Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 May '10 04:11
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/

    Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It

    FOXNews.com

    Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law, which is only 10 pages long.

    ...
  2. 15 May '10 04:11
    looks like sh76 wasn't the only attorney who couldn't find it.
  3. 15 May '10 04:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/

    Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It

    FOXNews.com

    Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law, which is only 10 pages long.

    ...
    Did anyone ask him IF he could read?
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 May '10 04:22
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It
    A little embarrassing. One of his staffers probably bullet pointed the main provisions and causes for concern.
  5. 15 May '10 04:29
    Originally posted by whodey
    Did anyone ask him IF he could read?
    i guess they assumed it was a prerequisite for the job.

    although there have been blind attorneys.

    best not to give Obama ideas.
  6. 15 May '10 04:39
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i guess they assumed it was a prerequisite for the job.

    although there have been blind attorneys.

    best not to give Obama ideas.
    If it were me I just would have smiled and said, "Well ya know, its not like anyone knows what is in Obamacare either."
  7. 15 May '10 04:42
    Originally posted by FMF
    A little embarrassing. One of his staffers probably bullet pointed the main provisions and causes for concern.
    Provisions that cause concern? You mean like enforcing the federal laws regarding illegal immigration? What specifically does he object to that conflicts with federal law?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 May '10 04:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    Provisions that cause concern? You mean like enforcing the federal laws regarding illegal immigration? What specifically does he object to that conflicts with federal law?
    It's politics, whodey. People oppose the Bill and people approve of it. Some people have raised concerns about constitutionality, as you know. Others oppose it for knee-jerk reasons. As for myself, I support the enforcement of federal laws. As for specifically what he objects to that conflicts with federal law, I do not know as I am not following this story. Nor have I read the "10 pages" myself.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 May '10 04:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    Provisions that cause concern?
    Some people are concerned by the steps Arizona has taken. Are you claiming that they (Holders' staffers, for example) are not genuinely concerned?
  10. 15 May '10 04:53
    Originally posted by FMF
    It's politics, whodey. People oppose the Bill and people approve of it. Some people have raised concerns about constitutionality, as you know. Others oppose it for knee-jerk reasons. As for myself, I support the enforcement of federal laws. As for specifically what he objects to that conflicts with federal law, I do not know as I am not following this story. Nor have I read the "10 pages" myself.
    OK, does anyone know what Holder objects to?

    I can take a guess. I will say that the left has fundamental problems with the federal law regarding illegal immigration and since Holder is a mouthpiece for the Obama administration, he is raising objections. They have not attempted to breach this law by proposing amnesty to the illegals as of yet, which is what they want to do in order to increase their voting base, because they know that the legal citizens are about 70% against them.
  11. 15 May '10 04:55
    Originally posted by FMF
    Some people are concerned by the steps Arizona has taken. Are you claiming that they (Holders' staffers, for example) are not genuinely concerned?
    Yes, he is concerned about putting a nail in the coffin of the hope for amnesty for the illegals. They know that they are unable to do so legally because public sentiment is against them and has been against them, so the best case scenerio was to pretend that the federal laws did not exist.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 May '10 04:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    They have not attempted to breach this law by proposing amnesty to the illegals as of yet...
    How would a legally constituted amnesty be "illegal"?
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 May '10 04:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    You mean like enforcing the federal laws regarding illegal immigration?
    You talk like you've read the 10 pages. Good. So all the Arizona law does is duplicate the federal laws with no changes or embellishments? I am surprised that it is controversial then.
  14. 15 May '10 04:59
    Originally posted by FMF
    How would a legally constituted amnesty be "illegal"?
    They could propose legislation to overturn the current federal laws, but like I said, they know they dare not do so currently due to public sentiments regarding the issue. I think they were wanting to wait a bit before they could maybe influence public thought their direction, but now their hand is being forced so they may have to introduce legislation quickly. If they don't, however, it is possible more states will jump on board and then they will have a real mess on their hands.
  15. 15 May '10 05:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    You talk like you've read the 10 pages. Good. So all the Arizona law does is duplicate the federal laws with no changes or embellishments? I am surprised that it is controversial then.
    I have not read the enitre bill, so that is why I asked what Holder is objecting to speciifcally. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume that the law merely enforces the federal laws on the books. If not, then the law, I would presume, would be overtunred by the courts with or without his objection. If I were Holder, I would not be holding my breath.

    What is really going on here is Obama's PR toward the Hispanic population. I think he knows he has no legal legs to stand on in objecting to the Arizona bill, and what's worse, no political support from the masses.