Friday, May 14, 2010

Defending Holder, Sort of..

One thing can be said--he might be a moron but at least he's an honest moron..
Have you read the Arizona law?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not had a chance to, I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.
It's rather shocking he would admit this, but perhaps he realized that by saying he had read the bill, while under oath in front of Congress, and after previously saying it was "divisive" and might as enacted lead to civil rights violations, he would likely get trapped in a lie causing more trouble.

As it stands, the mainstreamers are largely ignoring this story today. Just checked the front pages of CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, WaPo and NY Times and none of them have the story. ABC does have a video tease entitled "can strippers save schools?" and MSNBC has one entitled "balloon boy parents get balloon back". So apparently the Attorney General admitting in front of Congress that he hasn't read a 10 page bill his department might file suit against isn't newsworthy to them. As Holder surely could have figured.

But that said, the bill is somewhat troubling in how it federalizes Arizona police into doing the job of the Border Patrol/ICE. Even if police don't racially profile (and of course, all police in Arizona aren't white cops that look like they came from Adam-12) it won't stop the rights groups from clogging the courts with frivolous charges that they are, which could clog the system at large.

I continue to believe the law was more a flare sent up by the Arizona government over fiscal and logistical problems due to immigration in hopes it would get the national debate going to push for a fix. Sure enough, the public debate is back on immigration.

And I continue to believe that fixing the problem should include some kind of provision for illegal aliens to work and live in America temporarily presuming they travel back to the nearest border, obtain paperwork from US Consulates, then re-enter legally at an official border crossing with a worker visa. I'll even waive the fines if they do so before a set date.

Saying it's impractical to have them go back is interesting in that many traveled thousands of miles to reach far-flung US destinations and are sending thousands of dollars back home to relatives in the countries of their citizenship. Surely they can respect our laws enough to trouble themselves into making one more trip back to the border to get themselves legal if the provision is offered.

That sets up a situation where those who refuse to get legal before the deadline will be deported as soon as it becomes evident they are illegal. All future entrants would have to stop to get the paperwork at the border, and if they come across illegally after the one-time deadline, they're gone when caught. Liberals prize fairness--isn't that fair?


Debbie said...

It the Arizona law was 'flare' sent up I'm not sure it's working that way. It may backfire, but it's too early to tell yet. It certainly stirred the pot on both sides of the issue. People seem to be taking sides and it isn't pretty.

Right Truth

A.C. McCloud said...

Coming from Sweetness and Light:

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

Apparently coming from the California Code. If true, maybe LA will have to boycott their own state.