Apparently, frogs are really helpful at selling political positions. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer employed a frog puppet to sell Arizona’s immigration law and mock opponents for not reading it. Here’s the video.
Luckily for this frog, Arizona’s law does not include those who are green. Oh, but don’t you love the out of context foolery taking place? Did Holder really take a definitive position on Arizona’s law? In the actual clip, he didn’t take a position. And previously, he only expressed concerns about the bill based on reports. Here’s Rep. Ted Poe, same guy that compares illegals to grasshoppers, questioning Holder during a committee hearing that wasn’t even about the Arizona law!
From, Wash. Times,
“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
This clip of Eric Holder was from last week, assuming he has read the bill by now, I wouldn’t find it hard to believe he’d think it’s still unconstitutional. Let’s actually READ what the ACTUAL law says,
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Oh, I’m sorry, so are supporters of this law really think this is constitutional? Clearly the law allows enforcement to be able to pull over “suspicious people” to check immigration status. Seems pretty clear to me that the people not reading the bill are the people who support it.
Here’s the actual bill if you’d like to read for yourself:
And that is how the money of AZ is being used? to paid for a “singing frog” to get support on SB1070? I’m sure a professor could have been paid a week or 2 with that money. That is why this state is so screwed up! I really hope Gov Brewer doesn’t get voted governor in November!
Thanks for the article Sensi
exactly, and I’m pretty sure it’s tax money being wasted on a political campaign for this law. I hope she gets voted out too and whoever comes in has the political will to do what’s right and push for repeal
you’re welcome
Hi,
I agree with you !!
Thumbs up mate !!
The ad is about people who make comments but fail to read what they are commenting about. You would fit into this category, Mr. or Ms. Deray. If you read, the ad clearly stated that it was paid for by Governor Brewers’ own campaign funds, NOT state funds.
You should learn to read and then use that valuable skill so you don’t sound stupid like those politicians the ad was making fun of.
Do U know how “STUPID” a person (holder) sounds been against something that U (holder) know NOTHING about, NOT having read the law, What? Is he retarded R something??? WHY hasen’t he read the law???
AND U, talking out of UR head, I don’t see, correct me if I’m wrong, BUT where do U see (clearly) that it says that the law allows enforcement to pull over “suspicious people to ck immigration status????????????????????
It says “FOR ANY CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICAL, ETC”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO U KNOW what that means?????? (Traffic violation, Warrnt, Etc.,THAT’s what I read, NOT thst Stupid utterin that U cum up with!!!!!
WOW!!!!! The ignorance AND Stupiditity of sum people!!!!
It would B funny if it weren’t SO “PATHETIC”!!!!!!!
the irony of you calling him retarded is enormous in your comment.
I’m not sure if you’re a 10 year old or not. But even a traffic violation doesn’t permit asking to see a green card.
Your comment would be taken more seriously if you weren’t so inarticulate.
“FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICAL, ETC”!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW, Now I’m startin to suspect that uR the one that is RETARDED!!!!!!!!
I personally don’t give a damn how U take my comment!!!!!!!!
While I can’t rally behind Chucks typing skills, I must take issue with your comment, “…a traffic violation doesn’t permit asking to see a green card.”
If you have read this law it clearly does permit asking for a green card or whatever identification a person has on them. If you have a VISA to be in the US legally, the VISA itself clearly stated that it must be carried at all times. That is an established federal law not a new Arizona law.
“exactly, and I’m pretty sure it’s tax money being wasted on a political campaign for this law.”
Unlike the tax money continuing to be used to sell ObamaCare to the majority of Americans who don’t want it?
“Luckily for this frog, Arizona’s law does not include those who are green.”
Looks like someone else hasn’t taken the time to read the 16-page bill before passing judgement on it. If you had, you’d know that it doesn’t include those who are brown, either. You’d also know that if such a thing happens, the officer will be breaking that same Arizona law.
Reading really is really super swell. It helps you know what you are talking about. You should think about giving it a try.
now, now “brown” refers to Latinos, who are typically targeted as illegal aliens. You should know this. An officer doesn’t have to make their intentions known. Do we know if they’re targeting people because they “look suspicious” or not?
The law doesn’t make clear exactly how to do this without stopping racial profiling of Latinos. Lets also be clear that the majority of Americans realize this law will lead to racial profiling of Latinos.
Reading is good, but next time you read the bill, please employ those super swell reading comprehension skills you were “supposed” to learn in middle school
now, now, WHO the hell said any thing bout “brown”????
U BREAK da “LAW”, U suffer the consequense, AND if here “Illegally”, AND break da LAW, brown or any other color, U get “DEPORTED”!!!!! same as in messiecoo-coo, BUT, There, U go to jail first!!!!
AND dat’s what I learned in middle school!!!!!!!
And I personally think it was money WELL spent!!!!
I liked the ad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So now you are going to reverse your argument from complaining about what you think the bill says to what it doesn’t say? OK, whatever.
At least use the proper version of the bill. You’re only using the AZ Senate version. You need to use the one that the House amended.
In the correct version you will find additions to your quoted portion that pretty much destroy the argument you originally posted. This begins where your quote ends:
“A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY 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.”
Did you get that? A law enforcement officer may not do exatly what you have claimed this bill says he can do. Will that still go on? More than likely. But that is the application of the law, and not the law, itself. Those are 2 diferent issues, and cops everywhere break them all the time.
Well it appears that you are catching up on some reading so I will check back in tomorrow.
Toodles.
YEAH, Well toodle do to U too!!!!!
the version you have here still doesn’t change the outcome. The language still opens the door to allow racial profiling. For a conservative I would assume you’d know, just because it’s in law, doesn’t mean racial profiling still won’t happen.
That’s the point with the whole opposition to the law. Your argument will always be invalid, so I would suggest you either come to terms with what the law says or argue for racial profiling of people that may look illegal.
I think that U R invalid, PLUS my mamma told me NEVER to argue wit FOOLs, So BYE FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, it does change the outcome. What it changes is that if a law enforcement officer does what you say he will do, he will be in violation of the law. And if you look further down, you will find the penalties laid out for when that law is violated by law enforcement. I’d say that is a significant change in the outcome.
You act is if profiling by law enforcement does not go on in every state in the country. It’s illegal, just as it is in Arizona, but it still goes on. And it will continue go on there, too.
But that is a fault in how the officer is applying the law. It is certainly not the fault of a law that expressly forbids that application.
“Suspicious behavior” is, and always will be, in the eye of the beholder. Those words appear in laws all across the country. I would bet in literally thousands. But we don’t get rid of those laws because they open up a gray area that can and will be exploited. Instead, when they get exploited, we deal with the offending officer or make him have a beer with Obama.
“I would suggest you either come to terms with what the law says”
I have come to terms with what it says. Remember, I am the one who enlightened you to what it says.
It says it is against the law to do what you say it allows to be done. It says it is against the law to profile in the application of the law.
It says you are wrong.
Can it be that you really do not understand the law?
Let us break it down to the key sentence in your quote…
“FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY (The LAWFUL COMNTACT comes FIRST! The cop will have to show that BEFORE he/she had suspicions there already had to be LEGAl CONTACT. You know how hard the defense attounrey will fight to keep this a HIGH bar to clear. Without something like a dash-cam of speeding or some such it will be VERY hard to get by this first hurdle.
…WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, (anotehr hurdle here BEFORE any ID check can be made aimed at immigration status, a double one too! REASONABLE SUSPICION not only of a person not being “born here” but that they are here ILLEGALLY. Frankly I am not sure WHAT might pass this test in court. Certainly it will not be a trivial hurdle.)… A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, (another hurdle, this lets cops know thatit is not acceptable to go aroud Murphy’s barn to get the info needed, if the proper computer is down when a cop checks somone at a traffic stop it would not be reasonable to arrest them to be held until the chack can be made. This law is loaded with hurdles and qualifications.)… TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”
I am not sure what would constitute cause to suspect illegality, this law appears to merely make the law enforcement people DO SOMETHING when they DO have goo dreasons to think someone is illegal. Even a total lack of English could be excused by a good lawyer as insufficient cause without some other confirmation, such as uncertainty about when they entered the U.S. or where they were born if they claim to be a citizen. NOT ONE WORD of this law would open the door for someone to be stopped for nothing and checked out merely for LOOKING foreign! To claim otherwise is to deny that you understand simple English…
Pingback: Rand Paul (R) vs. Jack Conway (D): 4th Match Named for PCW Extreme Election Night 2010 « Political Championship Wrestling
I refuse to go around in circles in a debate where conservatives refuse to acknowledge reality. I will say that even though most support to the law, most also believe it will lead to discrimination of Latinos http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/12/2312319.aspx
So will you blame these people for not reading the bill even though they support it? If you’re going to use the argument that the majority of Americans agree with the law, then I guess the answer is no.
It’s not a difficult concept to understand, really.
Actually I will blame the Leftist “pundits” who have been screaming and yelling about how it HAS TO produce racist results… This tactic cannot help but cause MORE tension and division rather than less. It does nothing to address any legitimate concerns of the Citizenry while making the immigrant population MORE paranoid than they already are, what with people like Chavez and Jackson beating the race card band every chance they get.
Before you make yourself look silly by putting labels on me in an attempt to argue by authority let me point out that I am far from being a Conservative, and VERY far from being a republican.
I am, and pretty much always have been, a Classic Liberal of the more or less Jeffersonian/Enlightenment mode…In the 80′s and 90′s most of my writing was about the Moral Majority and their ilk. The Bush years have stunted that group’s momentum and jaded the Christian right with politicians and a new factor have come into play. That factor is the mutation of the Liberals of America into puppets of LEFTIST leadership. Feminism, Environmentalism and basic support for Human Rights have all been co-opted by the heirs of Lenin and Stalin and Mao. And they are allied with the only unrepentant allies of Nazi Germany in the world to bring down “the system” that they claim is so evil.
Before you try to put me in a Conservatives coat you might peruse this little piece…
http://hereticscrusade.blogspot.com/2010/04/if-you-are-not-playing-fair-god-is-not.html
Why is everyone pretending this phrase “lawful contact” somehow creates some fail safe measure which ensures the police would NEVER be able to stop a citizen without good reason. It doesn’t. I’ve worked with Sherrifs and if they want to find a reason (almost any reason) to stop someone, they can. Spitting, broken tale light, littering, loitering, not making that complete 3 second stop when maybe you had … they can claim near anything as lawful contact because there are plenty of mundane things which could be presented as probable cause.
Second, how does one exactly determine a “reasonable suspicion” regarding immigrant status? The last name looks foreign? They have an accent? Their skin is too tan? The nose is too big? Now, if anyone wants to bring up Nazi ideology or practices, the above criteria is exactly what the Nazis used when they were exterminating an entire ethnic group. The left defends human rights and they’re labelled socialists. The right creates xenophobic, paranoid laws restricting freedom and some call them patriots. Does that make any sense??
This law is a menace because it creates a very slippery slope. First it allows “show me your papers” and then what? The more restrictive, and racially motivated, laws this could potentially set a precedent for, should be bothering all of us, as we claim and our forefathers faught for us to be the supposed “home of the free.”