Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Judge Blocks Part of Arizona Law; Pentagon Seeks Source of Leaked Afghan War Docs; AZ Current Attorney General Goddard Addresses Injunction; AZ Republican Candidate for Attorney General Horne on Controversial Immigration Lawsuit
Aired July 28, 2010 - 13:58 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: Back to the top of the hour here now and it is a breaking news hour here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
The controversial Arizona immigration law will not go into effect as scheduled tomorrow. Key parts of it have been stopped from going into effect, the key and most controversial parts.
We're just getting a ruling from a judge just within the past several minutes here. The judge, Susan Bolton, out in Phoenix striking down -- at least issuing a preliminary injunction is what it's called, saying the key part cannot go into effect right now. The key parts, the ones you have been hearing about for the past several months, that allow for a -- I shouldn't say allow -- it requires police officers who arrest people to ask those people for proof that they are in the country legally if there is a suspicion by the officer that the person is in the country illegally.
That key provision you've been hearing an awful lot about, well, it will not go into effect tomorrow as scheduled. Other parts of the law the judge did not deal with, did not touch, so those can go into effect tomorrow. But the most controversial parts you have been hearing about will not go into effect.
The judge ruled on one of several suits she has been hearing. There are seven different lawsuits challenging the Arizona law. Some challenging the law based on the fact that they think it's going to allow racial profiling. But the government challenged it, the Obama administration, saying you can't step on federal law, you can't step on our job. And they say immigration law in this country is our job, not state's job and that is, in fact, the lawsuit that the judge ruled on.
Our Jessica Yellin is in Phoenix for us, has been covering this for us for some time now.
Jessica, hello to you once again.
And we can get into more of this here in a moment, but I know you're there, a July (ph) shot location, but I don't know, have people been going by and possibly even some reaction coming into your BlackBerry? But what is some of the reaction you are starting to get?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, some of the activists who oppose the law call this a partial victory. They're somewhat relieved, but they know that this fight isn't over on their side.
I spoke to the man who wrote this law just before the ruling came down. We all expected that she might enjoin these parts of the law, so I asked if she did exactly what she's done, what's his message to her?
Now, this is the man who wrote the bill. He said his message to the judge is, enforce the law, let us defend the Constitution, let us enforce the Constitution. And then he had this to say if we could play that sound bite --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSSELL PEARCE, ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: If states understand the supremacy clause, the Tenth Amendment, we can fix this problem. We've allowed the federal government to get away with things they have no business doing. The federal government's powers are limited and they're enumerated in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution.
I intend to hold the federal government accountable. We are going to run legislation to make it clear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
YELLIN: T.J., he also said in a separate part of the interview that this is an epic battle, it's states versus the federal government, that he will take this all the way to the Supreme Court, and that he -- if it's overturned, or any part of it, he expects to win in the Supreme Court on a 5-4 decision.
And he also believes that other states are going to try to follow suit. In fact, T.J., five other states do have similar laws before their state legislatures and are in process, getting close to a point where they could pass it not this session, but probably next year. There are about nine other states that are in the process of considering. So we could see -- if this law is ultimately upheld, we could see similar laws in many other states in this country -- T.J.
HOLMES: All right. And you are hitting on a point that our Jeffrey Toobin was hitting on just a moment ago as well. This, it's something that just wreaks of the Supreme Court. Needs to step in because there are so many other states here that are going to absolutely be looking at something like this. So we need to hear a judgment from the Supreme Court.
Go ahead. I see you want to jump in.
YELLIN: Yes. You know, I'll tell you one of the reasons why they think it's necessary for other states -- the supporters of the law think it's necessary.
A few days ago, when I first got here, I interviewed an illegal immigrant, a woman who came to live in Phoenix. And because of this law, she is fleeing Arizona, but she's fleeing to Los Angeles, California. She doesn't want to leave the country.
So the idea is there sort of -- maybe this law -- but it doesn't solve the problem nationally. And that's why supporters of the law say other states need to adopt it, too. Opponents of the law say, no, we need a national new immigration policy, and that is the frame of the huge firestorm debate we're going to see play out until this immigration issue is resolved -- T.J.
HOLMES: Absolutely. One state can't solve the problem. You can just shift the problem around the country, and that seems like that's what's happening.
Jessica Yellin, we appreciate you. Thank you so much. I know we'll be talking to you again plenty.
Also, our Jeffrey Toobin standing by.
And Jeffrey, I'm going to come to you with a question here in a second. But I want our viewers to know we're getting word from the White House, from the deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, that, in fact, the president is not going to be making any kind of a statement in regards to this ruling. The president is traveling right now to New Jersey.
He is in New Jersey right now, about to have an event there at a sub shop, I believe. He's talking about the economy there today. Has a press event, going to be making a statement.
We possibly are going to be bringing that to you live. But that statement was supposed to be strictly about something happening with the economy and jobs and actually getting small business loans.
But the president, going to make that statement. I believe we expect that sometime in the next hour or so. But we're told from the White House the president will not address this particular issue. But you can rest assured there's going to be some reporter there who's going to try to shout out a question and get the president to respond.
So we'll monitor that. No doubt about it.
Also, our Jeffrey Toobin, who has been here on the line with me since this ruling came down, joins me once again on the phone.
Jeffrey, the judge -- help us understand kind of the route the judge wanted to go here. Again, we're talking about the one case that was brought by the federal government. The federal government saying, hey, this is our job, not a state's job.
So what -- I guess, what was the judge's thinking about the federal government's assertion?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there were really two main issues before Judge Bolton here. One was the claim by many civil rights groups, the Hispanic community, that this law was discriminatory, that this was a violation of the 14th Amendment, the equal protection of the laws. And that is really sort of the most politically explosive argument. It's also the hardest one to evaluate before the law actually goes into effect.
One thing judges like to do, by and large, is wait until laws go into effect and see how they work out in practice. What that's called is seeing how a law is applied, as opposed to the law on its face.
The other issue was less politically incendiary. That was the argument by the federal government that we're not going to talk about discrimination here. We are simply saying that this law deals with a subject, immigration, that belongs to the federal government, and we cannot have 50 states with their own immigration policies. We cannot have 50 states deciding their own foreign policies. We need to have one set of immigration laws.
And that's the argument she embraced. That's the argument that the judge said, I don't need to see whether the law goes into effect and how it works out. I can see in advance that this law has too much potential to interfere with the United States' policy, and so that's the route she decided to go.
HOLMES: And Jeffrey, I certainly don't want to put you in a position you're trying to get inside this judge's head, but she had come out earlier and said she wasn't going to be rushed or forced to try to make any kind of a ruling before the law went into effect. But do you think in some ways we're certainly better off that she did?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, I think that depends largely on whether you agree with the ruling or not. You know, there are a lot of people who are going to find that this ruling is appalling and wrong.
And remember, one of the main arguments that Governor Jan Brewer made and all the supporters of the immigration law made is that the reason we had to pass this law is that the federal government has failed in its responsibilities. So the idea that we have to defer to the federal government on these sorts of issues, which is essentially what the judge held, Jan Brewer and her allies will say, we tried that, and that's what got us into this mess.
So I don't think this decision is going to resolve or satisfy the people who lost. The people who won, obviously, are going to be satisfied for the time being. But I don't pretend -- and I don't think anyone pretends -- that this is somehow an end to the controversy.
This is simply a different stage in the controversy, and certainly a victory for the Obama administration and its allies. We'll see how long-lasting it is.
HOLMES: Again, reminding our viewers, if you are just joining us, the key provision, the most controversial provision of the Arizona immigration law has now been placed on an injunction. The judge will not let it go forward and go into effect tomorrow.
Some parts of the law will, but the key parts that many say will lead to racial profiling will not be allowed to go into effect, according to this judge's ruling she made today. I'll read you part of it. I can show you here.
Again, the judge is Susan Bolton. And here you can see part of her ruling today saying, "Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while the status is checked."
Now, you hear there -- and Jeffrey, bringing you back into this conversation, that was a part that a lot of people were concerned with. Yes, maybe you might find some people out there who are illegal immigrants, but also, what about the people who aren't, who are put in jail or held until you can prove their immigration status?
TOOBIN: Well, that is one of the big reasons people were so upset by this law, that, first of all, it was very vague in defining who should be stopped and who should be asked for their papers. What does it mean to reasonably suspect that someone is an illegal immigrant?
Civil rights groups said everyone with dark skin is going to be asked for their papers if they're stopped for speeding, if they're stopped for jaywalking, that everybody was going to be asked for their papers in a way that would be extremely intimidating. That is the core of the civil rights groups' objections to this law.
The supporters of the law said, you know, if you don't have any -- if you're legally in the country, you don't have anything to worry about. So that's the controversy that we've been dealing with.
HOLMES: All right.
Our Jeffrey Toobin. Plenty more to get into with our Jeffrey Toobin. Also, our Jessica Yellin for us in Phoenix. Also, Jeanne Meserve on the story for us as well.
We have this thing covered. Again, the key parts, the controversial parts that many said would leave to racial profiling in that Arizona immigration law, those key provisions now been placed on an injunction will not go into effect tomorrow as scheduled.
A quick break. We're right back with our breaking news coverage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: Again, we're not going to be too far from that breaking news story, the Arizona immigration law. But want to tell you about some other things going on today, including more leaks that the federal government is dealing with, and particularly the Pentagon dealing with right now.
Some 90,000 pages of secret documents leaked to this Web site, WikiLeaks. You've heard about them over the past several months because this is the same Web site that put out a video, a 2007 video that showed a helicopter gunship attack on people in Iraq. That attack ended up killing actual journalists.
But WikiLeaks put that out. They have been known for putting out leaked material, secret material they have been getting.
Well, there's one private right now who is accused of leaking that video to WikiLeaks. You see him there over my soldier. He's the same man now who they're now looking at the possibility of charging him in relation to the leak of these new 90,000 documents.
Now, even though these were secret documents he had access to, according to our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, she says just because it's labeled "secret," it doesn't mean a lot of people don't have access to it. There's secret. There's top secret. There's classified. There's all kinds of distinctions.
So, he did have access to it. He's a 22-year-old young man that did have access.
Right now, the Pentagon, the government telling the public that, in fact, there's nothing too incriminating in here. There's nothing in these documents necessarily that we didn't already know. There's nothing that necessarily puts American lives in danger out there in the field of battle.
But at the same time, you do not want leaks. This is another embarrassing episode, and it's a huge government leak that the government is now looking into.
Meanwhile, the young man, the private who is accused, he is still being held right now in Kuwait.
We're going to take a quick break here. But again, our breaking news story today, in fact, is what's happening out in Arizona, the controversial provisions of that Arizona immigration law not going to be going into effect tomorrow as scheduled because a judge has issued a preliminary injunction.
A quick break. We're right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: All right. Once again, our breaking news story today is that, in fact, the controversial Arizona immigration law you have been hearing so much about over the past several months, the key controversial provisions that many said would lead to racial profiling, well, those are not going to go into effect as scheduled tomorrow because a judge has issued a preliminary injunction of some of the key parts of that bill.
Let me bring in our Jeanne Meserve, who have been going through the 36 pages of this ruling from the judge, Susan Bolton.
Hello to you, once again. I know you continue to pluck things out. So you go right ahead.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, T.J., first, a statement now from the Department of Justice spokeswoman. Hannah August has just put out a statement saying that, "We believe the court ruled correctly. While we understand the frustration of Arizonans for the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive."
"State cans and do play a role. They must do so within our constitutional framework. We will continue to work towards smarter and more effective enforcement of our laws along the borders."
Now, we are not going to hear from President Obama on this ruling, according to the White House. We are, however, starting to get in reaction from members of Congress who, of course, have been grappling with the immigration issue up there as well.
Congressman Darrell Issa of California has issued a statement criticizing the decision, saying that "The federal government has the right and responsibility to enforce federal laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of states."
Also a statement from Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick. She represents the state of Arizona. She was opposed to this particular piece of legislation. She says, "There are no winners here. No matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders still will not be secure" -- T.J.
HOLMES: All right, Jeanne Meserve. One more question here for you, Jeanne.
And I want our viewers to know we're standing by. We're going to get more reaction out of Arizona here in just a moment.
But, Jeanne, the ruling you're going through -- and I keep saying the key provision, the controversial provision has been struck down. But there are also some other key provisions maybe people haven't been hearing so much about. We've been kind of hung up on the one that a lot of people say is going to lead to racial profiling. But go through once again those other provisions that also won't go into effect tomorrow.
MESERVE: There are three others that the judge put in place, an injunction against. One would make it a crime to fail to carry alien registration papers. Another would make it a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work. And the last would authorize the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
So four different provisions here in this law which she has said stop, no go, you can't put these into effect tomorrow.
Back to you, T.J.
HOLMES: And once again, this is the -- she's only ruling on this one, in particular on the one that the federal government is looking into. There are so many -- seven out there, and she had been hearing, but she only ruled on this one that the federal government brought?
MESERVE: That's right. But this is the granddaddy. This is the important one.
This was going to determine what happened tomorrow in the state of Arizona. Now we know, though of course there's the possibility of further legal action today.
The state could move immediately to take this to a higher court. We'll wait and see. We haven't heard yet from the state of Arizona.
HOLMES: And also, you told me, Jeanne, you read that statement from the Justice Department, happy with this ruling, at least. But it is a preliminary injunction. But in the meantime, is the Justice Department giving us any indication what they will do in the meantime? Frankly, there might not be much for them to do until Arizona makes a move to possibly appeal.
MESERVE: At this point in time, all we have to work with is this one statement from the Justice Department. Obviously, they're very pleased with what happened today, the key provision of the law, the one that they were most concerned about, the one that would allow police officers to query people about their legal status when they were stopped for other reasons, that's been enjoined. They're happy -- T.J.
HOLMES: All right. Jeanne Meserve for us.
Jeanne, we appreciate it. We'll continue to check in.
Again, to our viewers, a reminder. If anyone just jumping into our coverage now, the key point is that the key provision, the controversial provision of that Arizona immigration law, not going to go into effect tomorrow as scheduled because a judge has issued a preliminary injunction that says it won't go into effect.
You have been hearing plenty from both sides of this debate along the way over the past several months. Well, now we have gotten a ruling. But still, we have got a lot more rulings to go down the road it does appear. It is not over yet, folks.
A quick break. We're right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: Well, coming up on the bottom of the hour here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
And we just got word about an hour, a little over an hour ago, that, in fact, that controversial Arizona immigration law, not going to go into effect tomorrow. Not at least some of those key provisions that were so controversial, the ones that people said would lead to that racial profiling. Not going to go into effect because Judge Susan Bolton struck down some of those key provisions.
The law, many of the provisions, will go into effect tomorrow. But the most controversial ones, including the one that would require police officers to ask for the immigration status of people they arrest, well, that is not going to go into effect, a preliminary injunction in place. But the legal battle likely is not over.
Let me bring in someone who has been in the midst of this battle out in Arizona. His name -- there he is. He's Terry Goddard. He is the Arizona attorney general.
Mr. Goddard, we appreciate you being with us.
I know you are running for governor out there against Jan Brewer, and I know you all are not seeing eye to eye on this particular immigration debate. So let me just have your initial reaction.
I assume you are happy to hear that the judge won't allow some of the key provisions to go into effect.
TERRY GODDARD, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think it's too early to be happy. The bottom line is the court said what we've been questioning for quite a while, that there was a collision with the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, and she ruled in favor of the federal government's challenge.
But I think that squares up the issue that we in Arizona have been so concerned about, which is, we've had a broken immigration system, and now the federal government says Arizona can't try to fix it on their own. And without rearguing that issue, let's get going. It seems to me that the federal government, by taking this action, has an absolute obligation to fix our broken immigration system.
HOLMES: So you're telling me, sir, you have faith that because of this ruling, that is in some kind of way going to jumpstart the federal government to do what many say the federal government has not done for a long time?
GODDARD: Well, here the Justice Department came swooping in, and they filed part one of the motions for injunction. There were several. And the judge today has granted -- at least, as you said earlier, the most controversial portions, the reasonable suspicion portion, is being suspended, pending a trial.
So they have said in so many words, Arizona, you can't speak up on immigration because that's a federal matter. But our objection has been that the federal government has not been doing what they should, and it's time for them to seriously look at immigration reform. Congress needs to start a serious discussion, and they don't even have a bill right now.
HOLMES: Well, Sir, what do you say to the people of Arizona, to the people you hope to represent as their governor, when you say -- and I don't have -- I'm not incorrect here. You oppose this law, correct?
GODDARD: Oh, I thought the governor should have vetoed it, absolutely, for a number of reasons. And some of them have come out today in the judge's ruling. But it divided our state. One-third of our state are Latino. And it did not do anything about our biggest criminal problem, which is the organized criminal cartels who are coming across the border with drugs and illegal persons. That needs to be our first objective.
HOLMES: Well, sir, on that point there, that you didn't agree with the law, then what can you say to your citizens? And I know you want the federal government to do something, but they haven't. And that's why many support the bill that Arizona passed, because, hey, the government's not doing it, the federal government. At least Arizona is trying something.
What would you like to try as a state? What do you think you have the right to try now?
GODDARD: Well, we have the right to petition our government. And what's left right now --
HOLMES: Well, Sir, that's not working. A lot of people know that is not working, to petition the government. That hasn't worked for decades.
GODDARD: Well, hey, the bottom line here is the federal government has a responsibility. They got a court, a federal judge to say that the state can't act because of the supremacy clause in the area of foreign relations and immigration. OK. That's where we are.
Let's calm down and focus on the underlying problem that Arizona's been screaming about. And that is, we have a broken immigration system.
And our president has stood up and said he wants to fix it, but there still is no bill in Congress. There still is nothing moving at the federal level. And I think if this decision today highlights anything, it's that if the states can't do it, the federal government must, and they've got to get off their butt and start doing it.
We are doing things here as a state. I'm working very hard to cut off the cash that's going to the cartels in Mexico. We need federal help to do that, too.
So, there's a bottom line here. We're all part of the union, and we need help from that union.
HOLMES: Well, Sir, do you think -- and again, I haven't seen any recent polls -- I'll be honest with you -- any recent polls about how you're doing out there in your race. But how do you defend yourself to some of your citizens, many of whom we've polled and show that a lot of people support that Arizona bill, when they see Governor Jan Brewer maybe trying to do something and Mr. Goddard wanting to petition?
GODDARD: For the third time, I will repeat, Arizona citizens are crying for help in the area of immigration. And the polls here show overwhelmingly that, whereas many of them thought trying the 1070 route made sense, they supported it, even more have said this is part of a national problem, we need a responsible response from Congress, and we need immigration reform.
Over 70 percent of the citizens of Arizona have said overwhelmingly, we need Congress to give us an answer, we have a broken immigration system, and we need them to fix it. So when they were not doing it, the state legislature stepped in and tried 1070.
The court has now said that's not effective. So it seems to me that makes our plea even more urgent. If you're not going to let us do it ourselves, make sure the federal government lives up to its responsibility.
HOLMES: Last thing, Sir. Would you certainly, right here, if Governor Jan Brewer was listening -- and you're probably going to have a chance to talk to her -- really try to implore her not to appeal this judge's ruling and to just let it go?
GODDARD: I think we're going to have controversy in court for quite a long time over this. We knew going in that whoever lost this round would immediately appeal it. The governor has said emphatically she doesn't want my legal advice. My office has had a perfect record so far in defending the state's laws in the immigration area.
But in this case, we were frozen out of the process. So, I have no influence over whether she appeals or not.
HOLMES: Well, I know you don't have any influence there. But would you like to see her and the state of Arizona let it go and not appeal today's ruling?
GODDARD: Oh, I think we need to calm down and look at how we solve the underlying problem. And that's the problem of illegal immigration in our state. And that should be the objective and how we fight against border violence. That should be number -- the other major effort. And we can do a better job, both locally and hopefully with some federal assistance.
And perhaps, perhaps this ruling today allows us to step back and let cooler heads prevail, stop sloganeering, stop, frankly, the electioneering, and start trying to solve a problem that's hammered our state for the last 20 years.
HOLMES: I will just go ahead and take that as a no -- you would rather see the state not appeal this particular law. But, again, Mr. Terry Goddard, the Arizona attorney general -- sir, we appreciate you stepping in front of the camera. I know it's a busy day and a busy time out there for Arizona. We'll see you down the road. Thank you so much.
GODDARD: As you can see from my dress, it's a little warm out here.
HOLMES: Yes, sir. And we appreciate you standing out there for us. Sir, we do appreciate it.
We're on the bottom of the hour here now. To our viewers, again, the breaking news story today, the key provisions of that controversial law will not, in fact, go into effect tomorrow as planned.
Quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: I want to bring in now our senior Latin affairs correspondent, Rafael Romo, who's here with me.
I know you have been covering, like so many of us, extensively, this Arizona immigration law. But you hear so many numbers thrown around about how many illegal immigrants there are in this country and specifically in Arizona as well. I know you've been looking into this the past week or so.
RAFAEL ROMO, CNN SENIOR LATIN AMERICAN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. One of the most respected organizations that deals with research when it comes to Latino issues, the Pew Hispanic Center, put up -- came up with some numbers regarding the population of undocumented immigrants in Arizona recently. And so, they say the population basically has quintupled in the last 20 years. Back in 1990, the population was estimated at 90,000 people. Currently, it is around half a million people.
Now, it is very difficult to estimate because, as you know, there's no official number because a lot of these people are not counted. They're not part of regular systems. They're not part of Social Security or do not have regular jobs. But the Pew Hispanic Center that currently it is standing at about 500,000 people. So, that brings in perspective what Arizona is trying to do.
HOLMES: And we hear a lot of different numbers that are thrown around, sometimes just depending on which side of the issues some politician might be, about how many illegal immigrants there are in this country. What is their official tally?
ROMO: Five hundred thousand so far. But let's --
HOLMES: That's Arizona. But nationwide?
ROMO: That's Arizona.
HOLMES: Yes.
ROMO: The nationwide, the number estimated by the U.S. government is around 12 million people. And so, the states like Texas, California, Arizona and Illinois have the largest number of immigrants. Traditionally, that has been the case. Although more recently, states with manufacturing, like Tennessee, for example, are seeing larger and larger increases in the number of undocumented immigrants.
HOLMES: How do they even go about trying to count people who, quite frankly, are in a lot of ways hiding? They don't want to be counted. They want to make sure they're not counted. How does the research center even go about these numbers -- ROMO: They sample neighborhoods. They go to neighborhoods. They go to community organizations and they make scientific sampling based on what they find there. So, at best, it is an approximation. There's no way to really come up with a specific number of undocumented immigrants in Arizona.
And something else that we have to remember is that there have been Hispanics in Arizona before Arizona was Arizona. Also, there are a number of Native American reservations there, for example, I can point to the Guadalupe Reservation, right next to Phoenix, Arizona, where people look just like me. They speak Spanish and English.
And so, one of the questions of activists who were protesting against this law was, if they're stopped in the street, are they going to be required to show police immigration papers? And that's one of the reasons why the issue became so, so contentious.
HOLMES: What kind of reaction are you getting so far to the ruling that we're seeing? Again, the ruling -- for our viewers, many might just be tuning in here -- but a judge has put an injunction and the key provisions, the most controversial provisions of that Arizona immigration law not going to go into effect tomorrow as scheduled. Just got that ruling about an hour -- hour and a half ago.
What -- I know you've been covering this extensively as well -- what's some of the reaction you are getting so far?
ROMO: Well, Hispanic activists, who have been protesting this law for months now, say, well, we knew it all along. The separation of powers between the federal government and the state government is very clear. The state government cannot take control of the issue of immigration. That's the role of the federal government.
In fact, there's a ruling that came out in 1941, we go back all those years, a case in Pennsylvania where the state was trying to require aliens to carry identification cards where the Supreme Court ruled that it was not possible -- it didn't go through because it is the role of the federal government to enforce immigration.
And, yes, everybody agrees that the immigration system is broken and that more needs to be done. But what these activists say is that that was not the way to go around it. It's still the role of the federal government to take care of that issue.
HOLMES: How fearful are a lot of the people you talk to in Arizona? And we're hearing these stories about people high-tailing it and getting out of the state. I mean, how fearful were people that this thing was going to go, in fact, going to effect tomorrow?
ROMO: Well, not only in Arizona. As you said, people are leaving Arizona, going back to Mexico or going to other states where they believe it may be easier for them to carry on. But also on the other side of the border, I was in touch with officials in the state of Sonora, which is located right south of Arizona, they were opening more shelters, they were trying to beef up their social services agencies because they fear that if -- or they feared before this happened that if the law went into effect, they were going to have massive deportations. And so, they were getting ready for that.
And quite frankly, didn't know if they were going to be capable to assimilate the number of people that was expected to go back to Mexico, specifically to that state, the state of Sonora, which, like I said before, is located right south of Arizona.
HOLMES: Did you find that there was also a lack of understanding of this bill? Because -- I mean, you see the back and forth in the press. And maybe that might be the only place a lot of people -- many of them who don't speak English that well, some don't speak English at all, are not going to read through the thing and try to comprehend on their own. Were there a lot of misinformation? Like you said, a lot of people fearful there's going to be big round-ups?
ROMO: Exactly. That happened a lot. A lot of people heard immigration law cracking down on immigrants and didn't hear anything else.
And so, they started preparing the moment that this law went into effect. They started -- we know cases of families who had a job, had an apartment, had furniture, had belongings, they packed everything up and they went to different states, some of them went back to Mexico.
But also, we also have to talk about the effect of businesses on both sides of the border. We know, for example, that shuttle vans that go between Mexico and Arizona have seen their businesses -- their business go down. They're suffering right now. We also know that imports from Arizona have suffered also and just transactions between Mexico and Arizona have gone down.
HOLMES: All right. Our Rafael Romo, we appreciate always having you and your perspective. And, again, some extensive reporting you have been doing. Rafael Romo, our Latin affairs correspondent -- we appreciate you.
Also, just getting in my hand here, a statement from the Department of Homeland Security on what we've been -- what we've been saying. And, again, to our viewers, the key provisions, the most controversial provisions of that Arizona immigration law, not going into effect tomorrow after a judge issued an injunction.
I'm just going to go ahead and read this to you, from our deputy press secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, Matt Chandler, saying, "The court's decision to enjoin most of S.B. 1070 correctly affirms the federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our nation's immigration law. Over the past 18 months, this administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border and we will continue to work to take decisive action to disrupt criminal organizations and the networks that exploit."
I read one more sentence here, again from the Department of Homeland Security, their reaction to the ruling we saw just a short time ago, saying, "DHS will enforce immigration laws in Arizona and around the country in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor as well as continue to secure our border."
That coming to us from DHS, making a point that they will, in fact, enforce immigration law. That is exactly why Arizona said they had to pass their own immigration bill because the federal government is not doing what they're supposed to do.
Let's go to our Ed Henry, standing by for me at the White House.
Ed, hello to you. Coming to us here on this segment on what is now a breaking news afternoon. Ed, address something for me. The president has decided -- we got a statement at least. And who knows when he's at this event in New Jersey? Maybe a reporter will throw -- will yell something out at him and he will answer.
But why would the president not want to make a statement today?
ED HENRY, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Because what's going on here behind the scenes at the White House is they are very carefully deferring to the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security as you just read that statement. Jeanne Meserve had the Justice Department statement before that. This is a complex legal matter. The White House realizes a complex political matter. But they want to let the legalities of it take effect and deal with all that and sort all this out and not just have the president jump in until they figure out exactly what all this means.
Nevertheless, as you can imagine, I've been digging around with sources here at the White House and trying to dig out what the president does know and what's been going on behind the scenes. We've got some new information which is that on the way to New Jersey, on the Air Force One, the president got a call from an aide and basically was briefed on the situation. We got that first and that basically the president was told that the judge had issued this ruling that knocked down key parts of this law to prevent it from taking effect.
But I'm told now by a senior administration official also cautions, though, that while the administration views this as a positive step, they're not celebrating here in the White House because, again, they want to carefully go through this, as you've been listening to Jeffrey Toobin, many others trying to figure out what this really means. We know that the state of Arizona is very likely to issue an appeal here. And the last thing the White House wants to do is sort of jump out ahead and say, look, we won. This thing's over.
As Jeff Toobin said, this very likely will go to the U.S. Supreme Court down the road. And so, the White House is initially pleased. But they're going to let the Justice Department and they're going to let the Homeland Security Department sort all this out before they have the president jumping out there.
As you know, he will be doing an interview with "The View" this afternoon. He's taping it in New York City before he does fund- raising tonight. And, obviously, he's very likely to be asked about it there. We'll see if he does react there or in any of this -- or if a reporter shouts a question today. But at this point, I'm told they're trying to sort of keep the president out of this while they sort all of it out, T.J.
HOLMES: All right. Ed, stand by here for you for a second -- because the other major player in this whole debate has been the governor, Jan Brewer. We're just getting some comments from her. These are raw comments, haven't been edited here. Let's just go ahead and listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: The ban on sanctuary cities is still in order. Crime of picking up day laborers is still intact. And the section regarding the unauthorized employ of illegal immigrants is still in line.
And I will continue to consult with my lawyers throughout the day and we will move forward after we get our arms totally around this. I would assume that we would be temporarily working hard and moving forward with my legal team to see what it is that we are going to appeal. But we are going to continue to request that we get heard on this and that the citizens of Arizona are protected.
I think that it's important to remind everybody that today, 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. With that, we would just --
REPORTER: A victory or a defeat for the state of Arizona today?
BREWER: Well, it's -- obviously it's a little bump in the road, I believe. And that, you know, until I get my whole arms around it, we don't really exactly know where we're going to go. We knew, regardless of what happened today, of course, that one side or the other side was going to appeal. So this begins the process.
This is an injunction. They haven't heard, really, the merits of the bill. This is just an injunction -- a temporary injunction. And our legal team and I'm sure the United States of America's legal team will be looking at some of the issues that they're concerned about. And we'll be looking at the issues that we're concerned about and we'll start down that process.
Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: All right. Governor Jan Brewer, quoting here, she said, "This today is a bump in the road," a bump in the road. So, you know another challenge is coming -- another challenge -- challenges, and appeal by the federal government. She says she's trying to get her arms around this whole thing. Again, this just came to us about an hour and a half ago, the actual ruling itself. So, everyone is trying to go through it word by word. She said the judge here did not rule on the merits but also said, I'm quoting this to you, "The feds got relief to not do their jobs," end quote.
Let me bring in Ed Henry once again at the White House for us. Ed, she is, once again, you know, spinning this, if you will. The feds got relief, she says, to not do their jobs. How many fits has this whole episode been giving the White House in that they need to make some kind of a move or do something in terms of immigration?
HENRY: Well, look, you'll remember back on July 1st, the president, in anticipation of all of this going on this week, gave a big speech here in Washington about trying to push Congress forward on comprehensive immigration reform. And he made that very point that, look, individual state, we've seen a city in Nebraska, moving forward on their own because there's sort of a patchwork system right now because the feds -- as the governor said -- have not done their job. That's something the president actually agrees with that Republican governor, Jan Brewer, on. And he's pushing Congress for comprehensive reform.
But the bottom line is, it's going nowhere fast. The president knows that. The governor knows that. So, in the meantime, she's going to keep pushing for it.
And I think it's very important to underline what she's saying there, this is a bump in the road. She's reading it the same way the White House is. She's saying, not so fast, this doesn't mean this is over. She's going to keep pushing forward and likely appealing here.
And that's why the White House is being so cautious. They don't want to be popping champagne corks here because they know she's going to fight this and it's going to keep going. And I can tell you, you asked about sort of the anxiousness here at the White House about the days ahead.
I'm told at one of their meetings yesterday here, they were talking about the possible scenarios, game-planning, if you will, what might happen. And there was some fear here inside the White House, I'm told, that if on Thursday this law had moved forward, there'd be some chaos in Arizona. There's been reports of people who were planning -- protesters to chain themselves to federal buildings and the like, and that the president would sort of be drawn into this one way or another.
He's in New Jersey today wanting to talk about the economy. He's going to Michigan on Friday to talk about the auto industry.
As we saw with the Shirley Sherrod g story last week, as the president tries to focus these midterm elections on jobs, he keeps being pulled into all other kinds of other controversies. There's a fear inside the White House that this immigration issue could be yet another one of those distractions. So, in the short term, White House sees this as maybe a victory -- something that's obviously a good step forward for them. But by no stretch of the imagination do they believe this is the last we've heard of it. And I think the governor right there made that very clear, T.J.
HOLMES: All right. Our Ed Henry at the White House -- Ed, don't go too far.
I want to bring someone else into this conversation as well. That's Tom Horne. He's the superintendent of Arizona schools, also a candidate for the attorney general, Republican candidate for attorney general out there in the state of Arizona.
We talked to the current attorney general just a short time ago, Mr. Horne. I guess as you know, he was applauding in a lot of ways what has happened today. What is your reaction initially to this temporary injunction?
TOM HORNE (R), ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE (via telephone): Well, I think the injunction is a mistake. I believe that Senate Bill 1070 was passed to support federal law, not to contradict federal law. If I'm elected attorney general, I will appeal the case to the 9th circuit and to the United States Supreme Court and would hope to win the case at the United States Supreme Court. As you may know, I just recently won the case of Horne versus Flores in the United States Supreme Court and I would hope to win this case, too. I think the judge was mistaken in her ruling.
HOLMES: Well, you call it a mistake there. But the judge here and a lot of legal analysts we've had on so far are talking about, you know what, this is the federal government's responsibility. Granted, they might not be doing their job well, but still, it is their job. You dispute that?
HORNE: No. I agree it's the federal government's job and I agree that they have not been doing their job. And because it's their job, any state law passed in contradiction of it would be illegal. I would agree.
But this law is not in contradiction of federal law. This law supports it. It requires local law enforcement to enforce federal law. And in that way, it acts as a force multiplier for the border guards because the federal border guards now, many of them are in the interior of Arizona, they're not on the border enforcing illegal immigration.
But with local law enforcement required to help, more the border guards could be on the border itself, which is where they should be. So, I think this law would act as a force multiplier for enforcing federal law and therefore, it's not in contradiction of federal law. It's in support of federal law.
HOLMES: Well, Mr. Horne, would you be, I guess, opposed to what we do have now, which is more time just to allow for a little more deliberations in court for something so important that will -- will have an effect on this entire country? Let's just deliberate a little more and maybe get up to the Supreme Court and let them have the final say on this, are you oppose to that?
HORNE: Well, for the judge to issue an injunction, she has to find probability of success on the merits by the plaintiff. I think that's a mistake because I think the law will not ultimately be thrown out. I think the law ultimately will be confirmed by the United States Supreme Court. And therefore, I don't think she had a basis to issue an injunction.
HOLMES: You think she just made a bad call or she was citing for any political leanings?
HORNE: No, no, no. I'm not challenging her as an individual. I just disagree with her ruling. I think that this is a law that is in support of federal law. It should be left to go into effect. I think it would show that a lot of people are having hysterical reactions that are unfounded. The law itself prohibits racial profiling.
If I were attorney general, I would spare no effort to ensure all law enforcement are well-educated as to their duty to -- I hope possibly -- avoid racial profiling which I consider to be a major evil. And -- but the law itself has many aspects which help -- have local law enforcement support federal law.
These cities expect people to respect their laws. They should respect federal laws. And so, when you have a sanctuary city, like (INAUDIBLE) in Arizona, that said they will not enforce the law, they're showing disrespect for federal law. It's good to have a state law requiring all cities to uniformly support federal law. That would enable the federal border guards to focus more on the border itself and that would help us stop the illegal immigration.
HOLMES: All right. Mr. Horne, again, Tom Horne, superintendent of Arizona schools, again, a candidate for -- Republican candidate for attorney general of the state of Arizona. Sir, we appreciate your time and hearing your perspective here as well -- as we have been getting a lot of perspectives today, including from our Ed Henry who's given us perspective from outside the White House.
And, Ed, I want to -- another question to you, I wanted to ask you just how -- remind us how much or how little the president has said along the way during this whole debate about Arizona. You talk about now them not wanting to bring the president out and have him step in it now while the legal debate possibly is still going to go forward. But remind us how much or how little he has been saying along the way.
HENRY: Well, you remember as a candidate, I believe he said that he would deal with immigration reform by the end of his first year. He got some criticism for not moving quicker. He obviously had a lot to deal with in the first year between the financial crisis -- health care reform is something he chose to spend a lot of time on.
But pretty early in this year, I think we've seen him jumped into the fray. He's had a lot to say about the proposed Arizona immigration law.
You'll remember in May, the president of Mexico was here in the Rose Garden with President Obama. And they both had strong words. President Obama is saying in particular he feared that it could potentially lead to discrimination. He was careful not to say it will, but that there's that potential, and talked about a possible legal challenge. That was back in May.
And you'll remember the same day that the president was saying that in the Rose Garden, the first lady was here in the local area in Maryland with the first lady of Mexico talking to some young students and there was a second-grader, I believe, who asked First Lady Michelle Obama about immigration reform, sort of an unscripted moment and basically said, "Look, my mom believes that President Obama wants to kick people out of the country" and was saying that her own mom was not legal, an unscripted moment for this White House.
So, it's come up a lot, T.J.
HOLMES: All right. Our Ed Henry at the White House for us -- Ed, it's always good to see you. Appreciate your perspective.
HENRY: Good to see you, T.J.
HOLMES: And appreciate that memory -- remembering so many of those moments that have happened along the way with the president on this immigration debate. To our Ed Henry -- we thank you.
Well, stay with us here. The idea behind Arizona's controversial immigration law, it is the focus of today's "Wordplay." Stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: We have still time for a little "Wordplay" today. And we're talking about the Arizona immigration law, S.B. 1070, also known as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.
In the first draft of that legislation, they list a purpose of the law, as promoting, quote, "attrition through enforcement," end quote. The idea is to make it harder for illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S.
We have heard from some undocumented immigrants in Arizona who say they're leaving on their own. An estimated 200,000 people self- deport every single year.
In 2008, the federal government tried a similar approach. It's called "Operation Scheduled Departure." It was an amnesty program allowing undocumented workers to leave before getting arrested or jailed. They could also take family members with them. It was rolled out for a few weeks in six cities, including in Phoenix. Eight people volunteered to leave.
Of course, now, parts of the Arizona law on hold. The judge, Susan Bolton, issued the temporary injunction against parts of it just a short time ago as you've been hearing here live for the past couple of hours. Now, some of those injunction parts include the section requiring people -- require police officers to check the citizenship and also the part that requires people to carry their identification papers.
Now, time for me to hand this thing over to the list, it's "RICK'S LIST" now.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Thanks a lot, T.J.
