America's "Toughest Sheriff" caught enforcing laws he made-up

[thinkliberty]

http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/10/19/hey-joe-whaddaya-know/

"The facts, at least, are simple:  Joe Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, claimed that Federal law lets him arrest suspected illegal immigrants during street sweeps.  He provided a press handout that quotes extensively from "8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)". He said that this text gives him authority to continue those arrests, despite the fact that Federal officials had explicitly rescinded an agreement that once allowed him to do so..."

(click the link above for the rest of the story.)

[dalebert]

That guy needs to get fired so badly.

[Pat K]

That guy needs to get fired so badly.

It's an elected position and the people in Maricopa
county keep reelecting him they must like having an
authoritarian nut ball as sheriff.

[lildog]

http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/10/19/hey-joe-whaddaya-know/

"The facts, at least, are simple:  Joe Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, claimed that Federal law lets him arrest suspected illegal immigrants during street sweeps.  He provided a press handout that quotes extensively from "8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)". He said that this text gives him authority to continue those arrests, despite the fact that Federal officials had explicitly rescinded an agreement that once allowed him to do so..."

(click the link above for the rest of the story.)

USC 1324 is an actual federal law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001324----000-.html

He's not doing anything wrong here other then enforcing the law that's on the books.

The real problem is that the federal government has these laws on the books but say to the law not to enforce them... they why on earth keep them on the books in the first place???

[thinkliberty]

http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/10/19/hey-joe-whaddaya-know/

"The facts, at least, are simple:  Joe Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, claimed that Federal law lets him arrest suspected illegal immigrants during street sweeps.  He provided a press handout that quotes extensively from "8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)". He said that this text gives him authority to continue those arrests, despite the fact that Federal officials had explicitly rescinded an agreement that once allowed him to do so..."

(click the link above for the rest of the story.)

USC 1324 is an actual federal law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001324----000-.html

He's not doing anything wrong here other then enforcing the law that's on the books.

The real problem is that the federal government has these laws on the books but say to the law not to enforce them... they why on earth keep them on the books in the first place???

There is an 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), but there is no 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii), like Joe would like you to believe.

[AntonLee]

hurting people is wrong.  I don't really care if it's in someone's book or not.

[lildog]

There is an 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), but there is no 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii), like Joe would like you to believe.

Nearly that whole law though can be used to arrest illegals.  My guess is that the author of the story got it wrong and it should have referred to 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)  AND 8 USC 1324(b)(3)

(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).






(3)  Prima facie evidence in determinations of violations
In determining whether a violation of subsection (a) of this section has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law:
(A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that alien's status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(B) Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(C) Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that alien's status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.

[lildog]

hurting people is wrong.  I don't really care if it's in someone's book or not.

I think were we see things differently is who's hurting who here.

If I were to break into your home and start living there who's the one hurting who?  Would I be hurting you or you hurting me if you arrest me for breaking into your home?

[Jim Johnson]

hurting people is wrong.  I don't really care if it's in someone's book or not.

I think were we see things differently is who's hurting who here.

If I were to break into your home and start living there who's the one hurting who?  Would I be hurting you or you hurting me if you arrest me for breaking into your home?

Maybe I read this wrong... Are you saying people from other countries are breaking into peoples houses in The United States and then living in those houses?

[thinkliberty]

hurting people is wrong.  I don't really care if it's in someone's book or not.

I think were we see things differently is who's hurting who here.

If I were to break into your home and start living there who's the one hurting who?  Would I be hurting you or you hurting me if you arrest me for breaking into your home?

Are you trying to say the Whole US territory is your home?

Would I be hurting you if I arrested you for walking in front of my house or if you work at one of my neighbors houses? You don't live on my street and you were not born on my street -- you must be an illegal alien.

[AntonLee]

If you broke into my home, yes you would be hurting someone.

the other guys pretty much said it all.  You don't own America just like I don't.  There's plenty of room.  If you decide that you want to condone breaking into their homes to bring them somewhere else where you claim they came from, you'd be hurting someone.

I get it, I was one of the illegal immigrant assholes for quite a long time.  I've decided to stop hating people who haven't done anything to me. 

[lildog]

ok let me back up and see if I can state this a different way...

We are a nation of laws.  Some of those laws define who can come here and who can't and what process those coming here must follow.

Once here they are entitled to "benefits" (which I use loosely because they come in part by the use of force by first taking from others who live here).  The "benefits" are like the food in your house.

If someone breaks the rules we've established for coming here and they take those benefits when they shouldn't be that is no different then someone breaking into your house and eating your food.

If you invite someone in and say yes you can have my food that's one thing but here we have people breaking rules we've created for entry into this country and attempting to take the "food" we put out for people who live hear legally.

If this country were a town park and there was no benefits being given away which cost the rest of us money then no one would care who comes here... and most likely many who do come here seeking the benefits wouldn't come here in the first place.

[AntonLee]

I am not a nation of anything.  I'm not much of a collectivist so unless you can explain to me how Jose, a mexican immigrant who came here say 2 seconds ago has harmed you I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere.

I get it.  Nation of lawrs.  Move on, they're just people looking for a freer life.  They're not your enemy and neither am I.

[Jim Johnson]

ok let me back up and see if I can state this a different way...

We are a nation of laws.  Some of those laws define who can come here and who can't and what process those coming here must follow.

Once here they are entitled to "benefits" (which I use loosely because they come in part by the use of force by first taking from others who live here).  The "benefits" are like the food in your house.

If someone breaks the rules we've established for coming here and they take those benefits when they shouldn't be that is no different then someone breaking into your house and eating your food.

If you invite someone in and say yes you can have my food that's one thing but here we have people breaking rules we've created for entry into this country and attempting to take the "food" we put out for people who live hear legally.

If this country were a town park and there was no benefits being given away which cost the rest of us money then no one would care who comes here... and most likely many who do come here seeking the benefits wouldn't come here in the first place.

So your saying... that if someone breaks into your Mom and Dad's house, where you are living and helping to pay bills, and Mom and Dad gives that person a room and some food... that person is a thief and that he is stealing from you?  I think your beef should be with Mom and Dad.

[KBCraig]

Once here they are entitled to "benefits" (which I use loosely because they come in part by the use of force by first taking from others who live here).  The "benefits" are like the food in your house.

Studies have shown that illegal immigrants are a net plus to the government coffers. Those who work far outnumber those who get "benefits" (and thank you for the disclaimer). Those who work have to give identification and social security numbers, due to our laws. Since they're illegal, they don't have SSNs or valid IDs, so they use someone else's. Income tax and FICA are collected on those wages, but those workers can never file a tax return or claim those benefits, because it would mean being caught.

So, they consider those taxes paid just part of the price of working in America. They pay in, and get nothing in return except the bottom line on their paychecks.