Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sheriff Arpaio: "I Could Be Elected on Pink Underwear"
As Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in increasing defiance of the feds' decision to strip him of his street-level federal immigration authority, charges forward with another of his notorious anti-immigrant sweeps today, listeners of NPR's "The Takeaway" were treated to an illuminating glimpse at Sheriff Joe's political vision.
The show included an audio clip of a video interview Deep Dish TV's Mark Read and I did with the self-proclaimed "Toughest Sheriff" of America back in June. Already, at the time of our interview, Arpaio had come under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over his abuses of the power granted him under the controversial 287(g) agreements by which the Department of Homeland Security outsources immigration enforcement to local law enforcement agencies.
"I've never had so much heat," he moaned to us, citing the DOJ investigation, protests against him, and critical local media of his abuses of his federal immigration authority. But then he visibly brightened up: "However, my polls are higher now than they have been!"
Since Arpaio found out that he will now only be allowed to enforce immigration laws in the county jails, he has repeatedly invoked his status as an "elected official" who answers to "the people" as justification for defying federal limits on his authority.
However, in our June 12, 2009 interview with the sheriff, he laid out with unusual candor just what he thinks of the electorate that has helped keep him in power since 1993: "I could be elected on pink underwear!" he told us, without a trace of a smile.
Indeed, the sheriff mandates that all county jail inmates wear pink underwear, and has made this peculiar regulation--apparently intended as a form of humiliation--a centerpiece of his reputation.
And one can only assume that Arpaio believes that his open defiance of the federal government--not to mention human rights--on immigration enforcement is just another stunt that may help him win reelection. Given that his base includes Maricopa County's large population of white Republican-leaning "snowbird" retirees, and a small though politically active community of nativists allied with the Minutemen vigilante movement, he may be right.
What is puzzling though is Obama's apparent decision to renew the "pink underwear" sheriff's federal immigration authority in Maricopa County's jails. Even more alarming, Obama is expanding the 287(g) program that facilitated Arpaio's abuses rather than heeding the call of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and over 500 local and national organizations who are demanding an end to 287(g).
- Posted in
34 Comments so far
Show AllAs a former resident of that place (Phoenix) the best thing you can do for all the people of color and immigrants is to put a news blackout on Arpaio. He lives for the news media and is upset whenever the spotlight goes off him. Perhaps you could simply write the stories without using his name. Maybe Arpaio can be "He whose name shall not be mentioned".
Also - do not put any more photos of him in any article.
Like Lord Voldemort, right?
What is puzzling though is Obama's apparent decision to renew the "pink underwear" sheriff's federal immigration authority in Maricopa County's jails. Even more alarming, Obama is expanding the 287(g) program that facilitated Arpaio's abuses rather than heeding the call of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and over 500 local and national organizations who are demanding an end to 287(g).
_______________________________________
I'm puzzled that Macdonald is puzzled.
Obama is every bit the law-and-order whore his predecessor was. Is Macdonald still buying into the campaign hype that Obama, the "professor of constitutional law", supports civil liberties?
Maybe Arpaio supplies Obama with pink underwear.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Obama won't swim against the current. His strategy seems to be to "support" him with some key reservations.
Well, in this era of Hope®, we must hope that this negative attention will put the Sheriff on the defensive, and make him think a bit about his approach!
Oh, wait, what's this...
Ariz. sheriff launches immigration sweep
By JACQUES BILLEAUD Associated Press Writer
Oct 16th, 2009 | PHOENIX -- Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a crime and immigration sweep in the Phoenix area, less than a day after officials in Washington limited his powers to make federal immigration arrests.
The federal government stripped the controversial Arpaio of his power to let 100 deputies make such arrests but renewed another deal that lets 60 jails officers determine the immigration status of people in jail.
The sweeps Friday in some heavily Latino areas have drawn criticism that Arpaio's deputies racially profile people, a charge that the sheriff denies.
Arpaio says his deputies can still detain illegal immigrants as long as they are turned over to federal authorities within a day or two.
· Yr Obd't Servant
As a longtime resident of Maricopa County, I can bear witness to the litany of abuses by the Sheriff's Dept. under the iron fist of Arpaio. Our own local, right wing paper, The Arizona Republic published an editorial before the last election titled, "Sheriff Joe Must Go" in endorsing the opposition candidate. In addition to rampant cronyism and a total disdain for the county board of supervisors, this despot of a sheriff has been guilty of numerous prisoner abuses in our jail system against inmates only bound over for trial, not having yet been tried for their alleged crimes.
There is an overriding resentment in these parts of "illegals" among the many economically displaced gringos that hail from other parts of the U.S. Arpaio plays skillfully on the fears of the populace winning re-election handily in the face of the crimes he and his office have committed in full view. He scoffs at the board of supervisors, politically assassinates his opponents and has cost the taxpayers in our county millions of dollars in jury settlements for punitive damages awarded as a result of abuses in his jail system.
Sadly, this says more about us than it does about Joe Arpaio.
In Mexico, corn grown in the U.S. sells for about 25% less than corn grown locally. This of course due mostly to U.S. corn being subsidized. The U.S. though is not the world leader of subsidized agricultural goods in terms of percentage, the U.S. does however lead in terms of volume. In Norway and Switzerland though as much as two-thirds of farm income is derived from subsidies and in Japan it is 50%. Cows in Europe get subsidies of about $2.00 per day which is more than what half of the developing world's population lives on. But to a farmer in Mexico it does not matter where the unfair competition comes from, nor does it probably matter to farmers from Kenya or wherever, the simple truth is that urban dwellers of the developed nations are cheating those living in rural areas throughout the world.
Even the small family farmers and the small towns they live in have not benefitted in the U.S.. This because subsidies provide advantages to industrialized farming via loan guarantees, crop insurance, and lower input costs; all of which make large scale farming more profitable and that drives up the value of farmland. What has been happening to family farms in the U.S. is very simular to what is happening all over the world, but on varying levels; although in the poorer nations the development of industrialized farming is replaced by a dependence on imports. This dependence is then the leverage that allows the developed nations access to the world's resources from a strong bargaining position.
Farm subsidies also hold down the cost of staple goods and this in turn holds down the cost of labor. And the cost of labor is then affected also because the elimination of options and opportunities in agricultural enterprises, which of course includes supporting rural communitees, this then keeps labor markets in a perpetual state of oversupply. So subsidies devalue labor on two fronts.
Ironically, Americans are quick to assert that the undocumented workers are being granted a favor to be allowed to live and work in the U.S.. I suppose it is difficult to understand what it is to live illegally in a foreign land and to work for less than commensurate wages. To be away from one's home and family and friends. But there is a contradiction in the thinking that their interests are best served by being here so long as we are the the ones who actually benefit the most. If they were being paid equal wages and treated as welcome guests, that would be different, but to undermine their rural economies, and use them to further the oversupply of our labor markets, which also holds down the value of their labor; is like setting someone's house on fire and then under-paying them to put out the fire. Then of course also claiming to be generous and sympathetic, while leaving the scene to go play golf, or to shop, or to whatever.
ray
Excellent post.
ALL countries should have FOOD security and build as the backbone of their economies, the production of food.
I have NO PROBLEMS with the subsidizing of Farmers as long as the product is NOT INTENDED for export.
If we want stabilty in populations a Local population should be able to first and foremost feed itself with the Produce they themselves can produce.
GwNorth. ~ Thanks.
I see the rift that began with Jefferson and Madison as being extended to the farm subsidies as part of an ongoing power struggle that lead to our Corporatcracy. The Tarriff of 1816 (the first U.S. tarriff), the agricultural Depression of 1921 (an intentional glut that coincided with the "yellow dog" campaign"[union busting]), and now the farm subsidies, have all been efforts to transfer wealth away from agricultural resources to the invesment class and to the financial services sector. These events were central to the how and why we are in our current predicament. So I must respectfully disagree with your stance on subsidies not being problems if "not intended for export".
Consider that subsidies are a loan guarantee that protect loans. That is tax dollars given to farmers so as to ensure loans. In the U.S. there are different options that are in some ways a type of insurance and there is one type that is exactly insurance.
Consider also that labor values are historically deturmined by worker's options. During WW1 for instance the demand for food in Europe created opportunities in rural areas and wages and unionism spiked. And these spikes coincided with the highest immigration levels in U.S. history when measured by percentage of existing population. Which lead to the understanding that labor oversupply was not enough to control labor costs alone.
The glut of 1921 eventually brought farm incomes down to 25% of war levels by 1929 (before crash). And wages and unionism came down in step. This the begining of modern social engineering, a crude effort, but telling. It is important to recognize that options are in a sense a matter affected by a nation's available resources. A factor which of course narrowed as the resources were claimed and purchased. It is important to know also that until the 1920s the cost of labor in the U.S. had never been competitive with Britain's. But as the land filled with settlers the options for workers diminished; and it took all of these factors to culminate to get "the economy that roared".
Consider too that real labor values peaked during the Viet Nam War and recruitment stagnated. Growth accelerated to historical levels but unrest resulted. Reagan's campaign to weaken the unions, manufacturing jobs eliminated, farm subsidies, NAFTA, all helped to solve the recruitment problem. And in this, a very wealthy nation, the key to social engineering success is controlling the options of the workforce. And labor values have been tied to staple good values since ancient times. The trick is to give workers just enough to keep them working and consuming, and the one time that labor values created significant upward mobility for the working class the unrest almost tore our nation apart (Viet Nam era). The ruling elite had the justification they needed. And why else would the nation with the most agricultural resources on earth devalue staple goods?
Had we gone Jefferson's way the world would be a much different place. And climate change is bringing Jefferson's view back into play.
The reason I support some form of subsidy to the farmer is to ensure the farmer remains gainfully employed and able to earn a decent living .
Now one might state a higher price for their produce can accomplish the same and to an extent this is true. The Middleman takes far too large a cut.
THAT said I also believe that the staples of LIFE, be it health Care shelter water andd food should all be obtainable by the Citizen without them having to use money they might not have. The price of food should not be so high that the people can not afford it.
Now in Japan they do subsidize the small farmer and the small farmer is relatively independent and prosperous.
I have no use for the Corporation. Again in my world the Corporation would not be allowed to own land. Your problem with subsidies to farmers is tied to the problem we both have with the Corporation. Again here we have to look at cause and effect.
As well the type of subsidy I support might be very different then what you envision. As example if a farmer keeps a 30 acre woods on his land without plowing it under for cropland, or keeps marshland on his land rather then draining it to plant crops on I see a rationale to subsidize him.
Marketing boards (a Guaranteed price for a product) is also a means by which a subsidy can be paid to the farmer but then we have an issue of food afordability.
The production of FARM produce is very different then the production of other goods. Bad weather can wipe out a crop. It was bad crops that lead to farmers going to banks in the 1920's to get loans to tide them over.
There is no regular stream of income. You can not count on an income for many months which is why so many farmers have to work off the land.
Crop prices are too heavily dependent on total acreage planted. The old farm saying is "A High price for Wheat is the best way to Guarantee a Low Price for wheat". Price stability is needed.
GwNorth,~ good points.
I doubt that this will come as any surprise but I completely agree with the need to use subsidies to incentivize as needed for whatever reason, and your use of protecting the evironment with subsidies is the perfect example. If I implied that subsidies should or could be done away with, that was not my intention. In fact, if I had any say in the matter I would recommend the the use of subsidies to reverse the devaluation process. Technocrats got us into this mess and they will be integral in getting us out also. Anyway, my comments were intended as broad strokes and judging from your comment there is no need to explain or make any excuses on my part. I probably could have done a little more qualifying although it almost goes unsaid that that any abrupt removal of agricultural subsidies would cause widespread famine. And ultimatly my point is that values need to be eventually restored so as to use social engineering to reorganize as dictated by climate change factors. I am a biochar advocate but it is sometimes difficult to include everything I would like to include. This is a format for fragments I suppose.
ray
As someone who lives in an agricultural region where illegals are brought in by brokers (called coyotes) to take local people's jobs because they will work for less money, I have no problem with illegals being arrested and sent back to wherever they came from. And it's not just Mexico, it's Jamaica, Russia, Roumania, Congo, etc.
Wherever they can find cheap labor, corporations will either go there or import them.
Anyone who follows the rules to become an American citizen is always welcome, of course. But people here to take local people's jobs are not.
As long as Amerika remains an economic behavioral sink in which "illegals" are scapegoated, Sheriff Arpaio Could Be Elected IN Pink Underwear.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Scapegoating the desperate and exploited instead of the powerful and exploiting.
You acknowledge that the driver here is the exploiting corporation, which also owns the US Congress, and purposefully structures the economy precisely like this.
Yet you attack the desperate and exploited worker.
ATTACK THE CORPORATION.
Support the absolute right of all workers to the SAME rights, so they CANNOT be exploited in this way.
Scapegoating the immigrant worker PLAYS INTO the corporate exploiters' game.
The same thing happend in the USA in the 1930s with the "OKIES". Unless people can come to grips with his they will forever be deflected from the REAL cause of the problem.
In the 1930s hundreds and thousands of AMERICAN Citizens were forced off their lands and went seeking work and the CORPORATE farmers USED them to lower wages wherein they would work for starvation wages.
The ILLEGHAL immigrants are NOT THE CAUSE. They are an effect. They are a result.
In the 1930s poeple complained about the "OKIES". they called them theives. they claimed they were lowering wages and taking work away from Californians. they claimed they were a BURDEN on the taxpayer.
Shut down those borders and kick out the "Illegal Immigrants" and you will see that same group try and exploit some other group.
It is a systemic problem. It is the worship of the dollar. It is monetizing everything and making PROFIT more important tnhen the people. It is NOT the "illegal immigrant" doing this.
Thank you.
Sheriff Arpaio, another reason why the world looks at the U.S. in bewilderment.
Sheriff Joe's crack about the pink underwear kind of reminds me of another tough guy who wasn't just jokingly a cross-dresser, but an occasional practioner of that art: J.Edgar Hoover.
From Bush to Obama, nothing's changed.
I lived in a Phoenix suburb for almost four years. And the thing that I couldn't get past was that Arpaio treated his dogs better than he did his prisoners. Yup-the dogs got air conditioning and the prisoners got heatstroke. But I guess that's neither here nor there, at least when it comes down to this article. The part that caught my eye was "...Arpaio believes that his open defiance of the federal government--not to mention human rights--on immigration enforcement is just another stunt that may help him win reelection." Open defiance of the federal government. Hmmm. Isn't that why most of his "detainees" are there? Okay, granted...they aren't citizens, so they don't have the same rights, but something just seems wrong to me. Isn't a sheriff supposed to uphold ALL of the laws...not just the ones he wants to? As far as his bid for reelection goes, I way it's way past time that Maricopa County got rid of his a$$.
joanelyia,
I doubt that you intended to imply that you have a low opinion of dogs, or maybe you have a good reason to have a low opinion of dogs, but I disagree with your implications. To begin with, the solid citizen is typically able to post bail and therefore the "innocent until proven guilty" is upheld for those who have earned the benefit of the doubt. So those subjected to "heatstroke" are mostly criminals and deadbeats who are not being subjected to weather conditions that are any different than many working folks are required to work in every day. My father for instance worked as a hot-roofer in Riverside, California as did I and I can assure you that it is cooler in the shade in Phoenix than it is standing over hot tar up on a roof in Riverside and many other places. And then too it would be unfair to forget people working in the winter cold while prisoners in places like Phoenix are enjoying the weather.
25% of the world's prison population lives in U.S. prisons and we still have more crime of nearly every type than any other wealthy nation. So based on the implications of your comment, we should further incentivize jails by providing "air conditioning"? Considering our crime epidemic and the climate change factor I think it better that penal facilities conserve energy in every practical way possible. The guards and other employees could then be paid more as compensation for the unpleasant working conditions and that added cost could come from the savings on energy costs. The unpleasant circumstances probably will not deincentivize criminal behavior enough to make any significant difference although that battle is being fought on other fronts.
As for dogs, you might ask yourself if you would rather allow Arpaio's dogs into your house, to share your air-conditioning with, or an equal number of Arpaio's prisoners (randomly chosen). The choice is of course yours to make, but as for me I would choose the dogs even before most non-prisoners, let alone prisoners.
As for the undocumented workers, I covered that subject in other comments on this thread.
Actually, most of the inmates housed in Arpaio's "tent city" haven't been convicted of anything, they just don't have the means to post bail. They certainly aren't "enjoying the weather" in Phoenix when it's 110 plus for weeks on end and doesn't get below 90 at night. There have been several deaths in Arpaio's jails and the county has had to pay millions in settlements. The people of Maricopa County would be smart to vote his ass out of office, but they like his get-tough attitude against them brown people who take care of their yards and children.
blessthebeasts,
Your reading skills could use some improvement. You could improve also on keeping your quotes in context. I addressed the fact that most inmates "don't have the means to post bail". And I clearly linked their "enjoying the weather" to the winter.
So, according to you, if a person can't post bail, he or she is automatically a criminal, not a "solid citizen?" So much for equal protection under the law!
And we have choices. Society should not be made to pay for deadbeats but it must. But that does not mean that society should encourage less than productive behavior. And it is you who is assuming guilt. I am only saying that deadbeats leave society no other choice while they await trial. Your "protection" has two sides if all citizens are to be safe.
Your logic is not.
So if you are picked up on suspicion of a crime - the jurisdiction not knowing if you committed a crime or not, you haven't yet gone to trial - and you do not have money to post your own bail - you are a "deadbeat" and will justifiably suffer for it, and society has "no other choice".
"No other choice"? A decent society will choose decency, not your ugliness.
You are not talking about the simple suffering of being held until trial, separated from any friends or family or happiness that you might have. You are talking about "society" (actually this nasty sheriff, and the voters who re-elect him) purposefully imposing extreme punishment on suspects who have not been convicted of any crime.
Treating suspects with decency and respect, according to you, "encourages less than productive behavior"? And what does needlessly mistreating suspects encourage - decency and respect?
Again - your "logic" is not.
You are very ugly.
Good point. The sheriff claims that he's not a racist, he's just a "law and order guy." Then he picks and chooses the laws he's going to enforce. He's a buffoon (a very dangerous one) and it's a sad commentary on the residents of Maricopa County that he continues to be elected.
just who does this nut think he is? based on his last name
which sounds hispanic sounds like he is engaging in
some serious self loathing. lets all get on the same page
and spend our travel dollars some where else.as for
obama just more of the same. bush with better fitting
suits. all of this belittles all of us making a mockery
of our values. its also time for us to open our wallets
and help his opponent put an end to his reign of
error and terror!
Sad thing is, nobody with any real power opposes him. Certainly the Democrats in Washington don't.
I fully support the Sheriff and his attempt to rid his county of the illegal, criminal aliens. I only wish he would go after the businesses and homeowners that shelter and pay the criminal illegal aliens and encourage more of their ilk to come into our fine country. There has always been a legal way to enter the US - and those who choose to enter illegally are just plain criminals - there is NO excuse for them to trespass into our country. If you want to come here just do it LEGALLY! But the lure is there for the big money, easy life, no taxes, full education and medical at no cost for the entire family! Go Sheriff Joe, but also please crack down on those who support the illegal traffic! And Mr. President, please continue your support for the 287 (g) program - it works, it helps, it is legal and effective!
Your fantasy of what life is all about for these people is absurd and pathetic. "...big money, easy life, no taxes, full education and medical at no cost for the entire family!" What powerful hallucinogen are you under the strong influence of?
i'll say to you what i said above:
Scapegoating the desperate and exploited instead of the powerful and exploiting.
You acknowledge that the driver here is the exploiting corporation, which also owns the US Congress, and purposefully structures the economy precisely like this.
Yet you attack the desperate and exploited worker.
ATTACK THE CORPORATION.
Support the absolute right of all workers to the SAME rights, so they CANNOT be exploited in this way.
Scapegoating the immigrant worker PLAYS INTO the corporate exploiters' game.
This Most Sadistic Sheriff runs female & juvenile chain gangs. Oh, Volunteer? To escape murderous heat in tents, over 140F, inmates would volunteer for Hell.