Friday, May 14, 2010

Arizona & Actual Law, Part II

Attorney General Eric Holder commenting on Arizona's new immigration law on NBC's May 9th Meet the Press program:
I understand the frustration of people in Arizona, but the concern I have about the law that they have passed is that I think it has the possibility of leading to racial profiling and putting a wedge between law enforcement and a community that would, in fact, be profiled. People in that community are less likely then to cooperate with people in law enforcement, less likely to share information, less likely to be witnesses in a case that law enforcement is trying to solve.
Attorney General Eric Holder testifying on May 13th before the House Judiciary Committee, questioned about the same law, as reported in the Washington Times:
I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is.
Hint: start reading this.

Btw, at least Holder's smarter than Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes, who based his opposition on the insane belief that the Arizona law means "As an American, I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport."

(via reader Marc, AllahPundit, The Corner)

6 comments:

Geoffrey Britain said...

Carl, Councilman Reyes doesn't believe that he needs a passport to visit Arizona.

That is hyperbole on his part, he made the disingenuous claim to score political points and influence public opinion.

All of the opposition to the Arizona law is smoke and mirrors to obscure their real reasons for opposition.

The left doesn't want illegal immigration to end because their constituency supports it.

Whether whites, who out of PC and liberal guilt or blacks who subscribe to class and minority solidarity or Hispanic's who want their relatives, friends and racial group to continue to have access to the U.S. 'safety valve' and 'doorway' out of poverty, those on the left place those reasons above the reasons why Arizona instituted this law.

We all know this, at least subconsciously. Part of the lack of clarity on this issue is due to conservatives not having thought this issue completely through and liberals not being honest about what they believe.

Liberal support for the Hispanic position is noteworthy because Hispanics who actually support illegal immigration are placing their racial needs above the larger society's needs, which of course is a classic qualification of racism. Ironically, liberals who support the liberal Hispanic position are engaged in support of racism.

Carl said...

GB--a politician that might be either stupid or lying is a textbook case of "Morton's Fork."

BTW, had I not been out of town most of this past week, I would have sent an enraged letter to the editor of the Economist, about this editorial in the May 8th edition:


"For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-US citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status."


Had the editors read my post, they would know that Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1304(e)) already requires every legal alien to "at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him."

Obviously, even the Economist no longer bothers to fact-check liberal nostrums.

Geoffrey Britain said...

Carl, this is the first I've heard of the 'Morton's Fork' conundrum.

However I immediately recognized it, as I independently formulated a similar concept a few years ago. One day I realized that in a crisis, frequently the only choices are between completely unacceptable and too terrible to contemplate, as, were that not so, it wouldn't be a crisis.

FYI, reportedly, the last fact-checking liberal died some years ago, so regardless of any claim to the contrary, a "fact-checking liberal" is now an oxymoron, as they are now extinct.

There's a theory that the extinction statistically coincides quite closely with the rise of political correctness.

suek said...

>>Hispanics who actually support illegal immigration are placing their racial needs above the larger society's needs>>

I don't think so. Look at Mexico. It's a corrupt cesspool, right? However only a certain class of elites are in power. Those who don't/didn't belong to that class of elites get to scratch dirt for a living, and found that they could go north and get a free education and improve their lots. As with immigrants of the past, their ambition, no longer restricted by a class structure, allowed those with talent to rise to the top. Then human greed also rose to the top, and using their former homeland as a model they seek to do exactly the same thing here that has occurred in Mexico - except _they_ will be the head honchos.

Crabs in a bucket.

What is truly despicable is that they use language ability as their form of limiting information available to their people. They push their agenda by demanding US schools teach in Spanish. They demand accommodation to those who have not learned English. And then they use that limited access to information to shovel their propaganda. Pravda couldn't have asked for a better microphone! They are traitors to their own people in order to satisfy their own personal greed and ambitions.

Geoffrey Britain said...

Can't agree with the broad brush you apply, suek.

Yes, a few certainly follow the model you paint but the vast majority are people here for economic reasons, who aren't particularly desirous of assimilating.

They haven't the slightest desire to become part of any elite, lacking the education, talent and ambition to achieve such a goal.

The vast majority of supporters of hispanic illegal immigration are doing it for racial, 'tribal' reasons, rather than for dreams of rising into the rarefied levels of the elite...

Most illegal immigrants simply want to make a good living, nothing more, nothing less.

Carl said...

I agree with both Sue and GB: The illegals come here to earn a living and their leftist supporters want to use their cause to maintain political ascendancy--and the cost of keeping the illegals impoverished and un-harmonized.

As I have often said, I favor expanded legal immigration, which has always been this country's strength. But don't ask me to support someone whose first act in America is to violate our laws.