>> politicians you see here, to court watchers, are weighing in on this big decision. there is no clear consensus on a so-called winner. politico writes the decision could potentially anger latinos in a twhat could, quote, give president obama an added boost from hispanic voters in november. that's one perspective. raul reyes , usa columnist and attorney general of south carolina , alan wilson , whose state is looking at something similar to what we're discussing out of arizona . nationally syndicated radio talk show host michael smerconish . three provisions struck down, the most controversial upheld. jan brewer says it is vindication, despite the fact that not every republican even sees this as vindication of this law. what do you say, michael? you're an attorney here.
>> i think all the politicians' glasses are half full and they could very easily be viewed as half empty , including hers, because three-quarters of it was struck down as you point out. and with regard to the -- as she puts it, the key provision of 1070 , the court left open the opportunity to strike it down when implemented. as i read this decision, it is the court saying, we can't preclude it from being implemented where on its face, on its surface it says race and national origin won't be taken into consideration, but let's see how it is implemented and they left that door open.
>> raul , let me play what jose diaz -balart had to say on msnbc this morning, this is more about latinos in arizona . let me play jose and get your thoughts on it.
>> okay.
>> there is a whole issue of people that may look brown, and can be asked about their papers and if they're citizens, but don't have some passport, because what do we as american citizens carry with us on a daily basis to prove that we were born in the united states of america ? what document? there is no national i.d.
>> so obviously jose brings up a point, this opens a floodgate for perhaps litigation from people who believe that they have been racially profiled . jan brewer says her state is implemented rules and measures to make sure that doesn't happen. do you believe that statement even on its face?
>> i'm not sure she can be so confident. one thing that is very important to remember is this whole case that the supreme court was examining, it all turned on the supremacy clause . all of the emotional aspects of this case, racial profiling , civil rights violation, none of that was examined because that's all going to come later. the supreme court specifically left the door open. so one thing i bet everyone on our panel can agree on, there is going to be a flood of cases, challenging this, by hispanic advocacy groups , the aclu. the court has been very reluctant to rule on discrimination or racial profiling in advance. once the law is implemented, we'll see people bringing lawsuits, class actions , different things.
>> which brings me to the criticism that the president has offered to congress and you hear, for example, governor mitt romney criticizing the president for lack of leadership, it goes under the umbrella that we know there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform in the country and the decision we heard from the supreme court , whether you see it as a win for one side or a loss for the other, we're still in this cloud where we need reform in this country regarding this issue that is not going away with 11 million people plus here.
>> right. and we're not going to see that soon, tamron. that's really unfortunate. so both sides can point fingers and say it is the other side's fault. we know that's where we are. i think -- i was blown way listening to governor brewer. i want whatever she's having because she's living --
>> let me tell you, i understand that people will want to hear you say that those who agree, but in her mind, she has a victory on her hands today. she can come and say, the heart, as she put it, which we never heard this was the heart of the legislation, until today, but with that said, she, at this moment, is able to say the heart of the legislation was supported unanimously, joan , by the supreme court , whether you drink the kool-aid, if it is that she is serving, she has this now to, you know, stand upon with this controversial law.
>> well, it is great. she's a master of spin. i really -- i really hand it to her. this is not a victory for arizona . i think as the other panels have said, going forward it is going to be very interesting to see how they implement the one piece that they are allowed to go forward with. there will be a lot of civil rights complaints about it and it is an -- it is political. you had justice scalia today actually coming out of nowhere, and singling out president obama , slamming president obama for his decision on deporting young people of a couple of weeks ago. this situation has become so partisan, so political, so ugly. i think it is going to get worse before it gets better.
>> this is the world we live in today. sadly, you and i know that. alan, part of the ruling makes mention of other states following suit at least when it comes to police being able to check status of those they arrest. what does your state stand?
>> well, actually, i consider this a partial victory for south carolina . i think everybody here is going to concede there are, you know there are partial victories for both sides. it is a mixed bag. but for south carolina , i will agree with governor brewer on this count, that the legal stop provision for law enforcement was a central part of our immigration law . there are only three components of our law that were struck down as being preempted at the district court here in south carolina . the supreme court has addressed those this way. one of them they have struck down. that was the requirement that illegal aliens carry registration card. there was also the illegal harboring and transporting provision of our law, which the court did not directly address. and then there is the law enforcement detention and then the subsequent asking of the person's national status or making the determination which the court unanimously upheld. i consider that a great victory for law enforcement and for law enforcement specifically in south carolina .
>> is it a great victory for this country?
>> the national immigration law center, one of the spokespersons says this, regarding arizona . this is not simply about undocumented immigrants. this is about any person who looks or sounds foreign, skin color . this is a throwback to the days of our country when racial profiling and discrimination was with state sanctioned this and is simply unacceptable in 2012 . with the praise that you laid upon arizona and this decision to be able to stop people and check their quote/unquote status here, how do you ensure -- how does arizona ensure this does not fall into racial profiling ? you can send people to sensitivity, you can send to training, but how can you ensure that someone who is a legal citizen of this country is not seen as quote/unquote, foreign or as an alien as you referred and pulled over and profiled here. how do you protect the people here legally who may fit into a quote/unquote suspicious category.
>> i would like to answer that.
>> go ahead. i would like to answer that. if you go to the state department , look under the bureau of consular affairs , there is an access manual they put out to all local, state and federal law enforcement which basically strongly recommends and mandates that they actually determine someone's national status pursuant to a lawful detention or stop. you have the state department already promulgating regulations for law enforcement throughout the country that basically ask law enforcement officials at all levels of our government to actually determine someone's national status when stopping them legally for, say, a traffic infraction. it has been going on for years to claim there is racial profiling is ridiculous. we already have the state department putting out these types of regulation ands and manuals for all states to follow. it is absolutely predict us.
>> is it ridiculous, raul ?
>> i have to address something about local law enforcement. this law actually puts tremendous pressure on local law enforcement officials in arizona because part of the law that is already in effect that was not even challenged, allows any citizen who believes that the law is not being effectively enforced to sue their local police or sheriff. this opens a tremendous floodgate of potential liability to any citizen who can basically sue the police department and say you're not pursuing the most effective solutions. i think it puts law enforcement in a tough spot. i don't think it is good for local law enforcement.
>> is it ridiculous as the attorney general --
>> i think he misses for hispanics, for latino americans, this is the civil rights issue of our time. and, you know, for us to be, if we're in arizona , be worry about whether our elderly relatives have i.d. or whether they're out alone without the proper papers, that is totally un-american and goes against our american values and there will be lawsuits by any number of hispanic advocacy groups .
>> pete williams noted in his report that obviously this will go on for an extended period of time for the reasons that raul pointed out because of lawsuits. but what is your view on the notion that this is seen as ridiculous, that checking someone's status as the attorney general -- and i'm happy he is on, because obviously south carolina factors into this, michael but legally you've worked with many law enforcement personnel throughout your career.
>> i think that many law enforcement personnel that i spoke to don't want this responsibility. they're concerned about what training do they have that would allow them to make these sort of determinations, their plates are already full and frankly, it puts them in a front line capacity, it puts them in the role of a customs and border patrol agent, which is not their function traditionally on a local level.
>> joe, let me go back to --
>> that's not true.
>> i'm sorry. go ahead.
>> that last statement wasn't true. every law enforcement official i talked to in south carolina wants this. i haven't spoken to anyone that i'm aware of that doesn't want this. and if anyone in this panel read south carolina 's law, i would ask you do so. if you read the law, you find someone is stopped for speeding or a broken taillight, the law enforcement official can only hold them for a reasonable time as to make a determination as to what law was broken and if they have a reasonable suspicion they're not here legally, they can then call the ice officials or federal government and they make the determination as to deportation. if you cannot make a determination as to their legal status , you can't verify they're here legally, you must let them go. you can't keep someone just because they don't have a driver's license. that is forbidden by south carolina law. this screaming, the sky is falling and this is racial profiling is a red herring and doesn't address the real issue, which is giving law enforcement the tools they need to do their jobs. which the state department is already allowing.
>> attorney general , i can say this, i don't know -- and i've not spoken with the people in south carolina , but i personally interviewed law enforcement personnel out of arizona , who were concerned about their role in this, many of which came out against the legislation in arizona . that is a fact. let me bring in joan walsh to talk about the politics of this, joan . we're waiting president obama is set to speak. we should hear his first live remarks on this. governor mitt romney came out with a very vague statement regarding this. he's been criticized already for not taking a hard line . i'm going to pull up his statement here. let's talk about the politics of it first, joan .
>> sure. well, you know, i mean, i saw his statement. and no one can really parse his statement to know exactly where he stands. every single issue that comes up, tamron, his response is president obama has failed to lead. and just as with the enforcement -- whether he would overturn the president's decision not to deport young people who were brought here illegally last week, he continues to evade responsibility on these questions and talk in vague platitudes. we all would love a comprehensive solution. it is elusive. the president will have certain powers and mitt romney can't really tell us how he would use those powers.
>> i have the statement, joan . he said governor romney said i believe that each state has the duty and the right to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. as candidate obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office, but four years later, we are still waiting . and that is part of the governor's statement there. with that said, not very specific on what he would like to see on his first day as the ad points out with the economy, for example.
>> right. and, you know, i think -- i think that the president -- it also ignores the fact that the president, a, can't pass legislation by himself and, b, the other thing that governor brewer completely misrepresented, very controversially, this president has done a lot more to enforce our laws and has deported a lot more people than president bush did, you know, which is a very, very controversial in the latino community. he's been very aggressive on using the tools he has. so this notion he's just letting people wash over the borders and he's not doing anything, he doesn't care, and he could somehow with the stroke of a pen or the wave of a wand pass comprehensive immigration reform is just a misunderstanding in our political system .
>> attorney general , i want to bring you in. your statement and correct me if i'm wrong, you focus in on what i think is an interesting part of the conversation. businesses and their responsibility in all of this. i grew up in the state of texas . and i went to school with a number of children whose parents were in the country illegally, who were exploited as a workforce in the state of texas , where businesses, many of them donated to different campaigns, seem to escape the eyebrow raising that we get from someone who perhaps is pulled over . you have businesses, the hotel industry , the restaurant industry, that would perhaps in many ways in certain states as you well know be decimated if they had the iron fist of some of the actions taken by lawmakers. with all of that said there seems to be enough blame to go around when you look at congress with the 13% approval rating, attorney general , where there needs to be action here and different states like yours are put in a position to take action that is seen as right and wrong depending open your perspective.
>> well, first off, i want to say this, our law goes to great lengths to protect people's individual liberties. we go great lengths to protect people from being profiled against and to make sure law enforcement is given the appropriate guidance. all we want to do is support the federal government . for years we have heard they don't have the resources. earlier one of the other persons said that president obama used every resource available to him. that's not entirely accurate because he has local and state law enforcement. they're fighting us every step of the way. we don't want to usurp congress' power under article one, section 8 of the constitution. we just want to help congress enforce those laws. this is not a patch work like a quilt, like the president claims, of different laws around the country. we want to support the federal framework for implementing immigration laws . we want do it at the state level. what is going on now that the federal government , the congress can never, ever again punt this thing saying they don't have the resources necessary to enforce immigration laws . they have the states to help them. it is true, it was said earlier, the supreme court could look s a as an as applied argument. but we have safeguards in our law that will prevent that from happening.
>> joan , you have the last word on this since the attorney general referred to you.
>> i don't think you can say the president isn't doing everything he can because he's not using state and local officials. that's a complete misunderstanding of law enforcement and the way our government works. so this president has been as aggressive as he can be with the powers that he has. very controversially with parts of his base.
>> thank you, all. i greatly appreciate the conversation. attorney general alan, thank you for your time especially. we really appreciate it. as i mentioned, we're awaiting the remarks from president
tri international criminal court ios 5.1 apple tv update new ipad release pregnant jessica simpson international womens day
No comments:
Post a Comment