United States Attorney General Eric Holder stated on Sunday that he doesn't think that the Arizona law which cracks down on illegal immigration is racially-motivated. But he says that he is concerned that the law might promote racial-profiling. He also acknowledged that the US has a national immigration problem and that the problem can't be cured with a "state-by-state" solution.

Holder appeared on ABC's "This Week" and stated that he understands the frustration that led to the law being passed, but "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done."

The law allows police to question anyone they believe to possibly be an illegal immigrant, which opens the door to harassment of the state's Hispanic population. According to the last count, Arizona is 30% Latino. Holder says that the Justice Department is "considering all options," including a lawsuit claiming that the Arizona law pre-empts federal powers or is a violation of federal civil rights statutes.

Holder has been quoted in the past as stating that America is a "nation of cowards" because it has refused to honestly confront the issue of race. When asked if he still holds that view, Holder stated that "I think it's changed a bit. I still don't think we're at a place where we need to be. I think that we need to talk to each other more about race and the racial things that divide us especially when one looks at the demographic changes that this nation is about to undergo."

When it comes to Eric Holder, Barack Obama and the immigration problem in America, the bottom line is this:

1) Holder and Obama seem much bolder in addressing the issue of race when the large Latino population is affected, but tend to ignore race when it affects African Americans. Black men are seven times more likely to go to prison than white men, and our country imprisons 5.8 times more black men than South Africa did during the height of apartheid. However, Holder and Obama, both black men, have rarely addressed these problems that serve to destroy the black family in America. The differential treatment is likely due to the fact that the Hispanic community represents a huge voting block (note Holder's prior reference to "demographic changes") and therefore possesses a great deal more power than the African American community. While I have publicly agreed with Rev. Al Sharpton's call for African Americans to join the fight against the Arizona anti-illegal immigration measure, I quietly wonder if other communities (and Eric Holder) will ever stand up in an equally diligent fashion for black folks.

2) The passage of the law is a bad thing, but finally wakes up our federal government. For some reason, the US government has been hesitant to embrace comprehensive immigration reform. Well, as bad as the Arizona law might be, it forces the issue to the top of the president's desk. That is a good thing for our country.

3) What is racial profiling anyway and how do we perceive illegal immigration? Some have suggested that even the term "illegal immigrant" carries negative connotations. I agree, but I wonder if there is no rule of law that should apply in the case of immigration. Can anyone come to the US and be an instant citizen, even if they arrived without documentation? I am not here to answer that question, but our lack of diligence on the issue makes the question certainly worth asking. The second issue is whether or not the Arizona law would be O.K. if EVERY citizen in Arizona were required to be checked for ID to ensure that they are in the country legally. While it might require a great deal more work to do this, such an approach would put our feet to the fire in order to determine exactly why we like or dislike the law. If opposition to the law is all about the evils of racial profiling, then Arizonans can undermine this criticism by stating that anyone in the state without proper id can go to jail under suspicion of being in the country illegally. I doubt they would endure such an inconvenience, since I suspect that the creation of this law is part of their on-going war against the Mexican-American community. But if they were willing to agree to such a thing, it would force the Hispanic community to be genuine about what aspects of this law they find to be truly problematic: Is racial profiling the problem or is it the fact that we want to presume that illegal immigration should be made legal? There are many who think that all "illegal immigrants" should be given amnesty, which might be a motivation that is cloaked behind protest against this clearly unconstitutional law. If there is no new law to stop illegal immigration, then undocumented immigrants can continue to live in our country, thus violating the laws of our nation. This would continue to frustrate those Americans who either came to the country legally or find themselves frustrated that the real wage American worker has not risen since 1999. Some of this is due to the ability to pay illegal immigrants a wage that is lower than what would have been provided otherwise.

If you want to know which side I am on, well, I propose that there be a path to citizenship for those who are in the country illegally. That's the only solution that makes sense. Sending people home after they've established roots would be inhumane and unAmerican. But to allow the immigration problem to continue as it stands would be simply unacceptable. Everyone here needs to be documented.



Dr. Boyce Watkins is the founder of the Your Black World Coalition and the author of the new book, "Black American Money." To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here.