Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

Fine, whatever. Assign whatever motive you like while ignoring the greater context of the thread. I took shortcuts in my writing because I assumed people would read the whole thread. If you had done that, you might realize your characterization of my statements is contradictory to things I've said previously. It doesn't matter. I've said everything I have to say on the subject and I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to explain to me what that whole "If" part of the documentation list means. A couple posters were still vehemently exclaiming that I was misinterpreting it, but never satisfactorily answering my question there. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Until then, enjoy your indignation.

MrVicchio said:

FOXNews.com - Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

Click to expand...

Holder, reacting to the firestorm of criticism from Republicans and border-state lawmakers, said the Justice Department decided to file the suit because Arizona's immigration law is "inconsistent" with federal policy and the U.S. Constitution. He said there's nothing to stop local jurisdictions and states from helping the government enforce immigration law, but described Arizona's law as contradictory to what the federal government is trying to accomplish.>>

The law is the law, no matter how many political twists it gets, it won't go away.

ricksfolly

Deuce said:

I do every time I go jogging. However, I am unlikely to jog to Arizona as that would take quite a bit of time.

edit: Although I admit I go jogging way less than I should.

Click to expand...

I typically carry my national ID and my national health card with me when I run on the small fanny pocket designed in many running shorts...

I would suggest anyone who is legally required to (non-citizens in the US as well as many other countries) do the same.

Deuce said:

They realize the possibility of losing the first suit, yes, and intend to monitor the situation to see whether racial profiling occurs. Seems like it would be fairly easy to track the cases where the citizenship-checking is done to see whether it is applied disproportionately to hispanics.

So, thanks for the news, I guess?

Click to expand...

I will be done disproportionately to hispanics because they make up the majority of illegals in the US.
It's a strawman - you can't avoid the problem just because it's being dominated by a certain race.

If they're so concerned about racism why don't they focus on the police force in regard to the many many *known* incidences of racism in the judicial and correction system?

ludahai said:

I typically carry my national ID and my national health card with me when I run on the small fanny pocket designed in many running shorts...

I would suggest anyone who is legally required to (non-citizens in the US as well as many other countries) do the same.

Click to expand...

I carry my ID everywhere I go. If something happens to me I want to be identified.

It is common sense.

ricksfolly said:

Holder, reacting to the firestorm of criticism from Republicans and border-state lawmakers, said the Justice Department decided to file the suit because Arizona's immigration law is "inconsistent" with federal policy and the U.S. Constitution. He said there's nothing to stop local jurisdictions and states from helping the government enforce immigration law, but described Arizona's law as contradictory to what the federal government is trying to accomplish.>>

The law is the law, no matter how many political twists it gets, it won't go away.

ricksfolly

Click to expand...

Eric Holder is a corrupt assbag who has no idea what it means to be "consistant" with the US Constitution. It's time for Holder's corrupt ass to be removed from office.

Deuce said:

Fine, whatever. Assign whatever motive you like while ignoring the greater context of the thread. I took shortcuts in my writing because I assumed people would read the whole thread. If you had done that, you might realize your characterization of my statements is contradictory to things I've said previously. It doesn't matter. I've said everything I have to say on the subject and I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to explain to me what that whole "If" part of the documentation list means. A couple posters were still vehemently exclaiming that I was misinterpreting it, but never satisfactorily answering my question there. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Until then, enjoy your indignation.

Click to expand...

First, I agree with you on the "if" part, just in the fact that you are right. Those states' driver's licenses will not be acceptable.

Having said that, I don't agree with you overall. First of all, there are several ID cards issued by the government that are not acceptable as proof of age, especially military IDs in some places. I have experienced this several times, in that I do not have a driver's license, so my military ID (I have both a military ID and dependent ID now, but both are considered suspect by some places) is the only form of ID I have. I look much younger than I am. If I happened to get drunk, and was asked by a policeman to show my ID, but he didn't accept my military ID, should he be allowed to detain me until he could prove that I was old enough to drink? Taking it further, in relation to your "why should legal citizens have to carry ID" argument, what if I got drunk at my house, then decided to take a walk around the neighborhood with my husband, but I left my ID at home. A cop sees us, and believes that I am too young to be drinking but I am obviously drunk. Should he be allowed to stop me to ask for my ID to prove my age? Would a temporary detainment for me to prove my age not be okay?

This is purely, and ONLY, an attempt to win Hispanic voters in November and beyond for the Democrats.

Just like ignoring the threats of the Black Panthers is to not scare away voters for the Democrats.

Sad that the Attorney General has been reduced to this. It used to be an esteemed appointment.

Holder is a vile, corrupt, puppet of a man.