Whether Sheriff Arpaio’s or his department’s actions, if true as alleged in the lawsuit, are defensible in any terms – legal, political, social or moral.
Never seen the Rio Grande, but I understand that most of the year, you can walk across it without getting your socks wet.
I haven’t seen most of it, but the two places I have seen it at it was in a deep canyon, or artificially channelized. Both were in the summertime and there was still plenty of water in it.
Of course, “They must have made up all that shit!” is also a position open for debate.
But, not in “They say that, let them prove it!” terms, because, of course, it’s a lawsuit, and we must assume the DoJ prepared to try.
The GD is a court of public opinion, not of law. We have our own evidentiary standards.
An economy that seems to provide a much better life then in Mexico. Additionally, they also get other supports. Food Stamps etc.
Did I ever say I begrudge them? You seem to be insinuating that I am against their presence. If you believe that, come out and say it. You wont offend me.
Not necessarily. We need people willing to do that sort of labor. If they happen to be Mexican, so be it. But I wont classify that as Mexican work. That would be racist.
Or, whether the DoJ is being retaliatory for Arpaio’s very public scrutiny of Obama.
Please, tell us more!
It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw titled “A Short History of Immigration”:
PANEL 1:
Guy 1: What a beautiful spot! 
Guy 2: Hey, I was here first! :mad:
PANEL 2:
[they fight]
PANEL 3:
G2: [puff-puff] All right . . . you can stay . . .
PANEL 4:
G3: What a beautiful spot!
G1 & G2 together: Hey, we were here first! :mad:
:rolleyes: You can’t seriously be talking about Arpaio’s Birther crap.
Whether you are against the presence of undocumented immigrants who use fake SSNs to work in the U.S.? I inferred that you are against it, certainly; please advise if that’s not true.
Part A: You said criminal. Remember, Sheriff Joe is facing a civil trial here. Any differences?
Part B: Indictment/conviction of whom? Civil? Criminal?
I’ll wait till you’re done reading the whole ugly thing. I should point out there is a subsection to the charges against Sheriff Joe: the part after the part I quoted points out how they take Federal money under title blah blah so certain acts become a federal case blah. Not sure on all of that, but it might be relevant.
I’m going to try to find out who testified specifically that it was Sheriff Joe that came up with these evil plans to deny people their rights. Might be a bit tricky.
I imagine that every group has it’s Uncle Tom types, and the strategy of “divide and conquer” is often very successful.
The DoJ has been investigating Arpaio for several years prior to Arpaio’s imvolvement in the Birther CT. If the DoJ has that much foreknowledge, it should probably be able to spot all the coyotes before they get to the border.
I can’t say they don’t think this, but it’s really dumb. Arpaio’s policies institutionalize this bigotry. It would get worse, with people reporting you all the time.
Obama deserves the birthers and their investigations.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100158834/obama-used-to-be-a-kenyan/
He deserves Sherrif Joe too.
Hah! That didn’t take long to disseminate. And dropped into the discussion at hand sans relevance too.
But while we’re here, I do so love that a writer for a major national broadsheet is complaining about the failings of the “mainstream media”.
Obama’s own actions had eventually given rise to that birther stuff. It’s extremely relevant to the consequences he’s facing now with people like that Sheriff.
ABC isnt complaining at all. Try reading it again.
No they didn’t - if they had, this would hardly be the first time we would be hearing about this, would it?
And no it isn’t - Sheriff Joe’s birtherism is a minor sideshow to his bigger problems, already discussed at length here.
ABC? You’ve linked to a blogger from the Daily Telegraph. The headline is "Obama’s literary agent says he was ‘born in Kenya’. How did the mainstream media miss this?. Did *you *read your own link?
It’s not a sideshow - it stems from real life, documented, conflicting information about the president’s past.
My fault on that link, sorry, here is what Im looking at from ABC. I find it impossible to believe the Kenyan bio was a misstatement, a mistake, a clerical error, etc. It was put there on purpose to provide a specific persona to advance his goal. So he deserves what he gets especially after the nauseating speechifying over the past few years on bringing in a new era of change, honesty, transparency, blah blah blah. He is no better than most sleazy politicians and Im glad people are seeing it, even if they do continue to goose-step.
It’s certainly a sideshow to the subject under discussion here. And are we talking about what the Clinton campaign presented? Because I’m pretty sure Obama didn’t write that either.
I’m sure you do. But your desire to accept an unsupported and heavily skewed interpretation of the facts (that Obama was somehow deliberately presenting himself as born in Kenya) over the statements of the people involved (the literary agent has admitted that Obama was not responsible for the incorrect bio) does not in itself constitute a compelling argument.
Except that all that requires accepting that it was Obama who promoting the erroneous bio. Not even Breitbart says that. But hey, believe what you want.