Fox: Napolitano Admits She Hasn't Read Arizona Immigration Law in 'Detail' - Polidicks

[quote=fox News]Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted Monday that she has not read the controversial Arizona immigration law even though she's gone on television to criticize it, and continued to assert that it was "bad law enforcement law." The admission comes after Attorney General Eric Holder, who earlier warned the law could create a "slippery slope" toward racial profiling, told a House committee last week that he had not read the bill either. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he too had not read the bill, even as he defended diplomatic official Michael Posner for comparing the law to Chinese human rights violations. Napolitano discussed the policy under questioning by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on the BP oil spill response. "I have not reviewed it in detail. I certainly know of it," the former Arizona governor said when asked by McCain whether she had a chance to give the language a close look. Nevertheless, Napolitano said, "That's not the kind of law I would have signed." Napolitano explained that she dealt with "laws of that ilk" in Arizona before and that most law enforcement groups were opposed to them. "It's a bad law enforcement law," she said. "I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement or puts them into a position many do not want to be placed in." But McCain pressed Napolitano to provide more information later on about "what specific aspect of the law" would hurt law enforcement, "since the majority of law enforcement in Arizona strongly supports this legislation." Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed the immigration legislation last month -- Brewer, who was formerly Arizona's secretary of state, succeeded Napolitano when she left for Washington. The Arizona policy requires local law enforcement to verify the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and empowers them to turn anyone who doesn't check out over to federal custody. The law prohibits officers from solely considering race or nationality in implementing the law, though critics say the law will lead to racial profiling. That was a concern expressed by Holder two Sundays ago on ABC's "This Week." After he admitted to the House Judiciary Committee Thursday that he's only "glanced" at the law, Holder said he plans to read it before determining whether it's constitutional. Napolitano last month told ABC News that the law was "misguided," echoing comments made by President Obama.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/18/napolitano-admits-read-arizona-immigration-law/[/url] Next time, Read the bills, even the 10 page short ones.

Here we go again.

:Dawkins102:

Only ten pages? That's a pretty short bill.

I dunno about anyone else, but the bill is pretty much what I expected it was.

If you are going to criticize something at least know what you are criticizing. It ruins your credibility if you don't.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;22030110]If you are going to criticize something at least know what you are criticizing. It ruins your credibility if you don't.[/QUOTE] Napolitano or Glaber?

[QUOTE=Mingebox;22030152]Napolitano or Glaber?[/QUOTE] It applies to anyone. This time Napolitano decided to be stupid.

:foxnews: [B]NAPOLITANO SUPPORTS KEEPING CRIMINALS IN THIS GREAT NATION - IS SHE MAKING US LESS SAFE?[/B] :foxnews:

How do you like that, Napolitano? Being all ignorant and uninformed? Looks like the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

It's not like they don't have a dozen aids running around who read through the bills and sort out the legalese fluff from the actual content.

So why aren't they consulting with them before spouting off like this?

[QUOTE=Glaber;22030699]So why aren't they consulting with them before spouting off like this?[/QUOTE] They do, you fucking idiot.

That's ridiculous. The bill is unconstitutional, so I guess you could say I agree with her on that.. but it's tiny. It doesn't take that long to 'review in detail'.

Politician does not read bill; in other news, hell does not freeze over and pigs remain flightless [editline]05:29PM[/editline] Kind of like how the republicans didn't read the healthcare bill before voting against it EH GLABER EH EH EH GLABER GLABGER BLDAHAD

[QUOTE=Zeke129;22030892]Politician does not read bill; in other news, hell does not freeze over and pigs remain flightless [editline]05:29PM[/editline] Kind of like how the republicans didn't read the healthcare bill before voting against it EH GLABER EH EH EH GLABER GLABGER BLDAHAD[/QUOTE] Hey, don't forget, the Democrats didn't read it either and they voted for it. also that health care bill was hundreds of pages long and they were rushing it through saying "we have to pass it to find out what's in it". This Arizona law was crafted slowly and is only 10 or so pages,that and it had the support of the Citizens. Something the Health care bill lacked.

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031040]Hey, don't forget, the Democrats didn't read it either and they voted for it. also that health care bill was hundreds of pages long and they were rushing it through saying "we have to pass it to find out what's in it". This Arizona law was crafted slowly and is only 10 or so pages,that and it had the support of the Citizens. Something the Health care bill lacked.[/QUOTE] Your post was going along fine until you said the Arizona bill had the support of the citizens. While this may be true, that doesn't matter when the damned thing is unconstitutional.

I think you have what's unconstitutional mixed up with what's not. The Arazona law: constitutional (Profiling because of race is not allowed.) Obamacare: unconstitutional (You can't force people to buy stuff they don't want just because they do is exist. The commerce clause does not allow for this.) Or can you point out a section of the law in question that violates the constitution?

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031272]I think you have what's unconstitutional mix up with what's not. The Arazona law: constitutional Obamacare: unconstitutional (You can't force people to buy stuff they don't want just because they do is exist. The commerce clause does not allow for this.) Or can you point out a section of the law in question that violates the constitution?[/QUOTE] The whole bill allows for illegal search and seizure. There are no checks and balances whatsoever - if a cop thinks someone is an illegal alien they can search them for proof of citizenship. No warrant, no probable cause (that isn't racially motivated) And there's nothing in the constitution that says "Obamacare" is illegal. If there was, auto and home insurance would also be illegal.

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031272]I think you have what's unconstitutional mixed up with what's not. The Arazona law: constitutional (Profiling because of race is not allowed.) Obamacare: unconstitutional (You can't force people to buy stuff they don't want just because they do is exist. The commerce clause does not allow for this.) Or can you point out a section of the law in question that violates the constitution?[/QUOTE] Political science expert right here guys :downs: I think I'll take a right-wing tactic and dirty this legislation by associating one of its writers, Arizona state representative Russell Pearce (on the right), with his good friend JT Ready (on the left. This is my version of Ayers or Wright. [img]http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/jt.jpg[/img] Who is also a white supremacist (JT Ready, second from right) [img]http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/jt5.jpg[/img] It makes me think of the mindset of Mr. Pearce in writing this bill if he associates with neo-nazis.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;22031310]The whole bill allows for illegal search and seizure. There are no checks and balances whatsoever - if a cop thinks someone is an illegal alien they can search them for proof of citizenship. No warrant, no probable cause (that isn't racially motivated) And there's nothing in the constitution that says "Obamacare" is illegal. If there was, auto and home insurance would also be illegal.[/QUOTE] Auto insurance is tied to buying a car and I would assume that home insurance would be tied to buying a place to live. What buyable product is health insurance tied to?

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031479]Auto insurance is tied to buying a car and I would assume that home insurance would be tied to buying a place to live. What buyable product is health insurance tied to?[/QUOTE] Fine, it's not comparable to insurance if you want to play it that way. It's comparable to income tax. Or is income tax also a socialistic scheme to subvert the constitution?

Income tax is something the Government is allowed to have, regardless of weather we like it or not. Also, Income tax is not insurance. It's a Tax and the constitution allows it. You aren't forced to buy Life insurance are you? What about Flood insurance?

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031793]Income tax is something the Government is allowed to have, regardless of weather we like it or not. Also, Income tax is not insurance. It's a Tax and the constitution allows it.[/QUOTE] So couldn't the new requirement of health insurance also be considered a tax? And if you don't think so, would you support universal healthcare paid for [i]through[/i] taxes?

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031793]Income tax is something the Government is allowed to have, regardless of weather we like it or not. Also, Income tax is not insurance. It's a Tax and the constitution allows it. You aren't forced to buy Life insurance are you? What about Flood insurance?[/QUOTE] This. Also, the bill does not allow for illegal search and seizure. The person has to have been arrested for some other offense in the first place. If it is not a valid reason, you can argue that race was involved in court. Of course, the vast majority of cops don't have some racial itch they have to scratch, so I wouldn't think it would be that big of a problem.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;22031933]This. Also, the bill does not allow for illegal search and seizure. The person has to have been arrested for some other offense in the first place.[/QUOTE] The bill doesn't say that, it's just the only way to avoid a massive civil rights violation. Have some text from the bill: [release]"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."[/release]

[QUOTE=dogmachines;22031933]This. Also, the bill does not allow for illegal search and seizure. The person has to have been arrested for some other offense in the first place. If it is not a valid reason, you can argue that race was involved in court. Of course, the vast majority of cops don't have some racial itch they have to scratch, so I wouldn't think it would be that big of a problem.[/QUOTE] They only signed that in as an amendment after people drew attention to it. It wasn't there originally. This whole thing is a political ploy. They're doing grandstanding to appeal to tea-baggers and their sympathizers, it's not too different from bills that promise to be "tough" on crime. It however does not really detail how to process people to check for their residency status, how cops go about doing this, and how to fund it all to begin with. So with the lack of funds, who will they turn to? The Federal government. And it's obvious that the latter does not approve of this action. But it's getting them the political attention they want.

[QUOTE=MercZ;22032110]They only signed that in as an amendment after people drew attention to it. It wasn't there originally.[/QUOTE] You have a link to this amendment? I can't find it anywhere. If true, it's a step in the right direction.

That quote from the bill backs up what dogmachines said. Do you even know what qualifies for a lawful contact? A common example is being pulled over for speeding. [QUOTE=MercZ;22032110]...And it's obvious that the latter does not approve of this action. But it's getting them the political attention they want.[/QUOTE] The latter also hasn't read it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;22032127]You have a link to this amendment? I can't find it anywhere. If true, it's a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4nY72M0hFVOHUzIrqYpD67DoBxgD9FDNO0O0[/url] [quote]Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police. Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.[/quote] This was only after the outcry over it. At any rate it's stupid really. Again I question how Arizona can do all this and organize it, much less fund it. In the latter case they will inevitably have to turn to the federal government for help. [editline]06:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;22032158] The latter also hasn't read it.[/QUOTE] There's more to the federal government than just Napolitano believe it or not. I question Fox's assertion. I've only seen Fox report on this and various blogs, but I've yet to see a concrete link to what she supposedly said or didn't say. We have video of Eric Holder saying this, but the problem comes in whether we mean "read" as in glancing through it, or reading it in a legal sense to see whether it has precedent and uses correct terminology.