Holder hasn't read Ariz. law he criticized - Washington Times
The main man in regards to Law in our land admits that he has been critical of the Arizona Law on illegal immigration based on news reports and not based on the contect of the bill. Imagine if someone other than an Obama appointed Attorney General had admitted this? His/her resignation would have been demanded. Why not now?
This is par for the course when it comes to the Obama Administration and the leaders within Democrat Party since we are still learning about things in the Stimulus and Health Care reform. Glad we voted CHANGE in last time around. Perhaps the change was for more blindly lead government into the abyss!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I didn't think that you were THAT partisan. Now we know. What is the point of even responding to anymore of your blogs when there is a consistent scurge of attacks against people you OBVIOUSLY do not like.
ReplyDeleteWhat was Mr Holders original comments on the law? I am paraphrasing but it was something to the effect that he was directing his office to make sure that there were no civil rights violations in the law. Is he not doing that? Does he have to quote the law virbatim to you? If he did you would come up with something else i'm sure.
Your profile says that you have no allegience. Now you have proven that you are full of it.
Anon...While I do hold no allegience to a party, I have never made it a secret that I am fiscally conservative with a more liberal view on social issues. The article does not fuel the fire of partisan rhetoric; rather if this had been any other administration other than Obama's, Democrate or Republican, the Attorney General's resignation would be demanded by now for admitting he is launching an investigation into a law without reading the actual bill.
ReplyDeleteInstead of reading the bill, he admits to depending on the news cycle to form his view on the bill. Does that not raise a flag? Regardless of what side of the aisle one falls one, does it not concern you that people are raging against a bill that already exists at the Federal level? What other legislation, State or Federal, has Holder relied upon the media to inform him on?
"we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done."
is what Holder said over the weekend on ABC. The Arizona law does not attack or racially profile as this statement leads one to believe.
So, you can continue to attack me anonymously if you like but be honest with your attacks. I am not playing partisan politics nor have I hide or created a veil of deception to my belief structure.
Different anon, no it doesn't raise a flag. One doesn't need to read the specific language to see the potential problem. Again, going back to earlier posts, what does an illegal immigrant/criminal look like? Unless the police are asking for documentation or inquiring about status of everyone, there will be a problem. The cops will be targeting hispanics. I don't think you can disagree with that. And that very well might be the most efficient way to address the problem. However, it's applying a law based on race, which requires a very high review standard to be constitutional. One that seems unlikley to be met in this case, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteDo you honestly expect the bill to call for racial profiling in it? A law can be neutral in its text but not in its application. That is the concern of those opposing it and one doesn't need to read all of the language to have that concern.
Oh, and one more thing, if you don't like anonymous posters, don't give the option. Otherwise, don't criticize those who post that way for reasons you don't know of. This is certainly not the first time you've done that.
ReplyDeleteDifferent Anon
ReplyDeleteThere is no problem with establishing a profile of what an illegal immigrant/criminal looks like because law enforcement agencies cannot attempt to determine citizen status unless the person has committed a crime or traffic violation. If the local officer suspects that the information given is not accurate and contacts ICE to verify it is no different than a normal traffic stop when the officer takes your license and registration back to their car to look you up.
The kicker is that this law already exists. Arizona law is just allowing local agencies to enforce the law that already exists. Why is the Federal Law not considered racial profiling or unconstitutional but once a border state, like Arizona, decides it needs to step up action in light of recent events it is now racial profiling and unconstitutional?
As for allowing anonymous postings. I understand that opening it up to such posters does bring a risk of post with personal attacks and unwarranted language. My hope is, and always has been, that posters will conduct themselves in a civil manner especially as we will be discussing topics that emotions can override rational thought. I am not opposed to Anonymous posters and I do not plan to change that option all I ask is that all that post here do so in a civil, respectful and honest tone. That said let's get back to the topic.
Chris, I haven't read the bill cover to cover but I know that there are likely conflicts to both the supremacy clause of the constitution and the equal protections clause of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteShould I submit my resignation too? The fact is, if he ordered the bill to be reviewed, that's just to confirm their concerns or not and if their concerns are confirmed then to actively work to get this into a courtroom for judicial review.
Why does he need to read the bill in order to order an investigation into it's constitutionality? Did he in any way breach his responsibilities as AG? If the answer to both of these is no, then why should he resign?
If the answer is yes, then you need to provide proof as to why this is the case because logic would dictate that it's not.
Let's look at everything he said: ""I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee. "
ReplyDeleteHe's only expressed concern. He acknowledges he hasn't read it. He states no official position knowing he needs to review it. He plans on reviewing.
I've got to say, it seems like you are reaching to really pass a lot of criticism here and looking for him to resign. Has he failed to do his job in anyway? Did he violate the law?
I'm sorry but you've lost me on this.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteThe lawmakers in Arizona did their homework on this bill in regards to equal protections clause and may have done it as well in regards to the Supremacy Clause. I do not expect you to resign but I expect more from the United States top attorney.
I agree with you that he does not need to read the bill to launch an investigation into the constitutionality of it. I'd hope that he had at least read to purpose of the bill. Instead, which he admits, allowed the media to frame the conversation; something we cannot have at that level of government. Holder has been out publicly speaking against the bill and without reading the 16 pages of the bill is simply being ill-informed. Are we saying that our Attorney General ought to be allowed to levy investigations at a whim without proper evidence before him or at the very least use the media has his/her resource guide on the topic at hand?
Anon
ReplyDeleteI agree that now he is not expanding upon his prior position before reading the law. The fact still remains that over the weekend on ABC he attacked the bill without reading it. Holder is in damage control now. The bill is being used for political fodder instead of the intent it was crafted for. Arizona citizens are fed up with the lack of support, real or not, from Federal agencies in dealing with the border and illegal immigration.
Why are we demonizing the bill or even demonizing a State for wanting to keep their citizens free from people committing a crime by being here illegally? I recognize that day workers from Mexico fuel a vital need for local business owners and even seasonal business owners here in Minnesota. So, let's fix the problem. Let's establish a more stream line way to allow these day workers access to jobs that the majority of American's are too lazy to perform. Until then we need to enforce the law that exists. If Federal agencies are too understaffed to accomplish that then allow local agencies to assist.
Instead we talk about racial profiling and the bill, which exists at the Federal level, as being unfair to illegal immigrants. It is still a crime to be here illegally. Try going to another country illegally and see what happens!!!
Chris, since immigration as a portion of foreign policy, is a federally granted power per the constitution, I'm curious as to how they wrote the law to not have it superceded by the federal statutes in place. More importantly, how they think that states have the power to grant rights to local enforcement officials when those powers are held by the federal government alone.
ReplyDeleteI know you want this law to be legal, legitimate and valid but again it makes me question whether you understand the constitution or whether you only are for upholding those parts that grant states power and will ignore those that do not.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteThe law in arizona does not supercede federal law. Instead the law allows local agencies to assist in enforcement of the federal law. That is why I do not see this law I violation of the constitution. Please explain how extending the enforcement of the law to include local agencies?
Chris, the law assumes that the state has the power to authorize their local law enforcement to enforce federal law.
ReplyDeleteHowever, federal law has never authorized this, and since federal law supercedes state law in EVERY instance except where stipulated within the federal statute based upon the supremacy clause, the state cannot authorize their agencies to enforce these laws regardless of their desire to do so.
It's as simple as that. And by assuming that the state has these rights, powers and authorities, they are in direct conflict with the US Constitution.
I've actually spoken with several friends who are lawyers, including one who works for the republican party in the state and they all agree in private that this law is unconstitutional. However, the republican admits that it's politically expedient to support the law regardless, because the public strongly supports it.
But then, the majority of the public also can't tell you what the capital of 49 out of 50 states are let alone recite any one of the components of the constitution. So I don't think I want them interpreting my constitutional rights - thanks.
I am an Arizona resident and I would like to chime in if possible.
ReplyDeleteViper, you and a lot of the country support this piece of legislation and that is admirable. However, I work in law enforcement and I know fully that this law will do absolutely nothing to curb illegal immigration.
This bill had its genesis from a raid that municipal officers in Chandler, AZ did on an area that was predominatly hispanic. Them and INS removed about 500 people from the area just for doing nothing more than being undocumented. The deportations did not stick and the department ended up getting sued for civil rights violations. After that, illegal immigration became a "problem".
Most of the conservative politicians blame the porous border. Sure, at the time it was easy to get back and forth. So, they directed Border Patrol and INS to strenghen the border policies. Did this help? No. It just drove illegal border crossers deeper into the desert. To areas where ranchers are. Most ranchers who are interviewed say that there wasn't a problem until 9-11 and the closing of the border. Because of the strong border policies, there was now a huge black market for immigrant smuggling. Which continues today because the DPS IIMPACT unit five or six drop houses a month.
I'm sorry Viper, but this law adds another layer of unecessary criminalization to a problem that exist soley because of our love of cheap labor. Remember, a lot of these people pay upwards of $15000 to be transfered up here with the threat of kidnapping and murder if they do not pay. I have been through the desert in summer and know full well that I personally would never want to have to hike the 200 miles through 100 degree temps even at night.
If we created border policies that allowed immigrants to come here legally by removing a lot of the red tape, it would help.
If we actually cracked down on ID theft and businesses who hire illegal labor, that would help.
Those laws are already in place, but only lightly are being enforced.
Instead, Arizona politicians concocted a law that was primarily a way for them to get reelected by a large and gerrymandered conservative voting block. Not to mention the fact that they love to piss off the states latino population, which seems to be ongoing.
I hope you can change you mind at least a little about this ridiculous law. Thank you for letting me post.
Arizona Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThank you for your insight into the situation. It is always great to hear a new voice on the blog and one so close to the action as well.
What are some of the other ideas being floated around to assist with illegal immigration? I do agree with you that for day workers something needs to be done as the majority of Americans will not work the jobs they fill or work for the wages being offered. Plus, you are correct that something needs to be done to crack down on people using the illegal border crossers as hired hands. Take away the need and the supply will dry up.
I do disagree with you that the law adds another layer of unnecessary criminlization. The law is not re-defining the Federal immigration law nor adding a definition of its owns. Instead the law gives local authorities the ability to detain suspected, after an unlawful act has ocurred, until ICE can determine their immigration status.
I do not know enough about Federal Immigration Law and, no offense, I am fairly certain that you are not an expert either. What I do know is that the state police (for which I am employed) regularly investigates immigration cases. But that is because the Dept of HS allows a group from DPS (IIMPACT) to do this. Recently they have been quite successful.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that as of last year over 990,000 people have been captured at the border or in drop houses last year? The system is working and working well. The law enforcement side of immigration is doing what it's supposed to.
So now we come to this law which allows municipal police to enforce immigration laws. Most local police that I know personally won't enforce this law. Primarily because they don't know how. They also know that a lot less people are going to be suing them for NOT enforcing this law than if they did. Also, they realize that if a crime is commited that allows for a criminal detention (an arrest), immigration status is already checked. So Viper, this law really isn't going to do anything new.
Don't get me wrong...I do not agree with the Al Sharptons of the world who wish to boycott the state. They are only hurting me and I disagree with this law. But remember, perception is everything. The need is to create FEDERAL legislation that tightly controls immigration while leaving the hispanic populace alone. None of the Arizona politicians consulted with any of the hispanic leaders regarding this law. It was purely intended to provoke disdain and the lawmakers here are NEVER on shaky voting ground.
I simply do not agree with laws that are passed purely for window dressing. Much like texting while driving which is impossible to enforce. That is what this is. Immigration and its illegality are FEDERAL problems. A comprehensive plan must be hatched to deal with it or we are just going to be further divided
Thank you
Arizona Anonymous
"A comprehensive plan must be hatched to deal with it or we are just going to be further divided"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, for politicians, division is precisely their goal. It's why for decades the population has been split 50/50 between the parties. If one party grows too much, they change their platforms to rebalance the equation and keep it relatively balanced.
Division is the single greatest problem this nation has but I don't see it changing anytime soon. Especially with movements like the "tea party" in play. They bring only negativity and disdain for the system to a process already flawed.
Kevin..you hit something good here to which I give pause to pen an entry. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteGlad I'm good for something. I was worried my day had gone un-productively. ;)
ReplyDelete