Holder: Feds Will Watch for Racial Profiling if Arizona Law Takes Effect

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/11/holder-says-feds-will-watch-for-racial-profiling-if-arizona-law/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, THIS would be a more legitimate case, and they could actually win this one (if Arizona actually does engage in racial profiling).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Inks, he other lawsuit was pointless. This is where the justice department needs to focus their energy if they want to challenge this law. Or find cases of people being put in jail for not carrying their green cards when going to the grocery store or whatever. Although I'm not sure how good of a case that would be.

Not very.  Holder's public opinion ratings would drop, and if the cops didn't racially profile the people when they arrested them for not carrying their greencard, he'd look like an even bigger idiot.  The smart thing for him to do here is find a CLEAR case where racial profiling occurs and challenge that - but if he tries to get the sentence on the illegal immigrant overturned, he ends up hurting himelf.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Inks, he other lawsuit was pointless. This is where the justice department needs to focus their energy if they want to challenge this law. Or find cases of people being put in jail for not carrying their green cards when going to the grocery store or whatever. Although I'm not sure how good of a case that would be.

Not very.  Holder's public opinion ratings would drop, and if the cops didn't racially profile the people when they arrested them for not carrying their greencard, he'd look like an even bigger idiot.  The smart thing for him to do here is find a CLEAR case where racial profiling occurs and challenge that - but if he tries to get the sentence on the illegal immigrant overturned, he ends up hurting himelf.

Yes, politically he should only focus on blatant racial profiling.

But practically speaking, challenging a case if a cop doesn't accept a valid driver's licence as ID would make sense. I think the law is unclear here, isn't it?

Well, I see no reason a cop would do that, and wouldn't the immigrant simply challenge it?  Why would Holder even get involved in that?  And again, why would a cop not accept a valid ID as proof that the person is here legally?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, I am sure Holder will. It won't work however. He is going to lose on this one. We should know a lot more in a couple of weeks, when I assume the trial court will deny Holder's motion for a preliminary injunction, staying the force and effect of the law pending final adjudication. One necessary element to obtain a preliminary injunction, is a showing of probability of winning on the merits. Good "luck" with that Holder.

You really think he'll challenge it if he's not sure he'll win?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, I am sure Holder will. It won't work however. He is going to lose on this one. We should know a lot more in a couple of weeks, when I assume the trial court will deny Holder's motion for a preliminary injunction, staying the force and effect of the law pending final adjudication. One necessary element to obtain a preliminary injunction, is a showing of probability of winning on the merits. Good "luck" with that Holder.

You really think he'll challenge it if he's not sure he'll win?

He might, considering that his boss wants to pull the Latino vote further away from the GOP and into his (and his party's) hands.

He may gain some Latino votes, but he'll lose more votes in general from this than he'll gain.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Inks, he other lawsuit was pointless. This is where the justice department needs to focus their energy if they want to challenge this law. Or find cases of people being put in jail for not carrying their green cards when going to the grocery store or whatever. Although I'm not sure how good of a case that would be.

Not very.  Holder's public opinion ratings would drop, and if the cops didn't racially profile the people when they arrested them for not carrying their greencard, he'd look like an even bigger idiot.  The smart thing for him to do here is find a CLEAR case where racial profiling occurs and challenge that - but if he tries to get the sentence on the illegal immigrant overturned, he ends up hurting himelf.

Yes, politically he should only focus on blatant racial profiling.

But practically speaking, challenging a case if a cop doesn't accept a valid driver's licence as ID would make sense. I think the law is unclear here, isn't it?

Well, I see no reason a cop would do that, and wouldn't the immigrant simply challenge it?  Why would Holder even get involved in that?  And again, why would a cop not accept a valid ID as proof that the person is here legally?

But doesn't the law require immigrants to carry proof they are legal immigrants, in the form of green card or whatever other documentation the immigrant has?

Not from what I've looked at of the law.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, I am sure Holder will. It won't work however. He is going to lose on this one. We should know a lot more in a couple of weeks, when I assume the trial court will deny Holder's motion for a preliminary injunction, staying the force and effect of the law pending final adjudication. One necessary element to obtain a preliminary injunction, is a showing of probability of winning on the merits. Good "luck" with that Holder.

You really think he'll challenge it if he's not sure he'll win?

It's all for show, Inks.  Sure he will.

Yeah - but when you do stuff for show, normally you do stuff that makes you look good, not look like a complete fool.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Obama has no clue what the bill actually says and is doing this for political reasons of building his base.

The problem is, not even those who wrote the law really cared about what the bill actually says. They passed it for the one and only reason: to build the base.

The law simply states what federal law already does. Should the state governments not bother to enforce federal drug laws because it's not their business?

Under federal law you don't have to carry proof of legal residence on your person, but should be able to produce it when asked (but which would not include when you are going to the grocery store). This law goes further than the federal law and it's sad you can't see it in your ignorance.

You're above personal attacks.

I'm sorry, but I find it very annoying when people say it's exactly the same as the federal law and will be enforced the same way. It is not functionally possible since it's supposed to enforced by local cops as opposed to immigration agents (ICE and other agencies). ICE won't interfere in your daily life, but can show up at your doors if they have information you are living here illegally.

As of now, there's no proof though that the cops will interfere with every day life any more than they already (legally) do.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Inks, he other lawsuit was pointless. This is where the justice department needs to focus their energy if they want to challenge this law. Or find cases of people being put in jail for not carrying their green cards when going to the grocery store or whatever. Although I'm not sure how good of a case that would be.

Not very.  Holder's public opinion ratings would drop, and if the cops didn't racially profile the people when they arrested them for not carrying their greencard, he'd look like an even bigger idiot.  The smart thing for him to do here is find a CLEAR case where racial profiling occurs and challenge that - but if he tries to get the sentence on the illegal immigrant overturned, he ends up hurting himelf.

Yes, politically he should only focus on blatant racial profiling.

But practically speaking, challenging a case if a cop doesn't accept a valid driver's licence as ID would make sense. I think the law is unclear here, isn't it?

Well, I see no reason a cop would do that, and wouldn't the immigrant simply challenge it?  Why would Holder even get involved in that?  And again, why would a cop not accept a valid ID as proof that the person is here legally?

But doesn't the law require immigrants to carry proof they are legal immigrants, in the form of green card or whatever other documentation the immigrant has?

Not from what I've looked at of the law.

Please consult 8 U.S.C.A. 1304 (e)

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall 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 pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
 

Right, but that's not the Arizona law (I assumed that's what he meant by "the law").