Atty Gen Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized

[bobbyw24]

In his near daylong appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder was repeatedly asked about Arizona's new immigration law, which the attorney general has criticized and suggested may run afoul of the Constitution.

Mr. Obama has asked the Justice Department to review the law to determine whether the federal government should try to block it before it takes effect at the end of July.

But Mr. Holder acknowledged to the committee that he hasn't read the law, and his criticisms were based on what he's seen on television or read in the newspapers about the law.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/

[jmdrake]

Well I read the law when it first came out and I'll criticize it. It doesn't define what "lawful contact" is nor does it define what constitutes "probable cause of being an illegal immigrant". Tom Tancredo has criticized the law for "going to far" and I'm going to have to agree with him. There are three possibilities with this law as written.

1) Anybody can be questioned about their citizenship and asked to show ID, in which case Arizona is now a police state.

2) Only people who "look" like "illegal immigrants" can be forced to "show your papers" in which case this is racial profiling.

3) There is some other criteria not mentioned in the statute that counts as "probable cause" other than how someone looks. (How someone talks? Say if the suspect is deaf? Do deaf white people get an automatic pass but deaf Latinos get extra scrutiny?)

I heard J.D. Hayworth on NPR trying to defend this law. His answer to questions 1 and 2? "It doesn't just target latinos because we have Chinese and Arab illegal immigrants too". :rolleyes: The sad thing is he wasn't joking.

This law could be easily fixed. Simply say that whenever police have probable cause of a crime other than being an illegal immigration they can and should check immigration status. Really, it's not that hard to spell out in a statute what you really mean. Oh, and under such a statute you could still check immigration status for someone you see climbing a border fence (in the few places where there actually is a fence) because that's a crime whether you are an American citizen or not.

Holder not reading the law is a sad commentary on his work ethic. But I'm not sure that everyone defending this law has read it as carefully as Tom Tancredo apparently has.

[bobbyw24]

Well I read the law when it first came out and I'll criticize it.

Thanks for your legal critique, John. Nice to see you back here again.

I actually posted this piece to point out how America's Top Attorney based his criticism of the law on what he heard on TV and the newspapers. Scary.

If America based its conclusions of Ron and Rand Paul based on the mainstream media, only a handful of people would like them.

Is law school over yet? Any time you need a job in Florida representing consumers, let me know.

Also, please post a pic of your truck here when you get a chance.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Arizona should just state... "Since the Federal Government and Supreme Court of the United States have eliminated the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. The Federal government, SCOTUS, and 49 other states have no say or jurisdiction in the Arizona immigration law.

Buh Bye