This from a former law school lecturer in constitutional law:
“You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona …” the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, “suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.” On the same day, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was considering a court challenge.
(emphasis added) via How Obama could lose Arizona immigration battle | Washington Examiner.
That is a scare tactic, class warfare engendering statement and one that is totally irresponsible. Is it possible that the President simply misspoke? It’s hard to imagine that by late April when this statement was made that both he and the Attorney General (see YouTube link below) did not know the language and meaning of the AZ law. If not, then both of their statements were tantamount to gross negligence. If they DID, then those statements were made purely for political scare tactic purposes, and tantamount to a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Look at my analysis and tell me if the President and Attorney General could justify the “ice cream” statement based on that law. No way. It’s quite clear that there first must be a lawful contact with the citizen. So, if you and your kid just robbed the ice cream store, then upon police contact you might be asked for ID — no matter where it appears you might be from.
(edit 5/15/2010) Just discovered this video where AG Holder acknowledges that he has not read the AZ immigration law, but still has an opinion on it. It thus becomes indelibly clear that his remarks about the bill are simply politically motivated. The United States Attorney General is not a position where you want politics to motivate. He is the top law enforcement official in the country and there is no room for politics in the types of decisions the AG has to make.