If you have a minute Mr Holder, please read the law  | | | |  http://www.foxnews.com/po...
Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long.
"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas whether Holder has read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
"I'll give you my copy of it if you would like," Poe responded.
Holder told reporters last month that he fears the new law is subject to abuse and that the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are in the midst of conducting a review.
The Arizona law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
The law has sparked protests across the country, including a City Council-approved boycott of Arizona businesses by Los Angeles.But proponents deny that the law encourages racial profiling, with some saying the local controversy is a symptom of a broken federal immigration system.
However, varying public opinion polls show 60-70 percent of Americans support the law.
Holder said last month that a number of options are under consideration, including the possibility of a court challenge.
On Thursday, Holder said he plans to read the law before reaching a decision on whether he thinks it's constitutional.
When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."
On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling.
Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "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."
Voicing concern over a law you havent read. Sounds like a pretty popular problem we are having these days. I have read it, it didnt take too long. He even went in front of Congress to discuss, and still didnt take the time to read it.
here is a video clip
very interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
 laglen (7665)
|
2 years ago
| | lol no kidding! Who goes in front of Congress and says , well I glanced at it but I criticize it. What an idiot | | | | | | | Arizona Interlocks Arizona Interlocks. Arizona's http://arizonainterlocks.com/ | add comment | | | |
| 2.  TTCCWW (337)
|
2 years ago
| |  Because the Governor and others have not finished writing the law. The Governor has made several changes to the language as late as yesterday. I believe that what everyone is reading is the adridged edition that came out of congress and it has not been finalized.
He is speculating like the rest of us that this violates the 4th and 14th amendmant no atter how they correct the language.
In the past, when the Supreme Court was functunal, they have never upheld a law that was inacted by the majority rule to control or supress a minority. That could easily change with this court.
Our fore fathers wrote volumes on this very issue and then made blacks and other minority's three fifths of a person. Guess their intention was well ment.
| | | | | | |
| laglen (7665)
|
2 years ago
| | The road to hell is paved with good intentions. At the time that Holder was answering questions, he had not read any part nor any edition of the law. | | | |
 hofferp (2894)
|
2 years ago
| |  "...a law that was inacted by the majority rule to control or supress a minority". TTCCWW, have you read the law? Show me the part of this law that supports your statement...and I might buy it. Also, how is this court not functional? Give me some examples, and again, I might buy it.
| | | |
| TTCCWW (337)
|
2 years ago
| | It clearly won't stand on the 4th or the 14th amendmants. Those are the basis for the lawsuits that are already being prepared by the ACLU.
The dysfunctunal court? The same one that just overturned 25 years of campaign finance law to recognize corporations and political action committee's to have all the same rights and privilages of and as an individual. How or what were they smoking, how they came up with any concept that our fore fathers intended that a business or group should be afforded individual rights after they wrote a document/s that was soley intended to protect individuals and impower the citizenry of our nation.
240 years of the individual rights being the primary concern and now Haliburton can purchase who ever they want for government office. If that is not dysfunctional then we need a new term to apply to that activist insanity.
4th and 14th;
Due process, equal protection, privileges of immunities, probable cause alone is a no starter.
Regardless of how they re-write it if it affect one part of the community deffirently then another part of the community because of their looks how can it be defended?
| | | |
| laglen (7665)
|
2 years ago
| | I read the bill straight from Arizonas web site. How is it unconstitutional if it is a federal law that has not been overturned? | | | |
| TTCCWW (337)
|
2 years ago
| | Three of the lawsuits that have been filed have sited Equal protection, one other claims it will lead to profiling and the ACLU is talking, as of yesterday, that it violates previous decissions by the court of probable cause. Other lawsuits claim that it violates a federal issue's of jurisdiction, that one seems a strecth to me but more power to them.
I would rather live with a lots and lots of hard working immigrants as live in Nazi Germany. If I want to go out without my papers or armband I don't expect to spend time in jail for it. | | | |
| laglen (7665)
|
2 years ago
| | have YOU read the bill? because I dont think you have. Where in there does it give law enforcement the ability to demand papers? It DOES say that after a legitimate reason for pulling you over, they can demand ID. THIS IS ALREADY IN PRACTICE. This just gives them the ability to arrest people without valid proof of citizenship. If you are a citizen, you have nothing to worry about. If you are not a citizen but are here legally, it is already a LAW for you to carry ID. I do not see the comparison to nazi germany | | | |
| TTCCWW (337)
|
2 years ago
| | What is not in practice and what the supreme court has ruled on in similar circumstances for decades is the provision;
"and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable, to determine a persons immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien".
This gives them and actually instructs under pain of lawsuits to pull over anyone they think or any citizen thinks is an illegal without probable cause.
Pulling someone over for actually violating a law and then discovering that they do not have papers or ID is quite different then pulling some one over for driving while brown or having slanty eyes.
I for one do not want any of my police force using their better judgment and ussually the courts don't either. Pulling people over for driving under the suspicion of being an alien? Whats next? Pulling folks over because they look like they might break the speed limit sometime in the next month. Maybe we could have a redo of the McCarthy hearings, those were so productive and it is an election year.
Lets go into the very idea that we are calling these people aliens instead of illegals or undocumented. I have never met an "alien" and it is a shame that law makers cannot discuss this without inflamation and darogatory language in an actual bill of law..
Back to Franklin;
"When you sacrifice freedoms for security you have neither".
| | | |
| laglen (7665)
|
2 years ago
| | ok, first of all, what are you quoting because that is NOT the bill verbage. This is
No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).
feel free to read the bill
http://www.azleg.gov/Form... | | | | | | | Consulte Abogado Online 5 abogados están en línea. Pregunte, obtenga su respuesta YA! JustAnswer.es/Inmigracion | add comment | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Citizenship Immigration
Complete your US Citizenship Online. Apply Now. Official USCIS Forms
www.uscitizenship.info | | | Arizona Diamondback Polos
Buy Arizona Diamondbacks Polos. $4.99 3-Day Shipping on all Orders.
FastballFanatics.com/Diamondbacks | | | Immigration Attorneys
Find Immigration Attorneys Near You. See Actual Customer Reviews!
Local.com | | | Top 2011 Online Grants
Grant funding may be available - Go Back to School!
www.ClassesUSA.com | | | Tailgating Digest
100% Free Digital Magazine, Everything Tailgating!
www.tailgatingdigest.com | | | US Law Firms
Directory of US law firms. Submit info requests online!
SpotaLawyer.com/USA | | | Immigration and Veteran
Immigration and Veterans Law
www.jquijijelaw.com | | |
