An Exemplary Example

Even before April 23rd, when Governor Jan Brewer signed Arizona senate bill 1070, the Arizona immigration enforcement bill, into law, a firestorm of protest began. Like a Southern California Santa Ana fueled brush fire, the firestorm has only gathered strength and intensity. From school boards to cities to even the President, everyone seems to have something to state about the new law. The question is whether or not the comments are actually valid.

A few days after the law was passed, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was queried about the law at a press conference for another issue (AP, 2010). Mr. Holder stated the new law might be subject to abuse. Of course, this is a political statement where a politician states facts without substance. Any law, as written, might be subject to abuse. Thanks for stating the obvious, Mr. Holder. Oh and thanks for reporting it news media people. Much like a Molotov cocktail lobbed into an already burning fire, these words helped the firestorm continue.

The President made an indirect statement about the Arizona law. This is another political covert word ploy. The President said the federal government needed to take action so that quote "misguided efforts" unquote would not continue to be taken around the country. In essence, the President alluded to the new Arizona law as being misguided without actually stating such words.

Lindsay Graham (R-SC) came out saying he thinks the law is unconstitutional. What does he mean by "thinks?" He stated this without even justifying his comment. Has this even helped the discourse over the law? If he had stated he thinks the law is unconstitutional with supporting statements of why he thought the law was unconstitutional, his statement might actually mean something. Instead his statement is like a colander being used to retain water.

Yesterday, May 13th, the truth be told. Eric Holder admitted that he had not read the Arizona law at all. Instead he had glanced at it (Foxnews, 2010). So Mr. Holder two weeks ago makes a statement, albeit a standard political one, against the law; yet, he had not even fully read the law. Would it not have been easier when questioned about the law for him to have said, "I reserve my comments about this issue to a later date as I have not read the law"?

This fact now begs the question to how many of the other personnel making statements about the Arizona law have actually read the law. Especially in light of Mr. Holder's comment that he based his opinion on newspaper and television accounts and briefings by other people who had read the law. He, a lawyer, made a statement based on hearsay. Hearsay, for the most part, since there are always exceptions to any rule, is not admissible in court because of the inability to test the accuracy of the statement under cross-examination. In other words, Mr. Holder's statement would not hold up in a court of law.

The Attorney General stated he had made his statement based on newspaper accounts. In the article relating Sen. Graham's comments, the author, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, states the Arizona law would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. I've read this article four times attempting to see a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, each time I read the article, my opinion is she is stating the law is doing something new - instructing immigrants to carry documentation of immigration status. While there is some fact in this statement, the word choice is poor and full of untruths.

Section 3 of SB1070 amends section 13-1509 of Arizona Statutes to read "In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a)." This statement does not state that each immigrant must carry documentation. This statement states it is a violation of state law if an immigrant is in violation of federal law. Section 1304(e) of 8 US Code states, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." It is already a federal law that every immigrant have in their possession documentation. Wait, I've just stated a misnomer. Only adults of legal age, 18, are required to have said documentation on their person. This means if an immigrant child does not have their documentation on them, they are not in violation of federal law and, as such, are not in violation of Arizona state law.

The CBS News article makes a statement that is not totally factually correct. Mr. Holder based his opinion on newspaper accounts. How many others have done the same action? How many others have set such an exemplary example for their country?

The spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. In the references are the links to Arizona's SB1070 and 8 United States Code for your review.

Mike

References:

AP. (2010, Apr 27). Holder: U.S. may fight Arizona immigration law. CBS News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/27/politics/main6437887.shtml

Condon, S. (2010, Apr 27). Lindsey Graham: I think Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional. CBS News.com Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003549-503544.html

FOX News. (2010, May 13). Holder admits to not reading Arizona's immigration law despite criticizing it. FOX News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/

Arizona SB 1070. (2010). Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.) United States Code Title 8 Section 1304. . Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1304.html