Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey had their socks knocked off when they found out that Sheriff Arpaio had been pardoned by the president. Arpaio had been known for years as a very conservative politician who strictly enforced laws. He was so conservative to the point where he was bigoted and insensitive.
The problem about conservative-minded people is that, to various extents, some of them can be so needlessly insensitive and judgmental to the point where they are hateful, mannerless, and disrespectful. Joe Arpaio fits the bill for these qualities because of the fact that he specifically went after a certain group of minorities—Latinos. Read more: Village Voice Media | Wikipedia and Jim Larkin | Crunchbase
Some people with conservative views are actually very tolerant and have different levels of certain views. Sometimes, people who are on the conservative side are conservative because they are passionate about a specific stance on a specific topic. However, this is not Sheriff Arpaio’s situation.
There is at least a molecule of irony in Sheriff Arpaio’s racial profiling because of the fact that his last name sounds Italian. At some point, Italians were less assimilated into American society and were looked at more as an undesirable minority group. They were profiled. However, as the years went on they blended in as whites and assimilated.
If you were a Latino on the road in Maricopa County in the 2000s, you were at risk of being profiled by cops—thanks to Sheriff Arpaio. Numerous people were detained—many of them not being illegal aliens.
Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey and others believe that Arpaio’s actions weren’t just wrong due to the fact that he labeled all Latinos “illegal.” They go so far as to argue that he shouldn’t have even been looking for illegal immigrants, to begin with. That, in itself was discrimination.
There is a laundry list of reasons for why it is wrong to do what he did to illegal immigrants. First off, it is inhumane to deny people the right to be in this country, whether or not they are legal, due to the fact that people have a natural right to go wherever they need to go for more opportunity. Learn more about Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/potmsearch/detail/submission/6427818/Michael_Lacey and https://michael-lacey.com/
Secondly, a stronger argument would be that the United States has taken advantage of Latin America so much that a lot of the problems in Latin America might have something to do with intervention from America.
It is arguable to say that the United States and its citizens have some sort of moral responsibility to let Latin Americans into the country. After all, a lot of the prosperity that America gained during the 20th century happened because American businesses went into Latin America, caused turmoil, made people impoverished and profited.