I like how this "problem" that has been building for the last twenty years is now Obama's fault and AZ had to do something according to Palin because of the lack of action from the Obama admin. I feel dirty for even responding to her irrelevant ramblings but Oh Well
among other things, why would he say the law invites racial profiling, and they're considering a civil rights challenge? <object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hEywFjonIJw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hEywFjonIJw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object> <object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qUcxG6j0Jks&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qUcxG6j0Jks&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object> and further to the OP, how could he say either of those things w/o actually reading the law? so, do you think the portion i highlighted above should be challenged on either of those grounds?
Basso I can't see videos at work. yes the law invites racial profiling, that doesn't mean he implied the drafters of the law are racists. everyone knows what the law is meant to do, everyone had an opinion on it before it came out. this law is aimed at a certain group, and most members of that group are here legally, but they will be subject to inquiries. that's racial profiling, pretty much legalized.
just in case you missed it a few pages back, is this the language you're referring to as inviting racial profiling, and being aimed at a certain group? i've re-bolded the section that i think speaks to the issue most people have found objectionable, ie the demand for documents. [rquoter](a) Every law enforcement agency in Arizona shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of Arizona and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.[/rquoter]
so you don't find the demand for documents objectionable? EDIT: i'm just trying to figure out what you find offensive, if it's not the language in the bill.
what is your argument, that since the law only requires a request for documents the opposition is overreacting?
not necessarily- i'm trying to ascertain what people find objectionable. in Holder's case, it's clear his objections were based on politics, since he hadn't actually read the bill. you've likewise stated that it's objectionable, because "it's aimed at one group." that may be the case, but given the particular issue (illegal immigration) and Arizona's proximity to mexico, that could hardly be otherwise. so it seems to be the fact of the law at all, rather than any specific wording, that you are offended by- have i captured your feelings correctly?
If you think it's clear, then you're not understanding his position. I'd be happy to do my best to explain the objections and some of your misconceptions, but I'd like to know that you're willing to engage in a frank dialog and be willing to concede that some people have a different viewpoint than you and that just because you don't see things the same way, that doesn't mean they can't see them that way. (In other words, if I tell you that Holder isn't objecting based on politics, you can't dismiss my explanation just because you wouldn't object for any reason other than politics.) I'll start by pointing out that Holder goes out of his way to indicate that its a possibility of racial profiling or that laws like this invite racial profiling. He does that because, not studying the bill itself thoroughly, he can't speak in absolutes about it. Do you see how he did that?
no, i don't, and in fact i don't believe he did either, since in the same breath he speaks of filing a federal lawsuit on civil rights grounds. he clearly has preconceptions about the bill. if not for purely political reasons, why else would we prejudge a bill, on multiple occasions, w/o having actually read it?
Sure he has opinions about the bill. There are known facts about what it is and one can form tentative opinions based on those. But he only states that they are considering filing a lawsuit. He isn't saying that they definitely will, because he hasn't studied the issue thoroughly yet. He has preconceptions about the bill that are based on real information he has about the bill. One doesn't need every detail of information to speak about something. If one doesn't have all the information, then one should make it clear in their speech that their opinion is preliminary or not necessarily directed at the specific thing they are discussing. And that's what Holder did, and went out of his way to do. To claim that you can't express any opinion about something without having all the knowledge on the subject stunts dialog and discussion and is unhealthy for political (and other) discourse. As long as you don't express certainty or outrage directly towards something you are not familiar with, then adding your opinion with appropriate qualifications is a good thing. And it certainly doesn't have to be motivated by politics or some other dishonest rationale. It seems you have a preconceived notion of the mindset of Holder (and virtually anyone associated with Obama). That is why I wanted to be sure that you'd be willing to concede that some people have a different viewpoint than the one you ascribe to them. If you won't consider budging from your preconceived notion, even on something as simple and obvious as this, then I honestly don't feel inclined to waste my time trying to explain it further to you.
Had Holder, in fact, prefaced his remarks with words to the effect of "I haven't read the bill, so any thing i say is based on a preliminary understanding of what in the bill..." in fact, exactly what he said before congress, i'd have no problem. but he didn't. and since he didn't, it's fair to ask why. i've heard no plausible explanation from you or anyone else as to why he chose to so publicly castigate the state of arizona, castigation which continues to this day by his boss. so i'll ask you the same question i asked sam, mark, pgabs, et al- what in the language quoted above is objectionable?
There is disagreement on whether he "publicly castigated the state of Arizona". In the clips I have seen he did nothing of the sort. He said that these types of laws have potentially negative side effects. That's different than saying that they are created with the purpose of achieving those negative outcomes. Do you see the difference? It's the difference between saying a law is racist and saying it is misguided. It's the difference between saying someone lied and saying they exaggerated. Now, even though I said I wouldn't, I can't help but give answering your question a try. I can almost guarantee that you won't read my words with an open mind and you'll dismiss them immediately. I challenge you not to. The problem with the law is not what is written. The language in and of itself is not objectionable, especially as amended. This has been stated several times here already. The issue is with what could potentially happen when this type of law is enacted. If an officer is instructed to crack down on illegal immigrants, and the vast majority of illegal immigrants in the area are of a certain race, then it is almost inevitable that a human being will profile individuals of that race (in addition to other characteristics) when determining whether to broach the issue of the person's legal status. This is true regardless of whether the law makes clear that race or ethnicity should not be determining factors. In addition, as Holder alluded to, the mere presence of such a law, regardless of the language contained within it, can "scare" certain members of the public into not being upstanding members of society (e.g. not reporting crime, not speaking out as a witness, etc). This can affect both legal and illegal residents, which can have a negative effect on society. Do you agree or disagree that it is possible that some individuals when charged with looking for people they suspect to be illegal immigrants may, even inadvertently, unfairly target people who belong to a certain race? Do you agree or disagree that it is possible that the existence of a law such as this may, even illogically, cause some members of society to withdraw and for certain racial divides to become more pronounced?
Yeah, there's no reason to castigate the idea of a state walking around demanding papers of its citizens. What could wrong with that? You might actually be dumb enough not to know that hiding behind vague legalize doesn't keep the law from being a huge problem. Literacy tests during the civil rights weren't written in such a way as to say don't let blacks vote yet that was the intent of the law. Go ahead and defend this written by groups with a history of white supremacy, using troubling tactic of having govt. goons walk around asking people for their papers. I would hope Holder and everyone else would castigate AZ for this. Shame on you for defending it.
