Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Racially Profiled Latinos, Federal Judge Rules

[Aderleth]

No, they don't. To become a naturalized citizern you must learn english and to be a valid visa holder you must agree to carry the document with you at all times and to present it upon request of law enforcement.

Well guess what? Demonstrating proficiency on the English exam doesn't actually require all that much proficiency in English. Just ask any of the tens of thousands of Chinese immigrants in my neighborhood. No, wait... they won't understand you. Also, try to get this through your head: being obligated to show an ID, and the cops being allowed to single you out to do so on the basis of race is not remotely the same thing.

Page one.

There are no legal conclusions of any kind on page one.

Perhaps, but it speaks to the political nature of this ruling. If they got the facts wrong, well, GIGO.

First, I don't believe they did get the facts wrong. Second, you're right that this case is political. It demonstrates the political tension between people like me, who respect our constitutional rights, and people like you, who don't. Third, alleging political bias is a crap substitution for addressing the actual facts and logic.

Email logs have nothing to do with browsing history and aren't even stored on the local computer in many cases. For those you goto the email provider which you would know if you've done this many times before.

1) But both are relevant to white collar cases. :shrug:

2) Are you under the impression that lawyers actually have to find all of this information? We have tech people for that.

Indeed, but they do target more white people than any other race, at least that's your presumption in this hypothetical. The population they are pulling their targets from is primarily white folks, so it's understandable.

Wow.
The hypo is not the reality. The hypo makes no presumptions about reality. The reality is that no federal organization targets white people. There are certainly more white people accused and convicted of white collar crimes, but that's because there are more white people committing such crimes. That is emphatically not the same thing as white people being targeted for anything. If white people were being targeted (which is what the hypo is asking), you'd see people with zero connection to any possible financial fraud being required to prove their innocence, just because they're white. So you, for instance - who neither I, nor the feds have any reason whatsoever to suspect of any crime, might be required to regularly produce personal information about yourself to prove you did not commit a hypothetical crime. Much like how in the current immigration situation, you have lots of US citizens who happen to be of mexican ancestry being forced to prove they did not illegally enter the country. Do you see the comparison?

This is what makes it a strawman instead of your vanilla hypothetical, the continued moving of the goal posts, the reimagining of the story every time it meets a challenge.

Me pointing out that you apparently don't understand what financial fraud is is "moving the goalposts?" I think a better analogy is that it's me pointing out that you initially had no idea where the goalposts were.

Indeed, they concentrate their efforts where the problem is.

Right. Which doesn't involve racial profiling.

And you are assuming the MCSO has never targetted non-brown skinned spanish speakers for queries about status.

I'm not assuming anything. It's right there in the judge's opinion.

Indeed, what does that have to do with the supposed analogous hypothetical you posed?

I was responding to the false assertions you'd made. How are you not getting that?

Look, your hypothetical fails. Don't spend time defending it, this thread isn't about your hypothetical.

Wow. Just...wow. Apparently this is all going over your head. Not much I can do about that.

 

[clownboy]

Well guess what? Demonstrating proficiency on the English exam doesn't actually require all that much proficiency in English. Just ask any of the tens of thousands of Chinese immigrants in my neighborhood. No, wait... they won't understand you. Also, try to get this through your head: being obligated to show an ID, and the cops being allowed to single you out to do so on the basis of race is not remotely the same thing.

Interesting, the naturalized citizens I see every day around here, and there are many, speak english just fine. And I've read the docs required for visa, you must produce upon request that's what you agree to, period.

There are no legal conclusions of any kind on page one.

Peachy, but it does counter your assumption that what the feds do is any different from what the MCSO did.

First, I don't believe they did get the facts wrong. Second, you're right that this case is political. It demonstrates the political tension between people like me, who respect our constitutional rights, and people like you, who don't. Third, alleging political bias is a crap substitution for addressing the actual facts and logic.

Sure you don't, it spoils your assertions and so you deny, try to dodge with hypotheticals that end as distractions, and then deny some more. Cute little move trying to cast me as anti-constitution, but it's yet another distraction. The politics here are on display - it's the feds trying to put the state and a Sheriff who sides with the state in their place. Otherwise, everywhere in the country there is federal authorization (287g) the state LE departments involved would be facing the same judgement. That's not the case.

2) Are you under the impression that lawyers actually have to find all of this information? We have tech people for that.

Yeah, I've been one, several cases. In fact I'm the guy, or was, they called when their IT people couldn't expose the data. Browsing history has nothing to do with this. In fact, it's use would help get the case thrown out in this context because it's so easy to alter remotely being on a personal machine. We pull request logs from the servers, harder to fake.

Much like how in the current immigration situation, you have lots of US citizens who happen to be of mexican ancestry being forced to prove they did not illegally enter the country. Do you see the comparison?

No, and I snipped the hypothetical BS out because there is no comparison. Any time I answer your little distraction you move the goal posts. As to lots of Mexican ancestry US citizens being asked to prove their citizenship, absolutely, that happens in an area rife with illegals of Mexican ancestry. However, this in itself is an absurd reduction of actual MCSO policy which states that can't be the ONLY factor.

Me pointing out that you apparently don't understand what financial fraud is is "moving the goalposts?" I think a better analogy is that it's me pointing out that you initially had no idea where the goalposts were.

Again, you're only dealing in hypothetical and analogy because you can't make your on topic assertions stick.

Right. Which doesn't involve racial profiling.

Yes, sometimes it does.

I'm not assuming anything. It's right there in the judge's opinion.

You'll have to quote where in the Judge's opinion he indicates the MCSO has never targetted a non-brown skinned spanish speaker for queries about status.

I was responding to the false assertions you'd made. How are you not getting that?

Because you weren't. You're trying to defend a false analogy by slightly modifying it every time it's shown to not fit the topic at hand.

Wow. Just...wow. Apparently this is all going over your head. Not much I can do about that.

Had the same thought about you several of your posts ago. But I know better. You're trying to defend an argument that is indefensible. Trying to excuse a rank political judicial decision that comes on the tail of a chick fight between the feds and AZ.

 

[Aderleth]

Interesting, the naturalized citizens I see every day around here, and there are many, speak english just fine. And I've read the docs required for visa, you must produce upon request that's what you agree to, period.

Once again: being obligated to produce documents and the cops being authorized to ask you for them based on race is not remotely the same thing. Once again: there are many, many people in this country who are here legally and who do not speak English.

Peachy, but it does counter your assumption that what the feds do is any different from what the MCSO did.

Not if you've actually read the legal conclusions in the case. I'd start at around page 115.

Sure you don't, it spoils your assertions and so you deny, try to dodge with hypotheticals that end as distractions, and then deny some more. Cute little move trying to cast me as anti-constitution, but it's yet another distraction. The politics here are on display - it's the feds trying to put the state and a Sheriff who sides with the state in their place. Otherwise, everywhere in the country there is federal authorization (27g) the state LE departments involved would be facing the same judgement. That's not the case.

1) I've made no assertions that you've spoiled in any way shape or form.
2) If you support racial profiling, you are anti-constitution, and there are a bunch of cases backing that up.
3) If you think Arpaio is siding with anyone besides Arpaio you are very naive.

Yeah, I've been one, several cases. In fact I'm the guy, or was, they called when their IT people couldn't expose the data. Browsing history has nothing to do with this. In fact, it's use would help get the case thrown out in this context because it's so easy to alter remotely being on a personal machine. We pull request logs from the servers, harder to fake.

Well I guess you really showed me (about this digression). :roll:

No, and I snipped the hypothetical BS out because there is no comparison. Any time I answer your little distraction you move the goal posts.

I've never done any such thing, and I challenge you to demonstrate specifically where you believe I have. Use quotes.

As to lots of Mexican ancestry US citizens being asked to prove their citizenship, absolutely, that happens in an area rife with illegals of Mexican ancestry. However, this in itself is an absurd reduction of actual MCSO policy which states that can't be the ONLY factor.

Read the case.

Again, you're only dealing in hypothetical and analogy because you can't make you on topic assertions stick.

Nope. I was doing so because you're engaging in consistently poor logic, and I was hoping that an analogy might help you see that. Obviously I was wrong.

Yes, sometimes it does.

Not legally it doesn't.

You'll have to quote where in the Judge's opinion he indicates the MCSO has never targetted a non-brown skinned spanish speaker for queries about status.

See the legal conclusions section for a decent summary. It starts at about page 115.

Because you weren't. You're trying to defend a false analogy by slightly modifying it every time it's shown to not fit the topic at hand.

I never changed my analogy at all. You keep saying that. What I did do was point out to you that you didn't understand my analogy. Unfortunately I had to do so repeatedly, but you can't blame me for you not understanding what financial fraud is.

Had the same thought about you several of your posts ago. But I know better. You're trying to defend an argument that is indefensible. Trying to excuse a rank political judicial decision that comes on the tail of a chick fight between the feds and AZ.

Nope. I'm just supporting an interest in civil rights, which you apparently do not respect.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I am going directly from the case you advised me to read:



And, yes, the feds do indeed. I've seen it first hand in Portland and in Beaverton here a few years back. Haven't seen it much anymore as the feds don't enforce here anymore.

You are reading the claims by MCSO, they can claim whatever they like, the determination by the judge is what matters, which is what I posted earlier.

 

[clownboy]

Once again: being obligated to produce documents and the cops being authorized to ask you for them based on race is not remotely the same thing. Once again: there are many, many people in this country who are here legally and who do not speak English.




Not if you've actually read the legal conclusions in the case. I'd start at around page 115.



1) I've made no assertions that you've spoiled in any way shape or form.
2) If you support racial profiling, you are anti-constitution, and there are a bunch of cases backing that up.
3) If you think Arpaio is siding with anyone besides Arpaio you are very naive.



Well I guess you really showed me (about this digression). :roll:



I've never done any such thing, and I challenge you to demonstrate specifically where you believe I have. Use quotes.




Read the case.



Nope. I was doing so because you're engaging in consistently poor logic, and I was hoping that an analogy might help you see that. Obviously I was wrong.



Not legally it doesn't.



See the legal conclusions section for a decent summary. It starts at about page 115.



I never changed my analogy at all. You keep saying that. What I did do was point out to you that you didn't understand my analogy. Unfortunately I had to do so repeatedly, but you can't blame me for you not understanding what financial fraud is.



Nope. I'm just supporting an interest in civil rights, which you apparently do not respect.

I'll skip to the end where it's actually thread related. Page 117 supports the MCSO's assertion that they are using the same policies they received from ICE training:

However, the opinion’s observation in dicta that “[t]he likelihood that any given person
of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant
factor” has been interpreted by ICE to mean that a person’s Hispanic appearance can be
used as one amongst a number of factors in establishing the requisite quantum of
reasonable suspicion to justify a brief investigative detention. The 287(g) training manual
for January 2008 that was used by ICE in training the MCSO cites to Brignoni-Ponce for
the proposition that “apparent Mexican ancestry was a relevant factor” that could be used
in forming a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country without authorization but
standing alone was insufficient to stop the individuals.

The court goes on to note that in his opinion ICE has it wrong in their interpretation of a SCOTUS ruling (Brignoni-Ponce) but this only illustrates the Judge is targetting Arpaio and letting the feds off scott free. Where is the injunction against ICE?

And let me just say, the constitution is not a suicide pact. I understand, you and others want to allow the illegals to roam free and take whatever employment they can find, and apparently the federal government is on your side right now, at least in some localities (the ones this admin doesn't like). And using common sense captures too many of the illegals. Something must be done to protect them and this Judge has done precisely that.

 

[clownboy]

Been thinking about this and have you ever watched Border Wars? It's a National Geographics TV show that follows the Border Patrol and ICE in their duties. The episodes are still available for viewing. There is a unit within ICE whose sole duty is to monitor two or three US highways that are the usual routes for illegal smuggling/distribution once they've made it past the Border Patrol. They're featured in a segment almost every episode. They wait by the road highway patrol style and watch for any large vehicles carrying a bunch of folks who "look like they fit the bill" and then pull them over to check identities. No other probable cause for pulling the vehicles over. Some they send on their way because they are here legally and/or citizens and the rest are immediately detained and carted away for deportation.

This is different from what you object to how?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Been thinking about this and have you ever watched Border Wars? It's a National Geographics TV show that follows the Border Patrol and ICE in their duties. The episodes are still available for viewing. There is a unit within ICE whose sole duty is to monitor two or three US highways that are the usual routes for illegal smuggling/distribution once they've made it past the Border Patrol. They're featured in a segment almost every episode. They wait by the road highway patrol style and watch for any large vehicles carrying a bunch of folks who "look like they fit the bill" and then pull them over to check identities. No other probable cause for pulling the vehicles over. Some they send on their way because they are here legally and/or citizens and the rest are immediately detained and carted away for deportation.

This is different from what you object to how?

There are two checkpoints between Tucson and San Diego, one outside of Gila Bend and just before Alpine on the 8. Every car is has to stop, but they rarely even talk to you. I'm WASP, my wife is very Hispanic, I think she has said maybe 3 words to them and has never had to show any ID and we have made that run countless times together and separately.

One the other hand, MCSO have always had a much nastier disposition in the contact I've had with them, and reading the depositions in the trial sounds very familiar.

Beyond this, it isn't INS that is on trial, they are not the ones conducting sweeps in heavily Hispanic populated Phx neighborhoods with the knowledge ahead of time that using profiling there was going to end up in lawsuits.

 

[clownboy]

There are two checkpoints between Tucson and San Diego, one outside of Gila Bend and just before Alpine on the 8. Every car is has to stop, but they rarely even talk to you. I'm WASP, my wife is very Hispanic, I think she has said maybe 3 words to them and has never had to show any ID and we have made that run countless times together and separately.

One the other hand, MCSO have always had a much nastier disposition in the contact I've had with them, and reading the depositions in the trial sounds very familiar.

Beyond this, it isn't INS that is on trial, they are not the ones conducting sweeps in heavily Hispanic populated Phx neighborhoods with the knowledge ahead of time that using profiling there was going to end up in lawsuits.

I understand the MCSO isn't the INS, however this was offered in context to further support that the behavior the MCSO just got dinged for as unconstitutional, the INS does all the time. In fact they trained the MCSO in it as supported by the court's findings and despite INS denials after the fact.

To be clear, the checkpoints are a seperate thing from this ICE division. They're more like highway patrol without the need for probable cause (or rather looking the part can be probable cause for them).

 

[clownboy]

Recall effort against Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio fails

TUCSON -- Despite a recent court ruling that the department run by Maricopa County’s top cop used racial profiling in his quest to crack down on illegal immigration, a recall effort against Sheriff Joe Arpaio has failed.

On Thursday, members of Respect Arizona and Citizens for a Better Arizona -- who launched the recall effort against Arpaio -- failed to gather the necessary 335,000 valid voter signatures by the 5 p.m. deadline. The aim was to force a recall election.

Activists behind the recall effort would not say how many signatures they were short. Randy Parraz, president of Citizens for Better Arizona, only said the two groups had collected close to 300,000 signatures.

Arpaio, reelected in November, blasted the group in a prepared statement.

“After months of name calling, after the disparaging effigies and theatrics … this latest recall effort has failed,” Arpaio said. "This effort failed because the good people of Maricopa County, whom I'm honored to serve, rejected the wrongheaded idea of overturning an election."

More at source

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I understand the MCSO isn't the INS, however this was offered in context to further support that the behavior the MCSO just got dinged for as unconstitutional, the INS does all the time. In fact they trained the MCSO in it as supported by the court's findings and despite INS denials after the fact.

To be clear, the checkpoints are a seperate thing from this ICE division. They're more like highway patrol without the need for probable cause (or rather looking the part can be probable cause for them).

I keep telling you over and over (and if that is what it takes to get through, so be it) the INS is NOT going into heavily populated Hispanic Phx neighborhoods and conducting sweeps knowing ahead of time that those would generate lawsuits for the number of legal residents whose rights would be violated.

I don't know why you keep avoiding this most salient point, MCSO KNEW they could not profile in that scenario.

 

[clownboy]

And you keep getting it wrong. You can give me incorrect information all day long, but it'll still be wrong. I showed you from the courts document what the INS does indeed teach. And no, ICE doesn't blanket neighborhoods much anymore - they train and authorize local police to do it. That's what the MCSO was doing before SB1070 and Obama's little tiff with AZ - working WITH the authorization of ICE.

Just in case you need to read it again:

However, the opinion’s observation in dicta that “[t]he likelihood that any given person
of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant
factor” has been interpreted by ICE to mean that a person’s Hispanic appearance can be
used as one amongst a number of factors in establishing the requisite quantum of
reasonable suspicion to justify a brief investigative detention. The 287(g) training manual
for January 2008 that was used by ICE in training the MCSO cites to Brignoni-Ponce for
the proposition that “apparent Mexican ancestry was a relevant factor” that could be used
in forming a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country without authorization but
standing alone was insufficient to stop the individuals.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And you keep getting it wrong. You can give me incorrect information all day long, but it'll still be wrong. I showed you from the courts document what the INS does indeed teach.

Who said they did not "teach"?

And no, ICE doesn't blanket neighborhoods much anymore - they train and authorize local police to do it. That's what the MCSO was doing before SB1070 and Obama's little tiff with AZ - working WITH the authorization of ICE.

Just in case you need to read it again:

I'll keep on repeating this over and over until it penetrates: MCSO knew internally, ahead of time, that using Hispanic profiling in heavily Hispanic populated Phx neighborhood was going to to get the MCSO in trouble.

 

[clownboy]

Who said they did not "teach"?

Don't play. It's what they taught that breaks your assertions. That appearance could be used as ONE of the factors. Again, from the court docs, it was in their training manual.

I'll keep on repeating this over and over until it penetrates: MCSO knew internally, ahead of time, that using Hispanic profiling in heavily Hispanic populated Phx neighborhood was going to to get the MCSO in trouble.

You can keep repeating nonsense, doesn't change that it's nonsense. I quoted for you directly from the court decision where it states that even ICE believed that racial appearance could indeed be used as one factor among others. The other factors become immediately apparent when you ask for ID.

And of course, with the feds being the asshats they are about AZ law, anything the MCSO does is going to get them in hot water with the feds. Ask yourself, why just AZ? This is going on in other places, ICE authorizes local LE and sweeps are done with no sqwaking from the court or the feds whatsoever.

 

[APACHERAT]

Back in the early 70's I was able to view a profiling training manual that was used by the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) who were responsible for interior enforcement of our immigration laws.

I'm just going from memory, but some parts were funny but they worked.

One was to distinguish an American of Mexican decent from a Mexican national was that Americans of Mexican decent carried themselves differently than Mexicans. The American Latino walked erect, shoulders back, head held high. He looked proud and had self respect. Where as the Mexican national shoulders drooped forward and head held lower, he looked like he had a inferiority complex.

Clothing. Before the 1980's and globalization most clothing worn by Americans were manufactured in America. Most American clothing wasn't exported. Mexicans wore clothing that was manufactured in Mexico and they used different color dyes that were brighter than the dyes used in America. It was easy to detect clothing that was manufactured in America compared to Mexico.

Hair, during the late 60's and early 70's an America wasn't even allowed in to Mexico if their hair was past their collar. Americans had longer hair than Mexicans during the mid, late 60's and 70's. By the mid and late 60's most American males stopped believing that a little dab of "Brylecream" would have the girls all over you. American males stopped using oils on their hair. Mexicans still greased their hair back during the 60's and 70's.

The Border Patrol and INS also used how high one lifted their feet while walking. This one was good at apprehending illegal alien Asians from the Orient. Asians lift their feet higher believed because working in the rice paddies in China. It also mentioned the distance betwwen the big tow and the tow next to it. Signs of wearing sandals. I #### you not, it was in the manual.


There was a whole list of profiling guides, many funny but they worked. Then they mentioned the usual and common sence profiling that are used by most law enforcement like when someone refuses to make eye contact or runs away when they see la migra or a Maricopa County deputy sheriff. Defently a "dead give away."

 

[ChezC3]

Yeah, isn't this sheriff a real piece of work? Imagine, a border state with a Latin country, where illegal immigration is happening by the bus loads, latino illegals flooding the border and, and this grease-ball piece of trash is singling out latinos as potential suspects!!!!!! The unmitigated gall of this guy, I mean I think he should definitely be spending more time and resources investigating oh, I don't know, people with polish sounding last names or, you know heavily bearded white guys with flannel shirts that have that "lumberjack" swagger about them, it's easy to spot them types -- gravy on their fries and a couple Labatt Blue's at their table? Dead give away, them Canadians think they can come here illegally by way of Mexico, nah, nah, we see that old slight of hand trick from a mile away...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You can keep repeating nonsense, doesn't change that it's nonsense.

Wash, rinse repeat..

Judge Snow:

n determining whom it will detain and/or investigate, both with respect to its LEAR policy, and in its enforcement of immigration-related state law, the MCSO continues to take into account a suspect's Latino identity as one factor in evaluating those persons whom it encounters. In Maricopa County, as the MCSO acknowledged and stipulated prior to trial, Latino ancestry is not a factor on which it can rely in arriving at reasonable suspicion or forming probable cause that a person is in the United States without authorization.

Thus, to the extent it uses race as a factor in arriving at reasonable suspicion or forming probable cause to stop or investigate persons of Latino ancestry for being in the country without authorization, it violates the Fourth Amendment. In addition, it violates the Plaintiff class's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[clownboy]

And since you refused to read the first few times, let's try again, from the court case Page 117:

The 287(g) training manual
for January 2008 that was used by ICE in training the MCSO cites to Brignoni-Ponce for
the proposition that “apparent Mexican ancestry was a relevant factor” that could be used
in forming a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country without authorization but
standing alone was insufficient to stop the individuals.

This is what ICE training taught them and what ICE itself still uses. And you avoid the question again - if ICE is using the exact same policy, and others around the nation are using the exact same policy, why is the MCSO being singled out? If you were honest you know why.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And since you refused to read the first few times, let's try again, from the court case Page 117:



This is what ICE training taught them and what ICE itself still uses. And you avoid the question again - if ICE is using the exact same policy, and others around the nation are using the exact same policy, why is the MCSO being singled out? If you were honest you know why.

ICE does not use that policy in heavily Hispanic populated US neighborhoods, and MCSO knew ahead of time it could not either, MCSO stated so ahead of time. You miss that along with Judge Snow's conclusions, all you want to focus on is the losing MCSO argument. Snow found against this argument for the already stated reasons. It will hold up in appeal.

But go on, beat the dead horse.

 

[APACHERAT]

ICE does not use that policy in heavily Hispanic populated US neighborhoods,.

That's because the Obama administration ordered ICE not to do their job. Obama's refuses to do his job. That's dereliction of duty.

>"In a stunning order, a federal judge Wednesday said that the Obama administration is likely violating the law by telling immigration agents and officers not to arrest illegal aliens they deem “low priority”, in a lawsuit brought by ICE agents that could derail Obama’s plan to undermine immigration enforcement nationwide.

Federal Judge Reed O’Connor said in a court order Tuesday that Congress, not the president, sets priority for arresting illegal immigrants, and said the law requires them to be put in deportation proceedings.

“The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings,” Judge O’Connor wrote in a stunning order few had expected.

Though not a final order, the judge shut the door on the Obama Administration’s effort to throw out this lawsuit, and guarantees a major battle ahead which could overturn Obama’s “virtual amnesty” for millions of illegals.

As we have reported, for the last several years the administration has conducted an arrogant, multi-pronged attack on the rule of law – first via the 2011 memorandums from the ICE Director and DHS Secretary, to an amnesty decree from Obama last year – in total outrageously shielding between 3 million and 5 million illegal aliens from arrest or deportation.

The Homeland Security department claimed it was using “prosecutorial discretion, and ordered agents to comply and refuse to enforce the immigration laws.

ICE immigration agents and officers sued (you can donate at this link), saying federal law requires them to make the arrests, but the Obama administration would discipline them if they complied with the law.

The judge said if Homeland Security officials want to set priorities for who they deport, they can do that later — but they cannot control who agents arrest.

The order is not a final ruling. Judge O’Connor said he still needs more information from both the administration and the immigration agents about whether the agents had another avenue to protest the policy rather than to go to court. He asked both sides to submit more information by May 6.

Still, Tuesday’s order makes clear that the judge rejects the central part of Mr. Obama’s claim that he can use discretion to decide not to arrest some illegal immigrants.

The case was brought by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council, the labor union that represents ICE agents and officers."<
Judge Sides With ICE Agents: Says Obama Admin. Can’t Refuse to Deport Illegal Aliens | Stand With Arizona

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That's because

Two different things entirely, one is tactic, the other is strategy.

PS....what tribe?

 

[APACHERAT]

Two different things entirely, one is tactic, the other is strategy.

PS....what tribe?

Strategy ?

What tribe ?