Operation Fast and Furious

[Ergel]

255-67 along partisan lines (does that need to be stated?) Pelosi walked out

[HelpMe]

255-67 along partisan lines (does that need to be stated?) Pelosi walked out

That is what I figured. Nothing new, next.

[good sam]

255-67 along partisan lines (does that need to be stated?) Pelosi walked out

2 republican nays and 17 democrat yeas

[HelpMe]

2 republican nays and 17 democrat yeas

That gives a lot more weight to the vote.

[Ergel]

Do I sense a tinge of sarcasm?

[good sam]

Holder continues reaffirm that he is the worst AG we have ever had.  We all remember the interview where he said he was planning on challenging the Arizona Law even though he hadn't read the bill (which was a whopping 17 pages).  Here, he tells the NAACP that he is concerned about the remaining provision of the law, but still doesn't know what the law says (or else is lying about what the law says). Watch

[mclovin]

Holder continues reaffirm that he is the worst AG we have ever had.  We all remember the interview where he said he was planning on challenging the Arizona Law even though he hadn't read the bill (which was a whopping 17 pages).  Here, he tells the NAACP that he is concerned about the remaining provision of the law, but still doesn't know what the law says (or else is lying about what the law says). Watch

around where does he say that (its 25 min)

[good sam]

I posted the wrong video.  Fixed it.

[HelpMe]

Holder continues reaffirm that he is the worst AG we have ever had.  We all remember the interview where he said he was planning on challenging the Arizona Law even though he hadn't read the bill (which was a whopping 17 pages).  Here, he tells the NAACP that he is concerned about the remaining provision of the law, but still doesn't know what the law says (or else is lying about what the law says).

Are we watching the same video.

"In their June 25 ruling, the justices nullified Sections 3, 5 and 6 of SB 1070, but left the thorniest element intact: namely, the one that requires police to verify the immigration status of anyone they arrest or detain for other infractions if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they might be undocumented."

[good sam]

Are we watching the same video.

"In their June 25 ruling, the justices nullified Sections 3, 5 and 6 of SB 1070, but left the thorniest element intact: namely, the one that requires police to verify the immigration status of anyone they arrest or detain for other infractions if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they might be undocumented."

We are not watching the same video.  He says:

I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law, which requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect of being here illegally.

Compare that with the actual law:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

He leaves out an important few words, not to mention the end of the provision:

A law enforcement official . . . may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

[HelpMe]

@good sam - It’s the same thing. It all comes down to “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien”. Care to give an example of that one?

[good sam]

@good sam - It’s the same thing. It all comes down to “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien”. Care to give an example of that one?

Holder says anyone who looks Mexican can be stopped and asked for ID.  That is a lie.  The law only provides that when a person is lawfully stopped or arrested, the cops should determine the suspects immigration status.  This is not an extra burden on the suspected criminal, who was already arrested on reasonable suspicion of a crime.  If at that point the cops check his immigration status because he looks Mexican, so be it.  Those here legally, and even those here illegally who don't arouse suspicion of criminal activity, have nothing to worry about.

Whether this is an example of Holder's ineptness or bias does not matter.  He has already shown himself to be both.

[HelpMe]

Go to any inner city and you will see what Holder is talking about. I don't like the guy, I would never vote for him but he happens to right in this case.

[good sam]

Go to any inner city and you will see what Holder is talking about. I don't like the guy, I would never vote for him but he happens to right in this case.

Cryptic.  Care to elaborate?

[HelpMe]

Cryptic.  Care to elaborate?

Kids in the inner city are profiled and stereotyped. It is ten times worse for them when they leave the inner city. This law will do nothing to stop illegal immigration. It only gives the rotten apples in the police force another tool to harass anyone then want.