Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is At It Again

[Sum Dum Gai]

Latina, Latino... same difference.  I only speak 'merican.  

[Green Eyed Lady]

I think part of Sheriff Joe's appeal to some people is because he doesn't believe in coddling those who don't do what they are supposed to.  He doesn't believe those who commit crimes should live in luxury.  He doesn't believe those who enter this country illegally should have access to the same resources as do those of us who actually pay for them.  Is humiliation and profiling the answer?  I can't say "yes" to that, but I don't have a better idea either.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Is humiliation and profiling the answer? I can't say "yes" to that, but I don't have a better idea either.

Arizona had a better answer, the state attorney general refused to enforce it, and I believe federal judges struck it down.  The law they passed prior to targeting individuals targeted businesses.  If they were found employing an illegal they got a huge fine on the first offense.  Second offense was loss of their business license for a short period.  Third offense was loss of their business license permanently.

Illegals come here looking for jobs.  Businesses hire them because they can pay them less than citizens.  Go after that, and you shut down the reason they jump the fence in the first place.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 20, 2014 10:07:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 20, 2014 9:47:23 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Your whole argument presumes that organizers knew that putting 'Patriot', etc. in their names would earn them special scrutiny from the IRS, which clearly wasn't the case.

But for sake of argument, fine. Let's consider the distinction between "choice" and "informed choice" to be semantics.

You would have no problem with the IRS being ordered to crack down on groups with "Latinos" in their names, because a women's shelter calling itself "Latinos Helping Latinos" had a choice to call itself "Libertad Women's Shelter" and didn't?

And in the same vein, you're completely opposed to extra background checks granting arms permits to Americans with a history of bipolar disorder and other mental illness? Because the last time I checked, they certainly didn't have any choice in the matter.

The IRS was looking at organizations seeking tax exempt status under a law that specifically prohibited them from primarily engaging in political activity. Background checks for those with a history of bipolar disorder seeking tax exempt status for their organization would be inappropriate. Background checks for them seeking weapons under a law calling for it would be appropriate.

I can't make sense of your response.

Yes, there is a law that prohibits political organizations from claiming tax-exempt status. I don't know why you're mixing and matching the hypotheticals, but fine. Let me put it this way: If it was discovered that 60% of all would-be tax-exempt organizations that include references to mental illnesses in their names were fronts for political groups, and a legal edict was issued to the IRS instructing them to concentrate their auditing resources on this subset of organizations for sake of efficiency, would your assessment be "I'm OK with this."?

Second question: If it was discovered that an alarming number of mass shootings are caused by bipolar individuals and a legal edict from on high subjected Americans with a history of mental illness to exhaustive background checks before they could obtain arms permits, would your response be "I'm OK with this."?

If so, why? You've stated that choice is the key element, and the above is an example of profiling that clearly targets individuals who have no choice of whether they're in the targeted demographic.

Or is your position that whatever kind of profiling the government does, as long as it's authorized by a law somewhere, you're OK with it?

Seems we are back to Emerson

Emerson's work usually made sense.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 20, 2014 14:25:08 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think part of Sheriff Joe's appeal to some people is because he doesn't believe in coddling those who don't do what they are supposed to.  He doesn't believe those who commit crimes should live in luxury.  He doesn't believe those who enter this country illegally should have access to the same resources as do those of us who actually pay for them.  Is humiliation and profiling the answer?  I can't say "yes" to that, but I don't have a better idea either.

And because Joe didn't do what he and his department were supposed to do (obey the U.S. Constitution), it will now cost the citizens of Maricopa County at least $29 million dollars. 

It works both ways.

[Green Eyed Lady]

What works both ways?  I don't understand what that means.  Someone asked for opinions on what his appeal is.  I gave my opinion.  I'm not sure I understand your comment.

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 14:40:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 20, 2014 10:07:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The IRS was looking at organizations seeking tax exempt status under a law that specifically prohibited them from primarily engaging in political activity. Background checks for those with a history of bipolar disorder seeking tax exempt status for their organization would be inappropriate. Background checks for them seeking weapons under a law calling for it would be appropriate.

I can't make sense of your response.

Yes, there is a law that prohibits political organizations from claiming tax-exempt status. I don't know why you're mixing and matching the hypotheticals, but fine. Let me put it this way: If Yes, if reality changes then I will face that new reality. Until then I will deal with what is.it was discovered that 60% of all would-be tax-exempt organizations that include references to mental illnesses in their names were fronts for political groups, and a legal edict was issued to the IRS instructing them to concentrate their auditing resources on this subset of organizations for sake of efficiency, would your assessment be "I'm OK with this."? Yes.

Second question: If it was discovered that an alarming number of mass shootings are caused by bipolar individuals and a legal edict from on high subjected Americans with a history of mental illness to exhaustive background checks before they could obtain arms permits, would your response be "I'm OK with this."? Yes.

If so, why? You've stated that choice is the key element, and the above is an example of profiling that clearly targets individuals who have no choice of whether they're in the targeted demographic. Yes,the reason of individual choice is reasonable in the first and not the second.

Or is your position that whatever kind of profiling the government does, as long as it's authorized by a law somewhere, you're OK with it? No. My position is that I support profiling that is reasonable and sensible in the situation for which it is being used. I also look to take into account the burden that those subjected to it face. Extending the period of time and the filing of some additional paperwork by an organization seeking tax exempt status is not the same level of burden as making a person late for work by stopping them because they are guilty of driving while black.

Seems we are back to Emerson

Emerson's work usually made sense.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Again, haven't read much on this but did read the article linked in the OP.  Am I the only one who sees this $29 or $39 million figure a bit overly-dramatic?  It appears this is a figure Sheriff Joe came up with - not any sort of court order or judgment or anything like that.  The judge ordered that Sheriff Joe see to it that his deputies stop racially profiling drivers.  This doesn't cost $29 million to accomplish.  Tell them to stop it.  As for the video and audio - it's my opinion all law enforcement vehicles should have them.  An advisory board?  Those are free around here.  A court appointed monitor - small salary at most.   I don't know how things work in Arizona but here, when we are required to take some kind of sensitivity training, it consists of a four hour class.  How does all this add up to $29 million the citizens of Maricopa County (who keep electing the guy, by the way) have to pay?  What am I missing here?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 20, 2014 14:47:20 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

What works both ways?  I don't understand what that means.  Someone asked for opinions on what his appeal is.  I gave my opinion.  I'm not sure I understand your comment.

Arpaio broke the law.

So both those sneaking over the border and Arpaio all broke the law(s).

[Green Eyed Lady]

Ok.  I see where you were heading.  That makes sense.  So what law was he found guilty of violating?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 20, 2014 15:30:58 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Ok.  I see where you were heading.  That makes sense.  So what law was he found guilty of violating?

It is in the opening post for pete's sake.

[Virgil Showlion]

My position is that I support profiling that is reasonable and sensible in the situation for which it is being used. I also look to take into account the burden that those subjected to it face. Extending the period of time and the filing of some additional paperwork by an organization seeking tax exempt status is not the same level of burden as making a person late for work by stopping them because they are guilty of driving while black.

So provide the above argument in the first place rather than "choice versus no choice", which clearly isn't the key factor in your mind.

Secondly: Is your claim that Mr. Arpaio and his police force are so heavily biased towards Latinos that they routinely pull over motorists in morning traffic for absolutely no reason besides their ethnicity?

Thirdly: If we suppose that x% of all motorists fitting some "young punk Latino" profile being pulled over by police are engaged in illegal activity (e.g. illegal transport of drugs, carrying without a permit, etc.), how high would x have to be before the profile was "reasonable and sensible" to you? 10%? 20%?

Suppose it turned out that the profile was narrowed to "young Latino males with tattoos" (with tattoos being a choice, I should point out), and the police uncovered criminal activity in 2 out of every 5 (40%) pull-overs. Is this specificity of targeting reasonable and sensible in your mind?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 20, 2014 15:41:56 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 20, 2014 15:30:58 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Ok.  I see where you were heading.  That makes sense.  So what law was he found guilty of violating?

It is in the opening post for pete's sake.

At the risk of upsetting you further, all I could find was his officers were found to have racially profiled drivers.  I didn't see anything about Sheriff Joe being found guilty of breaking any law.  If you are going to get all upset because some people actually expect others to obey the laws of our land, just forget it.  For what it's worth, I expect him to also.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 20, 2014 15:47:44 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 20, 2014 15:41:56 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It is in the opening post for pete's sake.

At the risk of upsetting you further, all I could find was his officers were found to have racially profiled drivers.  I didn't see anything about Sheriff Joe being found guilty of breaking any law.  If you are going to get all upset because some people actually expect others to obey the laws of our land, just forget it.  For what it's worth, I expect him to also.

Joe is responsible for his officers, yes? If not, then we can never, ever again claim "The buck stops here". 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 20, 2014 15:49:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 20, 2014 15:47:44 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

At the risk of upsetting you further, all I could find was his officers were found to have racially profiled drivers.  I didn't see anything about Sheriff Joe being found guilty of breaking any law.  If you are going to get all upset because some people actually expect others to obey the laws of our land, just forget it.  For what it's worth, I expect him to also.

Joe is responsible for his officers, yes? If not, then we can never, ever again claim "The buck stops here". 

Of course he is responsible for his officers.   I'm responsible for a group of people at work, too.  If they break the law, it is my responsibility to take appropriate action.  I don't get charged or found guilty of a law violation, too.  That was my question.  What law was he found guilty to have broken.  You answered me.  None.

I guess I don't understand why these deputies are still employed.  Where I work, if law enforcement officers are found guilty of breaking a law, they lose their job. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 20, 2014 14:25:08 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think part of Sheriff Joe's appeal to some people is because he doesn't believe in coddling those who don't do what they are supposed to.  He doesn't believe those who commit crimes should live in luxury.  He doesn't believe those who enter this country illegally should have access to the same resources as do those of us who actually pay for them.  Is humiliation and profiling the answer?  I can't say "yes" to that, but I don't have a better idea either.

ok, so he is popular because he is "tough on immigration"?  does that just about cover it?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 20, 2014 14:28:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Is humiliation and profiling the answer? I can't say "yes" to that, but I don't have a better idea either.

Arizona had a better answer, the state attorney general refused to enforce it, and I believe federal judges struck it down.  The law they passed prior to targeting individuals targeted businesses.  If they were found employing an illegal they got a huge fine on the first offense.  Second offense was loss of their business license for a short period.  Third offense was loss of their business license permanently.

Illegals come here looking for jobs.  Businesses hire them because they can pay them less than citizens.  Go after that, and you shut down the reason they jump the fence in the first place.

the thing that pisses me off about lack of enforcement in this area is that it rewards businesses that operate illegally.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 20, 2014 15:59:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 20, 2014 14:25:08 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think part of Sheriff Joe's appeal to some people is because he doesn't believe in coddling those who don't do what they are supposed to.  He doesn't believe those who commit crimes should live in luxury.  He doesn't believe those who enter this country illegally should have access to the same resources as do those of us who actually pay for them.  Is humiliation and profiling the answer?  I can't say "yes" to that, but I don't have a better idea either.

ok, so he is popular because he is "tough on immigration"?  does that just about cover it?

No.  In my opinion, he is popular to a lot of people  because he is tough on all crime.  I have no idea if he actually is, but that appears to be the supposition.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 20, 2014 16:02:53 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 20, 2014 15:59:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, so he is popular because he is "tough on immigration"?  does that just about cover it?

No.  In my opinion, he is popular to a lot of people  because he is tough on all crime.  I have no idea if he actually is, but that appears to be the supposition.

ok, thanks.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 20, 2014 15:52:40 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 20, 2014 15:49:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Joe is responsible for his officers, yes? If not, then we can never, ever again claim "The buck stops here". 

Of course he is responsible for his officers.   I'm responsible for a group of people at work, too.  If they break the law, it is my responsibility to take appropriate action.  I don't get charged or found guilty of a law violation, too.  That was my question.  What law was he found guilty to have broken.  You answered me.  None.

I guess I don't understand why these deputies are still employed.  Where I work, if law enforcement officers are found guilty of breaking a law, they lose their job. 

His officers were found to have racially profiled residents of his area. It was found by a judge to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Joe is responsible that his officers do not violate the rights of county citizens. Joe did not train his employees to not violate the rights of county citizens.

Only voters can fire Joe. And some voters seem fine with Joe and his officers violating the rights of county citizens. Therefore, the county residents, whether they voted for Joe or not, are responsible for paying the $29 million compliance charge for his officers' racial profiling.  

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 15:43:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

My position is that I support profiling that is reasonable and sensible in the situation for which it is being used. I also look to take into account the burden that those subjected to it face. Extending the period of time and the filing of some additional paperwork by an organization seeking tax exempt status is not the same level of burden as making a person late for work by stopping them because they are guilty of driving while black.

So provide the above argument in the first place rather than "choice versus no choice", which clearly isn't the key factor in your mind.

Jan 20, 2014 0:56:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

One deals with political orientation and the other deals with ethnicity. ...

In the specific, choice is the key factor in my mind. It is not the key factor in all situations, nor the sole factor in any specific situation.
Secondly: Is your claim that Mr. Arpaio and his police force are so heavily biased towards Latinos that they routinely pull over motorists in morning traffic for absolutely no reason besides their ethnicity?

A federal judge in May ordered Arpaio to ensure that his deputies stop using race when making law enforcement decisions, ...http://news.msn.com/us/ariz-sheriff-asks-feds-to-pay-racial-profiling-compliance-costs

Yes.

Thirdly: If we suppose that x% of all motorists fitting some "young punk Latino" profile being pulled over by police are engaged in illegal activity (e.g. illegal transport of drugs, carrying without a permit, etc.), how high would x have to be before the profile was "reasonable and sensible" to you? 10%? 20%? What is the difference between the x% of all motorists fitting some "young punk Latino" profile and the x% of all motorists fitting some other profile of being so engaged?

Suppose it turned out that the profile was narrowed to "young Latino males with tattoos" (with tattoos being a choice, I should point out), and the police uncovered criminal activity in 2 out of every 5 (40%) pull-overs. Is this specificity of targeting reasonable and sensible in your mind? In this case, the burden placed on 3 out 5 young Latino males with tattoos not engaged in criminal activity who would be subject to being pulled over would make this unacceptable.

Ralph Waldo Emerson — 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Switched to the desktop to deal with the complexity of posting the above response so thought I would go ahead and post the Emerson quote also.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 20, 2014 16:23:49 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 20, 2014 15:52:40 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Of course he is responsible for his officers.   I'm responsible for a group of people at work, too.  If they break the law, it is my responsibility to take appropriate action.  I don't get charged or found guilty of a law violation, too.  That was my question.  What law was he found guilty to have broken.  You answered me.  None.

I guess I don't understand why these deputies are still employed.  Where I work, if law enforcement officers are found guilty of breaking a law, they lose their job. 

His officers were found to have racially profiled residents of his area. It was found by a judge to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Joe is responsible that his officers do not violate the rights of county citizens. Joe did not train his employees to not violate the rights of county citizens.

Only voters can fire Joe. And some voters seem fine with Joe and his officers violating the rights of county citizens. Therefore, the county residents, whether they voted for Joe or not, are responsible for paying the $29 million compliance charge for his officers' racial profiling.  

So your response to my question (which was in response to you saying he broke laws and that makes everything Even Steven) asking which law he was found guilty of violating is....none.  That's all I was asking.

I didn't ask why Sheriff Joe wasn't fired.  I'm pretty familiar with how a Sheriff is elected.  I asked why, if his deputies were found guilty of violating laws, they weren't fired.  I'm betting that convictions for law violations are contrary to their contracts of employment. Maybe not, I guess. All states do things differently.

[Green Eyed Lady]

And there was no "$29 million compliance charge".  In my opinion, that's an overblown estimate (overblown by the Sheriff himself) for dramatic effect.  Even if it isn't, if they keep electing the guy, I have a difficult time working myself up over it.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 20, 2014 16:37:42 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

And there was no "$29 million compliance charge".  In my opinion, that's an overblown estimate (overblown by the Sheriff himself) for dramatic effect.  Even if it isn't, if they keep electing the guy, I have a difficult time working myself up over it.

You are right. It is only about $31 million plus according to this report from this Phoenix news station.  $21 million over the next 18 months and $10 million each year until his department is no longer under the judge's order.

PHOENIX - Taxpayers in metropolitan Phoenix are expected to pay out an estimated $21 million over the next year and a half for changes ordered in response to a court ruling that found an Arizona sheriff's office racially profiled Latinos in its regular traffic and immigration patrols.

Maricopa County also would have to pick up an additional $10 million in staff and other costs each year beginning in mid-2015 to comply with the judge's order against Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office.

Immigrant rights advocates say county's costs help rebut the once-popular argument that local police agencies should get involved in immigration enforcement to lower education and health care costs related to illegal immigration because the federal government hasn't adequately protected the nation's southern border.

"That's the price you pay for going out and doing federal immigration work," said county Supervisor and longtime Arpaio critic Mary Rose Wilcox, explaining that it's more prudent to leave immigration enforcement up to federal agents who specialize in and have long been responsible for such work.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio racial profiling costs taxpayers $21M

ETA:  by the way GEL, I never said Arpaio broke the law.  The closest I get to even possibly referring that he did (break the law) is me telling you to read the opening post.  I did say he violated the constitutional rights of county citizens by his department's racial profiling.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 20, 2014 16:32:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 20, 2014 15:43:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

So provide the above argument in the first place rather than "choice versus no choice", which clearly isn't the key factor in your mind.
In the specific, choice is the key factor in my mind. It is not the key factor in all situations, nor the sole factor in any specific situation.
Secondly: Is your claim that Mr. Arpaio and his police force are so heavily biased towards Latinos that they routinely pull over motorists in morning traffic for absolutely no reason besides their ethnicity?

A federal judge in May ordered Arpaio to ensure that his deputies stop using race when making law enforcement decisions, ...http://news.msn.com/us/ariz-sheriff-asks-feds-to-pay-racial-profiling-compliance-costs

Yes.

Thirdly: If we suppose that x% of all motorists fitting some "young punk Latino" profile being pulled over by police are engaged in illegal activity (e.g. illegal transport of drugs, carrying without a permit, etc.), how high would x have to be before the profile was "reasonable and sensible" to you? 10%? 20%? What is the difference between the x% of all motorists fitting some "young punk Latino" profile and the x% of all motorists fitting some other profile of being so engaged?

Suppose it turned out that the profile was narrowed to "young Latino males with tattoos" (with tattoos being a choice, I should point out), and the police uncovered criminal activity in 2 out of every 5 (40%) pull-overs. Is this specificity of targeting reasonable and sensible in your mind? In this case, the burden placed on 3 out 5 young Latino males with tattoos not engaged in criminal activity who would be subject to being pulled over would make this unacceptable.

Ralph Waldo Emerson — 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Switched to the desktop to deal with the complexity of posting the above response so thought I would go ahead and post the Emerson quote also.

You've adopted DJ's insufferable policy of inline quoting, I see.

Yes.

I see where it says they're accused of using race as a factor. Nowhere does it say the sole factor or even the major factor. I also don't see any indication of how routinely it happens.

In the specific, choice is the key factor in my mind. It is not the key factor in all situations, nor the sole factor in any specific situation.

I got that.

You already amended your view to profiling being "reasonable and sensible in the situation in which it's used", meaning you have some pet heuristic approach whose specifics you can't articulate (and in all likelihood aren't even consistent).

But forget all that, because we hit a brick wall right here: "In this case, the burden placed on 3 out 5 young Latino males with tattoos not engaged in criminal activity who would be subject to being pulled over would make this unacceptable."

A profile so consistent that 40% of all individuals screened turn up as criminals, and even that doesn't trump periodic inconvenience to the remaining 60% to you. Beam me up, Scotty. Considering you believe in Americans' right not to be inconvenienced so strongly that you've argued in favour of legal infanticide, I suppose this shouldn't surprise me.

Just beam me up. We're never in a million years going to see eye to eye on "reasonable and sensible".

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 17:05:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... (and in all likelihood aren't even consistent).

...

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 17:05:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... We're never in a million years going to see eye to eye on "reasonable and sensible".

Which is why it is the collective decision of elected officials and judges put in place by due process who make these decisions.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 20, 2014 16:58:28 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 20, 2014 16:37:42 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

And there was no "$29 million compliance charge".  In my opinion, that's an overblown estimate (overblown by the Sheriff himself) for dramatic effect.  Even if it isn't, if they keep electing the guy, I have a difficult time working myself up over it.

You are right. It is only about $31 million plus according to this report from this Phoenix news station.  $21 million over the next 18 months and $10 million each year until his department is no longer under the judge's order.

PHOENIX - Taxpayers in metropolitan Phoenix are expected to pay out an estimated $21 million over the next year and a half for changes ordered in response to a court ruling that found an Arizona sheriff's office racially profiled Latinos in its regular traffic and immigration patrols.

Maricopa County also would have to pick up an additional $10 million in staff and other costs each year beginning in mid-2015 to comply with the judge's order against Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office.

Immigrant rights advocates say county's costs help rebut the once-popular argument that local police agencies should get involved in immigration enforcement to lower education and health care costs related to illegal immigration because the federal government hasn't adequately protected the nation's southern border.

"That's the price you pay for going out and doing federal immigration work," said county Supervisor and longtime Arpaio critic Mary Rose Wilcox, explaining that it's more prudent to leave immigration enforcement up to federal agents who specialize in and have long been responsible for such work.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio racial profiling costs taxpayers $21M

ETA:  by the way GEL, I never said Arpaio broke the law.  The closest I get to even possibly referring that he did (break the law) is me telling you to read the opening post.  I did say he violated the constitutional rights of county citizens by his department's racial profiling.

Yes you did. Here is your post. Reply #68.

Arpaio broke the law.




So both those sneaking over the border and Arpaio all broke the law(s).

I don't think it gets much more clear than that.  That is why I was asking you what law he broke.

I'm not saying his conduct isn't going to be costly.  But nobody, including some news station knows those figures.  I repeat - if it costs $100 million....they keep voting for him.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 20, 2014 15:29:13 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 20, 2014 14:47:20 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

What works both ways?  I don't understand what that means.  Someone asked for opinions on what his appeal is.  I gave my opinion.  I'm not sure I understand your comment.

Arpaio broke the law.

So both those sneaking over the border and Arpaio all broke the law(s).

Sorry.  I didn't get the entire thing in the other post.  You twice stated he broke the law.  I was simply asking for clarification. 

[sesfw]

county citizens by his department's racial profiling.

The magic word here is citizens.  Illegals are not citizens of this county or country.  Sheriff Joe is doing the job we elected him to do.