Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Immigration Law Minus Key Parts; Immigration Fight: Next Round; Getting Fishermen Back to Work

Aired July 29, 2010 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's get going here. Live from Studio 7 at CNN world headquarters, the big stories for Thursday, July 29th.

Strong reactions from both sides in the battle over immigration as a weaker version of Arizona's controversial law takes effect. The state now moving its fight back to court. Find out what's in and what's out.

Plus, Gulf fishermen in a catch 22. Now that oil is dissipating faster than expected, there is a push for incentives to get them to back to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll go back to fish, but what are we going to do with what we catch if nobody wants to buy?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: And unemployment the new force behind foreclosure filings. Metro areas hit hardest.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Tony Harris.

Those stories and your comments right here, right now in the CNN NEWSROOM.

It is a legal fight over illegal immigration that may go all the way to the Supreme Court. Arizona vows to fight back after a judge puts the brakes on key parts of its new law.

We will tell you what's next in the legal fight. We will have the latest on what's happening today, including demonstrations and protests, and we'll examine what the ruling means for other states and the rest of the country.

We begin our coverage this hour with CNN's John Zarrella. He is in Phoenix.

And John, simply put, what is next for SB 1070?

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tony, here's the headline in "The Arizona Republic": "Judge Removes Part of Law." And you see the picture underneath there with folks celebrating that judge's decision, which really crystallizes the great division here and split in Arizona amongst the people in this state.

Now, what's next? Well, the governor of the state, Jan Brewer, said yesterday that this was just a bump in the road. Of course, it's going to be a long road ahead.

What's likely to happen next is that today, it is expected that the state of Arizona will file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. They will ask for an expedited appeal, get the three-judge panel there to look at the law as quickly as they can, but that could still take weeks, if not longer, perhaps months before the appeals court actually rules on the merits of the Arizona law.

Now, meanwhile, here in Phoenix, there have been protests today, and there have been a few small protests. Last night in Guadalupe there was a protest. People blocked one of the streets and police were called in. They ultimately dispersed peacefully.

Another rally left this morning from right behind us here at the state capitol, marching over to a local church. But they're really not so much protests as they have bee now celebrations of what they consider at least a temporary victory, although the opponents of the law still say they understand that there's a long way to go.

Now, what does this all mean for police? Well, here in Maricopa County, the sheriff here says that it doesn't change anything for him because what the judge struck down yesterday simply said that police can't be forced to ask somebody for their immigration status, but they can still ask for it if they want to. And he says his deputies will, in fact, go ahead and do that.

In fact, today, in about an hour, he's expected to begin one of his sweeps, his crime suppression sweeps that he's carried out here about 18 or 19 times, Tony, in the last three years. And if illegal immigrants are part of that roundup, he says they'll go to jail and then they'll be turned over to ICE -- Tony.

HARRIS: All right. John, good to see you.

John Zarrella for us in Phoenix, Arizona.

So now that Judge Bolton has temporarily blocked the most controversial parts of the Arizona immigration law, what's left?

Josh Levs has what's in and what's out of SB 1070 -- Josh.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tony.

I have been piecing through this decision. We're going to start with what's out, because this is big, and it helps tag on to what we were just hearing from John Zarrella there.

Let's take a look at this.

Now, the first bit thing that you're hearing about what's out is this: requiring officers to check immigration status. Now, Tony, you and I have talked about this before. The way the language was written already, it said that they needed to make a reasonable effort when practicable, when reasonable, when it wouldn't hurt an investigation. So there is already some wiggle room. But now this requirement on police to check immigration status if you've pulled someone over for another reason, that's it out.

Here's something else that's out. It is no longer in Arizona now, according to this change, a crime to apply for or carry documents.

Now, something you need to know about this. It's already federal law that immigrants are supposed to carry documents at all times. What this law was doing was establishing an Arizona law that was saying it would be a crime in Arizona for failure to do that. Under this change, it's no longer a crime in Arizona for failure to apply for or carry documents.

A couple more here.

They struck down the part that said it was a crime to solicit or perform work, so for an illegal immigrant to do that. That part is gone.

And here, also, the judge struck down what she called warrantless arrests. Now, the actual law doesn't say "warrantless," but the way she sees it -- she took a look at it. She said the way the law is written, there would are warrantless arrests if the police thought there was probable cause to arrest someone if they had reason to believe this person might have done something and should be deported. They could then arrest that person. That's been removed as well.

So, Tony, a few of the big things there that have been taken out.

HARRIS: OK. So, what's still in the bill? What is being enforced today?

LEVS: I'll tell you about this. One of them involves day laborers. I think we have some video here.

You know, this is one interesting part of what this law actually entails in the first place. What it said, when you take a look at the way this law is written, it said that it's illegal to stop and pick up day laborers if doing so will impede traffic. So that actually continues to be the case.

You can't do that change. That law is still there.

Also, there are still sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants and additional punishment surrounding human trafficking. That's one of the big concerns in Arizona, as we know, Tony, the drug wars that go on and human trafficking. A lot of concerns there. That still is there.

One more thing that's really interesting. The judge did not take out the part that says that residents are allowed to sue any state official or any state agency if they're not adequately enforcing federal law. And that's what Arizona's argument is. They say what we're doing is aimed at enforcing federal law when the federal government is not doing it. The feds say no way, what you are doing is creating your own laws.

HARRIS: OK. I think I may have mentioned this as being a bill. No, it's law. It's Arizona law that was challenged by the Obama administration and others.

And so there you have it, a sense of what's in and what's out, what's moving forward today in Arizona.

Josh, appreciate it. Good stuff. Thank you, sir.

LEVS: You got it. Thanks.

HARRIS: So round one in the Arizona immigration fight goes to the feds. So what's next in the legal showdown? Arizona's attorney general and CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, join me to talk about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Arizona's governor says the fight is just beginning over the state's controversial immigration law. We want to talk about what's ahead in the legal battle after a federal judge put key parts of the law on hold.

With us from Phoenix is Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who is also a Democratic candidate for governor. And in New York, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, good to see you.

Terry, good to see you as well. And Terry, let me start with you.

What is next for SB 1070?

TERRY GODDARD, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I don't think there's much question that Governor Brewer, whose running this legal action, is going to appeal. She sent a fund-raising letter yesterday -- or e-mail -- to the Republican Governors Association, a contributor list saying there was definitely going to be an appeal. So that's kind of an unusual way to certify a legal action, but I guess that means Arizona is going to the Ninth Circuit.

HARRIS: I know you were sworn a law enforcement officer of the state, but do you agree with this decision to move forward in this way?

GODDARD: Well, I think they have to exercise all their rights, and I'm not surprised at this decision, either at the district court or to take it all the way. You know, now, obviously, the venue changes, the pace slows down.

We've been in the middle of a very fervid and frantic set of debates about what was and was not constitutional. Judge Bolton's ruling, 36 pages of very careful analysis, I think helps us a lot in establishing the rules that we can go forward on in Arizona.

HARRIS: OK. Let me try it one more time. I know that you stood in opposition to the government's lawsuit against SB 1070. So, today, how do you feel about the decision to move forward with an appeal?

GODDARD: How do I feel about it? Legally, I think it's appropriate and necessary.

Do they have grounds? I'm not going to go there. I'm trying not to -- ever since the governor shoved me out of the case, I have tried not to second guess or push any criticism of the way they hand handled the case.

Let me say that I was opposed originally. I said that it should have been vetoed for this reason, and that the Justice Department perhaps could stay their hand because there were six other plaintiffs in the case. There is an awful lot of legal turmoil, I guess you could say.

And we in Arizona think that the federal government should focus its attention -- and I speak, I think, for almost everybody -- on immigration reform, on getting everybody on the same page, on having this problem of illegal immigrants behind us. And they also need to focus on crime on the border, and that's something I, as attorney General, am very concerned about. And I think we could be doing a lot more to prevent the cartels from bringing people and drugs into the United States.

HARRIS: Yes.

Jeffrey, I'm going to let the attorney general off the hook for just a little bit here, because we understand he's in a tricky position here. He is a Democratic candidate for governor of the state of Arizona. But I will ask you what your thoughts were on the decision from Judge Bolton yesterday.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it was certainly a legal victory for the Obama administration. The theory they came in with, which was not the theory that most critics of the law had, was that this was a violation of federal sovereignty, the federal government's right to control immigration.

What got so much attention about this law was the issue of racial profiling. Was this law discriminatory against Hispanic-Americans? The U.S. Justice Department didn't go there. They went the route that said this was a violation of federal responsibility for this, and they won.

So that is -- you always want to win when you file a lawsuit. The question is, will that amount (ph) politically to the benefit of the Obama administration? And I think that's a much more open question.

HARRIS: Yes. Terry, back to the hot seat for a second here.

Judge Bolton wrote in her decision, "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 their status is checked."

Is the judge, in your view, correct in that statement?

GODDARD: The judge assumed an awful lot of additional activity, a tremendous amount of additional activity because of 1070, and that's something we in law enforcement have been concerned about. The law was, let's say, vague or imprecise in the way that it commanded law enforcement.

There's a statement that says anyone who is arrested must have their immigration checked. The judge said very definitively in her opinion that that means that everybody who gets a traffic ticket is going to have to have their immigration checked.

That would have been a huge, huge obligation for everybody -- for local law enforcement, for our jails and incarceration facilities, and for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement folks. And she said that would be a huge burden. It would also bring in, as you've said, folks who are legal residents, and it may take a while to figure out exactly what their immigration status is.

The burden part she made very clear is a violation of the federal scheme. And I think that's what -- what we're looking at now is clarifying the rules.

There's a lot of argument among many players as to what was and was not constitutional. I think what Judge Bolton has done is laid down that marker and said this is where sovereignty for the federal government goes, and the states may not intrude upon it. Now it's the federal government's job to give us immigration reform, which they failed to do.

HARRIS: Jeffrey, was it just written was it overly broad?

TOOBIN: The law?

HARRIS: Yes.

TOOBIN: The law or the court decision?

HARRIS: The law. Was the law out of Arizona written -- was it just overly broad?

TOOBIN: Well, it certainly inspired a tremendous reaction the part of the Hispanic community, and certainly now the judge has struck it down.

One thing that I am curious, if I can just ask Terry Goddard this question, is what's the big change here? I mean, isn't it true -- I mean, we have heard this from sheriffs that we've interviewed here on CNN, that we check people's immigration status when they're arrested anyway.

So why is 1070 such a big change? And what didn't you like about this provision that says people's papers should be checked if they're stopped by the cops? What's wrong with that?

GODDARD: Is that a question to me? I'm sorry.

HARRIS: Yes, it is. It is.

TOOBIN: Yes. Yes.

GODDARD: Because Sheriff Arpaio has made it very clear that his procedures go on. Phoenix Police Department has made it clear that they've been doing this all along.

There's been a lot of human cry nationally about sanctuary cities, and this bill, part of what goes into effect, says Arizona can't have any sanctuary cities. We didn't have any anyway, but now it's clear that we won't have in the future.

I think the difference is pretty clear. Either what the police officers are doing now as a matter of discretion and department policy, 1070 would have made mandatory as a matter of state law. So the difference is, does the state tell you exactly what an officer does in an arrest and in an investigation, or is that dictated by the policies of the police officers?

Many of us feel that it didn't make a big difference.

HARRIS: And Terry, let me try this one on you. So, if the president impaneled a bipartisan congressional study group to develop comprehensive immigration reform, would you offer testimony to that study group on what that reform should look like? And give us an idea of what it should look like.

GODDARD: Oh, I'd be delighted. And that's something we're wrestling with a lot here on the ground with law enforcement.

What we need to do is to get everybody who's here -- and an awful lot of people, almost 11 million around the country, are working in the shadows. They're part of our economy, but they're not here legally. That's got to change.

And if 1070 says anything to the country, I hope it's that we in Arizona want to see this change and we want to see it now. Judge Bolton has said it's a federal responsibility. OK. Now Congress do your job.

I've read Senator Schumer's draft proposal and I think it makes sense. It basically is tough but fair.

It says, first, we'll have everybody register who is here illegally. Then we will determine whether they've got any crimes in their background. And if they do, they're going to be deported. They need to learn English. They need to be able to speak it.

The bottom line now is that they can now be legal workers in our economy. They'll have a clear identification.

Unfortunately, right now, if we arrest somebody who is here illegally, all we know for sure is who they are not because they have all these different pieces of identification. Let's make it clear. And if they want a path to citizenship, they need to go to the end of the line.

That's the kind of thing that's in the national discussion. It's not amnesty. It's a tough, fair way to make up for the fact the federal government has been missing in the immigration enforcement game for 20 years.

HARRIS: Jeffrey, another one for you here. How do other states considering immigration legislation position themselves on this issue in the aftermath of the Arizona injunction?

TOOBIN: Well, I think that has a lot more to do with politics than with law. I think people perceive that Governor Brewer, Attorney General Goddard's opponent, has gained politically by pushing this. Being tough on immigrants is seen as good politics, especially in Republican primaries.

So, I think tough anti-immigrant proposals are going to be -- there are going to be more of them, including in states very far away from the border because it's perceived as good politics. The fact that the judge ruled against this particular one, I don't think politicians worry themselves too much about that.

Until the Supreme Court steps in, which I expect eventually it will, and really defines the limits of the relationship between the state and federal government on this ground, I think politicians are going to say, look, this is good politics, we want to show how tough we are, we're going to keep pushing the envelope regardless of what one district court in Arizona says.

HARRIS: That is -- wow.

All right. Attorney General Terry Goddard, we appreciate your time.

Jeffrey, good to talk to you, as always.

Thank you. Thank you both.

GODDARD: Thank you.

HARRIS: The author of the Arizona immigration law says he is begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court that Jeffrey just mentioned. State Senator Russell Pearce joins us live next hour, along with Isabelle Garcia, co-chair of the Coalition for Human Rights. She opposes the immigration law. The seafood industry along the Gulf Coast decimated by the oil leak. Now BP is facing pressure to help fisherman get back to work, and it could cost the company big bucks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Life after the oil leak. On day 101 of the disaster in the Gulf, the man leading the federal response is looking ahead. Retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen is meeting today with local leaders in the New Orleans area to outline what to do after the well is permanently sealed.

BP plans to start its so-called static kill on the well as early as Sunday. Then, days later, the relief well may be ready for the bottom kill. Allen says he is optimistic those procedures will permanently seal the well.

With no oil leaking from the capped well for two weeks now, fishermen along the Gulf Coast are pushing for closed-off fishing zones to be reopened.

Here's CNN's Jim Acosta.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Because so many Louisiana fishermen grow up on the water, this is the only life they've ever known. The oil spill changed that.

Many of the state's 12,000 fishermen have gotten accustomed to being cleanup workers, drawing their checks from BP instead of from the sea. And just because federal officials say the oil is clearing up faster than expected, and the seafood appears to be safe so far, doesn't mean the fishermen believe it.

(on camera): Do you see contaminated seafood?

LARRY SPAHN, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: Well, we don't see the contaminated seafood, but there's a lot you don't see.

ACOSTA: You want to get them back to doing what they know how to do.

EWELL SMITH, LOUISIANA SEAFOOD PROMOTION AND MARKETING BOARD: What they know how to do and what they love to do. That's the key.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Ewell Smith, with the state board that promotes Louisiana seafood, says it's the fishermen who now need a lure. He wants BP to start paying the fishermen, a bonus, 30 cents on every dollar of seafood they catch to go back to the water.

SMITH: It's a common sense approach to putting the fishermen back to work, to help mitigate claims against them. We've approached BP twice. They told us no twice, but they told us no twice with a caveat to come back once the well is capped. ACOSTA: Now that BP is closing in on killing the Deepwater Horizon well, a spokesman told CNN, "The company is considering the idea. No final decision," the spokesman said, "but we are very supportive of programs of guys going back to fishing."

And there's good reason why. Jim Funk with the Louisiana Restaurant Association, says its industry could take a big hit if the fishermen stay on the sidelines.

ACOSTA (on camera): New Orleans restaurants are going to start running out of seafood?

JIM FUNK, LOUISIANA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION: Restaurants all over South Louisiana, and so we've got to get the commercial fishermen back in the -- in the waters, catching the -- the crabs and the shrimp and the finfish so we can put them back on our menus.

ACOSTA (voice-over): But that's no easy task. Not only will a skeptical public have to be convinced Louisiana seafood is safe, Louisiana fishermen like Larry Spahn will have to be convinced it's worth catching.

(on camera): What if BP were to pay to you go back to fish, give you an incentive?

SPAHN: We'll go back to fish, but what are we going to do with what we catch if nobody wants to buy?

ACOSTA: Louisiana and FDA officials say so far, none of the seafood they've tested has tested positive for oil or other contaminants. That, the FDA says, could lead to the Gulf of Mexico being largely reopened to commercial fishing within the week.

Jim Acosta, CNN, New Orleans.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Your child's education the focus today for President Obama. He has just wrapped up a major speech at the National Urban League's 100th anniversary convention in Washington. The president pushing his Race to the Top program. It is his signature plan to better prepare students for college and careers. The plan calls for higher teacher pay, but also asks for tangible results.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Excusable, it is economically indefensible, and all of us have to roll up our sleeves to change it.

(APPLAUSE) And that's why from day one of this administration we've made excellence in American education, excellence for all our students, a top priority.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: President Obama also discussed the Shirley Sherrod debacle. The president taking some of the blame for the firing of the Agriculture Department official based on a heavily edited speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Now, last week I had the chance to talk to Shirley Sherrod, an exemplary woman whose experiences mark both the challenges we have faced and the progress that we've made. She deserves better than what happened last week --

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: -- When a bogus controversy based on selective and deceiving excerpts of a speech led to her forced resignation. Now, many are to blame for the reaction and overreaction that followed these comments, including my own administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: We will be spending a lot of time discussing race on this program.

Earlier this week, I spoke with CNN contributor Donna Brazile. You can watch that interview on our blog page at CNN.com/Tony. And if you would, leave us a comment. What issues do you think should be a part of an overall discussion about race in America?

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: You know, I'm thinking of that great Martha and the Vandellas song, "Heat Wave."

(WEATHER REPORT)

HARRIS: Arizona's police training video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Race must not ever enter into an officer's decision to make a stop, detention, or arrest of an individual.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Well, that's pretty clear, right? Officers armed with tapes, manuals, and lectures aimed at preventing racial profiling. Is all that training still necessary? We will take a look.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Racial profiling. It is just one concern with Arizona's immigration law, specifically the provision requiring officers to check a person's status if they have suspicions about them while enforcing other laws. Well that provision put on hold by Judge Bolton's ruling yesterday.

CNN's Soledad O'Brien reports on how the state set out to prevent profiling.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Arizona thought it found a way to address the criticism of its new immigration law. How do you catch people suspected of being in the United States illegally without engaging in profiling?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Race or ethnicity is not (INAUDIBLE) of criminality.

O'BRIEN: The solution for Arizona? Deputies have been watching a 90-minute training tape, reading a manual, and hearing from supervisors about how the law should work. The take-away, deputies can't stop someone for driving while Mexican. They need suspicion of a crime.

SGT. BOB KRYGIER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA SHERIFF DEPARTMENT: I think the perception is that we're going to be knocking around on doors, saying, I need to see your papers and hauling you off to border patrol and deporting people. That's not the way it is. If we don't have a reason to talk to you, questions aren't going to be asked.

O'BRIEN: But yesterday afternoon, a federal judge threw that training strategy into doubt by suspending the key provision of the law, the section that allows local police to question people they've legally stopped about immigration status at all. Critics fear that local police, regardless of training, could use any suspicious action to question immigration status.

THOMAS SAENZ, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFNSE FUND: They're basically being required to enforce a law that labels a crime something that is not an action. If you're engaged in jaywalking, that's an action. If you're engaged in running a stop sign, that's an action. Being undocumented is not an action. It's a status.

O'BRIEN: Federal agents, border patrol, customs, but not local deputies or police already question people about status, usually when they catch them illegally crossing the border or while investigating a workplace.

The Arizona training manual suggested local deputies could go even further. The judge yesterday said let's leave those powers with the federal government.

(on camera): Some of the things listed unreasonable suspicion are not speaking English well, depending on how somebody dresses, maybe riding in a crowded vehicle. The list sort of goes on and on.

SGT. GILBERT DOMINGUEZ, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: It's a long list. Not each of those things stands alone, though. It's going to have to be the totality of the circumstances.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): Sergeant Gilbert Dominguez, whose great- grandparents came from Mexico, says he will continue to aggressively patrol the border using whatever laws exist.

(on camera): Does it ever seem weird to you're talking to people about their papers as someone who is Mexican-American?

DOMINGUEZ: No. The thing that I've always thought of is that I'm fortunate enough that they came to this country when the border was a line in the sand. It doesn't mean you're better, it doesn't mean anything else other than you were just more fortunate.

We're dealing with illegal immigration all the time.

O'BRIEN: We joined him on patrol to see how immigration enforcement works in Pima County, which shares a border with Mexico. Policing illegal immigrants is already business as usual compared to communities further away from the border. Sergeant Dominguez says they've always illegal immigrants over to the Feds.

Dominguez pulls over a car he believes is driving erratically.

DOMINGUEZ: Do you have your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance, please?

O'BRIEN: The alleged bad driving empowers him to ask for I.D. that determines immigration status. In Arizona, that's a driver's license.

(on camera): So if those guys in the car had turned out to not have documents?

DOMINGUEZ: If they had not documents, you'd take effort to identify them.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): For In America, Soledad O'Brien, Pima County, Arizona.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS: Well the judge's ruling has not stopped opponents of the Arizona law from protesting. In New York this hour, activists are marching across the Brooklyn Bridge in a show of solidarity. The march ends with a rally in Manhattan.

CNN's Adriana Hauser is there and she joins us live.

And good to see you.

Who is marching here? On what side of this issue? ADRIANA HAUSER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tony, we're here and as you can see, there's hundreds of protesters behind me. They just made their way across the Brooklyn Bridge into Folly Square, which is where we are. This is where the rally ends and this is where we're expecting a press conference.

These people are mostly pro-immigrant groups, they're also workers' rights groups, and they're actually here to protest against Arizona, the end of the whole 1070 Arizona legislation. The parts that were temporarily blocked, apparently it's not enough. They say that there's still a lot to fight in terms of other programs like 287-G or secure communities which are basically a cooperation between local police and jails and ICE. And they're asking for that to end.

Organizers expected around 1,000 people. So far we estimate about 450, but this has just begun here and numbers could be more.

Here with us is Manisha Vaze, from Families for Freedom.

Manisha, thank you for being with us.

MANISHA VAZE, FAMILIES FOR FREEDOM: Thank you.

HAUSER: Tell us why are you here today? You're a U.S. citizen. Your family is from India. But this is it not an issue just of illegal immigrants, is it?

VAZE: No, it's not, actually. Many, many green card holders are also getting swept up in enforcement programs that are sponsored by the federal government, including secure communities, the (INAUDIBLE) program, and also state provisions like SB-1070 in Arizona.

HAUSER: Does yesterday's injunction, does that bring some relief? Or is there still a lot to be done?

VAZE: Actually, we remain vigilant. The injunction that happened yesterday is only partial and it's temporary. People need to keep that in mind. And also the enforcement programs that are continuing to racially profile immigrants around the country, as well as people of color in general, continue to exist, both in New York, as well as Arizona. And these include, like I was telling you before, secure communities and the criminal alien program.

About a month ago, New York Governor Patterson signed an agreement with immigration that secure communities would become in effect in New York State. And that's another program that basically racially profiles.

HAUSER: So you're concerned, basically, that these laws and these programs are expanding to other parts of the country.

Thank you, Manisha, from Freedom for Families.

So, like I was saying, this is where the rally ends. It started around 9:30 on the Brooklyn side. And we're expecting a press conference in which demonstrators will express their concerns -- Tony. HARRIS: OK. Adriana Hauser, for us. Adriana, good to see you, thank you.

Still to come, when we come back from the other side of the break here, a development in the Shirley Sherrod story. You won't want to miss that. That's next, right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: You know, it's been 101 days since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion. And the families of those workers killed are still trying to cope.

Josh Levs is here with a remembrance, Josh.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Tony, I had a head's up about this the other day. These families have been spending a good amount of time with our folks at CNN.com. And our folks put together a video that shows you how these families are struggling, how they're coping, what they're doing now.

Here now a piece of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERRI REVETTE, WIFE OF DEWEY REVETTE: I'm the wife of Dewey Revette. We have two daughters. It was his choice to go the drilling route but we all stood by him. He was definitely my life.

Everything revolved around him and the girls. It was never dull. We were always doing something. He's not an indoor person. He's never watched a movie in his entire life. For my anniversary I wanted to go get the new diamond ring but we kind of side tracked and went to Bass Pro Shop.

ARLEEN WEISE, MOTHER OF ADAM WEISE: When that phone rang, it's the middle of the night or early morning, you know it's not good.

SHELLEY ANDERSON, JASON ANDERSON'S WIFE: My friend Terry (ph) called me and told me that it was Jason's rig and when I got off the phone with her, I was making some phone calls. I tried to call the rig, and, of course, just got a busy signal.

REVETTE: I knew right from the get-go. If the explosion happened where they said it was, then there was no chance that he would make it.

WEISE: I got the call from Transocean that he was one of the 11 missing. So - we already knew that, figured it out.

ANDERSON: All of the other wives were going to pick up their husbands but I wasn't allowed to go pick up my husband, so I knew there was something very, very wrong with that. I just waited.

REVETTE: He said, they've not all been accounted for, and so then I gave up. I said, well, that was it. If they're not accounted for now, then I know that my first good instinct was the real one.

I cussed, hollered, screamed, threw a fit. The sand bar was pretty clean by the time I left. I threw everything in the water, but I tell you what, I felt 98 percent better by the time I got back home.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's too young. He does go around looking for his daddy, and if we have been in a place before, he'll sometimes go from room to room, hollering, Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEVS: There's a lot more you can see at CNN.com. Credit where it's due, that's from our producers there Wayne Drash (ph) and Aaron Brody.

I know, Tony, a lot of people see this and think how can I help? We want to reach out. We have a whole second for you at CNN.com/impact that lets you know how you can help these families and also all of the families that are directly impacted by the tragedy, that as you said, has now been going on for more than 100 days -- Tony.

HARRIS: All right, Josh. Thank you, sir.

Ethics charges against legendary lawmaker Charlie Rangel coming to light soon. A live report from Capitol Hill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And this just in. Ousted U.S. Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod has just announced she will pursue a lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart. He posted a clip of a speech Sherrod delivered in March, before the NAACP. The tape was edited to make it appear that had not helped a white farmer who sought her aid 24 years ago. That online post resulted in Sherrod's firing. A firestorm that followed.

Here's Sherrod speaking to a National Association of Black Journalists just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER USDA OFFICIAL: He had to know that he was targeting me. Now whether he was also trying to target the NAACP, he had to know that he was targeting me. And at this point, he hasn't apologized, I don't want it at this point. And he'll definitely hear from me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And just to follow up on that, there have been reports that you are considering a lawsuit. Have you decided whether you're going to pursue that action?

SHERROD: I will definitely do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: All right. There you have it. Shirley Sherrod announcing just moments ago that she will pursue a lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.

It's coming down to the wire now for longtime New York Congressman Charlie Rangel. The House Ethics Committee is about to unveil a list of charges against him and it may set a date for a corruption trial.

CNN Congressional correspondent Brianna Keiler is on Capitol Hill with this story.

And Brianna, any chance of a last-minute deal to avoid this hearing process?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I tell you, Tony, Democratic leaders would love nothing more than for there to be a last-minute deal so that they can avoid this public spectacle of an ethics scandal. Very tough on Democrats in a tough election year. But the sources I've been talking - Democratic sources - Tony, acknowledge, this thing is scheduled for a little over an hour away. It looks like it's going to go forward.

I want to give you a peek inside of the room here where the Ethics Committee is going to be holding the hearing. To the right it looks a bit like a normal hearing room. You're going to be having members of the Ethics Committee sitting in those seats. They will serve throughout the process, which could go into a trial, perhaps starting in September, and possibly lasting weeks. They will serve essentially as jurors, Tony.

If you look at this brown desk to the left here, where we see folks getting ready for the pool shot here, this is going to be where you will have one Democrat and one Republican from the Ethics Committee or really from the committee that did the investigation. And they will be detailing what the investigation found, these alleged violations that they believe happened, Tony.

And we ran into Charlie Rangel, our cameras did this morning as he arrived on the Capitol. A very different tone from what we've heard some of the last week where he's been very optimistic about kind of clearing the air.

Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: 60 years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea. And as a result, I wrote a book that having survived that, that I hadn't had a bad day since. Today, I have to reassess that statement. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, Tony, Rangel actually does not have to be here during this proceeding. But the indications that he's given to us, reporters, throughout the last several days, is that he will be here indeed. The question is, is he going to say something? And there is an accommodation that the Ethics Committee can make for that. But we don't know if that's going to happen, Tony.

HARRIS: Brianna, what did he allegedly do wrong?

KEILAR: We know a lot of these things because news organizations uncover them. We know that he didn't pay taxes on $70,000 on earnings on a rental villa in the Dominican Republic. We know that he had rent-controlled or allegedly had rent-controlled multiple apartments in his Harlem apartment building, including one that he was allegedly using for political purposes. We know that he didn't disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his congressional disclosure form. And also, that he used congressional letterhead to solicit donations for a project in his district, a project at the city college that actually bore his name, Tony.

The question is, are we going to see things beyond what we already know? Are there going to be any surprises? And as one Democratic source that I spoke to, a leadership source said, God help us if there's anything new in these allegations.

HARRIS: Wow. OK, so Brianna, my understanding is these proceedings are pretty rare.

How long has it been since we saw something like this?

KEILAR: It's been about eight years. It was 2002, the last time we saw one of these hearings. It's called an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing, which in English I like to think as sort of a big deal. It is a big deal because it doesn't happen very often. But it was Jim Traficant, an Ohio Democrat. Before that it was the late '90s, Newt Gingrich. These things don't happen very often.

With Traficant, he was ultimately expelled, he was kicked out of the House of Representatives. And what Charles Rangel ultimately will be facing if this continues on to a trial that lasts on for weeks and weeks; he could be facing really just a small reprimand, maybe a letter of reprimand. But it could go all the way to that, yes, ultimately, an expulsion from the House of Representatives, which would be the worst punishment.

HARRIS: All right. Brianna Keilar on Capitol Hill. Appreciate it. Good to see you. Thank you.

Let's take a break. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: His company was supposedly making body armor to keep U.S. soldiers safe in Iraq and Afghanistan. You will meet and hear from the feds, who say one former CEO was spending your money. We will tell you all about it in the next hour of CNN NEWSROOM.

Plus, are immigrants taking American jobs? Our Gary Tuchman goes into the field to show us what it's like to be a migrant worker. Picking grapes in a hot desert field. Is that a job Americans want?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)