Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Federal Judge Enjoins Most Controversial Portions of Arizona Immigration Law; Charlie Rangel to Stand Trial For Ethical Violations; Military Contractor Accused of Stealing Your Tax Dollars; College Grad Self-Deports to Mexico and Waits; Static Kill Set for Monday; Sheriff's Divided Over Arizona Law; Fighting for Your Marriage
Aired July 29, 2010 - 07:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Good Thursday morning. Thanks so much for joining us on this 29th of July. I'm John Roberts.
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Sara Sidner. Kiran is off today. A lot to talk about this morning, so let's get right to it.
ROBERTS: It was supposed to take effect a few hours ago, but police in Arizona cannot enforce key parts of the state's tough and controversial new immigration law this morning. A federal judge struck down the part that had critics screaming.
SIDNER: Unless, New York Congressman Charlie Rangel cuts a last- minute deal, a House ethics panel will spell out specific charges against him at a public hearing today. Some Democrats want Rangel to cut a deal or resign to avoid the embarrassment of a public corruption trial.
ROBERTS: The feds say a former CEO scammed his company out of nearly $200 million to buy prostitutes, trips, cars even a $100,000 belt buckle. Even worse, the company makes body armor for American troops. More on all of those stories just ahead.
SIDNER: But, first, the battle on the border taking a dramatic last-minute turn. Arizona's tough new immigration law took effect just four hours ago, but the most controversial portions of it are on the shelf this morning. A federal judge blocked the section that required police officers to check the person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
ROBERTS: A protest turned to tears yesterday after the decision. But it isn't stopping plans for more marches, prayer vigils, and civil disobedience today. Arizona's governor is already planning an appeal and says this fight is far from over.
From the desert to D.C., we have the story covered for you. Our Jeanne Meserve is live in Washington, John Zarrella taking a look at the personal struggle of someone caught in the fight, and two Arizona sheriffs, one for it, one against it, they'll duel it out a little bit later on this hour.
ROBERTS: Let's go to Jeanne Meserve standing by for us in Washington. Good morning, Jeanne. JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Sara. This isn't over yet. The state of Arizona said it will repeal the ruling blocking the most controversial provisions in the law.
U.S. district judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction stopping some parts, not all, but some parts from going into effect. Number one, it requires that police officers check the immigration status of police they stop, detain, or arrest to see if they have a reasonable suspicion they are illegal.
Also, a provision requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and another making it a state crime for undocumented workers to seek work in public places.
In a statement, the Justice Department said the court had ruled correctly, that a patchwork of state and local poses would seriously disrupts federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive. But Arizona's governor Jan Brewer had a very different perspective.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER, (R) ARIZONA: I think that it's important to remind everybody that today, they absolutely, the federal government got relief from the courts to not to do their job. And that means that now they've got this temporary injunction. They need to step up, the feds do, and do the job that they have the responsibility to do for the people of America and for the people of Arizona.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: The specifics of the state's appeal of the ruling have not been announced. But legal experts would not be surprised to see this case go all the way to the Supreme Court. Sara?
SIDNER: Jeanne, can you tell us about what the judge actually said in her ruling. Is she talking about the Fourth Amendment? What's going on there?
MESERVE: Well, the Justice Department said the Arizona law was unconstitutional, that it would preempt the federal government's responsibility to set and enforce the law.
Judge Bolton agreed that some parts of the law would do that, calling it "disruptive and counterproductive." She also wrote that the law made it likely that people legally in the U.S. would be wrongfully be arrested in posing what she called a "distinct, unusual, and extraordinary burden on them."
But Bolton will not will be the last judge to have her say on the law, what it means, and, of course, whether it stands. Sara?
SIDNER: Then you have the next problem -- obviously, this is a political issue as well, no doubt. How does the federal government respond to the charge that it's not doing its job when it comes to illegal immigration?
MESERVE: Well, it says it's doing a lot. There are 1,200 National Guardsmen slated to go to the border to bolster the operations there. In just the next few days, the administration is pointing out that it has continued to pour many resources into the border, and it has removed from the country a number of illegal aliens.
But there is a lot of political pressure on them to do even more. Of course, the ultimate solution might be comprehensive immigration reform, but, boy, that's a controversial one, very hot potato, very unclear what the future of that will be. Back to you, Sara.
SIDNER: Thank you very much. A lot to flesh out there. Jeanne Meserve there in Washington. John?
ROBERTS: Thanks very much, Sara. As Arizona grapples with the issue, AMERICAN MORNING combed through the studies to show you the numbers that matter the most.
Take a look at this. There are 130 million jobs in the United States. According to the pew Hispanic center, illegal immigrants are working with 8 million of those. But places like California, Arizona, and Nevada see the biggest impact where illegal immigrants are believed to hold one out of every ten jobs.
By comparison, a state like West Virginia is more like one out of 100. Illegal immigration depends on not only where you live but also what you do. Pew says 25 percent of farm workers are here illegally, 19 percent of people who work in the building trades, construction, 17 percent, in the restaurant industry, about 12 percent.
But Pew says there's not a lot of money to be made in this country illegally. The medium family income for undocumented immigrants, $36,000.
Certainly a lot to talk about when it comes to this new immigration law. We want to hear what you have to say about it. Join the conversation going on at CNN.com/a.m.fix. Sara?
SIDNER: John, thank you. And new information coming in from New York, NYPD now tells us both direction of the Throgs Neck Bridge in New York City shut down this morning. Right now, you can see the pictures there. It's one of several bridges that connect queens to the Bronx.
Police say there's a suspicious vehicle parked underneath. You can see it just underneath the overpass there. We'll keep you updated on new information as it becomes available.
Also, President Obama is set to unveil major education reform this morning. The president is giving a speech in front of the national urban league in D.C. at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. He's also sitting down with the ladies of the "The View." That interview was taped yesterday, and the president used it as an opportunity to talk about -- what else -- the economy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So the last 20 months has been a nonstop effort to restart the economy, to stabilize the financial system, to make sure that we're creating jobs again, instead of losing them. And in the midst of all of that, we've also had the oil spill, we've also had two wars. We've also had a pandemic, H1N1, that we had to manage, and a whole host of other issues.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Also, seven doctors who treated Michael Jackson will not face criminal charges in California. One, however, was referred to the state medical board for prescribing drugs a known Jackson alias shortly before the singer's death.
Jackson's personal physician Conrad Murray was not part of that state investigation. He, however, still facing involuntary manslaughter charges in Michael Jackson's death.
(WEATHER BREAK)
ROBERTS: Still ahead, down in the Gulf of Mexico, tests show that the seafood is safe -- many fishermen willing to eat what they catch just to prove it. But others aren't so anxious to return to the sea if they don't see a little bit of cash from BP. We're live from New Orleans. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Ten minutes after the hour. In just a few hours ethics charges against New York Congressman Charlie Rangel expected to be made public at a House hearing.
ROBERTS: It's the first step in a rare congressional trial. Some Democrats want Rangel to cut a keel or resign to avoid the public embarrassment. Our Congressional correspondent Brianna Keilar is following developments from Washington. Congressman Rangel is confident he's going to come out just fine, but others not so sure, Brianna.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and sources are telling us, John and Sara, no deal. The clock is ticking towards this hearing at 1:00 p.m.
So what is Congressman Rangel facing? Well, we do know there are a number of issues already public. He's admitted that he failed to pay taxes on $70,000 on income that he received from a rental villa he has in the Dominican Republic. Also, he allegedly had several rent-controlled apartments, numerous rent-controlled apartments in his Harlem apartment building, including one that was used for political purposes.
He also, you know, he also failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets. He has admitted that and corrected that. And he also used official Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a project that bears his name.
So those are the things we know. We know them because it was actually news organizations that uncovered most of these things. The element of surprise today is perhaps this ethics committee in its investigation has uncovered other alleged violations. And that's really what we're looking for, that element of surprise.
ROBERTS: Yes. So since we have a pretty good idea of the nature of allegations that may lead to the charges, might there really be any surprises?
KEILAR: There could be, because they may have found something that we're not aware of or that a news organization didn't uncover. So, yes, there definitely could be.
And that's going to add to the drama, as well as what's going to add to the drama even though Congressman Rangel doesn't to by the letter of the standards here, have to be at this hearing, for everything he's been telling reporters, he's going to be. And that means it's going to be pretty dramatic, I think.
SIDNER: I'm curious what you're hearing from Democrats about this. You've got a midterm election coming up. You're not also hearing much from Republicans on this. What's going on politically?
KEILAR: Yes, Democrats, you know, the interesting thing, the conventional wisdom, talking to people on the Hill, they really thought it can't come to this. He's going to settle, and it will help Democrats avoid this sort of ethical pall being cast over the tough election season.
But here we are, the morning of the hearing, and it looks like it's going to happen.
Now, in the past, this investigation has been dragging on for almost two years, Republican leaders have hit Rangel over and over and they've really hit Democrats for associating with Rangel or try to lump them together.
They're being mum as far as Democratic leaders go, and it's really the political arm of the Republican Party in the House that's hitting him. But yes, pretty silent among Republican leaders, definitely, Sara.
SIDNER: All right, thank you so much Brianna Keilar there in Washington for us.
His company was making body armor to keep our country safe in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the feds say one former CEO was actually smuggling your tax dollars and spending it on parties, trips, even prostitutes. That's up next. It's 13 minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: The details of this case, pretty bizarre. It's playing out in a New York courtroom. The Feds say a former CEO scammed his company for nearly $200 million.
ROBERTS: Yes, they say that he spent the money on prostitutes for employees, plastic surgery for his wife, cars, trips, parties. The list goes on and on. So why should you care? Alina Cho is here to tell you.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALINA CHO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A $100,000 jewel- encrusted belt buckle. $1 million on race horses. Even allegations of hired prostitutes for employees. It's a list that reads like a bad "B" movie. The man behind all of it -- business executive David Brooks. He's now accused of stealing millions of dollars in company money. And you won't believe where he got that money to pay for an over-the-top lifestyle. Luxury cars. A Learjet. Lavish vacations for him and his family.
(on camera): Prosecutors allege David Brooks and his co- defendant not only used the company as their personal piggybank, they profited handsomely in a classic pump-and-dump stock schemes. Brooks allegedly cooked the books to drive up the stock, then sold at a high for a windfall of more than $185 million.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Legally, it's not all that exciting. It's a fairly classic pump-and-dump case. It's the details that make this case so delicious.
CHO (voice-over): Yes, one of those delicious details Brooks allegedly built this opulent life literally on the backs of soldiers. That's because the company he founded and ran, DHB Industries, now known as Point Blank Solutions, makes body armor for the U.S. military.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: The interceptor has saved thousands of life in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHO: Why should you care?
TOOBIN: It does seem particularly bad, given what he was selling, something that we all want so desperately to work and protect our troops. But it's also that because all the money here, ultimately, comes from taxpayers.
CHO: That's right. A government contractor who, before he left the company, was accused of making money by taking your money. After all, your tax dollars paid for those bulletproof vests.
Michael Adair has been watching the trial closely because he invested in DHB Industries and lost a half million dollars when the alleged scam was revealed and the stock plummeted. Adair feels especially betrayed because he's a Vietnam veteran who chose to park his money in DHB as a way of showing his patriotism. MICHAEL ADAIR, LOST RETIREMENT SAVINGS: How could I be so stupid? How could I not, you know, have gotten out of this thing before it was as low as it was? Yes, you really feel dumb.
CHO: Brooks has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers who would not talk to CNN on camera don't dispute that his personal expenses were paid for by the company, but add, those expenditures were authorized.
TOOBIN: You know, this is the kind of case that makes a defense lawyer think, why didn't I go to medical school? White collar cases are never really slam dunks, but this one seems to come pretty close.
CHO (on camera): And that's not all. Prosecutors allege David Brooks also spent years trying to develop a memory erasing pill with a veterinarian who cared for his race horses. The alleged target, the former CFO of the company, so that none of the alleged crimes would ever be reported to the government.
(voice-over): That obviously did not work. That CFO spent 23 days testifying against her former boss. If he's convicted, Brooks could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Alina Cho, CNN, Central Islip, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: That seem particularly distasteful, doesn't it, given the fact that it's taxpayer money and its troops and body armor.
SIDNER: Yes. And if the allegations are true, that guy's in for it.
ROBERTS: I would think.
Still ahead, his name is Oscar, an illegal immigrant who had everything going for him here in the United States, until he made a drastic decision that changed his life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Why did you do it?
OSCAR VASQUEZ, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: No one is going to hire you for a top job if you don't have, you know, your social security number, all that stuff?
ZARRELLA: Are you angry?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: His answer just ahead. Twenty-one minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Paramore, "That's What You Get." That will wake up in the morning.
Welcome back to the Most News in the Morning. Top stories just five minutes away. But first, an "A.M. Original," something you'll see only on AMERICAN MORNING.
It's the emotional story of a young man with a family and a bright future caught, smack dab, in the middle of the immigration fight.
ROBERTS: He's a college graduate who even got a standing ovation from the president who is now on the outside looking in on the American dream. John Zarrella has Oscar's story, part two, for us this morning, live from Phoenix. And after yesterday's compelling part one, John, everybody here in the studio has been waiting for this one.
JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, John, and we introduced everyone to Oscar, illegal immigrant. He was brought to the United States when he was just a boy. He was raised here. Went to school here. Got his college degree here, but Oscar does not live in the United States anymore. And this morning, we'll tell you why.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZARRELLA (voice-over): 6:00 a.m. Monday morning, Karla Vasquez loads the car. The most precious cargo is little Samantha with her big round brown eyes. Twice a month on her days off for almost a year now, Karla and Sammy (ph) set off on this journey.
KARLA VASQUEZ, OSCAR'S WIFE: For sure, diapers, snacks to keep her busy along the way.
ZARRELLA: From Phoenix to Tucson, then south on Highway 15 in Mexico. Three hours later, Karla pulls up in front of the little house in the little town of Magdalena de Kino, 50 miles south of the border. Husband Oscar Vasquez is there to greet them.
This is where Oscar lives now. There's a bullet hole in the front door.
OSCAR VASQUEZ, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: That happened before I moved in, but it's still kind of scary.
ZARRELLA: This young man who grew up in Phoenix who wanted one day to join the Marines, whose high school team beat MIT in a robotics competition. This young man with an engineering degree from Arizona State now works nights here at a car parts company with men who don't get it.
O. VASQUEZ: They're like, whoa, why are you here? So, you know, like, so where did you go to school? I went to Arizona State.
ZARRELLA: He's here because shortly after graduating from ASU last year, Oscar self-deported because he wanted to become a U.S. citizen.
(on camera): Why did you do it?
O. VASQUEZ: Well, I didn't just want to be back home and not be able to use my degree for anything. No one is going to hire you for a top job if you don't have, you know, your social security number, and all that stuff.
K. VASQUEZ: He worked so hard to get a degree, and he really wanted to put it to use. And he wasn't going to be able to do that without getting legalized. Getting status.
ZARRELLA (voice-over): You see, Oscar Vasquez was an illegal immigrant, brought to the United States by his mother when he was 12. Even though Karla is a U.S. citizen, Oscar is considered excludable. He knew leaving was a big gamble, but felt if he ever wanted a real future in the U.S., he had to apply for residency the right why.
(on camera): Oscar Vasquez came here to Mexico and petitioned the United States government to waive his excludability based on extreme hardship to his family. The government said he needed more information and he was denied. He has appealed, but it could take up to another year before he gets an answer.
(voice-over): The government wants documentation on the family finances, his wife's emotional distress, and the impact of the couple's separation on little Samantha.
(on camera): Are you angry?
O. VASQUEZ: Frustrated. Just frustrating not to be, you know, with the family. Not to be able to see my daughter grow up.
K. VASQUEZ: Do you want to see me living in a box with my baby for it to be enough for them to let my husband come back home?
ZARRELLA: Looking back now, did you do the right thing?
O. VASQUEZ: I did. Now we were doing -- we took this into our own hands and we're going through the process the right way.
ZARRELLA (voice-over): So, for perhaps another year, Karla will drive Highway 15 and Samantha, with the big round brown eyes, will visit her dad at his little house with the bullet holes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZARRELLA: Now, Karla says that if it was not for little Samantha, she would have gone ahead and moved with Oscar to Mexico to wait out the process. And ultimately, when the United States government does give them an answer, if they turn him down, Karla and Oscar says, well, perhaps, they'll just move to Canada -- John, Sara.
ROBERTS: Isn't he the type of person, though, that you would want to have immigrate to the country? You know, people who have a good education, people who have high-functioning skills like an engineering degree? ZARRELLA: Absolutely. In fact, his high school teacher when we talked to him said, you know, there are companies in the United States who import people from other countries with engineering degrees. And here's someone who's homegrown, raised here, educated here, and he's not allowed to use his degree here. And as the high school teacher said, that just doesn't make any sense -- John.
SIDNER: But, John, this is also a really difficult issue, right? Because there are a lot of families like this, correct? Where they came in maybe as kids, their parents came in illegally, and they really consider themselves Americans, but they're not legal?
ZARRELLA: You know, it's funny. We talked to some, Sara, the other day who really don't even speak Spanish very well. Their English is much better than their Spanish. And a lot of these young people whose parents brought them here would be subject to the Dream Act, that's if it ever passed, which would allow children who are brought here, not of their own free will to apply for residency. But that still has not passed. That's one of the things that Oscar is looking for and hoping as many others are, that ultimately the Dream Act will be passed by Congress.
ROBERTS: Yes. So for the moment, at least, regardless of how they got into the country, they are here illegally, and so subject to the provisions of the law.
John Zarrella for us this morning. John, great story. Thanks so much.
ZARRELLA: Thank you.
ROBERTS: The top stories as we come up to the half hour, immigration on hold. Arizona's tough new immigration law taking effect this morning, minus the most controversial portion of it. A federal judge blocked this section that requires police to check a person's immigration status. The fight is likely headed all the way to the Supreme Court now.
SIDNER: Plus, Toyota is announcing that 400,000 older model cars sold here in the U.S. are being recalled because of possible stirring problems. Ninety-three percent of those are Toyota Avalons made between 2000 and 2004. The company says a part of the steering system could break, increasing the risk of a crash. About 40,000 Lexus LX- 470 models are also affected in this recall.
ROBERTS: And Ansel Adams' family doesn't buy the story of the California man who claims to be sitting on $200 million worth of negatives from the world famous photographer. Adams' grandson wants the glass plates that was said to have been sold at a garage sale for $45 tested for authenticity again.
Now even if they are real, the grandson doesn't think they're worth $200 million. One of the reasons is a lot of the value of Ansel Adams photographs came in the printing process.
SIDNER: Right. Well, now, four days from now, officials in the Gulf of Mexico plan to begin choking a runaway oil well to death. Hopefully, the static kill, that's set for Monday, Coast Guard commander Thad Allen preparing to spell out the plan in detail a little bit later today saying he's optimistic the end of this disaster is near. Louisiana officials now calling on the federal government to reopen the entire gulf to fishing.
ROBERTS: The spill has kept thousands of square miles of ocean off-limits for months now. Last week, the government's ban on one- third of those wares was lifted. Now seafood industry officials and Louisiana's governor want the ban removed completely. But even if it is lifted, there's no guarantee that all of those idled fishermen will return to the sea.
Our Jim Acosta joins us live from New Orleans this morning. Jim, how soon, first of all, could the gulf waters now closed be reopened to commercial fishing and then get us into this idea of people actually wanting to get back on the water?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John and Sara, I mean, it's almost impossible to believe this, but perhaps within the next week, 86 percent of the commercial fishing waters in the Gulf of Mexico could be reopened to this industry which, you know, you would think would be unheard of in the last several weeks ago as this agonizing saga has been going on.
I talked to an FDA official last night, and they said they're in the homestretch of testing seafood inside that banned fishing area. And they think once they get those results back, if they come up cleared from any contaminants, any oil, any dispersants, they may be able to give the green light to opening up these waters very soon, possibly within the next week.
SIDNER: If the waters are reopened, what's the likelihood that a lot of the fishermen will go right back? And if not, why not?
ACOSTA: Yes, I mean,, that's a big concern right now, Sara. You know, you have all of these fishermen who have been working, as we all know, as vessels of opportunity for BP. You know, they couldn't go fishing so BP hired them up to go out and do skimming and clean-up operations.
And many of them, quite frankly, according to Louisiana seafood officials have gotten very accustomed to getting their paychecks from BP. So there's really a psychological factor here where they have to change the psychology of the fishermen, to convince them to get back to work.
So what the Louisiana promotional board is saying down here is that "hey, BP, why don't you guys grease the skids, a little bit," no pun intended.
"Why don't you guys bait the hook, offer a little bit of an incentive, pay 30 cents on the dollar, so if they catch a dollar worth of seafood, BP gives them a bonus of 30 cents to give them sort of an incentive to get back to fishing. They think that will perhaps move these guys off the sidelines and back into the water.
ROBERTS: Let's talk about the safety of the seafood here, Jim. Because nearly five million barrels of oil have gone into the Gulf of Mexico. And that oil's got to go somewhere. There are concerns that it's making its way up the food chain. Maybe it has gotten to fish in concentrations yet to be detected but will, what are the feds and the state doing to ensure that the seafood is safe?
ACOSTA: Well, there's testing that's going on right now. The FDA, you know, we've heard about these tests that go on. You know, dockside, in some cases where FDA officials will be doing smell tests of the seafood and saying, OK, it doesn't smell like we have any oil in the seafood.
But what's happened, with a lot of these samples is that they've gone off to labs around the country, and right now in labs in Arkansas, Connecticut, and other places. According to the FDA, they're in the process right now of performing chemical testing on that seafood. And they're saying if that testing is good to go, that the seafood comes back testing negative for oil, that this whole saga could be over for the commercial fishermen very shortly.
Obviously, that's going to not convince all, you know, people who go out to restaurants and so forth that this seafood is safe. So it's going to take some time for this industry to get back up on its feet. But I was talking to the president of the restaurant association for the entire state of Louisiana, they are feeling some heavy-duty pressure right now. They're very concerned.
And it's almost hard to believe this, but the seafood in these restaurants, they could run out of seafood in New Orleans restaurants by the end of this weekend, according to the Louisiana Restaurant Association. If they don't get the fishermen back in the waters here.
So, it's sort of reaching critical mass. And that is why Louisiana officials are putting a lot of pressure on the federal government right now to get those waters back open to commercial fishing. John and Sara.
ROBERTS: Well, I just can't imagine Louisiana, particularly in the New Orleans restaurants without seafood. Jim, thanks so much.
ACOSTA: I know, unbelievable. You bet.
ROBERTS: All right. Thanks, Jim.
All right. So the Arizona immigration law, key provisions of it on hold this morning. Coming up after the break, we'll talk to two sheriffs on opposite sides about where they go now. Because they're on the front lines of this. Thirty-six minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ROBERTS: No shortage of controversy this morning at 39 minutes after the hour. A ruling by a federal judge to strip Arizona's immigration law of its most controversial parts is making things even more tense on both sides of the controversy. The 11th hour court decision is further dividing the politicians, regular citizens even local sheriffs in the state.
Here to debate it from both sides, in Phoenix this morning, Cochise County sheriff, Larry Dever. He supports SB 1070, and in Tucson, Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik who is against the law. Sheriffs, great to see you this morning.
Sheriff Dever, let's start with you, the judge basically said that immigration is a matter for the federal government, not the state government but you think she is inconsistent here in taking a look at the way that the federal government and the states interact. Tell me your explanation for that?
SHERIFF LARRY DEVER, SUPPORTS ARIZONA'S IMMIGRATION LAW: Well, several reasons. First off, I will say that clearly border security, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Their failure to complete and fulfill that responsibility has brought us to this moment.
But, you know, the Department of Homeland Security's been reaching out for years now since September 11th, trying to encourage, empower, embrace state and local law enforcement to help in the Homeland Security function and mission. And then when Arizona steps up and says, hey, there's a hole in the strategy here in Arizona, we want to be a full partner, they turn around and sue us.
It makes no sense to me. And it seems that we're OK when it comes to drug running, to trafficking their firearms, money laundering, all those other federal crimes and responsibilities we partner right up. And when it comes to immigration, we say, "no, can't be involved in that. Makes no sense."
ROBERTS: All right. Well, let's get Sheriff Dupnik's take on that. Sheriff, is there a role for local law enforcement and enforcing immigration, a larger role than we have now?
CLARENCE DUPNIK, SHERIFF OF PIMA COUNTY: Well, first, let me say good morning, John.
ROBERTS: Good morning.
DUPNIK: And good morning, Larry. Larry is one of the finest sheriffs my hometown has ever had. And we are close friends and we agree on almost everything except this particular law. What we're going to continue to do is what we've been doing for 50 years, enforcing the federal law. There is nothing that precludes us from enforcing the federal law. We aggressively pursue illegal immigrants in Pima County, and we're going to continue to do that. What we're not going to have to do is put them in our own jail and subject self- hundred people on a regular basis to the local criminal justice system and then send out local taxpayers a huge bill.
ROBERTS: Well, Sheriff Dever, what do you say about the argument that this bill might have required to you check a person's immigration status but not having that provision basically won't change anything that you're currently doing?
DEVER: I think the bill provided us another tool to us in the event that the federal resources were inadequate to meet the demand. I see it that way.
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS: OK. Well, maybe you could explain for us, how would that tool, that California tool, help you do any more than you're currently doing? Because if you come across someone who is committing a crime and you find out they're illegal, you refer them to the federal government. How would this law really have changed anything in the front line?
DEVER: Well occasionally, we run into what we call frequent fliers. People that we process through the criminal justice system. They're deported by border patrol. They come right back. And it's recycle, recycle, recycle. And we're looking for we can build another criminal base n these guys to assure that when they're deported and they return, that they're charged with felonies and not just simply voluntarily deported.
Many of them are never charged, and they're still frequent fliers, and that gives us that extra tool. But on the border, really, the need isn't nearly as great as it is in the interior of the country where they don't have border patrol resources. And I.C.E. is so severely limited that people just continually fall through the cracks.
ROBERTS: Sheriff Dupnik, we were talking with John Morton, who is the head of I.C.E., the other day, they expected to deport 400,000 individuals this year but they say they're maxed out. They can't do anymore. Do you believe, because this has been a big part of this whole issue, opponents saying or supporters of the law saying that the federal government is not doing its job to the degree that it needs to so we need to have a local law. Are you comfortable, are you happy? Are you satisfied with the way that the federal government is doing its job?
DUPNIK: I don't think any of us are satisfied and I suspect that the federal government is less satisfied than anybody. Everybody on the border and in the state of Arizona is totally overwhelmed by this problem. Whether it be the feds or the state. So you know, I agree with him. But what we need desperately is more resources. The feds need more resources. But we hear a lot about border execute and I'd like to just say one thing about that if I could.
ROBERTS: Go ahead.
DUPNIK: Today, the border is more secure, depending on how you define security, than it ever has been. We still have some horrible crimes committed along the border by people from Mexico. There's no question about it. But they're not any greater today than they were last year or the year before. We are -- 10 years ago, the border patrol was arresting about 800,000 people in the Tucson sector every year for crossing the border illegally.
That's down to 200 some last year. So, they're making tremendous progress in border security. But there's still a horrible problem, that border is still very porous, and I don't know what the solution is, except massive influx of resources is the only thing that I know that's going to secure that border. But this law and that border have nothing to do with each other. This law would not have made that border more secure at all.
ROBERTS: All right. We'll keep on watching this. It looks like it's headed for the Court of Appeals now. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and Sheriff Larry Dever, great to talk to you this morning. Thanks for getting up early for us. I really appreciate it.
DUPNIK: Thank you.
DEVER: John, can I just say, if people want to learn more, go to www.bordersheriffs.com and get a better idea on the position and where we're headed with this thing.
ROBERTS: Duly noted, Sheriff Dever, thanks so much.
SIDNER: Coming up, every couple fights, right? It's inevitable. Right? Right, John?
ROBERTS: I got a hiccup in my throat here.
SIDNER: This might get you in trouble. Yes.
ROBERTS: It turns out that fighting may actually not be so bad, but it's how you fight that could cause the real problems. We'll explain just ahead.
It's 45 minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: A quick update for you this morning on the situation that we've been watching here in New York City, the Throgs Neck Bridge which connects the boroughs of Bronx and Queens is reopened this morning. You see the picture there.
There was a suspicious vehicle underneath the approach of the bridge. The police have closed down both directions of the bridge for a while to check out the vehicle. Apparently, they've given the all- clear now, and traffic will be back to its normal crawl on the Throgs Neck in just a few minutes.
SIDNER: It's very rare when you get to say that it's good news, but good news.
ROBERTS: Yes. Exactly.
SIDNER: Let's see a check now of this morning's weather headlines. Reynolds Wolf is in Atlanta for us this morning. Good morning, Reynolds. REYNOLDS WOLF, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Hey, good morning, guys.
We may have a rude awakening for some of our friends across parts of the northeast, scattered showers, a few storms rolling just to the west of Boston right now and New York. You get some raindrops in Midtown Manhattan. We see those rains trickle down into parts of Philadelphia. Washington, (INAUDIBLE) and into the afternoon that may come.
Something else that may develop, some delays, and plenty of them in places, especially in Boston, due to the rain, anywhere from 30 to 60-minute wait, possibly over an hour in all your New York metros, D.C. metros, in Philadelphia, about to an hour, same deal in Atlanta, Memphis and Orlando. While L.A., San Francisco and Seattle, low clouds, little visibility, about 15 to 30-minute wait, easy for me to say, and San Francisco mainly due to the fog.
Now, in parts of the southeast, fog is not going to be the issue. The high humidity and the high heat could definitely cause some issues, especially along the coast. Charleston, out by the (INAUDIBLE) to the citadel, as far as south as Hilton Head Island, and even into places like Savannah, it's going to feel like it's anywhere from 110 to 118 degrees. That is brutal heat.
And that heat is going to wipe (ph) its way across much of the nation's midsection, Kansas City with 91 degrees, up by Coffman Stadium. Dallas with 95, 94 in Houston, 96 in New Orleans, 93 in Billings, 59 in San Francisco. Beautiful weather out there, if you don't mind a little bit of that morning fog. But a chance of thunderstorms across parts of the Northern Plains, scattered showers across the four corners and into the southeast.
That is a quick snapshot at your forecast. We've got more coming up. Let's send it back to you in New York.
ROBERTS: Looking forward to it, Reynolds. Thanks so much. We'll see you again soon.
WOLF: You bet.
ROBERTS: This morning's top stories just minutes away now, including how's "The View," Mr. President? President Obama fitting right in in the daytime talk show format, talking about his kids.
SIDNER: And how about this one? $1 million in the jar every time you swear? The big Wall Street bank that's now banning cursing in e-mails.
ROBERTS: Oh, say it ain't so.
And right after the break, watch your low blows. A marriage expert and author of a new book shows us how to fight the right way to stay out of divorce court. He says fighting with your spouse the right way could actually make your relationship better. We'll tell you how to do it, coming right up.
Ten minutes to the top of the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATHLEEN TURNER, ACTRESS, "WAR OF THE ROSES": When I look at you lately, I just want to smash your face in.
MICHAEL DOUGLAS, ACTOR, "WAR OF THE ROSES": Smash my face.
TURNER: I want a divorce.
DOUGLAS: You can't have one.
DANNY DEVITO, ACTOR, "WAR OF THE ROSES": When a couple starts keeping score, there is no winning. It's only degrees of losing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: A clip from "The War of the Roses," a classic no-holds- barred battle between spouses. And while that story ended badly, new research finds that fighting fair can actually make your relationship stronger.
Joining me now from Denver this morning, Scott Stanley. He's the co-author of "Fighting for Your Marriage." He's also co-director for the Center of Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver.
Scott, great to see you this morning. Thanks for being with us. You know, you -- you say that --
SCOTT STANLEY, CO-AUTHOR, "FIGHTING FOR YOUR MARRIAGE": Good morning.
ROBERTS: -- that you say that it's not whether you fight that makes the difference, it's how you fight. What are some of the biggest mistakes that couples make when they get into a disagreement?
STANLEY: Well, probably the biggest one of all is -- is getting nasty. I mean, you -- you can get, you know, warmed up. You can get a little upset with each other. You can -- you can feel things about what the conflict is about.
But when you start hitting below the belt and you say nasty things, sneering things, you sort of snarling a bit at each other, you know, that's a hallmark of trouble ahead, because that stuff just sort of erodes the positive connection that have you with your mate.
ROBERTS: So -- so you contend and your co-author contends that fighting properly can actually improve your relationship. What are some tips for fighting properly?
STANLEY: Well, Howard Markman, my co-author, a colleague for a long time, we have worked for a long time on -- on looking at things the couples can do that can make a difference. So one tip that really matters the most of all is how to cool it when things are really getting too heated, because a lot of couples, you know, they get warmed up, they get upset, they start getting a little bit nasty and they have no way to put the brakes on. So it's like, you know, careening down the mountain, there's no guardrails, and some day you're just going to fly off the side of the cliff.
But it doesn't have to be that way. You can have -- you can have an agreement with your partner. You can work on some kind of strategy for time-out about how you put the brakes on and what you'll say, what you'll each do during that time. So that when stuff does get really going, you have a way to shut it down before you do much damage.
ROBERTS: Right. So how do you -- how do you keep your cool, though as -- as you said, things are getting heated? And how do you -- how do you get away from the propensity that one partner might have of simply trying to yell the other into submission?
STANLEY: Well, there's a -- there's a number of things. Part of keeping your cool is knowing when you're not so cool. A lot of people that have the most trouble with handling conflict well, they're very upset before they even recognize that.
And this is why if you talk together when you're calmer about what happens when you're not so calm, and you work together on some strategies, like, how you'd call a time-out, then that -- that can make a difference.
ROBERTS: Right.
STANLEY: But another really important key -- and this is -- this is where I see a lot of couples go wrong is they talk about their most important issues because something sparked it right then.
So let's say something about disciplining the children or money, which are the two most common argument starters just happened, you know, like, two seconds ago, and that pulls you in as a couple off into a big conflict about how you deal with kids and how did you get raised by your family and all of that sort of stuff. And that's a big mistake because that means -- as a couple, we're letting the issue essentially choose when we're going to deal with it.
If we can shut that stuff down, because that's always going to happen, and instead find time to -- to really sit down when you're not already upset and, you know, let's talk about what we're going to do about Billy (ph), let's deal with a plan for the visa bill, not because it just came and there's a big shock about how big the balance is.
ROBERTS: But -- but the real key is to not let it degrade into -- into nastiness. Now -- now, you've had a successful marriage. You've been married for 29 years. Your parents --
STANLEY: Yes.
ROBERTS: -- even though they owned a business -- STANLEY: Yes.
ROBERTS: -- together, married for 63 years. So it -- it is possible to have harmony in the family or at least the last 63 years.
STANLEY: Exactly. You know, it's possible. And -- and, in fact, you know, both of those numbers are pretty big number these days, you know, 63. You don't hear a lot about that anymore in terms of couples going that long. And my parents, you know, they ran a business together. I heard so many really good discussions between them about what they were doing, what they were planning, all this kind of stuff. It was great modeling on both the business side and also just the communication side.
But it can be done. Couples can make it, but they really have to work together as a team instead of becoming that constantly tugging at one another about getting your way.
ROBERTS: Some good suggestions this morning. Scott Stanley, author of "Fighting For Your Marriage," great to talk to you this morning.
STANLEY: Great. Thank you very much.
ROBERTS: All right. Take a few lessons from this this morning.
Top stories coming your way in just two minutes. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
