VIDEO: Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Will Not Enforce Arizona Immigration Law

[orenbus]

YouTube - Arizona Sheriff Defying Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ZLBePCebg)

YouTube - Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Will Not Enforce Arizona Immigration Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5fFWBTGAy4)

[angelatc]

This will be interesting, because the new law also gives the citizens the right to sue over that decision.

[ninepointfive]

The Sheriff is an important position. We still have an opportunity to elect our Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county. Check out a Sheriff Candidate who came from the Ron Paul Revolution!

Carl Bruning for Constitutional Sheriff of Larimer County, Colorado (http://carlbruning.com)

[Stary Hickory]

Well just get a new Sheriff. He gets elected. And also that community can pay all the social costs for that decision themselves.

[dannno]

Well just get a new Sheriff. He gets elected. And also that community can pay all the social costs for that decision themselves.

You obviously didn't listen to the interview.

He said his department turns over about 100 illegals to the border patrol every month, more than any other department in the state. He said the new law is unnecessary and clearly explained how it is unconstitutional.

If you still don't understand how this bill is unconstitutional then you really need to get your brain hyper-focused off of illegals because it is causing you not to think clearly.

I mean, you are now advocating firing a sheriff whose department deports more illegals than any other department in AZ. How more illogical can you possibly become?

[angelatc]

You obviously didn't listen to the interview.

He said his department turns over about 100 illegals to the border patrol every month, more than any other department in the state. He said the new law is unnecessary and clearly explained how it is unconstitutional.


When he sits on the Supreme Court, I'll take his word on that. Until that, he's just another Democrat.

[AuH20]

You obviously didn't listen to the interview.

He said his department turns over about 100 illegals to the border patrol every month, more than any other department in the state. He said the new law is unnecessary and clearly explained how it is unconstitutional.
If you still don't understand how this bill is unconstitutional then you really need to get your brain hyper-focused off of illegals because it is causing you not to think clearly.


Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

[dannno]

When he sits on the Supreme Court, I'll take his word on that.



You don't trust Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano or Peter Schiff's opinion on this issue, but you would take the word of a Supreme Court judge.

You two are seriously fucking amazing.

[dannno]

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

So you advocate breaking the Constitution to uphold the Constitution. Brilliant!

[dannno]

Until that, he's just another Democrat.

Just incase you missed my edit:


I mean, you are now advocating firing a sheriff whose department deports more illegals than any other department in AZ. How more illogical can you possibly become?

[AuH20]

So you advocate breaking the Constitution to uphold the Constitution. Brilliant!

Now you're getting into semantics. I want the 4th amendment protected but apparently you're so emotionally riled up because you have friends who will be affected. In turn, you're foisting this V for Vendetta scenario upon us where migrant laborers are scooped en masse for merely having a dark complexion. Given the formidable presence of the ACLU and their legions of aggressive lawyers in this country, I highly doubt that's the case.

[dannno]

Did you guys miss the other part of the interview where he said that NO SHERIFF OR POLICE have been asking the legislature for this power, and that it is unnecessary?

This is coming from someone who DEPORTS MORE ILLEGALS FROM HIS DEPARTMENT than any department in the state.

This is obviously somebody who is on your side and who is trying to remove illegal aliens from his state.. yet you still treat him like a liberal open borders enemy. Anybody who doesn't want to throw the Constitution out the window is a liberal open borders enemy to you. Honestly I can't comprehend why you'd even be here.

[angelatc]

You don't trust Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano or Peter Schiff's opinion on this issue, but you would take the word of a Supreme Court judge.

You two are seriously fucking amazing.

Schiff is a stockbroker. LOL!

Watching you protect criminals while resorting to attacking us doesn't really lend much credibility to your position.

[dannno]

Now you're getting into semantics. I want the 4th amendment protected but apparently you're so emotionally riled up because you have friends who will be affected.

If by having friends who will be affected you mean myself and my friends who are natural born citizens, then yes, I am scared of similar legislation and if I decide to go to AZ one day (which probably won't be happening now!). All of my other friends are legal citizens, I don't know any illegal aliens.

Why can't you comprehend that I am trying to protect MY rights and that I DON'T WANT TO SHOW MY FUCKING PAPERS LIKE IN EAST GERMANY!! Whether you like it or not, that is where this is leading. Blame National on the Democrats all you want.. but it's the Republicans that made this an issue. This should be about entitlements.




In turn, you're foisting this V for Vendetta scenario upon us where migrant laborers are scooped en masse for merely having a dark complexion. Given the formidable presence of the ACLU and their legions of lawyers in this country, I highly doubt that's the case.

Yes, this was Judge Napolitano's point, that it will bankrupt AZ... now on top of illegals draining their resources through welfare, they will be draining them through the courts. It's not a smart move.

[angelatc]

Now you're getting into semantics. I want the 4th amendment protected but apparently you're so emotionally riled up because you have friends who will be affected. In turn, you're foisting this V for Vendetta scenario upon us where migrant laborers are scooped en masse for merely having a dark complexion. Given the formidable presence of the ACLU and their legions of aggressive lawyers in this country, I highly doubt that's the case.

He seemed upset that people might have to mow their own lawns. Wait until he figures out that real men used to put on their own roofs, too.

[dannno]

He seemed upset that people might have to mow their own lawns. Wait until he figures out that real men used to put on their own roofs, too.

Most people who live in AZ don't know how to do these things. You think I give a rats ASS about people in AZ :rolleyes:

[dannno]

Schiff is a stockbroker. LOL!


Name one supreme court judge who understands the Constitution better than Peter Schiff.


Go.





Watching you protect criminals while resorting to attacking us doesn't really lend much credibility to your position.

I'm not protecting CRIMINALS, I'm protecting CITIZENS!! That is what the Constitution protects. That's like the 40th time I've had to say that, now you are starting to sound like John Taylor the broken record.

[AuH20]

He seemed upset that people might have to mow their own lawns. Wait until he figures out that real men used to put on their own roofs, too.

Danno is concerned about police state abuses and I can sympathize with him. He's not an open borders advocate but sounds more of a humanist, especially with his friends being affected. On the other hand, with all this ideological hand wringing go on, I want to how Arizona protect it's citizens who are literally under siege. That's the pressing matter.

- Do we have the people in place to end the drug war? no
- Can we stop all benefits to illegals? No, Supreme Court precedent makes that impossible
- How do we tackle the kidnapping and home invasions when the Feds won't intervene?

[dannno]

Danno is concerned about police state abuses and I can sympathize with him. He's not an open borders advocate but sounds more of a humanist, especially with his friends being affected. On the other hand, with all this ideological hand wringing go on, I want to how Arizona protect it's citizens who are literally under siege. That's the pressing matter.

- Do we have the people in place to end the drug war? no
- Can we stop all benefits to illegals? No, Supreme Court precedent makes that impossible
- How do we tackle the kidnapping and home invasions when the Feds won't intervene?

Keep your eye on the ball and don't fall for false solutions that take away our rights.

[Todd]

Most people who live in AZ don't know how to do these things. You think I give a rats ASS about people in AZ :rolleyes:

Please tell us about California? :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

Name one supreme court judge who understands the Constitution better than Peter Schiff.


Go.


Based on .... your opinion? My opinion?




I'm not protecting CRIMINALS, I'm protecting CITIZENS!! That is what the Constitution protects. That's like the 40th time I've had to say that, now you are starting to sound like John Taylor the broken record.

Blah blah blah. There's still nothing in the bill that says the police can ask random people on the street ID when they're headed out for ice cream.

This is no different than checking for outstanding warrants when they pull you over for a traffic ticket.

[dannno]

Based on .... your opinion? My opinion?

That's all me and most people here needed to know. Thanks for your time.




Blah blah blah. There's still nothing in the bill that says the police can ask random people on the street ID when they're headed out for ice cream.

If they suspect them of being an illegal alien, whether or not they are engaged in lawful activity, they can stop them on the street and ask for ID. It says it right in the bill. One of the forum members low preference guy has the portion of the bill that says this in his signature, it's been posted hundreds of times, there's no excuse for you to not have read it.




This is no different than checking for outstanding warrants when they pull you over for a traffic ticket.

The bill doesn't require a traffic ticket or any sort of breaking of laws. They can ask you for ID if they suspect you are illegal. They could legally setup traffic checkpoints and ask anybody they suspected of being illegal for their ID, that is precisely what the law says, it it is plain english.

[angelatc]

That's all me and most people here needed to know. Thanks for your time.


What law school did you graduate from? Schiff? Because I majored in accounting, and my legal training ended at Business Law. Watching YouTube video and reading opinionated books doesn't make anybody a Constitutional authority.

I absolutely respect the Judge's opinion, but I think he's missing the point here. Doesn't mean I hate him or that he was wrong about everything he's ever said. It just means that I think he's wrong.



If they suspect them of being an illegal alien, whether or not they are engaged in lawful activity, they can stop them on the street and ask for ID. It says it right in the bill.

One of the forum members low preference guy has the portion of the bill that says this in his signature, it's been posted hundreds of times, there's no excuse for you to not have read it.


Well. except for the fact that I have my signatures turned off. And that isn't what it says. It cleary says lawful contact, and reasonable suspicion. It also says that race alone is not reasonable suspicion.

Your panties are all bunched up over nothing.




The bill doesn't require a traffic ticket or any sort of breaking of laws. They can ask you for ID if they suspect you are illegal. They could legally setup traffic checkpoints and ask anybody they suspected of being illegal for their ID, that is precisely what the law says, it it is plain English.

You're simply wrong. Again and again, you refuse to acknowledge the legal precedents of the phrases reasonable suspicion and lawful contact as they apply to this bill.

The people that drafted it knew exactly what people like you were going to whine about, and they absolutely protected themselves from that.

Roadblocks for license checks are already unconstitutional. Indiana already tried that. So, no lawful contact.

Try again.

[The Patriot]

You think I give a rats ASS about people in AZ :rolleyes:

Yet you care about illegal mexicans, very telling, very telling. I know all I need to know about you.

[dannno]

What law school did you graduate from? Schiff? Because I majored in accounting, and my legal training ended at Business Law. Watching YouTube video and reading opinionated books doesn't make anybody a Constitutional authority.

I absolutely respect the Judge's opinion, but I think he's missing the point here. Doesn't mean I hate him or that he was wrong about everything he's ever said. It just means that I think he's wrong.



Well. except for the fact that I have my signatures turned off. And that isn't what it says. It cleary says lawful contact, and reasonable suspicion. It also says that race alone is not reasonable suspicion.

Your panties are all bunched up over nothing.




You're simply wrong. Again and again, you refuse to acknowledge the legal precedents of the phrases reasonable suspicion and lawful contact as they apply to this bill.

The people that drafted it knew exactly what people like you were going to whine about, and they absolutely protected themselves from that.

Roadblocks for license checks are already unconstitutional. Indiana already tried that. So, no lawful contact.

Try again.


Why do you keep listening to the media talking points instead of reading the actual bill? Don't listen to politicians or people who went to law school regarding the Constitution, read it yourself. It's in plain English, it's not in Chinese, it doesn't need to be interpreted. Wasn't there a time in your life when you thought the Patriot Act was Constitutional? Wasn't that because of some media talking points from the likes of someone like Shamnity? Didn't someone like Ron Paul convince you otherwise? Is Ron Paul a lawyer?


The bill:


A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

There is NOTHING about 'lawful contact' in that section, HOWEVER, this section can be used to establish lawful contact if the officer simply suspects the person of being illegal.

[Brian4Liberty]

He said his department turns over about 100 illegals to the border patrol every month, more than any other department in the state.

It sounds like his department is doing it's job.


Did you guys miss the other part of the interview where he said that NO SHERIFF OR POLICE have been asking the legislature for this power, and that it is unnecessary?


He can't speak for everyone though.


Please tell us about California? :rolleyes:

In California, most agencies refuse to turn illegal immigrants over to the proper agencies (ICE, Border Patrol). As a matter of fact, many cities prohibit this (listen to Gavin Newsom for an example). This leaves the alternative: illegal immigrants are usually just released, even in cases where a citizen may face some kind of penalty. The AZ law seems to spend a lot of time addressing these issues (lack of cooperation among government agencies). This leads to the likelihood that it was also happening in AZ (non-cooperation).


If they suspect them of being an illegal alien, whether or not they are engaged in lawful activity, they can stop them on the street and ask for ID. It says it right in the bill.
...
The bill doesn't require a traffic ticket or any sort of breaking of laws. They can ask you for ID if they suspect you are illegal. They could legally setup traffic checkpoints and ask anybody they suspected of being illegal for their ID, that is precisely what the law says, it it is plain english.

Here it is in plain English. The single sentence in the law that has caused most of this controversy:


E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

It is vague, and uses the highly inflammatory wording "without a warrant". This seems to be a CYA that was inserted. There is no reason for this line in the law. It was stupid and unnecessary for them to include it.

The interesting part of the interview with the Sheriff was that he openly admits that his officers will abuse the law. They will make up excuses and use racial profiling even if it is illegal. Boy, that is a can of worms! Of course that would mean that they are doing that today!

As for checkpoints, the Supreme Court has already wrongly ruled that the Police can set them up. Nothing is changing there. It is a farce when police set-up DUI checkpoints and announce that "105 arrests were made, including 2 for DUI". Now it will be "125 arrests were made, including 20 illegal aliens and 2 for DUI".

[Vessol]

Yet you care about illegal mexicans, very telling, very telling. I know all I need to know about you.

Can you do anything beyond strawman arguments?

[dannno]

Yet you care about illegal mexicans, very telling, very telling. I know all I need to know about you.

When did I say I cared about illegal immigrants? I am saying I care about American citizens whose rights are going to be violated!!

You are so hyperfocused on illegals, you can't see that I'm trying to protect the rights of citizens!!

[The Patriot]

When did I say I cared about illegal immigrants? I am saying I care about American citizens whose rights are going to be violated!!

You are so hyperfocused on illegals, you can't see that I'm trying to protect the rights of citizens!!

So you don't care about illegals? You just care about the cheap labor they provide you? So you just want to keep them here bankrupting border states because you are too lazy to mow your own lawn?

[angelatc]

Why do you keep listening to the media talking points instead of reading the actual bill? Don't listen to politicians or people who went to law school regarding the Constitution, read it yourself. It's in plain English, it's not in Chinese, it doesn't need to be interpreted. Wasn't there a time in your life when you thought the Patriot Act was Constitutional? Wasn't that because of some media talking points from the likes of someone like Shamnity? Didn't someone like Ron Paul convince you otherwise? Is Ron Paul a lawyer?
The bill:


There is NOTHING about 'lawful contact' in that section, HOWEVER, this section can be used to establish lawful contact if the officer simply suspects the person of being illegal.

You're the one parroting the media talking points, Danno. I read the bill, formed my opinion, then was relieved to see that at least some lawyers agree with me, and not the fear-mongering NYT.

The section you're quoting specifically says "probable cause." That phrase isn't some arbitrary catch-all designed to allow cops to do anything they want. There are 40+ years of legal discussions and judicial precedents to define what is and isn't considered adequate probable cause. Being Mexican isn't enough.

And no. I never thought the Patriot Act was constitutional.

[Vessol]

So you don't care about illegals? You just care about the cheap labor they provide you? So you just want to keep them here bankrupting border states because you are too lazy to mow your own lawn?

Or maybe he cares more about his individual liberties instead of giving them up so the government can have an easier job sending back a bunch of wetbacks to Mexico who will just come right back.

[angelatc]

As for checkpoints, the Supreme Court has already wrongly ruled that the Police can set them up. Nothing is changing there. It is a farce when police set-up DUI checkpoints and announce that "105 arrests were made, including 2 for DUI". Now it will be "125 arrests were made, including 20 illegal aliens and 2 for DUI".

Now, that's a prime example of government gone bad. In the decision, SCOTUS said that the DUI checkpoints were not constitutional, but they were going to allow the infringement for reasons of public safety.

[The Patriot]

Or maybe he cares more about his individual liberties instead of giving them up so the government can have an easier job sending back a bunch of wetbacks to Mexico who will just come right back.

that seems like a strawman right there.

The wetbacks are self deporting from Arizona, and will self deport from America once all border states pass similar legislation
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/04/newsmax-illegal-immigrants-plan-to-leave-over-ariz-law/

[angelatc]

that seems like a strawman right there.

The wetbacks are self deporting from Arizona, and will self deport from America once all border states pass similar legislation
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/04/newsmax-illegal-immigrants-plan-to-leave-over-ariz-law/

Maybe, but you may recall that Bush's talk of amnesty actually brought a huge wave of illegal immigrants that were hoping to cash in.

The Congress is going to talk about it again now.

[dannno]

that seems like a strawman right there.

The wetbacks are self deporting from Arizona, and will self deport from America once all border states pass similar legislation
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/04/newsmax-illegal-immigrants-plan-to-leave-over-ariz-law/

California is not going to pass this legislation. They will come to CA, then they will either stay here or go back to AZ where citizens will be dealing with a bullshit police state who can ask anybody for their papers.

[angelatc]

California is not going to pass this legislation. They will come to CA, then they will either stay here or go back to AZ where citizens will be dealing with a bullshit police state who can ask anybody for their papers.

The section you're quoting specifically says "probable cause." That phrase isn't some arbitrary catch-all designed to allow cops to do anything they want. There are 40+ years of legal discussions and judicial precedents to define what is and isn't considered adequate probable cause. Being Mexican isn't enough.

[dannno]

So you don't care about illegals? You just care about the cheap labor they provide you? So you just want to keep them here bankrupting border states because you are too lazy to mow your own lawn?

I rent, I do have a lawn. And a garden.

I've asked my landlords numerous times to leave the lawnmower at our house so I can mow it myself. The owners don't hire anybody, they do it themselves, but never do a good job around all my container plants because they don't want to move them or damage them. So they mow it, but we're getting a shed soon so we can keep it here and I can do it myself.

However. Illegals help bring down the price of food and everything else with cheap labor, so I benefit from that. They also are a drag on the government, which sucks, but I'm not going to blame all illegals for the actions of a few.. and hell, it's pretty hard to blame somebody for taking handouts from one government after another government stole your land. Why the hell would they have any trust in the state to let them be prosperous?

But ya, illegals just aren't a big concern for me. I don't really blame them for anything they've done, they've gone through a lot of shit. The violent ones.. well, they are here because of the war on drugs. Which I have wanted to end for well over a decade.

[dannno]

The section you're quoting specifically says "probable cause." That phrase isn't some arbitrary catch-all designed to allow cops to do anything they want. There are 40+ years of legal discussions and judicial precedents to define what is and isn't considered adequate probable cause. Being Mexican isn't enough.

So what is enough, and how much of that is engaging in legal activity that will ultimately end up destroying the rights of other citizens? I don't know if any probable causes for being illegal in this instance that wouldn't destroy the rights of legal citizens.

For murder or other crimes it is pretty easy. For being an illegal alien, it is difficult, and I would say impossible..

[RedStripe]

Wow that was one of the most reasonable people I've ever heard talk - he even admitted to the fact that pretextual stops are bullshit even though the Supreme Court has said otherwise.

Honestly what a fucking reasonable man. I'm stunned. I hate cops. What a cool dude.

[axiomata]

The section you're quoting specifically says "probable cause." That phrase isn't some arbitrary catch-all designed to allow cops to do anything they want. There are 40+ years of legal discussions and judicial precedents to define what is and isn't considered adequate probable cause. Being Mexican isn't enough.
If the law's wording was so clear, constitutional, and un-arbitrary, why are they changing it (http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx)?


Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

I still don't like the lawful stop component, since every car on the road can be lawfully stopped for some reason, but it is better.

Face it. No matter where you stand on immigration, if you care about civil liberties, this is bad law. Some people are too emotionally entrenched (on both sides) that they are not thinking clearly.

[The Patriot]

I rent, I do have a lawn. And a garden.

I've asked my landlords numerous times to leave the lawnmower at our house so I can mow it myself. The owners don't hire anybody, they do it themselves, but never do a good job around all my container plants because they don't want to move them or damage them. So they mow it, but we're getting a shed soon so we can keep it here and I can do it myself.

However. Illegals help bring down the price of food and everything else with cheap labor, so I benefit from that. They also are a drag on the government, which sucks, but I'm not going to blame all illegals for the actions of a few.. and hell, it's pretty hard to blame somebody for taking handouts from one government after another government stole your land. Why the hell would they have any trust in the state to let them be prosperous?

But ya, illegals just aren't a big concern for me. I don't really blame them for anything they've done, they've gone through a lot of shit. The violent ones.. well, they are here because of the war on drugs. Which I have wanted to end for well over a decade.
Food prices aren't down, they have been going up precipitously, and have been going up sine more illegals have come to the country. And cheap illegal labor just keeps Americans and Legal Immigrants out of work. You have to remember, only 3% of illegals are in farming, 97% are taking jobs from Americans and legal immigrants in construction, hospitality, manufacturing, restaurant, administrative and service jobs.

And they cost 338 billion to the American taxpayer.
http://www.newswithviews.com:80/Wooldridge/frosty225.htm

And it isn't "their" land, stop with the crap. People who own the property now own "the land". They don't get it because of their skin color. They seem to have plenty of trust in the state, enough so to expand it and grab more handouts

So the one's murdering and raping Civilians are here because of the drug war? Look, I understand we have many people committing non victimless crimes in prison, and the Drug War should end. Additionally, FreeRepublic.com recently released FBI statistics showing that 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles during the First Quarter of 2006 were for illegal aliens. 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix were for illegal aliens. In Albuquerque the percentage was 86%. The Most Wanted lists in those three cities found that 75% were illegal aliens. In the southern Border States, illegal aliens perpetrated 53% of all investigated burglaries. Plus, 71% of all apprehended stolen cars in Border States were stolen by illegal aliens.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin506.htm

[Todd]

In California, most agencies refuse to turn illegal immigrants over to the proper agencies (ICE, Border Patrol). As a matter of fact, many cities prohibit this (listen to Gavin Newsom for an example). This leaves the alternative: illegal immigrants are usually just released, even in cases where a citizen may face some kind of penalty. The AZ law seems to spend a lot of time addressing these issues (lack of cooperation among government agencies). This leads to the likelihood that it was also happening in AZ (non-cooperation).


I'm in total greement with what he was talking about. I just have an issue with a stupid comment such as using the backward state of California as an example of how to do things.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm in total greement with what he was talking about. I just have an issue with a stupid comment such as using the backward state of California as an example of how to do things.

California is Utopia for Progressives and Democrats.