"Toughest Sheriff In US" At Odds With Homeland Security

[Famine]

I don't know, none of us do, Police stations don't jump out and say how many false arrests they make so we can only guess.

You're right, we don't know, that doesn't mean we should assume the best anymore than we should assume the worst. That's why I called it a one-sided story and provided a link to the other side. I don't know which side is right, but I do know his municipality has been successfully sued.

Correct - we should assume nothing as the figures tell us nothing.

Yes. However, arresting every mexican you see from time to time to verify their citizenship is a violation of civil rights. Not the immigrants civil rights, the citizens you picked up along the way.

Yes and no.One man? sure. 1,000 Mexicans in one city at once? No. It's called racial profiling, among other things. They have to have reason, and looking Mexican is not a good enough reason. Says the law, not me.

That's a strange scenario, eh? And racial profiling gets police sued when it's proven. And legally, in your scenario, the officer should check all their I.D.'s.

Yes. And racial profiling is considered illegal by all the courts that grant these people millions of dollars every year. By your reasoning, police should be allowed to arrest every middle eastern cab driver in New York, just to make sure they aren't terrorists. Fact is, they are not allowed to. They must have just cause. You can't arrest everyone you see and hold them for 24 hours, just because they're Mexican, or Middle Eastern, it's a violation of civil rights.

Police are allowed to arrest and detain someone they legitimately suspect of a crime. Being Mexican and speaking broken English is currently not a crime. When it is, it will then be allowable under law.

You're confusing profiling with racism. It's easy enough to do because they look so similar on the surface.

Let's look at another form of profiling.

Driving along the road weaving from side to side, so long as you stay in your lane, is currently not a crime. However, it's a pretty reasonable indicator that the driver is as pissed as a fart. The police would pull that driver over and breathalyse him (or administer a roadside sobriety check, depending on whether it's the US or the UK). If the driver passes the breathalyser/sobriety test he'll be let on his way. If he fails he will be arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (note that no offence has yet been committed). He will then be taken to the police station and either made to provide a specimen of breath for the evidential breathalyser or have blood taken to prove that he was DUI. Until that proof is obtained, he cannot be charged with any criminal offence - and even if he provided a positive specimen at the roadside, there needs to be a positive specimen on the evidential meter or the police will have to dearrest him.

So weaving about isn't a crime, but it's a good indicator of one. It is then up to the police to prove the offence or let the individual go. I'm sure you'd agree that stopping everyone who is weaving about is good practice?

Now, let's do all that again but with profiling for illegal immigration status...


Being Hispanic and not able to speak English is currently not a crime. However, it's a pretty reasonable indicator that the person isn't in the US legally. The police would stop that person and request proof of their right to remain in the US. If the person provides evidence he'll be let on his way. If he fails he will be arrested on suspicion of remaining in the US illegally (note that no offence has yet been committed). He will then be taken to the police station and investigations would commence to prove that he was an illegal immigrant. Until that proof is obtained, he cannot be charged with any criminal offence - and even if he failed to provide any evidence, there needs to be a proof that he is in the US illegally or the police will have to dearrest him.

So being Hispanic and unable to speak English isn't a crime, but it's a good indicator of one. It is then up to the police to prove the offence or let the individual go. I'm sure you'd agree that stopping everyone who is Hispanic and unable to speak English is good practice?


Be aware that there is a giant chasm between being stopped and being arrested, and an even bigger one between being arrested and being charged. An arrest is merely a temporary function to allow police to retain someone for a short period while satisfactory investigations are made. No crime need have been committed at all for an arrest to be made, but there must be a crime committed and proof of who the perpetrator is in order for charges to be brought.

What if you were arrested along with many of your friends several times? What if they detained you tonight for 24 hours to verify your citizenship? You can say it wouldn't bother you all you like, but you probabley haven't sat in a holding cell for 24 hours without contact to anyone outside, and surrounded by sweaty Mexicans have you?

If I was stopped on suspicion of remaining in the UK unlawfully, I wouldn't be arrested for it. Even without documentary proof of who I am, I can demonstrate it quite convincingly because... well... I am who I say I am.

However, assuming for a minute that I would be arrested, I wouldn't have an issue with it - not least because in the UK I wouldn't be sat in a cell with anyone else. Holding cells in the UK are individual. The police need to prove not only that I'm not who I say I am, but I'm who they say I am - an illegal immigrant - which would be quite difficult for them, before I could be charged with that crime. And if they can prove that, I'd be most impressed.

 

[mafia_boy]

Driving along the road weaving from side to side, so long as you stay in your lane, is currently not a crime. However, it's a pretty reasonable indicator that the driver is as pissed as a fart. The police would pull that driver over and breathalyse him (or administer a roadside sobriety check, depending on whether it's the US or the UK). If the driver passes the breathalyser/sobriety test he'll be let on his way. If he fails he will be arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (note that no offence has yet been committed). He will then be taken to the police station and either made to provide a specimen of breath for the evidential breathalyser or have blood taken to prove that he was DUI. Until that proof is obtained, he cannot be charged with any criminal offence - and even if he provided a positive specimen at the roadside, there needs to be a positive specimen on the evidential meter or the police will have to dearrest him.

So weaving about isn't a crime, but it's a good indicator of one. It is then up to the police to prove the offence or let the individual go. I'm sure you'd agree that stopping everyone who is weaving about is good practice?

While I agree with how that concept works in the UK Famine, unfortunately it does not work in all countries. Take us in Australia for example. Now, if a cop pulls a person over, the person can refuse to be breathalysed. Here's where our problem comes in. If they refuse, even if they are sober (just the person thinks that it's an invasion of privacy, or they are Jehovah's Witnesses and can't have anything probing the body) then they are charged under the same set of laws as a drunk driver for refusing to provide the specimen.

Now, let's do all that again but with profiling for illegal immigration status...

Being Hispanic and not able to speak English is currently not a crime. However, it's a pretty reasonable indicator that the person isn't in the US legally. The police would stop that person and request proof of their right to remain in the US. If the person provides evidence he'll be let on his way. If he fails he will be arrested on suspicion of remaining in the US illegally (note that no offence has yet been committed). He will then be taken to the police station and investigations would commence to prove that he was an illegal immigrant. Until that proof is obtained, he cannot be charged with any criminal offence - and even if he failed to provide any evidence, there needs to be a proof that he is in the US illegally or the police will have to dearrest him.

So being Hispanic and unable to speak English isn't a crime, but it's a good indicator of one. It is then up to the police to prove the offence or let the individual go. I'm sure you'd agree that stopping everyone who is Hispanic and unable to speak English is good practice?

That bit I totally disagree with. Being in a fully multicultural country, we have a large percentage of citizens (not residents on visas) that cannot speak proper English or atleast a broken version of it. I know a Polish guy who was born here (he's 32) and his mother who is in her 60's, been here for 35yrs but cannot speak English for peanuts. She didn't see a need for it when all she was doing was the housework around the house and her son was her translator. But we cater for all languages here....we even have our driving tests in about 15 different languages now for that very reason and translators in nearly every government building to help those out that cannot speak proper English yet.

It's the same with Lebanese, for the Vietnamese, for the Sudanese, for the Italians, the Greeks and every other ethnicity that lives here. Just because they can't speak English IS NOT an indicator of them being illegals, and regardless of what the police think, they cannot do squat about them being unable to speak English because it was that persons choice. If they did, they would be sued so hard and fast it wouldn't be funny, not to mention the public outcry that would follow of "police being discriminatory to ethnic people".

They are changing that nowadays by bringing in a test in the citizenship test that sets a standard of understanding the "Australian" way of life and being able to speak an intelligible amount of English so they can assimilate into our society better than ever, rather than feeling segregated and isolated into their own little communities. Sydney & Melbourne people know this, there's a few suburbs that has a huge Asian presence, a few that are Arab dominated, a few with Indians, a few for the Europeans and now a couple are coming up for the Africans all segregated and unassimilated from the rest of the city basically and run their own ways of life in those areas.

 

[Famine]

While I agree with how that concept works in the UK Famine, unfortunately it does not work in all countries. Take us in Australia for example. Now, if a cop pulls a person over, the person can refuse to be breathalysed. Here's where our problem comes in. If they refuse, even if they are sober (just the person thinks that it's an invasion of privacy, or they are Jehovah's Witnesses and can't have anything probing the body) then they are charged under the same set of laws as a drunk driver for refusing to provide the specimen.

That also happens in the UK, though it's a different offence - failing to provide a specimen of breath.

That bit I totally disagree with. Being in a fully multicultural country, we have a large percentage of citizens (not residents on visas) that cannot speak proper English or atleast a broken version of it. I know a Polish guy who was born here (he's 32) and his mother who is in her 60's, been here for 35yrs but cannot speak English for peanuts. She didn't see a need for it when all she was doing was the housework around the house and her son was her translator. But we cater for all languages here....we even have our driving tests in about 15 different languages now for that very reason and translators in nearly every government building to help those out that cannot speak proper English yet.

It's the same with Lebanese, for the Vietnamese, for the Sudanese, for the Italians, the Greeks and every other ethnicity that lives here. Just because they can't speak English IS NOT an indicator of them being illegals, and regardless of what the police think, they cannot do squat about them being unable to speak English because it was that persons choice. If they did, they would be sued so hard and fast it wouldn't be funny, not to mention the public outcry that would follow of "police being discriminatory to ethnic people".

I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with. Nobody's being arrested for not speaking English. Nobody's being charged for not speaking English. People are being targetted for random stops based on profiling data.

If the stop results in said Hispanic non-Anglophone - or your Polish friend or his mother - producing documents which say he has right to remain in the US, he goes upon his merry way. If not he may be arrested but the police cannot charge him with anything until they can prove he's done something.


Profiling is not discriminatory. It's not racist. It's carried out every day by everyone. Take car insurance - stats say most teenage, first-time drivers will stack a car in the first 3 years. Teenage, first-time drivers pay the most for their car insurance. This is profiling. Take advertisements - stats say kids watch more kids TV channels so toy advertisers advertise toys on kids TV channels (so they can badger their parents). This is also profiling (or "targetted advertising").

In the case of illegal immigration into the United States, the stats say most illegal immigrants originate from Mexico. The police target Hispanic people (for stops, not arrests or charges) - the poor standard of English is merely a further indicator, when stopped, that the individual is neither naturalised nor native (note indicator, not guarantee). To say they must stop people according to local demographics (30% Hispanic, 30% black, 40% white; 49% male, 51% female) is absurd - they should stop whomever gives them the highest chance of upholding the law, and they achieve this through profiling.

 

[Vasco]

There's no proof whatsoever that other crime rates are going up. The liberals at the newspaper are just acting stupid and petty.

Damn liberals! http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/SheriffJoeArpaio12-17-08.pdf

 

[mafia_boy]

That also happens in the UK, though it's a different offence - failing to provide a specimen of breath.



I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with. Nobody's being arrested for not speaking English. Nobody's being charged for not speaking English. People are being targetted for random stops based on profiling data.

If the stop results in said Hispanic non-Anglophone - or your Polish friend or his mother - producing documents which say he has right to remain in the US, he goes upon his merry way. If not he may be arrested but the police cannot charge him with anything until they can prove he's done something.


Profiling is not discriminatory. It's not racist. It's carried out every day by everyone. Take car insurance - stats say most teenage, first-time drivers will stack a car in the first 3 years. Teenage, first-time drivers pay the most for their car insurance. This is profiling. Take advertisements - stats say kids watch more kids TV channels so toy advertisers advertise toys on kids TV channels (so they can badger their parents). This is also profiling (or "targetted advertising").

In the case of illegal immigration into the United States, the stats say most illegal immigrants originate from Mexico. The police target Hispanic people (for stops, not arrests or charges) - the poor standard of English is merely a further indicator, when stopped, that the individual is neither naturalised nor native (note indicator, not guarantee). To say they must stop people according to local demographics (30% Hispanic, 30% black, 40% white; 49% male, 51% female) is absurd - they should stop whomever gives them the highest chance of upholding the law, and they achieve this through profiling.

That's a bit more defined than the first way you put it. I mostly agree with that scenario. How I was meaning it for us was that we do have citizens that can't speak English and profiling isn't as effective when it comes to immigration sometimes, for us that is. It might be 10 times better for the US immigration officers to use profiling techniques, but it's not a foolproof method.

 

[breakpoint]

This article isn't about the sheriff's stance of drugs. It's about the performance of his duty as sheriff, which seems to be a little too effective for some people.

The point in watching that documentary was not to show his stance on drugs, but to show how much of an idiot he is. Jails make money, which is why so many people get put in jail for non violent crimes which is absurd to me. If you don't think they make money or don't realize how much they actually make do a little research.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Damn liberals! http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/SheriffJoeArpaio12-17-08.pdf

Yes, a for profit liberal organization has NEVER lied or misled the public with false FBI statistics or untrue 'facts.' They can ALWAYS be trusted to tell the public the truth.

 

[PAPPACLART]

Personally I don't see the problem to profile somebody. It is part of Human nature and instinct to do so, beside when you profile somebody, how often are you right, all of the time maybe not, most of the time yes!! How ever we don't like to say, people do fit in brackets!

Governments are so obsessed now with equal opportunies and PC'ness and human rights, it's actually making the world a worse place to live in and gives the bad people the upper hand!!

 

[TrievelA7X]

Personally I don't see the problem to profile somebody. It is part of Human nature and instinct to do so, beside when you profile somebody, how often are you right, all of the time maybe not, most of the time yes!! How ever we don't like to say, people do fit in brackets!

Governments are so obsessed now with equal opportunies and PC'ness and human rights, it's actually making the world a worse place to live in and gives the bad people the upper hand!!

That's because when they don't minorities are treated like crap.

People can come up with excuses as much as they'd like, as to why they's be ok with it happening to them, but there nobody here, regardless of what they say that wouldn't have a problem sitting in jail for a day for no reason. Making up excuses such as, "oh, I'd remember my ID number", or "I wouldn't be charged so I'm ok with being in jail for a day" sounds great when you're just trying to be right on a technicallity, but when people are thrown in jail for no good reason they tend to get upset. And thinking up ways around exact analogy's doesn't answer the question, nor does it "prove you right" it dodges the question, and delays the answer.
The fact is, there was a one-sided story presented here, myself and others have presented a different side, but most seem to just believe everything bad about this guy is hand crafted by liberals, instead of even considering maybe he's a jackass.

Profiling is not discriminatory. It's not racist. It's carried out every day by everyone. Take car insurance - stats say most teenage, first-time drivers will stack a car in the first 3 years. Teenage, first-time drivers pay the most for their car insurance. This is profiling.

Car insurance "profiling" as you call it is 50-state legal in the US, I believe.
Arresting someone because they cannot provide ID is also legal. (for purposes of verifying identity) The problem sets in when you arrest every foriegn looking person you see without ID. Are you arresting any people you believe are legal residents based on not carrying proper ID? No, he and his deputies are not, far as I've heard, If they run into a known criminal, or catch the person doing something illegal, sure. But they're not questioning whites on their I.D.'s, nor are they arresting every white guy they find without one. And that's what makes it a racist action, that's why they've been sued, and it's what's going to destroy his career. They are not border patrol, if they were border patrol, they're job tasks, and discrimination abillity's would be different. Border patrol can arrest every Mexican they see, Sheriff's cannot.

 

[Keef]

I find this comment in bad taste. You are inferring that he is friends with criminals simply because of their race.

Wait, does Keef think I'm Mexican?
Just because I question an officer's methods when people are raising hell about them, doesn't make me Mexican.

Bad taste or not, I wasn't targeting anybody on these forums. I was speaking generally. My point is that stereotypes are based on reality, and until the government stop reacting the way it does to laws being broken or people being killed, people from a couple notable areas of the world are simply going to have to deal with being racially profiled. I don't support it, but I don't have any say in who gets arrested, or who has to strip down in the airport.

 

[frestkd]

"Showman Joe" is just trying to enforce the law, and Arizona's former governor is now head of homeland security. They were always having the little tiffs before she left so it's nothing new. I have changed my viewpoints about illegal immigration, because the crap I had to go through with my wife. I think the illegal immigrants needs to get in line like everyone who's trying to get into the United States legally. Whoever doesn't needs to rounded up, kicked out, and put a chip in them so when they try to get back illegally the chip shoots something toxic in them so they die. Oh let the insults fly toward my direction .... oh my!

 

[Famine]

Arresting someone because they cannot provide ID is also legal. (for purposes of verifying identity) The problem sets in when you arrest every foriegn looking person you see without ID.

Why?

You've already said that it's an arrestable offence not to provide ID. If someone is stopped and fails to provide ID they can be arrested, whatever their ethnic origin.

Are you arresting any people you believe are legal residents based on not carrying proper ID? No, he and his deputies are not, far as I've heard,

We have no basis for that assumption because we have no information either way.

If they run into a known criminal, or catch the person doing something illegal, sure.

Like remaining in the US illegally?

But they're not questioning whites on their I.D.'s, nor are they arresting every white guy they find without one.

Again, we have no basis for that assumption.

And that's what makes it a racist action, that's why they've been sued, and it's what's going to destroy his career. They are not border patrol, if they were border patrol, they're job tasks, and discrimination abillity's would be different. Border patrol can arrest every Mexican they see, Sheriff's cannot.

So Homeland security aren't racist when they arrest Mexicans for being Mexican and the Sheriff is being racist when he arrests Mexicans for remaining in the US illegally?

Immigration officials can only get people coming into and out of the country illegally. They can't get people who are already in the country and remaining there illegally. That falls to local law enforcement. And, like it or not, being an illegal immigrant is a crime and profiling is the best way to determine who should be stopped in order to best uphold the law.

 

[breakpoint]

Famine is always on the money! People are going to be people and sometimes that sucks. My step dad is arabic and after 911 his life changed, now he gets looks and hateful comments ( mainly from dumb rednecks ) and such and its sad because he is such a good guy. I usually get followed around in certain parts of town in stores simply because i have a good bit of tattoos and just look like a crim which it doesn't bother me cause im not doing anything ( which i was a crim before, ex con) People profile people and judge them, everyone does so nobody can act like they don't cause if they say they don't its a lie. I worked construction for years and i can tell you for a fact that a good 85 percent of the mexicans i have worked with were illegal and didn't speak a bit of english which really pisses me off.

I don't have a problem with people coming to america, but please learn the language and come here legally! And for some reason these topics always bring up race, like oh white people don't get this or such, for the record im not white, native american so don't lump my views on it into the "typical white persons views".

 

[TrievelA7X]

Why?

You've already said that it's an arrestable offence not to provide ID. If someone is stopped and fails to provide ID they can be arrested, whatever their ethnic origin.

You can argue it all you like, but in America, when you persecute one race for a crime, and not another, you can expect bad things to come your way. That's just the way it is here.

We have no basis for that assumption because we have no information either way.

Yes and no. Is there any information even hinting they are? I'd expect someone to say, "hey, we're arresting these guys for it too", if they were. Plus the jails are overcrowded so as it is.
And you're neglecting the fact that they were sued for false termination by a previously employed deputy who was questioning their tactics. They settled out of court for 6,000,000$. That's an awful lot of money to shut somebody up, isn't it?

Like remaining in the US illegally?

You act as though I think they shouldn't arrest and deport illegals.

So Homeland security aren't racist when they arrest Mexicans for being Mexican and the Sheriff is being racist when he arrests Mexicans for remaining in the US illegally?

Immigration officials can only get people coming into and out of the country illegally. They can't get people who are already in the country and remaining there illegally. That falls to local law enforcement. And, like it or not, being an illegal immigrant is a crime and profiling is the best way to determine who should be stopped in order to best uphold the law.

It's not a question of whether or not they are racist, it's a question of their job duties. Now it's time for you to explain spending millions to keep former employees quiet. I notice you've dodged that in every post you've made. Why? Why would that kind of money be spent? What did this man have to say that was so bad? hmmmm... But you'll never question law enforcement, apparently. Sort of like a naive, inherent faith in the greater good?

Famine is always on the money! People are going to be people and sometimes that sucks. My step dad is arabic and after 911 his life changed, now he gets looks and hateful comments ( mainly from dumb rednecks ) and such and its sad because he is such a good guy. I usually get followed around in certain parts of town in stores simply because i have a good bit of tattoos and just look like a crim which it doesn't bother me cause im not doing anything ( which i was a crim before, ex con) People profile people and judge them, everyone does so nobody can act like they don't cause if they say they don't its a lie. I worked construction for years and i can tell you for a fact that a good 85 percent of the mexicans i have worked with were illegal and didn't speak a bit of english which really pisses me off.

So why didn't you call your employer in anonymously? I've been followed around in stores, and I have no tattoos, or piercings. I ever wear clean, hole free clothes. But security is allowed to follow whomever they wish, following and arresting are two different things. Of course people profile, and stereotype, but "people" can't arrest and/or harass other people about it they cops can if they put their minds to it. So I'll ask you, what do you think the department was trying to keep out of public eye when they agreed to cough up 6 million dollars to shut up their previous employee? I'm sure all I'll get out of Famine is, "we can't know", rather than an admission of some kind of guilt, so give it a go.

 

[Famine]

You can argue it all you like, but in America, when you persecute one race for a crime, and not another, you can expect bad things to come your way. That's just the way it is here.

Nobody's persecuting any race for crime. People are being stopped and only those who are suspected of committing a crime (in this case "remaining in the country illegally) are arrested. Only those who are arrested and can be proven to be responsible for a crime are then prosecuted.

Don't forget that not everyone stopped for suspected offences is arrested for them, and not everyone who is arrested for suspected offences is charged with them.

You act as though I think they shouldn't arrest and deport illegals.

Nnnno I'm not. I'm acting as if it's neither illegal nor racist to act upon profiling data in pursuit of upholding the law.

I don't care what you think.

It's not a question of whether or not they are racist, it's a question of their job duties.

Nevertheless, you're telling me that a guy who acts on profiling data is racist if he's a Sheriff, but not if he's border patrol...

Racism doesn't depend on your point of view or job. Either an act is racist or it isn't. In this case it isn't.

Yes and no. Is there any information even hinting they are? I'd expect someone to say, "hey, we're arresting these guys for it too", if they were. Plus the jails are overcrowded so as it is.

And you're neglecting the fact that they were sued for false termination by a previously employed deputy who was questioning their tactics. They settled out of court for 6,000,000$. That's an awful lot of money to shut somebody up, isn't it?

Now it's time for you to explain spending millions to keep former employees quiet. I notice you've dodged that in every post you've made. Why? Why would that kind of money be spent? What did this man have to say that was so bad? hmmmm... But you'll never question law enforcement, apparently. Sort of like a naive, inherent faith in the greater good?

You misunderstand. I'm not dodging anything, nor am I compelled to explain anything. This particular part of the issue doesn't interest me whatsoever because it's not relevant to the notion that profiling isn't racism.

We don't have any data that says no-one but Mexicans were arrested for illegal immigration offences. In fact we don't have any data about anyone's ethnic origin at all.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Nobody's persecuting any race for crime. People are being stopped and only those who are suspected of committing a crime (in this case "remaining in the country illegally) are arrested. Only those who are arrested and can be proven to be responsible for a crime are then prosecuted.

Well, that's one side of the argument, yes. You say it as fact, though it's been disputed by people more closely involved than you and I. But's that's the assumption you've made. If you recall, you'll remember my original statement was something more like, How do we know these are the ones telling the truth, but you and others defending them have failed to give a reason. That is, other than "it's those goddamn liberals making it up!"

forget that not everyone stopped for suspected offences is arrested for them, and not everyone who is arrested for suspected offences is charged with them.

Assumes you, I don't know exactly what/who they're arresting, nor do I know what they're doing to "stop" people, nor what reasons they have for doing so. All I know is that they (the deputies) said they are pulling people for other violations.

Nnnno I'm not. I'm acting as if it's neither illegal nor racist to act upon profiling data in pursuit of upholding the law.

I guess if you'd like to believe that the officers can do whatever they like, you can choose to do so, but they do have bounds, to what extent, I do not exactly know, and I'd take a guess you don't either.

don't care what you think.

That's because I dared question law enforcement's tactics, which is apparently taboo.

Nevertheless, you're telling me that a guy who acts on profiling data is racist if he's a Sheriff, but not if he's border patrol...

I did not say that. Good grief. I said allowed to arrest every Mexican they see. Read, remember, post.

doesn't depend on your point of view or job. Either an act is racist or it isn't. In this case it isn't.

You don't know the acts, you know what the Sheriff and deputies say their acts are, and dismiss any and all other possibillities.

You misunderstand. I'm not dodging anything, nor am I compelled to explain anything. This particular part of the issue doesn't interest me whatsoever because it's not relevant to the notion that profiling isn't racism.

You missed the topic of discussion then. I'll remind you. The topic is not "is profiling racism". The topic is: Why are these police getting hassled for what they are doing?

don't have any data that says no-one but Mexicans were arrested for illegal immigration offences. In fact we don't have any data about anyone's ethnic origin at all.

You're right. That defends them how? It's actually one of my original points.

We have two sets of opinions involved now, thanks to me. One side says "we're police, and just doing our jobs". Another side says, "you're not doing it right".

 

[Famine]

You're kinda all over the place here.

That's because I dared question law enforcement's tactics, which is apparently taboo.

Not at all. it's because you're contending that profiling is racism when, in fact, it isn't.

I don't care that you think it is. It isn't and it isn't dependant upon your thoughts.

I did not say that. Good grief. I said allowed to arrest every Mexican they see. Read, remember, post.

Yes. You said that Border Patrol are allowed to arrest every Mexican they see, but Sheriffs are not.

I asked why racism is fine if you have a different job.

You don't know the acts, you know what the Sheriff and deputies say their acts are, and dismiss any and all other possibillities.

You missed the topic of discussion then. I'll remind you. The topic is not "is profiling racism". The topic is: Why are these police getting hassled for what they are doing?

You're right. That defends them how? It's actually one of my original points.

We have two sets of opinions involved now, thanks to me. One side says "we're police, and just doing our jobs". Another side says, "you're not doing it right".

You're creating a personality for the police in question that they are just arresting every Mexican they see and not arresting any white guys. You have no basis for that assumption.

Remember that stopping someone isn't the same as arresting them and that arresting them isn't the same as charging them. Stopping someone because they're Mexican is fine if you're after illegal immigrants in the USA - it's profiling. Arresting someone because they're Mexican is not fine (even if you're border patrol). Arresting someone because they've been stopped for being Mexican and then unable to show that they have the right to remain in the USA is fine.


Lastly, stopping the police from arresting criminals because they're a certain type of criminal is insane.

 

[TrievelA7X]

You're kinda all over the place here.

I guess, if you forget and/or mix-up a few things, I'll elaborate though.

Not at all. it's because you're contending that profiling is racism when, in fact, it isn't.

Profiling based solely on race, depending on what the profile, is. All black people are criminals. That is a racist belief, is it not? How about, all blacks are stupid? All blacks are dirty? I'm pretty sure those are racist, last I was told anyway. They're considered racist in America, I know that much.

I don't care that you think it is. It isn't and it isn't dependant upon your thoughts.

You're right then. This is where I should direct a nasty yet clever profile your way. there must be no way profiling can be racist.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Nothing in there? Like if a policy of the sheriff's office was to arrest every Mexican they see with broken English?
Don't like that one? how's this?

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '

Yes. You said that Border Patrol are allowed to arrest every Mexican they see, but Sheriffs are not.

Yes I did.

I asked why racism is fine if you have a different job.

Did I say it was fine? I do know I didn't say it is racist for sheriff's to do it, but not border patrol, which you implied I said earlier, see below:

So Homeland security aren't racist when they arrest Mexicans for being Mexican and the Sheriff is being racist when he arrests Mexicans for remaining in the US illegally?

You're creating a personality for the police in question that they are just arresting every Mexican they see and not arresting any white guys. You have no basis for that assumption.

No, That came in when you argued as though it's impossible that they are doing anything they aren't supposed to. You have no evidence of that, either. This is where you say, "you don't need evidence to show you haven't done wrong". And that's where I say, "they paid 6 million dollars to keep an employee quiet, and many other people are very upset with the way they're operating, and they're also being sued for a wrongful death in their prison, which is one of the things people have mentioned they are not doing right. So, yes, there is evidence that supports the other side of this story, you just ignore it.

Remember that stopping someone isn't the same as arresting them and that arresting them isn't the same as charging them. Stopping someone because they're Mexican is fine if you're after illegal immigrants in the USA - it's profiling. Arresting someone because they're Mexican is not fine (even if you're border patrol). Arresting someone because they've been stopped for being Mexican and then unable to show that they have the right to remain in the USA is fine.

No, stopping someone just because they're Mexican is not fine. That's what your not getting here. That is a direct problem. It doesn't matter who you're after, Police aren't allowed to just stop Mexicans because they might be illegal. Just like they aren't allowed to stop someone because they might not have insurance. They have to have reason. Now, in this case they're claiming reason, but given other questions that have come about, I have to ask, are they making reasons up? If you don't want to ask, you don't have to, I do, and I did, and I think I may have found my answer.

Lastly, stopping the police from arresting criminals because they're a certain type of criminal is insane.

Nobody had once said they want that. have they? can you actually provide a link or quote to someone in this thread saying we should stop police from stopping a certain type of criminal? I don't think anyone in the original posted article even said that. It's their methods that are in question, and it's their methods that have them in trouble with homeland security.


I'm a cop. I'm looking for a murderer. well, most black people are murderers, so look, there's one now, gotta go.

 

[Famine]

Profiling based solely on race, depending on what the profile, is. All black people are criminals. That is a racist belief, is it not? How about, all blacks are stupid? All blacks are dirty? I'm pretty sure those are racist, last I was told anyway. They're considered racist in America, I know that much.

That's not profiling though. For a start, profiling doesn't use the word "all".

Profiling is not racism. Racism is not profiling.

You're right then. This is where I should direct a nasty yet clever profile your way. there must be no way profiling can be racist.

Feel free to profile me.

Nothing in there? Like if a policy of the sheriff's office was to arrest every Mexican they see with broken English?
Don't like that one? how's this?

I have no idea what you're getting at.

Yes I did.

Did I say it was fine? I do know I didn't say it is racist for sheriff's to do it, but not border patrol, which you implied I said earlier, see below.

I didn't imply anything. I asked you a direct question.

The question was why it's not racism for border patrol to arrest every Mexican they see, but why it is racist for a Sheriff to arrest people who don't have valid ID on them.

No, That came in when you argued as though it's impossible that they are doing anything they aren't supposed to. You have no evidence of that, either. This is where you say, "you don't need evidence to show you haven't done wrong". And that's where I say, "they paid 6 million dollars to keep an employee quiet, and many other people are very upset with the way they're operating, and they're also being sued for a wrongful death in their prison, which is one of the things people have mentioned they are not doing right. So, yes, there is evidence that supports the other side of this story, you just ignore it.

What does an alleged wrongful death have to do with you making up stories that this police department is arresting every Mexican they see and not arresting any white guys?

No, stopping someone just because they're Mexican is not fine. That's what your not getting here. That is a direct problem. It doesn't matter who you're after, Police aren't allowed to just stop Mexicans because they might be illegal. Just like they aren't allowed to stop someone because they might not have insurance. They have to have reason. Now, in this case they're claiming reason, but given other questions that have come about, I have to ask, are they making reasons up? If you don't want to ask, you don't have to, I do, and I did, and I think I may have found my answer.

You're not getting it. Stopping and Arresting are different things, which I've covered many times now.

It is fine to STOP someone just because they're Mexican.
It is fine to ARREST someone because they've been stopped just for being Mexican and have failed to provide evidence they have the legal right to remain in the USA.
It is not fine to ARREST someone just because they're Mexican.

Profiling gives you your reason to stop someone - they are Mexican and someone who doesn't have right to remain in the US is more likely to be Hispanic than not. They are stopped based on their profile (Hispanic) with the reason that they may be illegal immigrants.

Now, you say border patrol can arrest people for being Mexican. This is wrong. You say this Sheriff cannot arrest people for being Mexican and not having ID. This is also wrong.

Nobody had once said they want that. have they?

What, you mean apart from Homeland Security in the original post?

The Homeland Security Department wants Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., to stop arresting illegal immigrants whose only crime was crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without documents.

I'm a cop. I'm looking for a murderer. well, most black people are murderers, so look, there's one now, gotta go.

You're doing nothing to dispel the impression that you have no idea what profiling is or how it works, despite my best efforts to explain it.

 

[TrievelA7X]

That's not profiling though. For a start, profiling doesn't use the word "all".

It can.

Profiling is not racism. Racism is not profiling.[/color][/b]

Profiling can be racism, and therefore racism can be profiling.

Feel free to profile me.

Why bother.

I have no idea what you're getting at.

Sorry to hear that.

The question was why it's not racism for border patrol to arrest every Mexican they see, but why it is racist for a Sheriff to arrest people who don't have valid ID on them.[/color][/b]

I never said it was racist to arrest people who don't have a valid I.D.
I said it's racist to arrest one race for a crime, and not other races for that same crime.
Note that that does not mean other races must be commiting this crime and not being punished accordingly, just that I wonder if they are, and I do doubt it.

What does an alleged wrongful death have to do with you making up stories that this police department is arresting every Mexican they see and not arresting any white guys?

I never said they aren't arresting other races for this same crime, I asked the question, are they? I don't know, but you assume not. I ask because I wonder why all the fuss. You don't want to know, so you argue.

You're not getting it. Stopping and Arresting are different things, which I've covered many times now.

Yes they are, thank you for the tip.

It is fine to STOP someone just because they're Mexican.
It is fine to ARREST someone because they've been stopped just for being Mexican and have failed to provide evidence they have the legal right to remain in the USA.
It is not fine to ARREST someone just because they're Mexican.

It is not fine to stop every person of a race you see, for no other reason. No it is not. You keep making all these assumptions I'm confusing this and that. No. Police are also not allowed to stop every black guy they see in Compton every day. It's harassment.

Profiling gives you your reason to stop someone - they are Mexican and someone who doesn't have right to remain in the US is more likely to be Hispanic than not. They are stopped based on their profile (Hispanic) with the reason that they may be illegal immigrants.

A race alone is not a profile, other than a racist one. This is why I gave you definitions on the word racist. But you said you didn't get it, which gives me my answer. To think a "profile" as you call it, that is based solely on race is anything other than racist is assinine.

Now, you say border patrol can arrest people for being Mexican. This is wrong. You say this Sheriff cannot arrest people for being Mexican and not having ID. This is also wrong.

I'm sorry, you'll have to quote me, I can't remember saying that. I remember saying that border patrol can, and sheriffs cannot, but I don't remember commenting on the moral of the matter for border patrol.

What, you mean apart from Homeland Security in the original post?

You're right, they did! They seem to agree that sheriff's obsession with immigrants has lead to more serious crimes taking a backseat! Yet another one of the points raised by the sheriff's opposition backed up.

You're doing nothing to dispel the impression that you have no idea what profiling is or how it works, despite my best efforts to explain it.

I know exactly what profiling is, and how it works. Mexican = not a profile. White = not a profile.
Black guy with sideways hat, pants sagging over ass, baggy clothing, smoking something on street corner in gang territory, Profile!

 

[Famine]

It can.

No, it cannot.

Profiling can be racism, and therefore racism can be profiling.

No, it cannot.

Why bother.

It might demonstrate you have an inkling what profiling is.

I never said it was racist to arrest people who don't have a valid I.D.
I said it's racist to arrest one race for a crime, and not other races for that same crime.
Note that that does not mean other races must be commiting this crime and not being punished accordingly, just that I wonder if they are, and I do doubt it.

And since no-one is being arrested for a crime because of their race, I have to wonder why you keep insisting that they are.

I never said they did, I asked the question, are they? I don't know, but you assume not. I ask because I wonder why all the fuss. You don't want to know, so you argue.

But they're not questioning whites on their I.D.'s, nor are they arresting every white guy they find without one.

Your words. Provide evidence.

Yes they are, thank you for the tip.

Bear it in mind in your future responses - because you've confused them again in your last post.

It is not fine to stop every person of a race you see, for no other reason. No it is not. You keep making all these assumptions I'm confusing this and that. No. Police are also not allowed to stop every black guy they see in Compton every day. It's harassment.

It's not harassment!

If you're on an illegal immigration sting, it is completely fine and, in fact, sensible to stop people who fit the profile of an illegal immigrant.

A race alone is not a profile, other than a racist one. This is why I gave you definitions on the word racist. But you said you didn't get it, which gives me my answer. To think a "profile" as you call it, that is based solely on race is anything other than racist is assinine.

Now, whoever based a profile solely upon race?

Note also that your definitions of racism - irrelevant as they are - didn't actually address profiling. How remarkable.

I'm sorry, you'll have to quote me, I can't remember saying that. I remember saying that border patrol can, and sheriffs cannot, but I don't remember commenting on the moral of the matter for border patrol.

Indeed you didn't, despite me now asking the question of you twice.

You're right, they did! They seem to agree that sheriff's obsession with immigrants has lead to more serious crimes taking a backseat! Yet another one of the points raised by the sheriff's opposition backed up.

I've looked over the quote from the first post and I can't see where Homeland say the Sheriff's department is suffering because the Sheriff is obsessed with immigrants. Nor where it says the Sheriff is obsessed with immigrants.

I know exactly what profiling is, and how it works. Mexican = not a profile. White = not a profile.
Black guy with sideways hat, pants sagging over ass, baggy clothing, smoking something on street corner in gang territory, Profile!

How about white guy with sideways hat, pants sagging over ass, baggy clothing, smoking something on street corner in gang territory?

Now your two profiles differ only on race. Ohnoes. Racism.

 

[breakpoint]

woah, thats just too much quoting and such for me to even try to keep up with now. I get pulled over and messed with just as much as anyone i know, and most of my mates are black and a few are mexican. I live in the lowest income part of town and that combined with what i drive makes them think, drug dealer so i get messed with every week. Is it annoying, yes. Is it understandable, yes. So everyone stop crying and let them do their job.

 

[Joel]

woah, thats just too much quoting and such for me to even try to keep up with now. I get pulled over and messed with just as much as anyone i know, and most of my mates are black and a few are mexican. I live in the lowest income part of town and that combined with what i drive makes them think, drug dealer so i get messed with every week. Is it annoying, yes. Is it understandable, yes. So everyone stop crying and let them do their job.

:golfclap: