Plateforme Level Extreme
Abonnement
Profil corporatif
Produits & Services
Support
Légal
English
Trump pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Message
De
27/08/2017 16:35:51
John Ryan
Captain-Cooker Appreciation Society
Taumata Whakatangi ..., Nouvelle Zélande
 
Information générale
Forum:
Politics
Catégorie:
Nouvelles
Divers
Thread ID:
01653788
Message ID:
01653790
Vues:
47
>>I knew this was going to happen. This is dumb/bad for lots of reasons. Obviously is not wise to do such a thing considering all the racial tensions Trump has already caused. Plus this is a signal to everyone associated with Trump in the Russia investigation that they have nothing to fear because they know that Trump is willing to give pardons. I would assume that would make the investigation more difficult because getting people to cooperate (lighter sentence for cooperating) is going to be harder if they know that they'll pay no consequences in the long run even if they don't cooperate because Trump will just pardon them anyway.

My understanding is that it started with a detained Mexican who had a valid visa, who then sued, whose suit grew into a class action suit ending with a federal judge issuing a preliminary injunction that "states do not have the inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law."

Arpaio flouted this along with stern reprimands from 2 more judges, and boasted of it. As a result he was charged with contempt of court of which he was found guilty and faced jail time. And he was defeated in the latest election.

Meanwhile the National Center for Police Defense delivered 40,000 petitions to the Justice Department earlier this year and raised $.5M for his defense. Apparently one of their beefs was that starting in 1996, federal immigration enforcement program "287(g)" does deputize local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law- until the Obama administration stopped authorizing 287(g) for street enforcement.

Seems to me there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. I can see that he flouted injunctions and was publicly defiant about racial profiling, which seems highly improper. But I'm not ready to rush to judgment.

Coming back to the concept that states don't have inherent authority to enforce civil provisions- which is the key point, since being an illegal is a civil rather than criminal violation : if this is the case, I'd be interested to know your thoughts about a judge in (the state of) Hawaii blocking Trump's executive orders on (federal) border control?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us.
"
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
Précédent
Suivant
Répondre
Fil
Voir

Click here to load this message in the networking platform