Arpaio: ‘Border Patrol Is Too Busy Changing Diapers’ To Go After Illegal Immigrants

Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 10 years, 10 months ago to Politics
45 comments | Share | Flag

There is no question in my mind that this "crisis" was manufactured by the administration to grease the skids for unilateral executive action to make those who illegally entered our country "legal citizens".


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're right. Culture is incredibly important. That's why it should not be controlled or regulated by the government.

    And the reason why our government makes an exception for immigrants from India is because of the H-1B immigration visa, which exists to compensate for the fact that our own educational system is terrible. Michio Kaku has more info on that:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_C...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I didn't say no borders, I said no border control. Slight difference there.

    And yes, you are correct that there would be no way of defining culture. That's part of the point. Culture should not be defined, regulated, or controlled in the first place.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I said it doesn't mention immigration, not that it doesn't mention immigrants. Immigration and immigrants are two different things. The first is a process, the second refers to people.

    I do believe in a society where people are free from the tyrannical oppression of an authoritative regime, which I suppose is sort of an anarchist ideology, though at the same time I don't believe it's even possible, let alone desirable, to create a society without some form of government. In this light, the matter then becomes a question not of abolishing government, but rather of restricting its power and authority as much as possible.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The Constitution doesn't mention immigration"
    " immigrants can't run for the office of President."

    Hi there. Make up your mind whenever you're ready.

    I'm sure you do think it should be repealed.
    You sure talk like an anarchist.
    Or is it just the U.S. you want destroyed?

    Again you duck my question.
    This makes two questions you failed to answer...

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed. Although our executive seems intent on making its own laws and enforcing them, irrespective of Constitutional law ... We are no longer a nation of laws; we are a nation of men... Well there is some hope. The SCOTUS has slapped down a few things lately and now we must wait to see if these rulings are honored. Our Declaration of Independence sets down in the second paragraph the principle that once a government has overstepped its legitimate power that "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." It would appear that they have not read or understood the founding documents nor direction they are pushing the true patriots who still believe in our founding documents and principles.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Immigration laws are designed to assimilate a number of people into this nation's culture, not to "keep as many immigrants out as possible". If that were the case, many of my Indian co-workers would not be here designing the next generation microprocessors for servers and personal computers.

    The culture of a nation is important, and we are losing ours by virtue of this and other administrations turning a blind eye to the "law of the land". It is the intent of this administration, in my personal opinion, to flood this country with as many immigrants as possible for purposes of garnering votes of those new slaves as well as for building a new country based on our Dear Leader's socialist leanings.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The legal process of immigration is actually deliberately designed to keep as many immigrants out as possible. And yes, I am an advocate of open borders. As long as someone doesn't have a violent criminal record (non-violent drug crimes don't count), and isn't a member of a terrorist organization, they should be allowed in.

    As for the social safety nets, I actually think we ought to have government work programs instead of government welfare programs. That way people are doing something to earn their keep, rather than just receiving a free handout.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you, O.A., and good afternoon!

    The tenth amendment has been neutered by the Federal Government through a poor interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. We have a (Federal) Customs and Border Protection Agency "ensuring the borders". That is not working, and States have been disallowed from performing their own border protection and immigration efforts.

    In short, where does one turn when the Government won't enforce its own laws, and seems to value those outside its borders more than those within (excepting April 15, mind you)?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:
    "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with immigration, except to say that immigrants can't run for the office of President. It doesn't say anything about whether or not they can enter the country. And personally, I actually think this particular part of the Constitution ought to be repealed through an Amendment, anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Without borders, there are no countries. You have no way of defining your culture.

    I notice you didn't answer my question.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Article 2, section 1, clause 5.

    So, you're saying that MLK told me it's my moral responsibility to disobey the 1964 civil rights act, and all of the affirmative action laws on the books?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 10 months ago
    Hello YNGH,
    If nothing else the stated policies of our Executive are definitely encouraging illegal entry. A lot of things seem to be being done to undermine the sovereignty, property rights, and general welfare of the legitimate taxpaying citizens and legal immigrants.
    The Constitution by virtue of the tenth amendment leaves border control within the province of state powers. It only mandates a uniform rule of naturalization. It does however provide that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. [See Article IV, Section 4] If aliens entering into a State from a foreign country constitute an invasion, then the federal government is constitutionally mandated by this provision to intervene and protect the State."
    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/10/...

    invasion
    Syllabification: in·va·sion
    Pronunciation: /inˈvāZHən /
    NOUN
    1An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force:
    the Allied invasion of Normandy
    in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion
    1.1An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity:
    stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans
    1.2An unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain:
    random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This administration has consistently cherry-picked the laws it wants to enforce, and those it chooses to ignore. This administration has also ridden roughshod over our Constitution through the abuse of executive power. That was my reference to the Constitution and to the laws of this nation.

    Our immigration laws are here for a reason, and I certainly do not view them as unjust. There is a process that immigrants may follow to arrive here legally. Following that legally prescribed process has gone out the window for many years, unfortunately.

    This is a country that like it or not has - or had - a culture. The influx of illegal immigrants has NOT adapted to the culture of this country... and bringing thousands more into this country is going in the wrong direction. The social safety nets of this country - as generous as they are - cannot sustain this incremental loading.

    You seem to be advocating completely open borders. Are there other countries who have such a policy? I'm certain that Mexico vigorously enforces its borders and its immigration policies, as does Canada...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I believe in countries, just not in border control. An open society is a free society. ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Constitution doesn't mention immigration. As for the laws, I believe Dr. King had something to say about that...

    "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
    ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you *really* want civil war in this country, don't you?

    But then, you don't believe in countries.
    So why, exactly, should the rest of us protect your rights?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
    Good. They shouldn't be going after them anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo