Tweet
It's pretty sad when I can post a thread title like that, and there are MULTIPLE CONCURRENT ISSUES to which it could apply. In this case, it's immigration:
This thread isn't really to debate Arizona's immigration law, although I'm sure that'll happen anyway. My point here is just what in the hell is Holder thinking? A state that actively seeks to enforce a law is doing more damage than a state or city that refuses to so much as cooperate with the law? Huh? As Rep. Lamar Smith points out in the article, does Holder also think it's OK for states and cities to refuse to cooperate on federal banking laws? How about anti-terrorism? Taxes? No, of course not, but somehow when it comes to people of color, it's OK to help THEM violate the law.
Holder is stupid because he thinks this makes sense, and racist because he actively goes out of his way to create one set of rules for minorities (for another example, see the Black Panther voter intimidation case), and one set of rules for whites. I'm seriously not even convinced that Obama is public enemy number one anymore, compared to Holder - except for the fact that Obama appointed this clown in the first place.
The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's law, arguing it could lead to a patchwork of state laws.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration --commonly called sanctuary cities -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
And Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand that law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.
"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law - it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.
The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of anyone they detain who they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.
Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned, but in her statement after the lawsuit was filed, she said Arizona was being targeted.
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's law, arguing it could lead to a patchwork of state laws.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration --commonly called sanctuary cities -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
And Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand that law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.
"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law - it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.
The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of anyone they detain who they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.
Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned, but in her statement after the lawsuit was filed, she said Arizona was being targeted.
Holder is stupid because he thinks this makes sense, and racist because he actively goes out of his way to create one set of rules for minorities (for another example, see the Black Panther voter intimidation case), and one set of rules for whites. I'm seriously not even convinced that Obama is public enemy number one anymore, compared to Holder - except for the fact that Obama appointed this clown in the first place.
){ :|:& };:
Comment