Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is At It Again

[Miss Tequila]

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 mayor tried that in Pennsylvania...law got shot down. I honestly don't understand it. People are here illegally....

[vandalshandle]

Jan 21, 2014 17:32:37 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

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

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 mayor tried that in Pennsylvania...law got shot down. I honestly don't understand it. People are here illegally....

So, if an AZ business hires a man who is guilty of the federal misdemener of being an illegal alien, the business loses it's license that the state had issued, even though the business broke no state law, and the "illegal aliens" would have to be convicted of that crime in a federal court..

And, of course, Sheriff Joe is somehow involved in all this, in spite of the fact that he only has legal authority of county laws, which don't even include municipal areas, such as Phenoix.

I think that I am starting to understand why the anti-immigrant folks are so confused. They never took, or flunked, Law 101 in college.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Hiring an illegal is against federal law, which trumps state, and is probably against state law in most places too.  It's rarely enforced, and the penalty is usually a slap on the wrist.  That's why so many of them do it.  The downside risk is tiny, and the profit boost is immediate and can be pretty lucrative.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 21, 2014 18:09:23 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Jan 21, 2014 17:32:37 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

The mayor tried that in Pennsylvania...law got shot down. I honestly don't understand it. People are here illegally....

So, if an AZ business hires a man who is guilty of the federal misdemener of being an illegal alien, the business loses it's license that the state had issued, even though the business broke no state law, and the "illegal aliens" would have to be convicted of that crime in a federal court..

And, of course, Sheriff Joe is somehow involved in all this, in spite of the fact that he only has legal authority of county laws, which don't even include municipal areas, such as Phenoix.

I think that I am starting to understand why the anti-immigrant folks are so confused. They never took, or flunked, Law 101 in college.

I've never met any "anti-immigrant folks".  Do you know a lot of them?

[vandalshandle]

Jan 21, 2014 18:34:40 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Hiring an illegal is against federal law, which trumps state, and is probably against state law in most places too.  It's rarely enforced, and the penalty is usually a slap on the wrist.  That's why so many of them do it.  The downside risk is tiny, and the profit boost is immediate and can be pretty lucrative.

There is no state law anywhere that anyone is guilty of, because he entered, or remains, in the USA illegally.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The illegal isn't breaking state law, the business owner that hires him is.

[vandalshandle]

Jan 21, 2014 22:12:16 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The illegal isn't breaking state law, the business owner that hires him is.

And that means that the employer knows, when he hires the guy, that the guy has already been convicted of the crme of being an illegal alien, in a federal court. THAT is the definiton of an "illegal alien". An illegal alien does NOT include those that fail to produce citizenship documents, until, or unless the federal court has so determined.

What is it about law that you guys fail to understand?

[Sum Dum Gai]

illegal alien
Noun
1. A foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

2. A foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.

Directly from dictionary.com. You see the word convicted anywhere in there? If you cross the border illegally you're an illegal alien. If you overstay a temporary entrance visa of any kind you're an illegal alien. Don't bitch at me about it, go take it up with the people who designed the English language.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I was going to say that last night, but I decided it was a waste of time.  You are an illegal alien the second you step into this country illegally or the second you overstay your permission to be here.  I agree somebody doesn't understand, but I don't think it's us.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I'm guessing what vandals was getting at was that just because someone can't provide proof of citizenship, that fact alone doesn't mean they are an illegal alien.  I'm not sure.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The part I don't get about the illegal alien debate is why honest business owners put up with it. It would be like defending business owners that cheat on their taxes. As a business owner I want my competition playing by the same rules I do. Hiring illegals at below market rates, and cheating on taxes, both allow them to compete unfairly. They're breaking the law to undersell business owners who follow the law.

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2014 11:54:05 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The part I don't get about the illegal alien debate is why honest business owners put up with it. It would be like defending business owners that cheat on their taxes. As a business owner I want my competition playing by the same rules I do. Hiring illegals at below market rates, and cheating on taxes, both allow them to compete unfairly. They're breaking the law to undersell business owners who follow the law.

Just like the question, why do baseball players put up with other players using drugs to enhance their performance?  Why aren't they shouting from the hilltops to stop the drugs use?    Because in each instance they are all doing it, that's why.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I'm not a business owner, so I have no idea, but it's my guess most honest people feel there just isn't anything they can do about it.  

[Sum Dum Gai]

They can't all be doing it when it comes to illegal aliens though, there aren't enough of them to go around. The highest estimates put the number of illegal aliens at around 20 million. There are plenty of steroids on the market for every baseball player that wants them though.

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2014 12:08:37 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

They can't all be doing it when it comes to illegal aliens though, there aren't enough of them to go around. The highest estimates put the number of illegal aliens at around 20 million. There are plenty of steroids on the market for every baseball player that wants them though.

There are enough to go around in the industries and geographic areas where companies are using them to compete. 

[vandalshandle]

Jan 22, 2014 11:28:44 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

illegal alien
Noun
1. A foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

2. A foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.

Directly from dictionary.com. You see the word convicted anywhere in there? If you cross the border illegally you're an illegal alien. If you overstay a temporary entrance visa of any kind you're an illegal alien. Don't bitch at me about it, go take it up with the people who designed the English language.

Toys, I just KNOW that you are not so obtuse as to not recognize that no one is guilty of illegal ANYTHING until it has been so determined in a court of law.

Or would you prefer that the state just punish you without bothering to determine if you have committed a crime, or not?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Does one become a murderer when they murder somebody, or when they're convicted of murder?  Is a rapist somebody that rapes another person, or somebody that's been convicted of rape?

You become an illegal alien the second you cross the border without going through the proper channels.  You become an illegal alien the day after your tourist visa expires if you're still on American soil at that time.

If you're charged with breaking immigration law you aren't guilty until you've been found guilty in a court of law, however you've been an illegal alien since the day you crossed the border, or overstayed your temporary visa.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Vandals....if you steal something from a store, you are a thief the minute you deprive the owner of their property without paying for it.  It is true you won't be punished for your crime unless found guilty in a court of law, but no finding of guilt is necessary for you to be a thief.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sorry....already covered.  Somebody types faster than I think.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 11:54:05 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The part I don't get about the illegal alien debate is why honest business owners put up with it. It would be like defending business owners that cheat on their taxes. As a business owner I want my competition playing by the same rules I do. Hiring illegals at below market rates, and cheating on taxes, both allow them to compete unfairly. They're breaking the law to undersell business owners who follow the law.

this is precisely my problem with illegal hiring: it is an unfair business practice.  it handicaps me against nefarious competition.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 22, 2014 1:21:58 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Jan 21, 2014 22:12:16 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The illegal isn't breaking state law, the business owner that hires him is.

And that means that the employer knows, when he hires the guy, that the guy has already been convicted of the crme of being an illegal alien, in a federal court. THAT is the definiton of an "illegal alien". An illegal alien does NOT include those that fail to produce citizenship documents, until, or unless the federal court has so determined.

What is it about law that you guys fail to understand?

Prostitution is illegal in my state. Does that mean prostitutes aren't called prostitutes until they are found guilty in a court of law? 

I don't understand why so many of you liberals want to defend the illegals...they are breaking the LAW

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 22, 2014 13:08:40 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Vandals....if you steal something from a store, you are a thief the minute you deprive the owner of their property without paying for it.  It is true you won't be punished for your crime unless found guilty in a court of law, but no finding of guilt is necessary for you to be a thief.

Oops..you had the same argument as me!

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 22, 2014 12:54:28 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Jan 22, 2014 11:28:44 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Directly from dictionary.com. You see the word convicted anywhere in there? If you cross the border illegally you're an illegal alien. If you overstay a temporary entrance visa of any kind you're an illegal alien. Don't bitch at me about it, go take it up with the people who designed the English language.

Toys, I just KNOW that you are not so obtuse as to not recognize that no one is guilty of illegal ANYTHING until it has been so determined in a court of law.

Or would you prefer that the state just punish you without bothering to determine if you have committed a crime, or not?

A man rapes a woman but is never caught...does that mean he isn't a rapist?

[vandalshandle]

GEL

"...but no finding of guilt is necessary for you to be a thief."

You guys are deflecting. The thread is about Sheriff  Joe's failure to comply with the law. A JUDGE made the decision that he did not comply with the law. A judge MUST ALSO DECIDE IF SOMEONE IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN before the state can punish an employer for hiring someone that they SUSPECT to be an illegal alien. Toy's R Us hires Juan. The state wants to take Toys R US's license away because they suspect that Juan is an illegal alien. UNDER THE LAW, they can not do that until a FEDERAL court determines that Juan is an illegal alien, as defined by federal law. There is no state law defining an illegal alien.

Sheeeesee!

[workpublic]

Or would you prefer that the state just punish you without bothering to determine if you have committed a crime, or not?

that's what happens with DWIs. refuse to blow, automatically lose your license for a period of time.
you haven't been convicted of any crime, but you are punished.  it's one of the few "laws" that can punish you before a conviction.

[Sum Dum Gai]

They don't have to find Juan guilty of anything.  It's illegal for a company to hire any employee without verifying their right to work.  If they hire somebody without documents, or without verifying those documents, they're breaking the law.  Regardless of whether or not Juan is or is not an illegal alien.

Businesses get slapped on the wrist for hiring undocumented workers all the time.  Those fines and punishments, puny as they are, happen long before the individuals in question even get their hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether or not they are allowed to be in the country and lack documentation, or whether they're illegal aliens.

[vandalshandle]

Jan 22, 2014 14:15:08 GMT -5 workpublic said:

that's what happens with DWIs. refuse to blow, automatically lose your license for a period of time.
you haven't been convicted of any crime, but you are punished.  it's one of the few "laws" that can punish you before a conviction.

And the only reason for that is that the supreme court has made a decision that the driver, by obtaining his driver's license, has "implied consent" to be tested for alcohol consumtion. There is no law stating that Toy's R US has "implied consent" for the state to take away his license unless he PROVES that Juan is NOT an illegal alien. Nor, has there been any Supreme Court decision giving the state the authority to take this position, and in fact, that is why the AZ law was overturned by a federal court in the first place.

If you want to ignore the law, start by shredding the Constitution.

[vandalshandle]

Jan 22, 2014 14:21:30 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

They don't have to find Juan guilty of anything.  It's illegal for a company to hire any employee without verifying their right to work.  If they hire somebody without documents, or without verifying those documents, they're breaking the law.  Regardless of whether or not Juan is or is not an illegal alien.

Tell you what, Toy. Go on down to the mall in DC and explain that to the judge of the Supreme Court. A federal court has determined that such a law is unconsitutional, and has overturned that law. Explain to them that they made a mistake.

[Virgil Showlion]

There's a difference between being a criminal and the standard of proof needed to be convicted of a crime.

"Being an illegal alien" is clearly analogous to "being a criminal" in this instance, and "a FEDERAL court determin[ing] that Juan is an illegal alien, as defined by federal law" (vandals' argument) is clearly analogous to the standard of proof for conviction.

Personally I'd have called O.J. Simpson a murderer even after he was exonerated in 1995, but any newspaper that referred to him as such would be sued for libel.

For sake of online discussion, it makes a great deal more sense to let "illegal alien" refer to the dictionary definition, and "illegal alien as proven in a federal court" refer to the small subset of aliens convicted of being in the US illegally. Otherwise you're just splitting hairs.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 22, 2014 14:24:59 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Jan 22, 2014 14:21:30 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

They don't have to find Juan guilty of anything.  It's illegal for a company to hire any employee without verifying their right to work.  If they hire somebody without documents, or without verifying those documents, they're breaking the law.  Regardless of whether or not Juan is or is not an illegal alien.

Tell you what, Toy. Go on down to the mall in DC and explain that to the judge of the Supreme Court. A federal court has determined that such a law is unconsitutional, and has overturned that law. Explain to them that they made a mistake.

You're saying that it's in fact legal for US companies to hire individuals without verifying that those individuals have the right to work in America?

Link?