It is their job #1. #2 they shouldn't forward on falsehoods as truths. Don't defend this.

Because this isn't just any old state law. States are boycotting each other over this.
Also he is the legal advisor to the president. The president bases some of his opinions based on what the Attorney General concludes about such a law. If the president and the attorney general are basing opinions on falsehoods or reading what the law was from the Washington Post etc, then they aren't doing there job.



You are cutting his quotes in half:
----------------------
"When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."

On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling.

Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done." "

------------------------

You don't make comments on something you didn't verify; especially in his position.

If you don't see the problem here, there is nothing further to engage you with. He is carrying on lies by the lib media and using his position to further them.

Now with Video:.
YouTube - Eric Holder on Arizona Law: "I have not read it yet"

“You’re” is always a contraction of “you are.” If you’ve written “you’re,” try substituting “you are.” If it doesn’t work, the word you want is “your.” Your writing will improve if you’re careful about this.


If someone thanks you, write back “you’re welcome” for “you are welcome.”

Also, I think this individual is just a troll.

The fact that in my 380 posts from the fall of 2009 and compared to your 12 posts from Dec of 2008, I made a grammar mistake of the contraction "you're" incorrectly in a post, and the other 379 are used correctly, thus showing my understanding of the concept.

Your fail to write to the topics of this thread. Instead call me a troll and attempt to make me look foolish from a grammatical mistake or typo. Make an argument and discuss something related to the topic, or you become the troll you accuse me of being.

I understand why you posted though. The truth hurts doesn't it?
Smear instead?

Clint, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

He says he is not advising the president on this bill until he reads it. He says he is basing his present opinion on what he has heard, and not on the words of the bill itself. He said he is reserving judgement until he is able to thoroughly review the bill.

He has a mic in his face, would you rather he say "No comment"? I wonder what your gripe about him would have been if he had done that.

Sounds like an honest and upright guy to me. We could use more of those in Washington.

1. Are you really comparing the amount of posts I have versus yours,
like if that makes you a better person:confused: ? I LOL so hard at that! There are
multiple members here that are in the four digits when in comes to posts,
and one is about to hit five digits, does that make them better, smarter, stronger, than you? There are over 40k members here that have less posts then I, should I rejoice in my superb posting abilities?:D

2. I guarantee you that if I check you other 379 posts, I will find grammatical errors.

3. What is the "truth" you are talking about? Is it about the non-Japanese related troll-post you started? Here's the thing, if Arizona wants to target illegal immigrants and punish them, so be it. If Arizona wants to grant every illegal immigrant living in Arizona free citizenship, so be it. It doesn't affect me the least what Arizona is doing, or not doing for that matter. And if you are going to troll and rage at the same time, then you lose the game.:mtongue:

Sorry folks. I should not have replied in the first place.
Should of read the sign not to feed it.

Yet another mistake. So much for the other 380 posts that I haven't (and will not) read.

Since you are apologizing to god knows who( I mention god because I'm a Protestant) for replying to my 12th post, your first line should have been connected by a coma (,) and not a period (.).

And when you said "should of", I think you meant to say, should have.
This is one of those errors typically made by a person more familiar with the spoken than the written form of English. A sentence like “I would have gone if anyone had given me free tickets” is normally spoken in a slurred way so that the two words “would have” are not distinctly separated, but blended together into what is properly rendered “would’ve.” Seeing that “V” tips you off right away that “would’ve” is a contraction of “would have.” But many people hear “would of” and that’s how they write it. Wrong.


Note that “must of” is similarly an error for “must have.”

Well Clint, I'm not here to start an inflammatory conversation. I'll actually be near Stateline, Nevada this July, maybe we should get together, share a drink, and talk like adults.:rheart: :ywave: :rheart:

fine fine.. I made another grammatical slur in my second sentence. At least I didn't say "should of not" in the first sentence of that post. I never said that all of my posts were all gramatically correct; and far from it. If you read my original post, it said I have used "your" and "you're" correctly in a majority of my other posts, showing that I understood it.

I only mentioned your post size because you decided to label me a troll when you, who have literally said nothing on this board, pop in and say nothing on the topic.

We all make grammatical errors and typos. Most of us type like we speak. Most of type on this forum on a pocket computer or pda. You make them, I make them. There is one diplayed quoted in the post by you. We could go look at our old posts on this board and find some more. Neither of us post in any kind of properly flowing format. Fragmented sentences, lower case pronoun "I" etc.

My point is, is that it is "trollish" for you to call out grammar or typing mistakes and call me a troll when you have no basis for it.

Again, post something on the topic of this thread or... well you know the rest.

I make grammer errors all the time, who cares?


Hell, the Arizona law protects people from profileing more than federal law does, so I don't see why all the hubub. Maybe some folks are afraid the law will actually be inforced for once and half thier voters deported.

I don't really see anything wrong, obviously deporting them didn't work.
It's like trespassing. If you trespass, you go to jail.
I know many people don't like the law, but what's the big deal?

Here's the problem with profiling.
Everyone does it.
Doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, or what your belief is.
If you notice something, thoughts pop up into your head.
In their job, they are to keep out illegal immigrants, and because they are trying to keep people from crossing the Mexican-American border.
So, it isn't their fault that you look hispanic, they are just doing their jobs to assist in hindering illegal immigration.

If you are a legal citizen, you show your proof of citizenship, and you go on with your day.

There is no profiling. could you give me a definition of one used in the courts? Is profiling the same as racial profiling? No, it is not.

Arizona has become the kidnap capitol of the world. The world. More than Iraq, more than Mexico. All by Mexican drug gangs. Not to mentions the human traffiking in people forced into sex work.

But we should let that continue because..... why? It's racism to allow these people into the country and use them as a slave class of labor. It's illegal to assume they can't learn English and translate everything for them.

it's the liberal who wants the illegal crossings to continue that has profiled and used people based on race. Now the Pres and his ilk are manipulating them for votes and doing nothing for them.

So if you are a person of color you are OK with being asked to show proof of citizenship when white people are not?

Does that sound like the America you want to be living in?

Actually Mexico City is the kidnapping capital of the world. That being said, no one is saying criminals shouldn't be punished for crimes they commit.

Nobody wants the illegal crossings to continue, and it is simply silly to think that liberals want that to happen.

Who does want the illegal crossings to continue are the industries which survive and thrive by paying illegal immigrants less than minimum wage to work here. That's it.

The complaint is not about stopping illegal immigrants from coming in. My complaint is that legal citizens will lose rights. See the post above yours. People are willing to toss away the civil rights of legal citizens to fulfill the goal of capturing illegal immigrants.

The way to fight illegal immigration is to go after the companies and corporations that hire undocumented workers. It is cheap. It is easy. We know where they live. Corporation presidents and company owners cannot go into hiding like an undocumented worker can. They have reputations to keep and money to fine.

Instead of another reduction of the rights of legal citizens, let's try and keep the civil rights of Americans and go after those encouraging illegal immigration.

MMM, what are you talking about?

what rights are thrown away for legal citizens? What rights are dismissed? None. This will withstand legal scrutiny because it mirrors existing laws that have already passed scrutiny. the law states that if a person is contacted under reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot (yes, that is actual legal jargon) then an officer may inquire about citizenship. If an officer stopps someone in a traffic stop, or drug law violation, or an assault, and that person has no license and can't ID themselves, then the issue is addressed.
no rights are impinged. Please state the rights, listed in the constitution, that are trampled. You can't, because there are none. this law was written to withstand constitutional scruntiny.

I am looking at what the above poster said:

So, it isn't their fault that you look hispanic, they are just doing their jobs to assist in hindering illegal immigration.

If you are a legal citizen, you show your proof of citizenship, and you go on with your day.


This is the attitude that concerns me. "Look illegal, be treated like an illegal until you can prove me wrong."

Is this how we treat American citizens? I don't think so.

The state I live in doesn't require a proof of citizenship to get a licence. So if I were to be pulled over in Arizona, my license would not be proof of my citizenship. Now I am white, so it is unlikely I would be asked to show an American passport or original copy of my birth certificate in order to not be taken in and processed.

However, what if I were an American-born Hispanic and was visiting Arizona from out of state? If my state ID was not sufficient evidence of my citizenship (as I came from a state that didn't require proof of citizenship to get a license), I could be held and questioned until somehow I was able to prove citizenship.

Should Latino-Americans be forced to carry American passports to travel to Arizona?

I am not talking about not having ID, I am talking about not having "proof of citizenship". Those are not always the same thing.

How many white people do you see trying to illegally trespass from Mexico into the United States?

I understand that there are circumstances that require sacrifices.
So, I don't see the problem with that searching. I support it, completely.
With that said, yes, that does sound like the America I want to live in.

How hard is it to pull out your wallet and show an ID?
I do that multiple times a day, because I work on a government compound.
Not just that, but I live on a military base. So, as a matter of security, I find it a great idea.

The law prohibits requesting ID based on someone looking "hispanic." It will not happen. The law was ammended to not allow it.

The above poster is correct. The race of a person committing a crime may be taken into consideration per the law, but that is not racially profiling. If the border is with mexico, it goes logically that most of the violators will be hispanic. That is not racially profiling - it is recognizing the facts of the cirmstances. This has been upheld in the supreme court. Racially profiling is targeting someone because of race.
It gets old hearing everyon screaming about racial profiling on so many issues when it is not happening. Those people clearly know jack about the law.

MMM, do you live in a border state where the damage is being done? I don't think so, but of course I could be wrong. Trust me. People don't all come here to work.
earlier you said we should target businesses who hire illegals. But that targets those who come to work. To catch the gang members, drug runners, human smugglers and general criminals, this law allows that to happen.

MMM - you still did not list any rights of the constitution infringed apon by the law.

Also, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have been running around screaming the law is unconstitutional. But when confronted they bot said (within the last 36 hours) they had not read the law and do not know it. When pressed further they said, "Uh, uh, uh, I, uh, mean, uh, uh...." Do not be fooled. Those who oppose this bill do so for political reasons with no knowledge, or regard, of the law, even though the majority of people support the law and are screaming for more. The damage to the border states has been devastating.

Paul, I think you and West need to get your stories straight. This is the duality of the reality of this law.

One side (Paul11) of supporters says "No it isn't racial profiling! Where is that in the law? It says race is not reasonable grounds for suspicion!"

And then the other side (West) says, "Got brown skin? Sorry. Sacrifices need to be made. You look Mexican, then you better have the proper ID, or else."

Politically you can argue the former, but is there any doubt that the reality is more along West's way of thinking?

So the rights I am talking are not about the rights of illegal citizens, but of LEGAL citizens being stepped on. What rights, you ask? The right to not be held to a different standard of identification just because of the color of my skin. Millions of Latino-American people living in the US are Americans. Why should they be held to a different standard than white Americans? West says because they look like illegals from south of the border. That's racial profiling and it's a violation of rights.

Regarding drug and human smuggling, this law does nothing to help prevent that from happening any more than the laws that already exist do. Those are already serious crimes with serious consequences. Reducing the rights of American citizens doesn't make that go away.

Regardless of what you look like you need to carry identification.
Driver License, military ID, state ID, passport, etc

Here's an idea.
Rather than complain about a law, how about coming up with a solution of your own?

Did you know, in Japan, police stop people who look foreign just because of that?
Nagoya G.A. - From Sweet Tea to Green Tea - Journal
It's simply a security protocol.
It's just a heuristic.

In the case of computers, you have things like malware.
Your firewall controls access into and out of your computer.
Your anti-virus scans everything to ensure they are okay to be on the computer.

So, again, please tell me how you would handle the illegal immigration in the United States.

Simple. If you have ants eating a fallen lollipop on the sidewalk and you want to get rid of the ants, what is the easiest way?

You could stamp them out, but as long as the lollipop is there, there will always be more ants that will try and come get it.

The solution is remove the lollipop. If there is no lollipop, there is no reason for the ants to assemble on the sidewalk.

My solution (which I have mentioned more than once) would be to focus energy and money on going after those employers that hire undocumented workers.

If they have no reason to come here (the majority of that being for work) then they won't take the risks to cross the border and do so.

What's wrong with my solution? It targets rich white people and not poor brown people. However, it is the most efficient and economic solution.

So, how do you propose we pin point those who hire illegal immigrants?
I think it is a good idea, because that means more jobs would open up to Americans who are legal citizens. With the economy the way it is, people should take whatever jobs they can get.

As for the rich people, regardless of skin color, it doesn't target them.
It targets the industry. Skin tone has nothing to do with that.

You both spray for ants and remove the lollipop.

Inforce the immigration laws and the employment laws, plus build a fence/wall.

Course you have the alternative option of invadeing Mexico and makeing it the 51st state. I mean, might as well make them all citizens anyway, since half of them up here allready. :rolleyes:

The alternative option sounds quite stolid, if you ask me.
The problem is removing the lolipop.

MMM - You don't know anything about law enforcement or rights pertaining to the law. There is no infringement of a citizen's rights in the situation you mentioned above. THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW A PERSON TO BE DETAINED BASED ON SUSPICION OF BEING IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. If a citizen is LEGALLY detained under RESONABLE SUSPICION for a violation of a law and the officer CONSEQUENTLY developes a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person is illegal the may extend the detainment (I.E. car stop) long enough to INVSTIGATE (I.E. ask questions and obtian documents) the status of the person.

I detain people in this manner every single day in the course of my job. There si no infringement. The right you are talking abou is not aright but something you beleive is fair. You have not defined what right you are talking about or where it is codified as a right.


My job is expressly regulated by laws based directly on the constiutution and it's ammendments. I'm telling you there is no right as you have mentioned. Stop arguing based on your strange personal principals and base it on the law.

Wrong again. What you state is definitely a problem. This law is necessary to also address the criminal element presented by the illegal community. You r utopian fantasy that they all come her to work is simply not true. many come to feed off the system. There are programs for pregnant women to come her to have anchor babies. The drug cartels ar crossing the border with military weaponry. The criminals are coming in droves, joining gangs and commiting a majority of the street crime.

And targeting rich white people. Your progressive/socialist ideals are slipping out along with your racism toward white people.

Whoooah. I request some clarification to this statement with some sarcastic point we are all missing. As it stands now, I'm reading some serious stereotyping.

That's because liberal progressives always scream racism as a defensive mechanism and a way to shame others into silence, even thought thier own "compassionate" policies creat more suffering.

Notice he does not address any solid points regarding the law I'v posted, but relies on stories.

Here's a story: I was in full uniform in the district attorney's office. I met a man who looked at me like he was seeing a ghost. The 1000 yard stare straight through me. His sone is a police officer recently murdured by an illegal alien.
Try going to Cop funerals. In arizona the illegals have been killing cops. Organized crime has infiltrated phoenix. 60 % of the homicides in AZ were committed by illegals.

Liberals always shape thier ideas and policy by emotion and no real logic. Why hasn't MMM addressed any of the points regarding the law itself I posed?

Here's a joke: What's a racist? A conserviative who's winning an argument.

My solution would make rich business owners those that would pay the consequences, along with those that cross the border to take the jobs these Americans business owners are offering.

The reason they aren't targeted is that they also pay in the campaigns of the politicians that decide how to allocate money for dealing with illegal immigration.

So we are back to the inefficient practice of criminalizing those that cross the border to take jobs American business owners are offering them.

Spend all your time stamping out ants, and have a good time doing it. But, as long as the lollipop is still there, the ants will keep coming.

Do you really want to solve the problem of illegal immigration?

Christ almighty, you can't possibly be serious with this statement.

I am not screaming racism I am calling a spade a spade. Did you read your buddy, West's statements? He said sacrifices need to be made by those that look like illegal immigrants.

Notice how I do what? Number your questions and I will address every one I haven't addressed yet. Feel free to address mine, too.

This isn't a black and white issue. I am not the stereotype you want to make me out to be.

I am not defending cop killing, organized crime, drug trafficking or human smuggling. All of those are illegal activities that this law doesn't even address, much less help to enforce.

What I am defending is the right of American citizens to travel and live freely as American citizens.

The question seems to be "What does an illegal alien look like?" and I think you need to answer first "what does an American citizen look like?"

If you are saying American citizens should be presumed to be guilty before innocent in terms of their citizenship, then own up to that.

I'd like to solve the problems of stereotyping too.
Glad you clarified this time minus the racial stereotyping.

I think most are in agreement with you here about stopping businesses *knowingly* hiring illegals. But the concensus is it is only a part of the problem. Obviously securing the border should be priority number one; which the state can't do and the federal government turns a blind eye.

Yes, maybe stomping on ants at this point, but still better than nothing. Arizona is in a state of emergency and had to act in any way they can within the law.

And the campaign door swings both ways wihle we are on the subject.


A Real problem:
YouTube - TERRORISTS CROSSING MEXICAN-U.S. BORDER

And little surprise from Janet "No security" Napolitano who just has time to comment with Eric Holder on laws they haven't read. Yep you guessed it, she didn't read it either.
FOXNews.com - Napolitano Admits She Hasn't Read Arizona Immigration Law in 'Detail'

Clint, then admit the fact that if we go after the companies that hire undocumented workers, we can greatly reduce the problem at a much lower cost than stamping out ants all day.

Of course I am against illegal organized crime, drug smuggling, human traf...wait, I am repeating myself...I don't need to go into that again, I think.

I already said that targetting those companies is a good idea, but how do we identify them?

1st - Don't attribute West's statements to me. That's a trick and unrealistick.

As a law enforcement professional who lives this stuff everyday, I can again say tou are wrong. This law does address those violations you mention. Most cities in California and Arizona are "sanctuary cities" which harbor illegals. After being arrested they are not reported to ICE - they get out and continue thier associations with crime. If most crime is committed by illegals - then targeting illegals will resolve the issue. The police's hands arer tied and so cannot get a handle on the situation. This law will help them do so.

Again, admit you know nothing about law enforcement and how this law works.

It is a lot easier than trying to identify illegal aliens. Like I said before, company owners can't run and can't hide. Offer a $100 reward for people that will identify companies that hire undocumented workers.

Sit in front of Home Depot and follow trucks that pick up undocumented workers for day labor.

Go to any farm and ask to see the docs and tax records of all their workers.

Go to any cannery or meat processing plant and ask to see the docs and tax records of all their workers.

If this law is about identifying "suspicious" individuals, then to to the places where these "suspicious" people tend to work.

Doing something, which the state is, is better than nothing, which is what the federal government is doing, nothing. Sure lets do this too. But you can't just do that alone.

Here are some stunning numbers fresh off the press
FOXNews.com - Cost of Illegal Immigration Rising Rapidly in Arizona, Study Finds

"Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law."

In this case, every bit counts, including sending back to desperate illegals who come to feed off the system.

And I reiterate:
YouTube - TERRORISTS CROSSING MEXICAN-U.S. BORDER

All the violations you are talking about are extremely illegal and should be addressed with no impunity.

Again, again, again, again, and again, this is not about not punishing criminals.

It is about not punishing American citizens.

I am not talking about law enforcement, but about not stepping on the rights of American citizens to do it. If you are saying we need to step on the rights of American citizens to enforce the law, then I say "no".

I have never attributed your words to West's, what I am saying is that you and him are on the same side, but are saying two very different things.

If you disagree with West, maybe you should address the problems with his statements here, as I have. As I said, I think you are the political voice behind this law, but he is the reality of how the Arizona conservative public wants it to be enforced.

Okay. I did chuckle at you a bit about this one.

That's fine. You are taking the political line, and West is taking the "man on the street" line. Guess which worries me more.

Feel free to address (or not) all the other points I made about what you said.