In reading this thread, it appears that Dave agrees that Obama's apparently racially motivated and willful disregard for the rule of law set a bad precedent, but we shouldn't excuse Arpaio (or Trump) for doing the same, correct?
I would like to point out that when federal agencies enforce immigration law and detain people for unlawful presence, they do so with federal law enforcement agents. While processing aliens for unlawful presence and eventual deportation is mostly civil enforcement, federal law enforcement agents are authorized by law to pursue civil cases in certain circumstances. Further, unlawful re-entry into the U.S. after a prior deportation order is a crime and may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.
If a local or state law enforcement agency voluntarily elects to pursue enforcement of immigration law via 287(g), they obtain certification and training from the federal government to do so. Abuse of the program happens but isn't as rampant as the left would have you believe. It isn't unlawful for an agency to know and understand patterns of criminal activity and demographics. If officers working a certain beat arrest overwhelmingly minority subjects, that doesn't mean they're racially profiling if the overwhelming majority of the residents are minority as well. likewise, immigration enforcement along the southern border isn't racist just because the overwhelming majority of people detained are brown skinned Hispanics, because that's the demographic inherent to unlawful immigration on the southern border.
Now if immigration enforcement on the Canadian border detained predominantly Hispanics, THAT might indicate racial profiling. Likewise detention of predominantly whites on the southern border might be racial profiling. Too many people today mistake demographics for racism. Therefore it's incumbent upon the agencies in question, to document that targeted enforcement stems from crime trend analysis and not racial demographics.
FWIW, I think Sheriff Joe failed in that area because he felt justified in doing what he did, just because he knew or assumed that he was right and his detractors were wrong. That's a surefire way to lose 287(g) certification. You have to verify and justify every action you take in accordance with law and legal precedent, if you want to survive the intense level of scrutiny an agency is subjected to in society today.
I would like to point out that when federal agencies enforce immigration law and detain people for unlawful presence, they do so with federal law enforcement agents. While processing aliens for unlawful presence and eventual deportation is mostly civil enforcement, federal law enforcement agents are authorized by law to pursue civil cases in certain circumstances. Further, unlawful re-entry into the U.S. after a prior deportation order is a crime and may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.
If a local or state law enforcement agency voluntarily elects to pursue enforcement of immigration law via 287(g), they obtain certification and training from the federal government to do so. Abuse of the program happens but isn't as rampant as the left would have you believe. It isn't unlawful for an agency to know and understand patterns of criminal activity and demographics. If officers working a certain beat arrest overwhelmingly minority subjects, that doesn't mean they're racially profiling if the overwhelming majority of the residents are minority as well. likewise, immigration enforcement along the southern border isn't racist just because the overwhelming majority of people detained are brown skinned Hispanics, because that's the demographic inherent to unlawful immigration on the southern border.
Now if immigration enforcement on the Canadian border detained predominantly Hispanics, THAT might indicate racial profiling. Likewise detention of predominantly whites on the southern border might be racial profiling. Too many people today mistake demographics for racism. Therefore it's incumbent upon the agencies in question, to document that targeted enforcement stems from crime trend analysis and not racial demographics.
FWIW, I think Sheriff Joe failed in that area because he felt justified in doing what he did, just because he knew or assumed that he was right and his detractors were wrong. That's a surefire way to lose 287(g) certification. You have to verify and justify every action you take in accordance with law and legal precedent, if you want to survive the intense level of scrutiny an agency is subjected to in society today.
