Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Analysis and Discussion on Judge Ruling to Block Arizona Immigration Law; Officer Salgado Discusses Effect of Judge's Ruling on His Current Lawsuit
Aired July 28, 2010 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Here's what we're going to be doing for you.
This is it. This is the order. This is what this judge has decided today. And what I want to do as carefully as possible, take you through the parts of this that seem to affect this law and seem to reach this momentous decision. This judge has indeed enjoined the law, as she puts it.
And -- and that's important. But let me take you through, I think, what is most relevant here. As Americans, whether we're on one side of this argument or another, it's important to understand what the judge has decided and why the judge has made this decision.
Let me take you back to page 35. OK? This is where the judge says -- and she's talking now about another appeals court. "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that allowing a state to enforce a state law in violation of the supremacy clause is neither equitable, nor in the public interest."
What is the supremacy clause, you ask? Well, the supremacy clause is essentially that which states -- and we will talk to Jeff Toobin about this a little bit later -- that it's, in fact, the federal government that has the right to make decisions when it comes to things like immigration, and the things that are left to Congress and to the federal government are not to be done or handled by the states.
In other words, it's like they're out of their jurisdiction. That's what this judge has decided. That's what the Obama administration was asserting.
Here's another line. Let me take you to this one. "If Arizona were to enforce the portions of SB-1070 for which the course has found a likelihood of preemption, such enforcement would likely" -- here we go -- "burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy."
I want to take you through one more -- this is important. This is supremacy. Why has the court made this decision? Here we go. "Because the federal government's ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state's enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as the federal law."
In other words, the judge is saying, look, even if what you're doing is right, and I'm not saying it's wrong, even if what you're doing is good for the country and in agreement with what the federal government wants to do, even if you're both trying to do the same exact thing, it's their turf. It's not your turf.
Now, this is the most important part of all. And here we go. Ready? This in a nutshell is what the court has decided that the state cannot do. This is what's apparently enjoined in this law, 1070. OK? So, essentially, this judge is saying, here's what is preempted.
Ready? "Requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped," you can't do that. You can't require that an officer try and attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped. That's number one. OK? Number one. Here we go.
"Creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers," you can't do that. That's what they're saying. All right? Number three, you can't create a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work. You can't do that.
And, finally, number four, and this is gist. This is the argument. This is what we're going to be talking about during these next several hours here on CNN on this special coverage. You can't 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.
In other words, you can't arrest them without a warrant, which is essentially what 1070 said you can do if you have made a legal arrest already or stopped someone legally. Now let's go through the conversation itself, because there's a lot going back. We're going to be hearing during this newscast from the governor of Arizona. We're going to be hearing from the attorney general of Arizona. We're going to be hearing from the White House. We're going to be hearing from our correspondents. There's plenty of action going on right there in Arizona as we speak.
Jessica Yellin, a little while ago, had a chance to speak to Mr. Pearce -- he's the guy who wrote this thing -- to get his perspective on where he goes now. We just heard the governor a little while ago saying this is a bump in the road. And obviously, look, the state of Arizona and all the people who truly believe in this and disagree with the government for fighting them and disagree with this judge for enjoining the law are coming out now, saying, we're going to take this to the next court, we are going to challenge this, we will appeal this decision.
Who is saying that?
Well, again, Jessica Yellin talked to one of those folks just a little while ago.
Jessica, fill us in on what Mr. Pearce told you.
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: First, let me ask you, Rick, we have just gotten a statement from Governor Jan Brewer. I can read that to you. Have you guys already broadcast this statement or would you be hearing it now first?
SANCHEZ: We heard a little bit of what she had to say just a little while ago. But, listen, go ahead. It's a fluid story. So, if you have that, let's go ahead turn it around.
YELLIN: OK.
She's just put out our official printed statement. She says she is disappointed -- "I'm disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton's ruling enjoining several provisions of SB-1070, though I am heartened by some findings, including the ban on sanctuary cities."
Governor Brewer goes on: "This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect its citizens." She goes on to thank everyone for defending against the failures of the federal government. She says she's consulted with her legal counsel about the next steps.
"We will take a close look at every element of the law and will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She says, this crisis is as clear as is the federal government's -- quote -- "failure to address it." And then she goes into some details about some of the challenges of illegal immigration.
She says that, "This law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully." And she goes on saying, "I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary."
Rick, it's quite a long statement. I will send the entirety to you.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Their argument seems to be -- and this seems to be they're speaking in one voice, because I have heard thematically the same thing from some of the folks that you have been talking to today -- look, you can turn us down all you want, but all we're trying to do is do what you don't seem to be willing or able to do. So, we're going to keep fighting until we either, A, get to do it ourselves, or, B, get you, federal government, to do it.
That's where we are now that this judge has basically stopped this law from taking effect tomorrow.
Now, Jessica, stay with me. I think we have the governor's sound. Let's go ahead and play that. Then you and I will come back on the backside of NEVILLE: is and let's talk about Mr. Pearce as well. Hit that, if you could, Rog.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: 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. And, with that, we would just --
QUESTION: A victory or a defeat for the state of Arizona today?
BREWER: Well, obviously, it's a little bump in the road, I believe, and that, 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. This -- they haven't heard really the merits of the bill. This is just an injunction, a temporary injunction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Well, she says it's a bump in the road. But, in actuality, if you read -- and, boy, I'll tell you, our staff's been carefully reading through this thing. It really is maybe a little more akin to a dagger in the heart at the intent of what this law wanted to do.
It's striking down the very thing that this law proposed to do. So, might it be challenged? Absolutely. Should it be? That's for others to decide. Was Arizona trying to send a message to the federal government that the federal government better at some point understand? That's also a point that's in contention that we're going to be arguing about during this newscast.
But certainly it is a very significant ruling by this judge.
Now, Pearce is the lawmaker in Arizona who actually wrote this thing. You spoke to him. I'm really interested in knowing what he had to say, Jess.
YELLIN: Yes.
He said that if she even froze parts of this law, he hoped to appeal even this injunction, which is what we just found out from the statement Governor Jan Brewer plans to do, file an expedited appeal to overturn the injunction.
And he also said, Rick, that he wrote this law so that it would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said -- and this is a direct quote -- "I'm begging for that fistfight with the U.S. Supreme Court," because he says he will win in a 5-4 decision. And then I asked what's his message to the judge. And this is what he told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSSELL PEARCE (R), ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: This is one of the most outrageous battles that's ever occurred in modern history, the federal government suing the states over states' inherent authority to protect its citizens. So, I'm asking for her to stand behind Arizona, the rule of law and our ability to protect our citizens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
YELLIN: So, Rick, the fight goes on.
SANCHEZ: You know, that's interesting what you just -- I was interested in two things that you just said. A, you said that he was expecting to take this to the Supreme Court.
Had you interviewed him earlier -- had he said earlier that he expected that this thing would, in fact, be enjoined by this judge, that this judge would not allow them to do this tomorrow?
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: He expected this to happen? And, two, well, I will ask you the second question after you answer that one, I suppose. So, he had the expectation this thing would be turned down?
YELLIN: He -- we asked him, if parts of it would be enjoined, what would his reaction be? I interviewed him about a half-an-hour before the ruling came down, because most legal experts thought the judge would probably do exactly what she did, just based on her questioning. So, sort of the combined legal wisdom was that this would happen. And so, everyone was expecting it probably would and he was among those who thought it could.
So, this isn't a surprise to him. But he plans to proceed and fight.
SANCHEZ: So -- and he seems to be saying, interestingly enough, that he's convinced that Judge Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Scalia, the guys on the Supreme Court who are seen as conservatives, if not staunch conservatives in some cases, will, in fact, rule with him, despite what this -- if you read this order, this judge seems to be saying, I can't let this continue because, as this thing moves forward, judges will say, you can't do this, this is not the state's jurisdiction, this is the federal jurisdiction.
But he's saying, no, Jessica, when this gets to the Supreme Court, I guarantee you those five guys are going to agree with me.
YELLIN: He believes that the five guys, that five, at least five, maybe six people on the U.S. Supreme Court will agree that this is a states issue.
And he actually spelled it out more specifically, saying the federal government can't deny states the right to protect their own citizens and enforce laws and that this is a state vs. federal battle that he's quite confident the states will win in the end. He thinks he has the Supreme Court on his side. SANCHEZ: That's an interesting, interesting revelation in this, and something certainly worth picking up with our Supreme Court expert, Jeffrey Toobin, who's standing by. And I'm sure he's been listening to this conversation that you and I are having right now. What is a state's right vs. a federal right? And is Mr. Pearce right in asserting that when this thing goes to those justices, some of which I just named, they will say, oh, absolutely, no, the federal government, this is not your business. This is, in fact, the state's right to step in.
Interesting question. What does this say, though? What does this document say? Because that's a starting point, I imagine. And Jeff Toobin's been reading it for us. So, he's going to take us through some of this conversation to see where this thing goes forward. So much to talk about. So much to talk about on this historic day with this decision coming in, in Arizona.
I'm Rick Sanchez. This is obviously going to be a special edition of RICK'S LIST. We're going to get your comments in as well, thousands of tweets already coming in on the Twitter board. And we're going to be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Hey, Rick, it's Derek (ph) from Los Angeles.
What do you think would happen if we let all of those illegal immigrants become citizens? Well, our economy would go up and up and up like bonkers because they would be able to contribute to society in a way that they haven't been able to and they would boost the economy incredibly. I think it's a great idea.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: What are the actual numbers on that question just suggested by that gentleman from Los Angeles? We actually have them. We have been drilling down on this as well and we're going to take you through all the studies on both sides of what is said about what the contributions from immigrants might be or what they're not as well.
For those of you just now joining us, it's now 15 minutes after the hour. This is a very important decision that's been made by a judge in Arizona, a federal judge essentially telling Arizona that this new AZ-1070, that new law that they were going to pass that's been so controversial, will not go into effect tomorrow.
And specifically what will not go into effect are these four things. I will get through them as fast as I can, but they really are like a dagger that goes right into the heart of this law. Ready? They won't be able to require a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person that is stopped. That's almost the law in a nutshell right there, that a police officer cannot make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped. Well, that's what Arizona wanted to do. They also can't create a crime in Arizona for the failure to apply or to carry alien registration papers. You can't make that a crime. In Arizona, the judge also says creating crime for the unauthorized alien to solicit, apply or perform work, can't do that. You can't stop a person from trying to work.
And, finally, you can't authorize the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense. So you can't make warrantless arrests in these cases.
Jeffrey Toobin is our expert and I'm bringing him in now.
Jeffrey, in a nutshell, it sounds like from what I just read like what they're stripping away, what this judge is stripping away is the very heart of what Arizona wanted to do.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think that's right. This is the most controversial part of the law. This provision is why there's a boycott of Arizona. This is the provision that has gotten the civil rights community, especially the Latino community, especially upset.
So, this part of the law is now out. We will see how long it stays out. The legal process here has just begun. But it is out for the time being.
SANCHEZ: Well, let's talk about that which I just mentioned when I was in that conversation with Jessica just a little ago. And who better to ask than you.
Pearce just told our Jessica Yellin that he's convinced that when they challenge this thing and when they appeal this thing, even if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, that they will win 5-4. Now, that's a very specific number that he's using. And you don't usually have people using to numbers, but explain to viewers what it is that he's trying to say and what's your take, given the fact that you read this dicta as to whatever it is that's been set up by this judge already that they will have to deal with, right?
TOOBIN: Well, he could be right.
Certainly, this court splits 5-4, five conservatives against four liberals, on lots of different issues. And it is quite possible that it will split that way on this one as well. There's a little hiccup in there. What makes this issue somewhat more challenging to divide along traditional conservative/liberal grounds is that at least some of the conservatives on the current Supreme Court are strong believers in a powerful federal role, John Roberts, the chief justice, Sam Alito, the new associate justice.
These are conservatives who believe in a strong federal government. Now, William Rehnquist, the former chief justice, was a conservative who believed strongly in states' rights. So, it is not always possible to peg how justices will vote on an issue where the politics are not as clear as they might be. In an abortion case, in a gay rights case, you know the liberal and conservative positions. You don't have to have any complicated analysis. But, in this case, it's a little different.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: What you're talking about -- and I want to make sure our viewers understand it and that we don't get too far ahead of them -- what you're talking about is a principle that is called supremacy, which basically says, look, the federal does this and the states do that, and we don't want to mix them up too much, which is what this judge today seems to be asserting.
Can you explain that for our viewers?
TOOBIN: Well, Article 6 of the Constitution basically says that the federal law is the supreme law of the land, so that if there is ever a conflict between state law and federal law, federal law controls.
That's what Article 6 of the Constitution says. This is especially true in areas that relate to relationships with other countries. The classic definition of a federal role is the right to declare war. Arizona can't declare war on Mexico. North Dakota can't declare war on Canada.
Declaring war is something that is uniquely within the purview of the federal government. Now, immigration has traditionally been an area that is mostly under the control of the federal government, but there have always been laws where the state and federal government cooperate with regard to immigration. There are lots of people who are arrested in states by local police, by state police, who are ultimately turned over to the federal government because of immigration violations and deported. There's some coordination there.
What Arizona is saying is that this law is just an example of coordination. What the Obama administration says, no, it's not coordination. It's the state government trying to take away the power of the federal government, trying to impose on the federal government. And the judge agreed today that the -- Arizona couldn't do that.
SANCHEZ: Yes, as a matter of fact, I will take you to page 35.
You know more of this than I do, Jeff. But I will just read this. You tell me if this is what the judge is saying.
"Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted law. The court therefore finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced."
That seems to be what she's saying, right?
TOOBIN: That's exactly right, is that Arizona may have good intentions here. They may be trying -- as Governor Brewer has said many times, they may be trying to simply make up for where the United States government has failed.
But what Judge Bolton is saying is, this is not the way to do it. You simply cannot have the state walk in to an area that is reserved to the federal government and try to fix it. This has to be something that is dealt with at the federal level. That's what the judge is saying.
SANCHEZ: All right, that's where we are right now.
Obviously, as we move forward, we're going to get reaction from the streets of Phoenix and Tucson and all the places where this is affected. And also how about all the other states that were thinking of doing something similar to what is going on in Arizona? We're going to be getting reaction a well from some of the lawmakers there in Arizona and from our own Ed Henry, who's standing by in our nation's capital, getting more reaction from the White House and from members of Congress and the Senate.
All of this is going to be flowing in over the next hour, hour- and-a-half. And we're going to be on it for you right here during RICK'S LIST.
Let's get a quick break in. And we will be right back with more on this breaking news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: So for those of you who are now joining us, welcome. This is a special edition of RICK'S LIST.
We're getting everybody that we can possibly talk to, so they can share their reaction with you, including yours, by the way, on Twitter. But the decision is essentially this. A judge in Arizona, a federal judge, has all but struck down this law from going into effect tomorrow in Arizona. That's AZ-1070 as we have been referring to it.
She's gone right at the heart of the law itself, saying that the police officers can't stop people and try and figure out whether they're here in the country illegally or not, that you can't stop people from trying to get work in the state and so on and so forth. It really goes right to the heart of this law.
We're taking you through all the elements of it and we're getting reaction. In fact, there's reaction that is coming in right now. Look at the tweets that have been coming into our newscast in just the last little bit.
Here we go. "The fight is far from over. Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. Read my statement." That's Governor Brewer, who talked to some of our correspondents just a little while ago as well.
Now, this is interesting. This is Terry Goddard. You know who he is? Terry Goddard is the attorney general there in Arizona. He disagrees with the governor. He thinks she should have vetoed the bill. He says, "Brewer," his governor, "played politics with immigration and she lost."
Then, Representative Bill Shuster is tweeting us as well. He says: "Very disappointed by the Arizona immigration ruling. Yet another reason that Congress must act to secure our borders."
And I think we got one coming. Yes, there's David Vitter from Louisiana. David Vitter says: "Federal judge blocked key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. I will keep up efforts to protect rights to govern as a state."
Now, what's interesting about this is -- and this is part of the paradox that we're all dealing with here. Some of these lawmakers who now tweet and comment on how they believe that the United States needs to somehow pass comprehensive immigration reform, some of them, not all, but some of them who are now tweeting and asking for that are the same ones that when President George W. Bush tried to get comprehensive immigration through, they blocked it, for many different reasons, most of which, as we know, was amnesty.
So, the question now is, can those same representatives who are say we have got to get this done get over that hurdle? Can they get over that hurdle and finally get this done to do what Arizona says they want the federal government to do?
That's a very important question and one that we're going to be taking up as we continue this special edition of RICK'S LIST here on the showdown in Arizona. Ed Henry is going to be joining us after the break.
We will be seeing you on the other side. This RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Boy, there is so much to get to. And there's so much background, because oftentimes when we discuss this immigration story -- who was that famous general during Katrina who said we often get stuck on stupid on both sides?
There's so much nuance and there's so much information that needs to be gleaned as we look at this. For example, what do the American people say about immigrants in the United States? What do Americans really feel?
What do -- here's a Princeton study talking about how soon the people who come to this country assimilate, how soon they begin speaking English. Here's a study in "The New York Times" discussing exactly what it is that immigrants pay when it comes to their taxes.
Here's an interview with Carol Strayhorn, former comptroller of the state of Texas, explaining whether what immigrants give is more or less than what they themselves receive. This is all important information I'm going to be taking you through during these hours.
But I want to start with this. There's a new CNN poll just came out today addressing a couple of things. First of all, Americans are asked, what's your opinion of immigrants? Are they hard-working? And 85 percent say they are, 73 percent say they're good, honest people. On the question of whether they're a burden on taxpayers, 69 percent of Americans say, yes, they are.
This is interesting feedback, and why is this important? Here's why it's important. It's important because this administration -- and that's why we're teeing up Ed Henry here, because he's going to be talking about this -- this administration now has the onus on it, given what happened today in Arizona, to try and say, OK, we stopped you, Arizona, from doing what we think you wanted to do because that's our business, not yours.
Now it's up to the administration and the federal government to make it its business because the onus is going to be on them now more than ever to get some kind of comprehensive immigration reform law passed.
Ed, take it from there.
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, and you know what I can imagine top White House aides are going to say? They're going to immediately put the onus on Senate Republicans. They're going to say, look, the president has been on record for a long time going back to the 2008 campaign, but as recent as July 1st here in Washington, gave a major speech saying exactly what you just did, that unless you have comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, you're going to have other states following Arizona and just having this complete mess all around the country.
We've seen an individual city now even in Nebraska try to pass their own ordinances because of the vacuum, frankly, of the federal government. And the president has been pushing for comprehensive reform, but he can't get a single Republican on board. He's tried with Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, who has made some inclination that maybe he would go for a bipartisan deal, Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
But nobody has taken that plunge because they're under intense pressure from Republican leaders not to support this president on virtually anything, especially in a midterm election. Don't forget that part.
SANCHEZ: But let me stop you. To be fair, these same conservatives and these same Republicans, this is not an Obama thing. They didn't support President Bush. President Bush tried to get immigration reform passed through and they said "hell no" to him as well.
And the message was very strident and very clear -- any immigration reform that includes any kind of amnesty, that is to say, they said -- I'm not sure that the what the American people are saying, and in fact our polls finding things are different -- but they seem to be saying any kind of legislation that allows people who have been here illegally to stay in the United States, we're just going to oppose it. That's almost a showstopper, isn't it? HENRY: You're right. I remember covering the Bush White House right here in this building, and basically the president went to the border multiple times, gave speeches, had an Oval Office address saying we're going to secure the border but we need comprehensive reform.
And you're right, fellow Republicans weren't necessarily on board then. It didn't get done, and it's not getting done now.
And I just want to make the point though when you say the onus is on the White House. The White House is saying, we're out there, we're there. One thing they agree with Jan Brewer on is that the federal government has not done enough.
The question, though, is how do you fix that? And so far, if you have -- with Democrats not being able to get a 60-vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate on anything right now, you're not going to get it on comprehensive immigration reform, especially right before an election.
But look at the landscape. If Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate and even if they retain their majorities but lose seats, as people expect even in the Democratic Party, it's going to be that much harder for the president after the election to try to work this out.
So you're right, this puts the spotlight on the fact that there's been a real absence of leadership in Washington dating back multiple administrations, Democrats and Republicans. But neither side seems ready to really kind of work this out and figure it out.
SANCHEZ: But there's a possibility as well, though -- and I think this is important given the conversation that you had yesterday on the air and Jessica and I had yesterday. There is a possibility, and let me raise this, that this administration, as well as Republicans -- in fact, as well as people on both sides of the aisle that you talk to every day as part of your job, are underestimating the good faith of the American people.
Because I'm looking at a poll right now that asks average Americans, what do you think of immigrants? And they say, you know what, the immigrants in the United States right now are honest, good people, and they're very hardworking.
We asked a question yesterday in a poll and we asked Americans as well, what do you believe -- if the people who are illegal immigrants stayed in the United States, paid their tax, never committed crimes, and did all the things that they're asked to do, would you be OK with giving them a path to citizenship?
I think it was 91 percent of white non-Hispanics said yes, and somewhere in the 80s -- my numbers may be a little askew, but not too much, were saying, yes, they should be given a path to citizenship. That's a direct conflict with what we hear from the political establishment and all the talking heads in Washington.
HENRY: Totally. SANCHEZ: Is this something the White House could use that and run with?
HENRY: They could, but there's an important distinction in that poll, which is that, you just mentioned it yourself. The question was, how do you feel about immigrants, not how do you feel about illegal immigrants?
And I suspect that when you change the question to how do you feel about illegal immigrants, you'll hear the opposite of what you just said about feelings of hardworking, paying your taxes. There's a deep anger that we can't forget around the country, but certainly especially in states like Arizona that illegal immigrants are not playing by the rules, are here illegally, are not paying their taxes. If they get into a car accident, they may leave the scene -- we've heard the horror stories.
SANCHEZ: Yeah, right.
HENRY: I don't need to repeat all of them. But there's a distinction there between legal immigration and illegal immigration. And I remember dating back to the Bush administration the real focus from conservatives was -- and the reason why they didn't feel like President Bush deserved to get comprehensive reform is there was not enough focus on securing the borders.
You've got to do something about a path to citizenship. But there's a feeling among the people who are blocking comprehensive reform that you've got to secure the borders and make sure illegal immigrants are not here first. Then you can deal with the path to citizenship.
Nobody's been able to thread that needle so far. And I think that's important to make that distinction about immigrants and illegal immigrants, because people, many people in this country don't have the warm and fuzzy feelings about illegal immigrants.
SANCHEZ: No, no, I get it, I get it. The poll today, you're absolutely right. The poll says "immigrants." The poll we were referring to yesterday saying would you be OK with them saying if they did the following things was illegal immigrants. So that kind of makes it a little bit more interesting.
I'll tell you, this is a crucial conversation that this country, all of us who call ourselves Americans, are going to have to either tussle with and come to terms with. Obviously it has to be led by the folks in Washington.
God bless the folks in Arizona to try to get a handle on it. This judge saying, I know you're intent is good, but you can't do this. This is not your territory, this is the federal government's turf. And that's where we are right now.
It's 38 minutes after the hour. To those of you who are joining us here on "RICK'S LIST," a judge has decided in Arizona, a federal judge, that Arizona can't do what they wanted to do. Beginning tomorrow, we won't be having the initiation of state law 1070 as we had thought.
So where does this go to next? When we come back, we're hoping to talk to the attorney general of Arizona who's going to take us through what the next step is for his state and what his sense is of this decision by this judge as we continue talking about immigration in the United States, this countdown to a law that apparently won't happen now in the state of Arizona.
This is a special edition of "RICK'S LIST." And we are flying as we go, and stay with us, because as the news comes in, we'll share it with you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We wanted to check back now with an officer that has a very, very defined position on this immigration law in Arizona.
Once again, for those of you joining us, let's just play catch-up here. A federal judge has decided, in fact, to enjoin the Obama administration's defiance of this law and has ruled essentially on behalf of the Obama administration's challenge, saying that Arizona cannot do what it intended to do beginning tomorrow in stopping people and asking them whether they're in the United States legally, et cetera, et cetera.
That is the news of the day. Joining us now is Officer David Salgado. He's a 19-year veteran of the Phoenix Police Department.
Let me tell you why we're talking to him. He was on the record even before this judge's decision saying, you know what, I can't do what this law is asking me to do because I will be sued for racial profiling if I do this. That's just one of his contentions. He's good enough to join us to take us through this.
First of all, Officer, thank you so much for being with us. What is your reaction to this judge's historic decision to essentially block Arizona from doing what, as I read here, you didn't want to do in the first place?
OFFICER DAVID SALGADO, FILED LAWSUIT AGAINST BILL: Yes, Rick. First of all, I want to say I'm doing this -- I filed a lawsuit on behalf of my rights as a citizen, not for the police department. But when my attorneys and I, we found out the outcome of the judge's decision, that we were joyful. We were excited.
But at the same time, it brought peace and hope to Arizona and to the law enforcement community.
SANCHEZ: Could you take me through why you had decided that you were just not comfortable as a police officer enforcing this law if the judge would have ruled the other way and done what your governor would have mandated you to do, and that is to check the identification of everyone you stop after a, quote, "legal stop"?
SALGADO: Yes, well, I read the law. The first time I read the law after it was signed, I read it a couple of times. And I was just angered. I was disappointed. I was mad.
SANCHEZ: Why?
SALGADO: Because over 19 years ago that I took an oath to protect all people and to enforce all laws. And this law, after I read it, basically chooses to categorize certain people, in other words, to classify certain people as second-class human beings.
And to me, I got very upset. I contacted my attorneys, and they -- I explained to them the situation I was having. And so we filed the lawsuit. And to be honest with you, Rick, this law was made to profile. That's all it is. I'm not a politician. I'm not an activist. I'm a Phoenix police officer on the front lines.
SANCHEZ: Is that what your gut tells you or is that what you're able to surmise after looking at the law itself? Because, you know, many would ask, what's wrong with doing what you should do as a police officer? If someone comes to this country illegally, they have broken the law. Your job is to stop, detain, arrest or investigate people who break laws. If the person breaks the law, then it's your job to investigate, detain, or arrest them. What's wrong with that premise?
SALGADO: There's nothing wrong with that, Rick. But the way that the law was written, OK, I had to classify certain people as second-class people, as second-class citizens. But also, too, this is a federal immigration law that needs to be addressed by federal government.
And to be honest with you, Rick, when we received a one-hour video and a hand-sheet for us to enforce federal immigration, that opens us up for lawsuits. If we would have enforced it, then we have the attorneys who are against this law, we were going to get sued.
I don't care they say, well, if. No. We were going to get sued. My attorneys were ready to sue. And if I didn't enforce it, then I would probably get investigated by Internal Affairs and probably Arizona post would certify me, and then I'd get sued.
SANCHEZ: I understand that. What you're referring to is the supremacy clause. You're saying this is something the federal agents are supposed to do. I'm a cop, a police officer in a local jurisdiction, and I don't want to get involved in their turf. That's understood, and that's what the judge has ruled.
Let's go beyond that. You just mentioned that you were given a sheet of paper and a videotape you were supposed to watch. What was it about those instructions that made you uncomfortable? What specifically did it say that you were supposed to use, for example, for criteria for determining whether someone was in the United States illegally that made you uncomfortable? Can you share that with us?
SALGADO: Well, Rick, it's all common sense. I man, when you're handed down a sheet of paper saying, review this, and an hour-long video, if they really want us to enforce federal immigration, then 287-G, that's what it's for. And that's intensive training of 60 hours mandated by the federal government, and there's a test also that you have to pass with 70 or above.
And it says mandated by the -- it's supervised by the federal government. It's watched by the federal government. So if they really want to, just give us all 287-G certifications or send us to the classes. But for this, Rick, that this law --
SANCHEZ: I've heard other officers say -- that's interesting what you just said, because I've heard over officers tell me on this show that they felt like -- look, they're in favor of rounding up illegal immigrants but they didn't think this law was necessary. That's what they've told me.
They said we've already got enough laws in the books to round up illegal immigrants and work with the federal government to get them removed from Arizona. In fact there's thousands of illegal immigrants that have already been removed from Arizona.
Some of those officers have told me that they thought this law was politically motivated more than it was a law to actually make a difference in Arizona. Do you share that opinion?
SALGADO: Absolutely. You know what, and I thank god that somebody else said it, because this is a political move, but it involved me and my career. That's what I'm fighting, Rick, for my career. We didn't need this law. We were dealing with immigration a long time ago, even before the governor ever got elected.
As far as this immigration new law, we've been doing that. We've been calling ICE for the real criminals, not these immigration sweeps they do here. I'm not talking about these sweeps that someone does. But these are immigration sweeps.
SANCHEZ: Are you referring --
SALGADO: We don't need that --
SANCHEZ: Are you referring to Joe Arpaio by any chance?
SALGADO: No, I'm not saying about those. I'm talking about immigration sweeps. We know who we're talking about. So we'll leave it at that.
SANCHEZ: OK. I think you've intimated your point sufficiently well. Good, candid interview. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this. Thank you, Officer David Salgado for taking us through this difficult decision he had to make, essentially after 19 years on the force telling his supervisors and superiors that he wasn't comfortable doing what they were asking him to do.
As it turns out, for those of you just now joining us, he won't have to do it after all, because a judge has overturned Arizona law 1070.
This is a special edition of RICK'S LIST. Brooke Baldwin is coming up in just a little bit. We're going to take you through this national conversation. Send questions, send comments. We'll share what you have to say as well. We're going to be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right, Brooke Baldwin is joining us to talk about what's trending. There is so much on this story about immigration.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I know.
SANCHEZ: Look, this is the judge's order. We'll have that for you.
BALDWIN: You have a lot of homework.
SANCHEZ: This is an interview with Carol Strayhorn, former comptroller of the state of Texas and she addresses the issue of whether illegal aliens actually benefit us in some ways or don't.
This is a Princeton study that addresses whether they assimilate, learn to speak English fast enough. I think that's important as well.
And then there is the question of whether or not they pay taxes, which is another --
BALDWIN: We have polls and we can pontificate all we want.
SANCHEZ: We study this. I love discussing it. And I think it's a conversation Americans need to honestly take up without screaming and yelling at each other as we all too often do.
BALDWIN: Let's not scream and yell.
SANCHEZ: Me and you? Impossible.
BALDWIN: Never.
Let's get to some pictures, because as we read these papers let's also talk some pictures. I want to take you to Phoenix. These are the crowds outside of the federal courthouse when that ruling came down this morning.
Once the judge issued that partial injunction, there were a lot of cheers we're hearing from people who were against SB-1070. All the crowds we're hearing were peaceful protests, actually some people celebrating. There was even a prayer service happening outside of the courthouse this morning. We're keeping our eye on those pictures from the ground.
Meantime, the crowds, the news coverage, wall to wall, fiery debates, all in anticipation of this law and, of course, today's ruling. So it got us thinking at the editorial meeting, who is this judge?
So you probably haven't heard this name before -- Susan Bolton. She served -- she has been serving as a U.S. district court judge for nearly a decade. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate back in 2000. We did some reading. She has been described recently as a thorough, efficient, intelligent, and fair jurist according to the paper "Arizona Daily Star." She earned that reputation by the way during nearly a decade on the federal bench in Arizona, and before that she spent 11 years as a superior court judge in Maricopa County.
A law professor at Phoenix Law School says "She runs a tight ship in the courtroom," we like this, "She runs a tight ship in the courtroom, very detached, objective, good at applying the law." By the way, she is 58, born in Philadelphia, and she is white. And according to this paper they say she is a registered independent in Maricopa County.
Now, that said, get to know Susan Bolton. You'll be hearing more about her today. You're also continuing our national conversation, walk with me, because my Twitter board, as I'm sure yours has, has virtually exploded with people tweeting us.
And so we just, you know, as we're hearing from lawmakers and folks of that nature I just wanted to tell you what folks are saying. So just briefly, one tweet, "As a Mexican American born in Michigan I know I won't be taking my business to Arizona. Intolerance reminiscent of Nazi Germany."
One from David says "Obama is not going to do anything about immigration because he needs the Hispanic vote to get reelected." Farther down, follow me. "Does Arizona now have the right to sue the federal government for not doing its job?"
And one more. This guy says "I'm irked. I'm a liberal, but it makes no sense how a law being broken by millions and the government does nothing."
Those are just a couple tweets. I'll share more in the next hour. Obviously, the story is resonating with a lot of people.
SANCHEZ: You know, to be fair, there's one person, there's one Arizonan who actually sponsored and supported comprehensive immigration reform, and that's John McCain. He is an Arizonan who tried to get this thing settled, and it was in fact many people on his own party who fought him on this.
So as ironic as that may seem it is also an interesting part of this conversation.
BALDWIN: And I checked his Twitter page because I know he has been an integral figure. I have yet to see anything. We're watching.
SANCHEZ: Well, he is being challenged now by J.D. Hayworth who is completely opposite on the spectrum on this argument, who has according to most insiders and people who follow this, who has essentially pushed John McCain in a little different direction than he was on this before.
BALDWIN: Right. SANCHEZ: And I think I was just told by our producer that we booked J.D. Hayworth and he is going to join us to talk about this tomorrow at 4:00. Rick Sanchez, J.D. Hayworth.
BALDWIN: Nice.
SANCHEZ: That will be good TV.
BALDWIN: Thanks, Sanchez.
SANCHEZ: We'll be right back with more. Thanks, Brooke. We bring you every angle and every reaction to this momentous decision by this judge in Arizona. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
