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.
“I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it,”
Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Fox News: May 13, 2010
Sen. John McCain on Monday asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, if she’d had a chance to review Arizona’s controversial immigration law.
“I have not reviewed it in detail,”
Napolitano said during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
“I certainly know of it, senator.”
She knows of it… Really??
Who doesn’t, “know of it” ? Actually reading it… those pesky little details can be such a burden.
Sound familiar?? (added to WTF list…)
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
I love these members that get up and say, “Read the bill!” What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?
Back to the misrepresentation, of the unread bill…
[E]fforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.
The president is bashing Arizona for simply trying to enforce the law — the federal law, as well as now a new state law.
Has he read the law??
Simple question. Isn’t protecting our legal citizens from an invading army of illegal aliens who are using our services and taking our jobs, a basic notion of fairness?
Why is fairness being denied to American citizens? What about the basic fairness of state and federal governments to protect the American citizens?
Looks like what’s going on in Arizona is an effort to criminalize enforcing the law.
Related Post: Obama CliffsNotes… updated
Related Post comment:
Comment by Gage:
glad you posted something new for me to read while i’m in web design ;] all very well until the last bullet that confused me:
•Governor Jan Brewer signed an immigration law that launched a national debate.
Obama and his regime govern against the will of the people. CBS Poll: 60 percent of Americans say Arizona’s tough new immigration law is “about right” or “doesn’t go far enough.” Are you listening, Washington?
1. is this dealing with the thing where people who “supposively look like illegal immigrants” must carry a form of identification with them at all times and must present it when requested to do so by a cop?
2. the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?
3. do you agree or disagree with this idea?
In this comment I am actually beginning the conversation about the new Law passed in Arizona. Due to my resent absence as a result of technical difficulties, I have a bit of make-up-work to do. In the next few days, I will be posting a more in-depth post dealing specifically with this controversy. (Above Post)
1. Yes this comment addresses the new law requiring identification.
But here, I’d like to clear up a misconception. Your statement “dealing with people who “supposedly look like illegal immigrants”, is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Obama, the media and everybody on the left is misrepresenting the Arizona law. Kris Kobach, a professor and the primary author of the Arizona legislation said…
“This law only kicks in when a police officer already has made a lawful contact with the person such as stopping him for breaking another law…”
Nobody in Arizona can be pulled over because of their race or because of the way they look. The cops can’t engage ’em unless they’ve got reason to on some other grounds, traffic stop, suspicion of robbery or what have you.
They’re just lying about this. They’re playing the race card here.
“This is profiling, produce your papers,” they don’t want a substantive analysis of this at all, any part of that, because on the substance they lose.
That’s why the template here is: this racism, this white supremacy, this Nazi-like tactics, why, this is going to launch Democrats to new heights of power in the November elections, and really motivate Obama’s base, really reenergize Democrat voters.
It’s all BS.
When, you or I get pulled over for speeding, or maybe a broken taillight, the officer ask for our “papers” (drivers license, registration, proof of insurance). If we board an Airplane, we are ask for our ‘papers’. When we use a credit card or write a check, once again we are ask for our ‘papers’.
Remember, it was just last summer that the Democrats in Congress made US citizens show their residency papers before they were allowed into the town hall meetings. Remember that?
Not just a resident of the US, you had to be a resident of that congressional district. And they were claiming it was a matter of national security to even allow them into the building.
I’ll even expand on this further in a future post. But, I think, I’ve made my position a bit clearer for our discussion here. (Refer to above information)
2.” the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?”
Actually A Rasmussen Reports poll found that almost two-thirds — 64 percent — of voters in the state favored the measure. The poll I quoted was a national poll. Reflecting the strong national support for this law. I do not believe “extreme” would apply. I believe that the majority of the nation supports enforcing the laws already on the books, of which most dealing with illegal immigration are ignored. And, due to the lack of federal responsibility to enforce these laws, states are left to pick-up the slack.
Rasmussen Reports, May 12 2010:
“A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that just 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation.”
“Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.”
“The proposal failed to pass in the Democratically-controlled State House last month by a 75 to 82 vote.”
So once again the Democrats are governing against the will of the people. Nothing new to this administration.
3. Yes, I agree.
I believe, the laws already on the books need to be enforced.
Our society is based on the ‘rule of law.”
If the Federal Government refuses to step up to its constitutional responsibilities, the states then must respond. If the states do not respond, it is the right of citizens to defend themselves. This is the basis of a Republic form of government.
Arizona Governor Brewer Sends Obama Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!