Holder’s ‘In the Dark’ Criticism of Immigration Law

Pajamas Media ^ | May 17, 2010 | Dan Miller

[DanMiller]

On May 13, Attorney General Eric Holder, who had been critical of the new Arizona immigration law, testified that he had based his comments on newspaper and television accounts but had not read the by then more than two-week-old statute.

[DanMiller]

The Attorney General does himself and the country a great disservice by commenting on state statutes only with reference to what he reads in newspapers and hears on television. Most of the adverse comments there also appear to have been made without bothering to read a relatively short and simple new law. Boycotts of Arizona have been announced, and much of Latin America is disgusted with the US.

[Marty62]

He was fanning the flames of the inhumane practice of encouraging illegal immigration.

[machogirl]

Wonder if he’s read the CONSTITUTION either?

[Marty62]

TALK ABOUT RACIAL PROFILING!!!!!

http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata55.htm

Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother
Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother
Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father
Mulatto: Spanish and black African
Moor: Spanish and Mulatto
Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother
Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother
Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother
Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother
Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother
Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother
Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother
Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother
Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother
Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother
Ahi Tan Estas: Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Anyone who states that this law is racist or is legalized profiling, etc. is guilty of one or both of these;

1. They've never read the law;
2. They are lying.

Plenty of both going around.

[ANGGAPO]

Just got to ask the jury, is Holder a Muslim?

[Paladin2]

"Holder's "in the dark"..."

Clearly racist.

[Paladin2]

That’s exactly what we need to a proper discussion of race - nuance (outlined in detail).

[MrB]

Then he “doubled down”

by calling Arizona one of the most backward and racist states in the union,
and that all decent Americans oppose this law
(and by logical extension, the 70% that support it aren’t “decent”)

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

...testified that he had based his comments on newspaper and television accounts but had not read the by then more than two-week-old statute.””

Can he read?

[Will88]

Obama and Holder and many others are simply against the effective enforcement of our immigration laws, and will oppose anything that seeks to improve enforcement, whether or not they’re read the specific laws.

[DanMiller]

Why should he bother? He can just spout the Obama narrative.

[maddog55]

in the dark..

This will be considered a racist statement.

[DanMiller]

Good.

[sickoflibs]

RE :"Mr. Holder was, of course, under no obligation to read the statute as originally written or as amended, nor was he under any obligation to speak publicly about it. However, for him to speak publicly and critically about the bill without having bothered to read it, and base his critique only on the basis of newspaper and television reports — most likely by people who had not bothered to read it either — was extraordinarily irresponsible. It was doubly so because the new Arizona law deals with problems created in a border state by the abject failure of the federal government to enforce the law, and seeks, to the extent possible, to fill the vacuum created by that failure. Mr. Holder is not the only government official with a penchant for commenting adversely on statutes and judicial decisions without having bothered to read them. He stands out because he is the official chief attorney of the United States. "

This a classic you wont see on MSNBC or CNN.

[Real Cynic No More]

The Attorney General does himself and the country a great disservice by commenting on state statutes only with reference to what he reads in newspapers and hears on television.

Almost always, this is one of the most telling "tells" that the individual is an amateur rather than a professional. A professional makes certain that his/her communications are accurate before spouting off; an amateur (holden, obama, kagan) shoots from the hip based on conclusions they had't reached until asked the question and/or before appropriately researching the data, taking the position that because they're in charge, anything they say is valid.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

mayate

Literal definition is a dung beetle. Little black beetle that rolls sh** everywhere it goes. it’s a derogatory term used in spanish slang to refer to dark skinned people.

[Cyclone59]

The Attorney General does himself and the country a great disservice by commenting on state statutes only with reference to what he reads in newspapers and hears on television. Most of the adverse comments there also appear to have been made without bothering to read a relatively short and simple new law. Boycotts of Arizona have been announced, and much of Latin America is disgusted with the US.

I bet Katie Curic would rip him a new back side for his limited reading....NOT!

[Mark17]

Wonder if he’s read the CONSTITUTION either?

I am sure he has not, but I am sure he has the communist manifesto memorized.

[EternalVigilance]

Eric Holder, who had been critical of the new Arizona immigration law, testified that he had based his comments on newspaper and television accounts but had not read the by then more than two-week-old statute.

"Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil."

-- Plato