Posted on 07/11/2010 3:47:12 PM PDT by mreerm
since Holder can't come up with something of importance/value, he screams RACISM...it's what the 0bamites do
(Excerpt) Read more at FoxNews.com ...
Mexican is not a “race”. Neither is American, for that matter. The Arizona law is not profiling. We don’t profile races, we profile criminals.
Holder badly needs to get canned.
Holder would loose a logic war with a smurf.
Guess Yale Law is trying to out dufus Harvard Law.
So far, it’s a pretty even race.
The good lawyers in the “Justice” Dept must be livid.
Once, they actually had a reputation.
Reminds me of the Federal use of tariffs to impoverish and subjugate the South before such efforts resulted in the War of Northern Aggression, aka “Civil War”.
You’re probably right, although I didn’t think it was possible. Holder is stretching himself on this one.
Holder is the bigot.
Holder manufacturers a racial profile case against Arizona, but ignores the ugliest case of voter intimidation case by those black panthers. These guys are unreal.
I don’t understand what ‘race’ has to even do with the issue.
If you are an illegal immigrant, you are illegal. Doesn’t matter whether you are red,white,green,black, or blue.
If you don’t speak the language, then it is just human logic that concludes you may not be an American Citizen.
There are many ‘obvious’ things to look for by LE when their concern is that the person they have encountered may be ‘illegal’. After all, they are supposed to be ‘enforcing the law’.
The most important justifiable reason the cops should be allowed to question citizenship is because they have different procedures to follow for ‘citizens’ vs. ‘non-citizens’. They are supposed to report ‘illegals’ to immigration. How can they do so if they are not allowed to even ask?
Never park next to the HANDICAP SPACES.
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
He must be held in cotempt or something worse or he will file suits holding up the enforcement for ever.
Arizona must disregard the federal court saying it has no standing.
Holder will do whatever Obama tells him to do.
He is merely a stooge .
Just one too many ‘n’s in that last word, m’FRiend.
The 0bama administration has a weak argument going in — that “patchwork” thing and the state horning in on federal privilege.
Maybe they’re planning to beef up their charges when 1070 goes into effect — and maybe they’ve already got a few volunteers lined up to claim racism, profiling and other violations.
They just can’t jump the gun, but they wanted a lawsuit “in place” so they brought the lame charges first.
IANAL. Not even close. (Wish I were, the law is fascinating.)
How about Jan Brewer filing a Quo Warranto and AZ actually passing that show me your BC law for 2012.
“This is by a huge, huge margin the most radical administration that has ever held federal office.”
That’s a fact.
But that's OK because it's used to discriminated against Whitey, isn't that right?
It's indefensible, so he tries to change the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.