Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years ago
    They've been relentlessly after Joe for about a decade. Having met and spoken to him a few times, I doubt he's done anything outside the scope of the law. This is not to say those who want his scalp enjoy his defiance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years ago
    I wonder why the Border Patrol can do pretty much the same thing at their road stops to all of us and the TSA can make us strip, but Sheriff Joe can't ask you your immigration status when you're in a traffic stop.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
      Indeed, the Border Patrol and all checkpoints not at the actual border are unconstitutional and need to go away.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years ago
        So, the border patrol that IS at the 'actual border' (Where "our laws begin") shouldn't stop illegals from coming across?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
          There shouldn't be a law against anyone crossing unless intent to violate someone's rights can be proven.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years ago
            Well, as you can see, our border laws are next to useless, I don't think it's boding well for us either. Except to ensure more votes for leftists...and to break the bank from all the freebies they receive...not to mention the added criminal element we have to deal with here.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
              A border law that tries to keep millions of people out (and is constantly violated) is a lot more work for a Border Patrol than an open-border policy that only tries to keep real bad guys out. Not that all bad guys are as easy to spot as the ones seen on camera on Glenn Beck earlier this week, but it's a much smaller job.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ nickursis 9 years ago
                jdg, an "open border" policy would be an unmitigated disaster.You cannot, cannot have laws regarding your sovereign borders and then say "ignore them". A country has every right to regulate who enters when and how. Just because a herd of people choose to ignore it is not reason to adopt the BS failure that politicos call "solutions" I am all for landmines and miniguns if that's what it takes. If you want to come in, follow the law. If it's good enough for citizens, why would you ever think non-citizens get a pass? That is completely invalid.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
                  It's not "good enough for citizens." Most of the laws on the books today are wrong and therefore not morally binding.

                  There is no point in having a moral philosophy if we are going to abdicate its power by declaring that breaking laws is wrong per se.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ nickursis 9 years ago
                    Morally binding on what premise? The system of laws is morally binding in that they rely on people obeying them. The vehicles of change are elections and changing the representation to those who will actually represent the voters interests and not their own. Declaring that you believe laws are not morally binding is simply anarchy. That is like abortion protestors burning down a clinic because they believe that it is not illegal since the clinic is not morally valid. It is still arson.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
                      The premise has to be that all laws derive their moral authority, if any, from the individual rights they protect. And no one has an individual right to limit the number of other people who can cross a boundary, unless it's the boundary of that individual's property.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ nickursis 9 years ago
                        I do not agree with the "if any" part. Laws have a moral authority because they are in place to stop an immoral act. What would you say if 10 people came into your living room and declared it theirs? Same situation. A Country has a sovereign right established by it's inhabitants. That is why invasion is generally an act of war. You go take the other guys land, he gets pissed and kills you. Moral action. That is justification for miniguns and mines on the border. Stay home and clean your own house, don't come to mine because you can't control the kids. This opens the door to the whole who owns the US argument, in that Europeans moved in on Native Americans (probably why they are called "Native"). 300 years on, there is a hard time fixing all that happened back then, I wasn't around then. Today, the issue is the same: People coming in from another country wanting to take yours. Invasion. Act of war.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 9 years ago
    Personally I don't like the term illegal alien. To me it smears aliens in general (like the "grays". :) ).

    I think we should call these people what they are: immigration criminals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years ago
    "Mexican Citizens: Must present a passport with a nonimmigrant visa or laser visa border crossing card when visiting by land or sea. Some Mexican citizens are subject to US-VISIT biometric procedures.

    All Other International Visitors:

    International visitors to the U.S. typically must show a passport or e-Passport when going through customs.

    Visitors from certain countries may enter the U.S. without a visa under the Visa Waiver Program and are subject to the Internet-based Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to traveling to the U.S. Those entering the U.S. on a visa are subject to US-VISIT biometric screening procedures."
    http://immigration.findlaw.com/visas/bas...

    If you have crossed the border without abiding by theses laws or overstayed your visa you have broken the law..You are a lawbreaker. As such you are subject to arrest. If you don't like the law too bad. Get it changed. Until then abide by it.
    A nation without borders and control and knowledge of who is entering is no nation. Sovereignty matters. A world without borders is chaos and invitation to mayhem.
    A Sheriff that enforces all the laws is doing his sworn duty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 9 years ago
    This follows suit with the IRS targeting tea party organizations, going after Gibson guitar and many other partisan entities that have been hammered by this admin. Watch in the next couple days when the Rs fold and approve Loretta Lynch for AG. Nothing new here and they wonder why we are angry.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ nickursis 9 years ago
      Indeed, they are assuming that they will get their way. Your statement is correct, the IRS and Gibson thing is appalling, yet no one was ever held accountable, Lois Lerner didn't get wet over anything...and she got a bonus and get out of jail free card. Oh, plus retirement on our dime. POS...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years ago
    Of course it's a witch hunt. This is what happens when people publicly oppose tyranny - they get targeted. Those in power use all the tools at their disposal: the IRS, DEA, EPA, BLM, and all the remaining cornucopia of bureaucratic acryonym agencies in order to silence criticism and dissent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years ago
    I read the part about a federal judge's ruling, but this intrusive manipulation with twisted notions about racial profiling seems to have Eric Holder written all over it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DanShu 9 years ago
    Correct call, witch hunt. Our Fed's are now filled with Indoctrinated Leftist. It's going to get worse as our Educational System pumps them out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by waytodude 9 years ago
    This also goes with 6 U.S. cities disbanding their police departments and letting the federal government take over. Birmingham Alabama police chief called and asked them feds to do this. Sooner rather than later martial law will be taking us over.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years ago
    Poor Sheriff Joe. He's been relentlessly rational in his pursuit of illegals of every stripe. From the unauthorized border crosser, to hijackers, to drug runners -- he keeps arresting them! Doesn't he know that he's in no position to judge how he's doing his job? But we feds will fix it. We'll monitor him so we can instruct him how to do his job, and if he doesn't do it our way....we'll arrest HIM!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 9 years ago
    Hell, if I was the judge, I would assign a wetnurse to ride along with EVERY deputy (without a sidearm, of course) to monitor everything that the deputy does. REALITY CHECK, for sure.

    Just as a note, the show COPS was created by John Langley, a high school and college buddy. He's considered the "God Father of Reality TV" and watching COPS a few times a week, is a real eye-opener as to what those guys put up with.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years ago
    If I were sheriff Joe I would retire and all of his loyal deputies should leave the sheriffs department for other forms of work. Let those who engineered this now find new employees.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 9 years ago
    Witch Hunt indeed. Let see here.. a black man robs a bank, so you go looking for black men: Racial Profiling. People from south of the border cross illegally, so you look for people from south of the border.. DUH? Morons. The same morons who fondle 80 year old women and let middle eastern men go through, because they are afraid of "backlash". Idiots, idiots idiots....a thousand times I say: IDIOTS!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
    Arpaio is a tyrant who regularly wipes his ass with the Constitution. He attacks not just Mexicans, but dissenters, without cause. He belongs in prison, but this is a good start. Crossing a national border is not a violation of anyone's rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years ago
      A 'tyrant'? How?
      "wipes his ass with the Constitution"? When?
      "He attacks Mexicans and dissenters? Huh?
      "He belongs in prison"? For what?
      What are you basing these accusations on exactly?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
        An Objectivist would agree that crossing a national border is not a violation of anyone's rights. Now jdg-he wanted to rachet things up ALOT and he ignores that we live in a welfare state and that illegal immigration causes the crime rate of southern border states to skyrocket. It's a huge problem of crime, disease, and overwhelming systems which may not be recognized by a proper government but certainly by the current infrastructure the US has in place..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years ago
          Am I insane for thinking the government's job is to keep certain people out of country? Back in the day we used to have an immigration system in place to assure health and safety...they're we're medical exams (for contagious diseases) and sponsors (personal vouchers) for people wanting to come to America. What was wrong with that? Now it's free ed all around, free food, free housing, come on in!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 9 years ago
            A free person should be able to travel anywhere freely. The problem here is an irrational drug policy and a welfare state. If the US got rid of its war against drugs, the drug trade and associated violence would disappear over night. If we eliminated the welfare state, these people would not be able to freeload off the system and only those able to work or those with a family able to produce would cross.

            That said the present policy of democrats is clearly defined to give them a political advantage. That is disgusting.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mdant 9 years ago
      Wow! I hope you are illustrating the absurd by being even more absurd. It is a sad comment on America when the best among us, the heroes like this sheriff that should be help up as an example for all to follow, instead are harassed exactly because they are such great people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo