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).

[Sbane]

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

lulz@Holder

[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.

[SvenssonRS]

Holder is such a dumbass. What ever qualified him? This is  a constitutional law and he's jumping at any chance to confront it.

[Sbane]

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?

[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?

[Torie]

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.

[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?

[Bo]

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.

[Sbane]

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? But as long as you have a driver's license, you don't need to carry it on you? Is the law clear about this? Maybe the cop will accept AZ licenses, but what about other states? And does the cop even need to accept the AZ license, or is it just an "understanding" that this is how the law will be enforced?

[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.

[??????????]

He won't even prosecute voter intimidation. Why does he care so much about some theoretical crime in the future?

[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.

[Dgov]

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.

I think that this will backfire for them.  I mean, if Holder loses the discrimination case, then the Democrats will suffer a permanent ideological hit in that the Republicans can use the law as counter-evidence when the Democrats try to claim border enforcement is racist. (eg. you said this law was racist too, and you were wrong)

And if the Democrats lose the race card here, they're in big trouble of actually losing the Latino vote the Republicans, given their best weapon with them has always been the "Rawrrrr Republicans are evil racists"

Then there is the issue of actually finding a discrimination case.  Since the law also makes racial profiling for the law illegal, the Dems will need to find a situation where they think they can win a case the state didn't think was racial profiling, so they'll almost certainly not get anything blatant.  And when you're dealing with probable cause, anything not blatant is usually ruled in favor of the officers.

Which is why I think they're trying to kill this bill on Constitutional grounds--it's the safest political option for them in the long run.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

[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.

[Derek]

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

[ag]

1. The justice department, probably, can make it pretty expensive for some jurisdictions. They may loose, or they may win, but the legal effort might be costly for the local police forces. Most definitely, declared attention by the Justice might make some departments very cautious as far as what they are doing, unless they are dying to spend a big chunk of their resources of time and money in the courtroom.

2. Not every police department is in love w/ the law. Some of them might not be averse to loosing a case. Expect voluntary testimony of the sort: "yes, we do profile, because any alternative makes the law meaningless and impossible to apply, so, yes, we believe Arizona legilature wants us to violate federal anti-discrimination satutes". They might not say it that blatantly, but this will be the effect.

3. There will be long-term asymmetry here. Anglos, sooner or later, are going to forget about the law. Hispanics will remember for quite a while.  Especially Arizona Hispanics. For Anglos it is one of many issues. For Hispanics it's THE issue. Electoral effects here might, in the short term, work for Republicans: there are more Anglos out there. But long-term they lock the bulk of Hispanics as a solid Dem electorate (yes, there will be exceptions: it won't do it for EVERY Hispanic community, but these are numerically not that large). So, yeah, even if nothing comes out of the Justice challenges, the long-term investment makes sense.

[ag]

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.

[Vepres]

For Hispanics it's THE issue.

Are you so sure? Is there data to back this up, or you simply restating a stereotype?

[justW353]

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

I suport the law, but I have a question: Can the police stop over anyone suspected of being an illegal or could they only ask for immigration papers once they arrest someone for a separate crime?

They have to be arrested for a crime.

That's a lie...or rather, an "untruth".

I have only one problem with this bill:  Article 8; Subsection E

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probable cause.  That's all they need.  What is the evidence of the public offense (illegal immigration)?  Skin color.

My grandfather was born in Puerto Rico.  He's an obvious latino, but has been a United States citizen his entire life.  Let me ask; who has more probable cause:  a man born in Puerto Rico who appears to be Mexican or a white person?  This law grants a law enforcement officer the right to arrest my grandfather without a warrant because he has probable cause to believe my grandfather is an illegal immigrant and he doesn't have his ID.

It's ridiculous, it's unconstitutional, and it bothers me.

[??????????]

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?

[Lunar]

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.

Can the states require me to do anything in the name of enforcing federal law?  Can they make me dance the Macarena to prove I'm not a Russian spy or go to Jail?   Since AZ has already made it an arrestable offense to not carry proof of citizenship with you at all times if you're ever at risk for being asked, maybe there's another small government policy solution out there like requiring you to carry proof of every gun which is stored in your house, even when you're not in your house, at all times, and making it an arrestable offense if you don't?

Let's be honest, the AZ law does more than enforce federal law.  It criminalizes not carrying proof of  citizenship on you at all times, and for people who live in Michigan or Utah, states which do not require proof of citizenship to get a driver's license, it criminalizes them any time they are accused of basically anything citizenship-related automatically, authorizing them to be arrested I believe unless they have their birth certificates on them. 

Who the hell carries their birth certificates on them?  Yet in Arizona, if you have a driver's license from Utah, well, that's not enough.   You can be arrested. 

That's not "enforcing federal law"


This is more than federal law here imo

[??????????]

Hey, the situation is out of control. Tell your president to put down the three wood for five minutes and actually secure the border. I guess that would defeat his goal though, right?