for them, just like our forefathers did.
So giving all these ‘rights’ to every illegal Tom, Dick & Harry is insane.
You want our govt to recognize your ‘rights’?
Then show us you mean by following our laws-And coming here LEGALLY.

Badger40 on October 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM

On the subject of immigration enforcement, Ciro Rodriguez has removed funding from the border fence. Say goodbye Ciro.

Blacksmith8 on October 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM

You know — vindictively harassing reporters and political opponenets, ignoring inmate deaths, waging an anti-Mexican jihad to obscure his otherwise mediocre record, generally being an arrogant ass.

Bleeds & Spews on October 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Looks like you covered all the New Times/Village Voice talking points.

Sheikh Yerbouti on October 8, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Otherwise, I can’t stand the guy.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM

So don’t vote for him. See how easy that was?

Sheikh Yerbouti on October 8, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Unfortunately you have, once again, stated something that is at odds with many other commenters here who have a much different experience than you. I don’t live in the area so I’m just trying to get a feel for the truth. I can’t do that if I have conflicting stories with partisan, one-sided viewpoints. To much of what you say has a vague, general, not-too-accurate feel about it.

For instance, which “privacy laws” would you be referencing in which particular occurrences?

BTW, if I may be so bold, what is the “Sunni” part of your name all about (I don’t call myself ExpressoBold for nuttin!”)?

ExpressoBold on October 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM

GrannySunni is an alias, just as you chose ExpressoBold. Sunni = sunny = for Arizona sun. Nothing more to the name than my love of sun/sunshine.What did you think it meant?

Privacy laws I refer to are the First Amendment rights that Joe tried to trample when he tried to gather all the information on the readers of the New Times, when he arrested the editors. The prosecutor was eventually fired. The links for the articles are below. Yes, most people love Sheriff Joe. You may consider my viewpoints vague but I thought I was able to post opinions here. I don’t see you pouncing on others who have posted their opinions. Seems you all dislike anyone that goes against the flow. I would not be here if I were not a conservative but I don’t always happen to agree with AZ politics. Yes, you will read comments here too, that the New Times is a poor newspaper. While I don’t particularly care for them, they have won awards, just as have the Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune and Az Daily Star.

Now to the links:
This is the story about why Sheriff Joe arrested the New Times editors. Yes, they were wrong to publish his address. But I feel it was a violation of first ammendent rights for him to request all the information regarding viewers of New Times web pages.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/breathtaking-abuse-of-the-constitution/

This is an article about fall out from the arrest of the editors. Eventually the prosecutor was fired.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-02-21/news/new-times-files-a-prelude-to-a-lawsuit-against-sheriff-joe-arpaio-county-attorney-andy-thomas-and-a-discredited-ex-special-prosecutor-on-behalf-of-its-readers-and-the-constitution/

Read this story to learn why the case was dropped against the New Times editors.. The second page tells about the death of an inmate – after an altercation with jail guards. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-10-16/news/new-times-lawsuit-continues-stern-s-disorderly-conduct-charge-dropped-and-we-ask-a-judge-to-force-joe-to-release-video-of-a-suffocated-inmate-s-last-minutes/

GrannySunni on October 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM

And if I were going to link an article from the ethically challenged Phoenix New Times which launched itself “in 1970 in reaction to the war in Vietnam.” to provide support for an assertion against Sheriff Arpaio, I would be darn sure there were no hidden bombs in the reference. Look at the following. Calling into question everyone’s ethics except their own, Lacey and Larkin declared the lawful actions of the sheriff and prosecutors unconstitutional while excusing a “seemingly picayune matter of Sheriff Arpaio’s home address getting printed at the bottom of an opinion column on our Internet site.”

I worked for the New Times back before I grew a brain. I knew Lacey and Larkin. The New Times is not a reliable source. Belive me.

Sheikh Yerbouti on October 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Sorry, “believe me”.

Sheikh Yerbouti on October 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Napolitano and Holder are just a part of the ring of total incompetence that Obama has encircled himself with. Making an Attorney General out of Slick Willie’s pardon pimp was almost as mind boggling as Biden for Vice President. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t true. Almost as sad as seeing Peloser and Reid on screen together as leaders of the Congress. Unfreaking believable.

volsense on October 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM

GrannySunni is an alias, just as you chose ExpressoBold. Sunni = sunny = for Arizona sun. Nothing more to the name than my love of sun/sunshine.What did you think it meant?

GrannySunni on October 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM

I was wondering about the Sunni component of your alias and you explained it.

Privacy laws I refer to are the First Amendment rights that Joe tried to trample when he tried to gather all the information on the readers of the New Times, when he arrested the editors.

I think, GrannySunni, that you should reference a copy of The Constitution when you claim “privacy rights.” I’ve linked to an online copy for you and there is NO Constitutional “right to privacy.” To learn more about “privacy rights”. Note that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted as conferring a substantive, not explicit, right to privacy especially as regards abortion “rights.” A Supreme Court decision defiend this right, not an explicit Constitutional statement.

You may consider my viewpoints vague but I thought I was able to post opinions here. I don’t see you pouncing on others who have posted their opinions. Seems you all dislike anyone that goes against the flow. I would not be here if I were not a conservative but I don’t always happen to agree with AZ politics.

Yeah, yeah, you think I’m picking on you but you were very adamant in your judgment of Sheriff Joe; if I just let everybody have their say without challenging things that I think (or know) are wrong then people get to say all kinds of erroneous things as the truth. Think of it this way: if you can defend yourself successfully when someone challenges you, you can debate a whiny old (or young) liberal. I we conservatives just let falsehoods pass by, we won’t look very smart when we are confronted by someone who knows the facts, will we? There are a number of liberal trolls who frequent this site and there are lots of hot and heavy debates and arguments that go on here all the time. It’s more than a game, more than a diversion – it’s actually a culture war and if they get to feeling confident again, it’s harder to put them in their place. A tradition of cogent argument on our side is not so easy to defeat, Granny.

ExpressoBold on October 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Our Constitution was based on rights that were endowed by the creator; they exist, even for illegal aliens. They exist for us, because we will kick the a$$ of anyone who tries to make them non-existent. However, if they are illegal in this country, we may, but are not obligated, to use our resources to enforce those tights for them. That is up to them or the government of the country from whence they came. If you don’t believe that everybody is entitled to the inalienable rights bestowed by the creator, then you don’t believe in the founding principles of Constitution and this country.

Old Country Boy on October 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4; The Congress shall have the power; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
What part of this don’t you get?

nelsonknows on October 8, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Arpaio has the right to arrest and detain illegals under FEDERAL LAW and there’s nothing that the DHS, The White House or ANYONE can LEGALLY do to stop him, short of changing the law. Moreover, to attempt to IMPEDE Arpaio or any officer from arresting or detaining an illegal alien is a FELONY.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO PEOPLE NOT GET?

nelsonknows on October 8, 2009 at 6:57 PM

when the shxt hits the fan. those who are sane and those who know what is at stake will no doubt take the law into their own hands.

CEA_Agent on October 8, 2009 at 9:04 PM

I wonder to which political party does Sheriff Joe belong.
hmmmmmmmm.

diogenes on October 8, 2009 at 9:30 PM

Joe Arpaio has beaten Napolitano every time she tried to stop him from doing his job.
Now she is using the federal Government to continue her vindictive attacks on sheriff Joe. This has to be personal for her, lets see how this works out.

Szabla on October 9, 2009 at 6:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4