The Arizona Immigration Bill is ten pages long yet three…count ’em….three(!!!) high ranking Obama administration officials have admitted publicly that they haven’t read the bill even though they’ve all criticized it.
Here’s the thing. A lot of people are freaking out that these boobs haven’t read the bill. But I believe they’re saying they haven’t read the bill simply as a dodge to avoid answering questions as to what’s wrong with the bill.
Look at it. After Attorney General Eric Holder said in front of the country that he hadn’t read the bill wouldn’t you think the White House would’ve pointed out to its people that to avoid further embarrassing the administration they should all read the bill before speaking publicly about it. But far from administration officials downloading and reading the bill so as to avoid embarrassing the administration, saying that they hadn’t read the bill now seems to be an administration talking point.
Why?
This tactic keeps them from having to substantiate their claims that the bill is racist or anti-immigrant. It’s talk about the specifics of the bill that worries them and saying they haven’t read the bill leaves them free to spout off generalities about racism and anti-immigrant fervor and racial profiling.
The Obama administration knows that there’s nothing in the bill that they can get all worked up over as the Arizona bill is almost exactly the same as existing federal laws. The bill itself actually forbids racial profiling.
I think they probably read it but following the wisdom of Mark Twain, these people would rather be suspected of being fools rather than opening their mouths and proving it. But so important is the White House’s ability to accuse conservatives of racism and anti-immigrant that the Obama administration would rather be seen as lazy and incompetent than unable to accuse Republicans of racism.
Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley
May 18, 2010 at 5:56 pm
This has to be the most immoral & corrupt administration to date in US history.
May 18, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I work in the government as a career civil servant with almost thirty years of tenure. It has been my experience, that while you still find people who harbor racial prejudices, no one — and I mean NO ONE — especially a white male, wants to be accused of racism. They will go completely out of their way to ignore it, to the point of favoring persons of color without regard to merit. It's like living in Salem in the 16th century and someone in the town square crying: "WITCH!" The potential for hysteria matters more than the truth.
The people who say they haven't read the bill … know this.
May 18, 2010 at 6:36 pm
is this any different from fighting against ultrasound images of the unborn? "I know what abortion is all about, I don't need to see the reality".
May 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Actually, the bill is a bit longer than 10 pages (but not by much) and is available online for all to read. Here is a link to it: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
I will read it and probably post on my blog about it.
May 18, 2010 at 8:14 pm
I think it runs a little deeper that plausible deniability, Matt. By not reading it – by saying out loud that they haven't bothered – they are saying that the thing isn't worth the trouble, it's obviously that bad.
The word "childish" comes to mind.
May 18, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Thanks for posting the link Kim.
It looks like the state law says that the federal law has to be followed.
OH THE HORROR!!!
(was that the right number of extra exclamation points? I can never remember)
May 18, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Glenn Beck is losing his mind but he's taking the time to read all 10+ pages tomorrow on his radio show. Today he played "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" theme music whilst teeing up the show. Just remember folks — this is "the smartest president in U.S. history" so the folks who are playing dumb are just falling in behind Mr Mensa himself. Remember: This is one smart president!! Just ask China's Human Rights minister. –doug from Columbus
May 18, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Brian,
At some point you have to think for yourself and use logic. The first MM link you posted gives the exact context and words of a State Dept. official who says the State people themselves brought up again and again, unsolicited, their interpretation that the AZ law was a clear example of discrimination and racism in the U.S. This is simply ridiculous on the face of it, esp. once one reads the law itself (link above–I recommend reading the law itself). The law simply reiterates active Federal laws that are currently not enforced but are indeed on the books. How on Earth is that racial discrimination?
Media Matters tends to do this sort of thing most of the time, but the real problem is that they don't see the idiocy of many of their arguments. They give the context and words in question, but then proceed to deny that those words mean what they plainly mean (or vice-versa–they will say something was said that was simply not said). The latter occurred with Holder's testimony before the House the other day on the NYC bombers; they posted the exact video everyone else was discussing, then completely twisted their own explanation about what Holder did not say, and why he did not say it.
If we can't be intellectually honest over these issues, we're in big trouble as a society.
May 19, 2010 at 12:24 am
I do strive to "think for myself" and "use logic". What criteria would officers use aside from color to decide whom to stop and question? I did look at the text of the law and it does say that color is not to be the sole criteria. However, if an officer was to look at a person from a distance, how would he decide to have "reasonable suspicion"?
May 19, 2010 at 7:26 am
Awesome… This page comes up first in Google for the search phrase:
Why haven't they read the bill?
Quote: "[…] and saying they haven't read the bill leaves them free to spout off generalities about racism and anti-immigrant fervor and racial profiling."
Agreed… and what a dirt-bag move that is. They're pure slime. I used to think it was typical bipartisan politics being played out in the new social media era. i.e. there isn't more more mud slinging and discord, we're just seeing more of it; minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow via the 24 "news" cycle, the web and cell phone cameras.
I've officially changed my mind. It's not that. Things have definitely gone completely pear-shaped (as the Brits say). Don't have any real solutions, but just to recognize that we've crossed some kind of threshold.
May 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Hi Brian,
The law was amended 2-3 days after it was passed. You're referring to the former, unamended law, which allowed for the possibility of officers stopping anyone and asking to see their documents. The amended law states clear as day that officers may only ask to see documents if they witness someone doing something suspicious, and/or are actually caught breaking a law (e.g., speeding, mugging, public intoxication, etc.) Officers may NOT stop someone for no reason and ask to see their documents, then arrest them if they are not able to prove they are legally in the U.S.
The original law was far too drastic, so the AZ legislature did the right thing and amended it to clear up that overtly fascistic aspect of the law. If you don't realize this, I imagine many others are also under the impression that AZ police can, or even must, stop anyone for any reason they wish. This is NOT the case, and it's something that entirely changes the debate. I don't believe you are purposely misinterpreting the amended law, but you can see how such an incorrect viewpoint has the potential to lead to massive cries of racism, bigotry, etc. It's simply not the case, and the amended law simply re-states and enforces existing Federal laws that are not currently enforced.
May 20, 2010 at 2:44 am
Media Matters. LOLZ.
May 20, 2010 at 6:31 am
I was wondering about what criteria other than skin color and ethnic background would give police a reason to check papers, and then I heard someone who helped craft the bill talk about it a few days ago on Al Kresta. He gave several examples of things that police working in the border area would be familiar with as markers, such as if they stopped a minivan for some reason, and it had all the seats taken out and about 15-20 people in it… or stopping a very dusty vehicle in the desert with lots of dusty people and a couple backpacks, on a known people-smuggling route. His examples helped me understand that there might be other indicators — before I didn't really see how it could keep from being race-based. I'd recommend listening to the Al Kresta show for more clarity.
–mandamum
May 20, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I'll offer one more "communist" link for the discussion, then I'll bow out of this thread.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/arizonas-police-state-immigration-la
May 20, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Brian, I've tried to engage you on the facts, and you continue to put words in other peoples' mouths and provide links that prove only the exact points everyone else has been trying to make to you. I really don't understand how someone can be so intellectually dishonest in a very clear debate.
You haven't admitted that you misunderstood the AZ law in a way that entirely changes the debate. Your link only emphasizes the point: illegal immigrants CANNOT be stopped or arrested UNLESS they are stopped or caught breaking the law by a police officer. The officer, in the course of that stop, asks anyone he or she stops for legal documents, including citizens. For example, I was stopped for speeding in TX a few months ago, and the officer rightly asked me for my driver's license and car registration, which I had to produce. If I didn't produce those, he would have had the legal right to arrest me. If someone who is here illegally breaks the law and is caught, and then cannot produce legal papers, on what planet would someone argue that that illegal immigrant should not be arrested and processed for possible deportation?
If you (the Left, not just you, specifically) cannot engage those with whom you disagree on logical grounds and on the merits of the argument, and if you insist on simply calling names and telling your opponents they are racist bigots, you're not going to change anyone's mind and you're simply engaging in the equivalent of "ideological self-pleasuring" (excuse the analogy, but that's truly what it is). Intellectual honesty is sadly lacking on the Left these days.