Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Arizona Immigration Showdown; Interview With Congressman Darrell Issa; Split Over Afghan War
Aired July 28, 2010 - 15:58 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: All right. I want to bring in another guest now.
This is Juan Hernandez joining us from Guanajuato, Mexico. He was born in Texas, interestingly enough. His father is from Mexico. He is a Republican. You have seen him on the air many times, as a matter of fact, familiar beard, of course.
He worked for Senator John McCain's presidential campaign, also served in Mexican President Vicente Fox's Cabinet.
I would take it from your grin that you are pleased with this decision by this judge to essentially strike down the major parts of this law that was going to go into effect tomorrow?
JUAN HERNANDEZ, AUTHOR, "NEW AMERICAN PIONEERS": Well, this is an historic day with a major/minor victory.
On the one hand, it is great that this judge has struck down some of the provisions that were truly very controversial and many would think even discriminatory. I mean, imagine that we become kind of like the Soviet Union, when a group of people -- or Cuba, where a group of people have to carry a card everywhere they go. If not, they get thrown in jail.
On the other hand, it's just a minor victory. As many of your guests have said and many of those e-mails that you have been reading state, the United States wants the federal government to act. The president, himself, and Congress has really been irresponsible. We can go back to George W. Bush, but also Obama.
Obama promised us Latinos (AUDIO GAP) call him the first Latino president -- but he promised that in the first year he would pass immigration reform. And the clock is still ticking.
SANCHEZ: I have had several conversations with former President of Mexico Vicente Fox. And he has told me that he really was -- and I'm sure he's told you the same thing -- you worked for him -- that he was really under the impression there would be a real earnest attempt by the Bush administration and as well as the Obama administration to get things done.
Give us a perspective from south of the border. How -- I know Americans are angry. I know Arizonans are angry. I know that they're frustrated. Are Mexicans just are -- people in the Mexican government just as frustrated and as angry?
HERNANDEZ: Well, I think there is a lot of confusion, a lot of, yes, frustration.
The thing is, if you look back to 2001 -- you mentioned George W. Bush and Vicente Fox -- a week before September 11 of 2001, those two presidents were working on a binational agreement, and Mexico would be responsible in creating jobs for its people, in watching at the borders, and the United States would have to create a comprehensive reform, but both countries would work on this deal.
After the next week -- and I was honored to have been up there, but the next week we had the bombing of New York, and, of course, everything was erased, and now we have had all these years of border security, of -- of even being fearful of anyone who looks like a foreigner, whatever that means in the United States of America.
SANCHEZ: My thanks to you, Juan Hernandez, joining us via Skype from Guanajuato, Mexico.
He was born in Texas. His father is from Mexico, worked with Vicente Fox.
By the way, you worked for John McCain. I should ask you this question. I think, as a journalist, it would behoove me to do this. Are you taken aback at all by the fact that the very man who sponsored the comprehensive immigration law or legislation in the United States has now, seemingly for political reasons and for the challenge that he is getting from J.D. Hayworth there in Arizona, somewhat backed off of this? Are you disappointed?
HERNANDEZ: Well, let me put it this way. I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. We have organized even an organization called Conservatives for CIR. And it's based very, very much on what John McCain believed in that McCain/Kennedy bill.
After August the 24th, I expect him, once he wins the Senate again, that he will come back and take the leadership that is rightfully his, and that he will go down in history as the man who fought for new Americans and who gained a victory for the United States with new Americans.
SANCHEZ: But wait a minute. Aren't you a little uncomfortable with the fact that he is --
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: -- he is one John McCain now, as you assert, while he's running for office, but will become a different John McCain if and after he wins?
HERNANDEZ: John McCain embraced me, allowed me to participate with him in seeking his presidency, and speaking the way I'm speaking today with regard to immigrants.
SANCHEZ: OK. HERNANDEZ: We have 11 million good people in this nation. John McCain knows it. Yes, he is fighting a tough fight, but I believe in the man, and I believe that he will help us to dignify these 11 million wonderful people in this nation.
SANCHEZ: All right. And we appreciate your perspective and certainly your loyalty. My thanks to you for joining us and bringing us up to date on the perspective there on this momentous decision being made by this judge.
I want to welcome everybody now. As we get into hour two, we try and pick up the pace of everything that we're following for you. As you probably know this is story number one. Arizona's controversial immigration law or at least key parts of it has been struck down by a federal judge. She is blocking all the major parts from going into effect tomorrow.
Let me take you through that, as a matter of fact. I have so many papers here in front of me, but I want to take you through the judge's order, because this is key. And as we begin this hour, I know many of you are just now tuning in and you're trying to figure it out, what it is that is going on. And we in the news business have a tendency to move to the reaction before many of you get the story.
So, let me bring you the story. This is what the judge has decided. OK? The judge has said that Arizona cannot do these things right her, all right, these one, two, three, four things. Now, these four things that I'm about to read to you are as crucial to this bill as any part of this bill.
So, let me read them to you, and you will get -- you will get a full understanding of what this judge has ruled for yourself. The judge has decided that the state of Arizona cannot require that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a stopped person.
Again, judge says, sorry, Arizona, you can't require that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a stopped person. The judge goes on to say that Arizona cannot create a crime for failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers. That can't be a crime, can't be a crime to not have papers on you.
A judge also -- again, that was at the very heart of the Arizona law. The judge is also saying that Arizona cannot create a crime for unauthorized alien to look for, solicit, apply for, or perform work. That's what the judge says. And that judge also says that Arizona cannot authorize the warrantless arrest of a person where the probable cause is to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes a person removable from the United States. The key word there is warrantless.
You want to stop someone, you got to have a warrant. And now just one final thing as we move forward. And, sorry, but I got to put the papers down. Why is the judge saying those things? She is not saying those things because she is taking them apart on a case-by-case basis and deciding that that is her opinion. It's because she believes that the federal government has something called supremacy.
That means she is saying, Arizona, you can't do that, because that's the general -- that's federal government's, that's Congress' jurisdiction. She quotes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals here.
She says: "It 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."
And as I explain this all to you as best as I possibly can as a layman and as a journalist, I want to bring in a real expert now, our own Jeffrey Toobin, who has been following this case from the very beginning, and has given us some insight now as to what this judge has ruled and where it goes from here.
Jeff, you have the floor.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's a victory for the Obama administration, certainly legally. We can debate whether it's a political victory, but it is certainly a legal victory.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
TOOBIN: This is the argument that the Justice Department pressed. It's different from the argument that the civil rights group pressed. The civil rights groups said, this is a violation of the equal rights of Hispanics. The Justice -- the Justice Department didn't go into that direction.
They said, this is a -- Arizona infringing on an area that belongs to the federal government. The federal government has exclusive ability to regulate immigration. This is a violation of the federal government's province in that area. That's why the -- Judge Bolton struck down those provisions, didn't strike down the whole law, just the very important provisions that you outlined just a minute ago.
SANCHEZ: You know what's interesting about this? And I heard an interview with the governor, Jan Brewer, just a little while ago, and she seemed to say that this was really just a bump in the road, but if you really read the order, it really is a little more than a bump in the road, isn't it? This thing goes right to the heart of what Arizona wanted to do.
TOOBIN: Well, I don't know exactly what Jan Brewer meant. I think what she might have meant is that this decision is just going to get overturned down the road. In that case, it really would be a bump in the road.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
TOOBIN: Certainly, if this stands as the law of the land, it's a major rejection of what the -- Governor Brewer and her allies tried to do in Arizona.
SANCHEZ: That is a good point. TOOBIN: Certainly, the heart of the case -- the heart of the law has been cut out. But, you know, the Ninth Circuit is a very unpredictable court. There are a lot of liberal judges in that -- in that circuit, but there are also several very conservative judges.
And I think -- and, again, we won't know for several months, but I think this is a case that really cries out for the United States Supreme Court to get involved. So, I think it's going to be several months until the Supreme Court gives us an answer, and that will really be the final answer, because --
SANCHEZ: That's an interesting point.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: -- there.
SANCHEZ: I want -- well, I want to get into this with you a little bit. I want you first of all to teach us what the process is. In other words, where -- where does this go from here? Who was this judge? What -- and where is she on the hierarchy? Where does it go after that? And how does it eventually get to the Supreme Court?
I am going to ask you that in just a moment.
But, since we just mentioned Jan Brewer, let's go ahead and hear what she said in her own words, rather than you and I talking about what she said, just to be fair. Here it is.
(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: I guess, first of all, your reaction to what the governor said. And then explain to us -- the governor says, we're not exactly sure where we're going to go.
Tell us, Jeff, where you believe this will go. TOOBIN: Well, the Arizona authorities really have two legal options at this point. The governor is right. This is what's called a preliminary injunction.
What the Arizona lawyers could do, is they could say, OK, this is your preliminary view. We want to have a full trial now on how this law works, whether it's fair, constitutional, or not, and then have you rule again. That's one option that Arizona has.
The other option they have is simply to appeal the injunction to the next highest court. There are three levels of federal courts. There are federal district courts, the trial judges, like Judge Bolton in Arizona. There are the 12 circuit court of appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers most of the Western United States, including Arizona.
And then there is the Supreme Court of the United States. The next step in the process would be to appeal this ruling to a three- judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. Now, they could do that in what's called an expedited or an emergency way.
They could say, look, this law was supposed to go into effect tomorrow. We need an emergency ruling putting it back in. I think they might actually get an emergency ruling. I don't know what the ruling would be, but I could see the Ninth Circuit saying, you know, you are entitled to speedy treatment here.
So, I think the legal process could move pretty quickly. You know, the legal process isn't famous for moving very quickly, but, in circumstances like this, you know, we -- we could learn a lot more in the next, say, week or so.
SANCHEZ: And, right now -- and I heard you mention, so I will just ask you this before I let you go -- your intimation seemed to be that this Ninth Circuit tends to be a little more to the left, a little more liberal, while the Supreme Court, as we all know, right now stands to be a little more conservative, right? Did I get that right?
TOOBIN: I -- you do, although I would like to sort of put a footnote on there.
(LAUGHTER)
TOOBIN: Certainly, the Supreme Court tends to be more conservative.
The Ninth Circuit, the way it works, there are about 25 judges on the Ninth Circuit. You get randomly selected three judges. Chances are you will get a more liberal group, because there are more liberal judges in the Ninth Circuit. But there are some very conservative judges in the Ninth Circuit, so you might draw three conservatives. Yes, it tends to be more liberal, but it's not always more liberal.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
And you --
TOOBIN: So, that's --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: And things always -- things don't always turn out the way we think, right?
Jeff Toobin --
TOOBIN: That's true.
SANCHEZ: -- fantastic, perfect. Thank you for that explanation, for taking us through this, as we all have more and more questions.
Americans, of course, divided on the issue of immigration, but as more information becomes available to us, at least it appears that there may be some direction for the Obama administration if they go forth with what the instructions that the state of Arizona seems to be giving them, which is, OK, we can't do it. What are you guys going to do?
And it's that question we take up on the back end. When we come back from the break, Jessica Yellin is going to be joining us on the political end of this story.
Stay right there. We will be right back with this special edition of RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: OK. We have heard from the governor. We have shared the perspective of some of the people there in Arizona.
But to be -- to be honest and totally transparent with you right here, I'm -- I'm a little frustrated right now as a newsman. And what I'm frustrated about is that I haven't heard from anybody on the right of this issue, conservatives or Republicans, who are with Arizona 100 percent, and challenged the Obama administration, and want to see this law enacted, and are disappointed with what this judge has ruled.
So, we're sharing tweets with you because they're tweeting, and I can -- I can do that. Here, let's do that.
Darrell Issa, for example: "Federal government is not doing its job on immigration. Do you stand with Arizona? I do."
So, there we go. Darrell Issa, he stands with Arizona.
"Once again, the federal government has overstepped its power and intruded on states' rights." So, there is Joe Wilson, famous for telling the president of the United States, "You lie."
OK. Well, here is what I would say. Congressman Wilson, Darrell Issa, Congressman Issa, either one of you, or anyone out there, because, for some reason, we haven't had a chance to book some of these folks, please call CNN and get on the air with me right now. I would love to hear what you have to say about this law, because I want to make sure that we have a balanced way of looking at this, and I just don't feel like we have had enough people on that side of the argument stating their perspective.
That's what you're tweeting me. You're saying, you know, I want to hear from the other guys. And you're right. So, we will keep showing you the quotes. We will keep showing you the tweets. We will run their sound, but to actually do an interview with one of these folks is what I, frankly, would -- I think would be more fair and the thing that I would love to do most, so -- so that we can get all perspectives heard, because, like I have said, this is a very important discussion for this country.
Joining -- joining us now is Jessica Yellin, who I'm sure agrees with that perspective. And she is out in Arizona and she has had a hand -- a chance to talk to a lot of people.
So, let me ask you. What -- the people who really believed in this law, the people who didn't want the judge to decide what this judge has decided, what are they saying?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Deeply frustrated, Rick.
You know, there are a bunch of people who have milled up around here and talked to us. The whole reason supporters of this law got behind it is because they thought the federal government wasn't doing its job to begin with. And now that frustration has intensified, because they feel the federal government has once again intervened to prevent the state from doing the job that they feel must be done.
I spoke earlier this morning, in fact, to Senator Russell Pearce, who as we have discussed, is the state senator who wrote this law. And I spoke to him just before the ruling came down, but we did suspect that the judge would enjoin parts of it. And I asked, if it's enjoined, what will you do next? Do you plan to fight on? I would love to play for you what he told me at that time. If that's -- if that's good with you, Rick, let's play that.
SANCHEZ: Let's do it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSSELL PEARCE (R), ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: This will be before the Supreme Court. I wrote it to go to the Supreme Court. I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court.
YELLIN: Why?
PEARCE: We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem. The myths, the lies, the misinformation that everybody would have you believe this is a federal problem.
(CROSSTALK)
PEARCE: It's never been just a federal problem.
YELLIN: And you would like to see this in every state?
PEARCE: Absolutely. It's the law of the land. They don't need to pass their 1070. I would like to see every state enforce the law. It is attrition by enforcement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: It's interesting, Jessica, that he says --
YELLIN: So, Rick, clearly -- yes. Go ahead.
SANCHEZ: You know, no, it's that -- it's that darned satellite delay. I don't know whether I'm supposed to speak or you're supposed to be speak or we both sit here and stare at each other.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But I know you're -- you're listening now. Go ahead and finish your point.
I'm interested, though, in that he seems to be very confident that this thing will go to the Supreme Court and that he will be able to win it. And then he goes on to say, not just win it, but he's going to win it 5-4. He knows the score.
(LAUGHTER)
YELLIN: He's counting heads already, yes.
(LAUGHTER)
YELLIN: And he also would like -- he wants it to go to the Supreme Court so that other states can follow Arizona.
Already, five states are pretty far along writing a similar law on their books, maybe could be at a stage of passing it in the -- the next session. Another nine states are very interested in also developing it. So, if this is upheld, we could see it repeated across the country, Rick.
SANCHEZ: But you know what's interesting about this? I know -- I know you and I know you can be like a Chatty Cathy, so I guarantee you -- I can tell our viewers that you have been out there in Arizona talking to everybody who would answer your questions on this.
So, let me ask you what you have learned from the people of Arizona, because every time we have these discussions, we hear about, well, it's illegal immigrants and what part of illegal don't you understand? And then we hear the issue of amnesty.
YELLIN: Right. SANCHEZ: And then we hear people on the other side saying they should be allowed to be here whenever they want and our borders should be open. So, there is a lot of the -- this vitriolic language that's used in this discussion.
But we also know that, at the heart of the problem, it is not just the people. We have a business sector that literally has gone to Mexico and recruited people and encouraged them to come here. We have a federal government and some state governments that will literally issue tax I.D. numbers, so that illegal immigrants can work in the United States anonymously.
So, the problem is more than just the illegal immigrants. When we -- when you talk to people there in Arizona, do they reflect that perspective as well, the broader parts of this problem?
YELLIN: Definitely. Definitely.
And, you know, they're very realistic. Folks I have talked to here, Rick, first are angry with the federal government.
Then the next step, they say, we have got to be realistic. These -- there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, 11 million, 12 million. They're not going to just all flee. We have to find a pathway for them to either get work visas or stay here and get in the back of the line, pay a fine, and become citizens, or find a better system.
And then they say, but, first, we have to secure the borders.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
YELLIN: So, it -- you know, there is this tension. They want -- they want more law enforcement presence. They want to feel like there are penalties for breaking the law, but then also to reform the system.
I get a lot of tweets when you and have talked about this from angry people saying, there is already a way to become a citizen. Don't people know there is?
The bottom line is, folks in Arizona know it's not working. Something needs to be fixed. They want to start with stepping up border security and the new law in Arizona.
SANCHEZ: And then come up with a way to maybe deal with some of the secondary and tertiary issues. That -- that --
YELLIN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: You're right. You're right. And it's interesting to hear that perspective.
Jessica Yellin following things there for us, she has been on the road for several days now.
My thanks to you, Jessica. Look forward to seeing you.
I understand John -- John King is with you too, right? Is John doing his show from Arizona tonight?
YELLIN: Yes. He is doing his show from Arizona. He interviewed Sheriff Arpaio. He has got a lot of good stuff coming up tonight -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: Tell him to behave himself. We will be seeing him in just a little bit.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: See if we can get him on camera. In fact, let's try and get John on camera as soon as we come back from the break.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Here we go.
The Arizona law which was going to take effect tomorrow will not take effect, because a federal judge has enjoined -- in other words, agreed with this -- filed this injunction to stop the major parts of this law from taking place.
So, essentially, the Arizona law, with all the teeth and the bite that it was going to have, will not take place, and there are some people in Arizona that are not happy about this, and there are some people who are. So, obviously, two sides to every story, and there are also two sides in Washington.
Lawmakers have been tweeting about this. They have been sending their responses via Twitter. We have been monitoring it, as we do every day -- every day on this show, on RICK'S LIST. Let me take you through some of those, if we possibly can. This is both from the left and from the right. We start on the left.
Representative Becerra, California, says: "We are a nation of laws. Our courts of justice have acted to uphold that principle and protect our rights."
But now here is Lamar Smith: "Today's ruling against Arizona one more failure by the administration to deal with immigration and border security." That is Lamar Smith on the right.
Here is another one from the right. This is Phil Gingrey. Phil Gingrey says: "Disappointed in this ruling today. Our immigration laws need to be strengthened, not weakened."
And here we have got Roy Blunt. Roy Blunt is saying: "Arizona has constitutional right to enforce law. States who pick up federal government's slack shouldn't be subject to legal inquisition. Hope for appeal." Jared Polis says: "Arizona law overturned. Immigration is federal responsibility. No more excuses. Immigration -- people demand Congress pass immigration reform now."
OK. So, once again, here's an invitation. Let me be as transparent and as clear as I possibly can. While we very much appreciate your tweets here on RICK'S LIST, and we thank you for sharing those perspectives with us, if any of the congressmen or senators who really believe that Arizona has been wronged here would be kind enough to pick up the phone and call us here and get on the air, I would love the opportunity to have that conversation with you.
It's an invitation, because we have been calling a lot of folks, and I know their schedules are very busy and maybe they just can't come on. But, if you can, I encourage you. In fact, please, get on the air, so we can have this very important national conversation.
John King joins me in just a moment. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Hey, Rick. This is Tom from Venice, Florida.
Listen, my biggest question is, they keep saying, let the illegals stay who are working and paying taxes. How can an illegal pay taxes if you are not a U.S. citizen with a legal Social Security number?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That's an interesting question, by the way.
So, before I go to John King or Ed Henry, who I think I'm going to now, let me answer that question.
How do illegals pay taxes? Because we always hear the question that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. There's three ways of collecting taxes in the United States. There's a sales tax. There's a property tax. And, of course, there's income taxes. Unless illegal immigrants are going into stores and stealing everything, they're paying sales taxes, just like everybody else in the United States. Unless they live in a cave, they're paying property taxes, because the person who rents them the home is deducting it from their rent, or, if they own a home, they're paying it every time that they pay their mortgage.
As far as income taxes are concerned, the federal government actually has something for illegal immigrants, as sad as it may sound and as disappointing as it is to many people. It's called a tax I.D. number, and they actually are able to deduct wages from those illegal immigrants, including Social Security. And they deduct it through that tax I.D. number as a number, but not as a name or a person, so that illegal immigrant would then be paying into Social Security out of his payroll even though he himself will never be able to deduct that for Social Security.
It is estimated, according to a "New York Times" report, that illegal immigrants in the United States subsidize the rest of us by as much as $7 billion in Social Security. All of this discussed at length, by the way, in my upcoming book, "Conventional Idiocy: A New Politics for America."
John King is standing by now. So is Ed Henry. They're two of the guys that follow politics for us all the time. They're joining us.
I'll tell you, what a day to be following this story.
John King, I start with you, because you're right in the middle of it. You're right in the thick of it, as they say. You are there in Arizona.
John, I asked this question of Jessica a little while ago. What are you hearing from the folks who said, you know, dagnabbit, we as a state should have the right to do this, especially considering that the federal government just hasn't stepped in and done what it should have done?
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Rick, you're hitting the nail on the head, as usual, in the sense that many people here do support this law, even though they say they don't think it's going to do much to improve border security, because that's not what this new law would have done. But they do think, they say, the federal government has failed.
Now, the Obama administration says no, it's much better now along the border than in was in the Bush days. But the perception here is because of some very high-profile crimes -- the overall crime rate is down along the border, but because of some high-profile and heinous crimes, people feel under siege here.
Some of it also, Rick, and you know this very well, is the high unemployment rate. The politics of resentment is easier to feed in a difficult attitude of economic anxiety.
Sol, there is a sense here from those who support the law that, let's hope they win at the next level in the court. There is no question the Obama administration wins legally today. But politically, Rick, this is not going to end this debate.
I was with Sheriff Joe Arpaio earlier. He says he'll be out tomorrow on one of his raids. And he thinks he lost a minor tool that the new law would have given him, but otherwise he says he's going to be business as usual.
So, this debate will continue to play out politically and on the policy front, and now of course it will go up through the courts.
SANCHEZ: Yes. It's interesting that you mentioned Joe Arpaio. The Maricopa sheriff and I have had several conversations about this in the past, as he has with a lot of people. But what's interesting is -- let's be real honest about this. Joe Arpaio has been, in many ways, doing what this law wanted to do for quite a while.
He'll tell you that. I'm sure he did --
KING: Right.
SANCHEZ: -- if you talked to him a little while ago.
KING: Exactly.
SANCHEZ: Does this attention, this law that Arizona tried to pass, one wonders in fact if it actually -- in fact, we're seeing a little bit of Joe Arpaio here. I'm going to run a little bit of that in just a little bit.
But my question to you, John, is this -- does this law -- or does he fear that this actually puts more of the spotlight on him, more of the heat on him? Because we know he has been at odds with the Justice Department, for example. Will we be hearing about more problems between him and Justice now?
KING: Well, no question that, number one, the Justice Department is investigating him. He wears it as a badge of honor in this state, Rick. It is quite controversial, and he has as many critics, as you know.
Number two, when he goes out on this sweep tomorrow, I asked him that. "Because of this injunction, might somebody now challenge your tactics saying this federal judge has said you can't do this, at least in the short term?" And he fully expects there may be more court challenges.
But you were just making the point about taxes. So many illegal immigrants do pay into the tax system. That's one of Joe Arpaio's big arguments.
He does these workplace sweeps, and some of the employers don't like it. Obviously the workers don't like it. But his point is there's laws on the books. If somebody has a fake Social Security number, some other fake I.D. that allowed them to get a job, they're breaking the law, then he's the sheriff, it's his job to enforce it. If they don't like it, take the law off the books.
SANCHEZ: Right.
KING: That is his big argument.
He'll be out tomorrow, and there is no doubt he is always controversial. There's no doubt now someone will say you're running afoul of this new decision, and that may be something else that ends up in the courts.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting. You know, he's right. It's hard to disagree when he sticks to the issue of what the law says.
I'm a law man. There is a law there. I see somebody breaking the law. I'm going to do what I'm paid to do. I mean, it's hard when you get down at that level to disagree with what the sheriff of Maricopa County is saying.
All right. "JOHN KING USA," tonight, 7:00. Today, "USA" is represented in Phoenix, because that's where John is going to be bringing the show from as he travels throughout the county -- bringing his show.
Thanks so much, John. Appreciate it.
Do we have time to go to Ed, or can we hold Ed -- do we do Ed after the break? You want to do Ed?
Hey, Ed, can you hold on just a moment?
ED HENRY, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Sure thing. Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: It wouldn't break your heart if we have to wait just two minutes? Oh, and guess what?
HENRY: No. That's OK, Rick.
SANCHEZ: A little while ago I went on the air and I said, look, one of these guys who is tweeting us, "Would you be good enough to call us? Because I want to ask you questions. I appreciate your tweets."
Well, Darrell Issa from the state of California, who is a frequent viewer of RICK'S LIST, has just called and said, "Sanchez, I'll go on the air with you."
So aside from Sanchez and Henry, it'll be Sanchez and Issa as well, right here on CNN.
Stay where you are. This important day where a judge has seemingly -- well, decided against most of what Arizona wanted to do tomorrow, is continuing our special coverage. And we'll have a lot more coming your way in just a little bit.
This is RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. We want people who we said -- I said on the air, let's get some people here who may have a different opinion than some of the other guests that we've talked to so far. So now we have an embarrassment of riches. We have Darrell Issa, who's going to be joining us. We've got Dan Stein from FAIR, who just got a hold of us, and he's going to join us as well.
So, as they say back in Hialeah, this thing is going to get good.
First, Ed Henry. He's standing by to bring us up to date on what the president is going to be doing about this and what he is hearing as he checks on the White House. Ed, just bring us up to date on what the administration's role is in all of this.
HENRY: Absolutely, Rick.
What really is going on here at the White House is they are trying to defer this to the Justice Department, which actually launched the legal challenge. But they are fully aware that this is a political issue as well, not just a legal one.
And so the president was briefed on it, I'm told by a senior administration official, on his way to New Jersey where he -- you know, he was giving remarks on the economy. He is now in New York taping an episode of "The View" for tomorrow, and he's going to be doing some fund-raising tonight ahead of the midterm elections.
But he was briefed by his counsel, the chief lawyer here, Bob Bauer. I'm told by senior officials that they believe this is at least an early victory for the administration, as you noted, but they are being very careful behind the scenes to say that the lawyers are going through this with a fine-tooth comb, this 36-page ruling, because as you've seen from the governor, it is very likely there is going to be an appeal by the state of Arizona. And the last thing they want to do here is start popping champagne corks and suggest that this thing is over.
They basically feel they've won round one, but there's going to be a lot more rounds down the road. And I'm told that there was a meeting here, for example, at the White House yesterday where they were sort of game-planning all of this, and they were quite concerned that if the judge did not block these key provisions, that on Thursday, if the law took effect, there was going to be some real chaos in Arizona. And they were concerned that that was going to be yet another distraction for this White House.
The president keeps trying to put the focus on jobs, the economy, heading into the midterm elections. He has had the oil spill and he's had the Shirley Sherrod story. Now this big immigration story as well.
They fully know in the White House behind me, inside the West Wing there, that this is a major distraction that they've got to deal with. It's out there. There is no way to avoid it. But it's taking them off message once again.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
Thanks so much.
Ed Henry bringing us up to date on the White House's role, what their perspective is, and where they move forward.
Darrell Issa is good enough to join us now from California, the good congressman.
Did you hear what I said on TV about you? Is that the reason you called us?
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: No, I'm afraid I didn't. Somebody else might have. I've been busy voting no. We're not the party of "no," but that's usually how we end up voting on a lot of this spending here in Washington.
SANCHEZ: Well, listen, nonetheless, I always appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation with you.
Now, I saw your tweet a little while ago. And you basically seem to be saying -- in fact, I'll read it here.
Let's show it, Robert.
Here's what Darrell Issa just tweeted a little while ago. He tweets a lot this guy. "Federal government is not doing its job on immigration. Do you stand with Arizona? I do."
OK, you're right. Now, let's start the conversation there.
So, the federal government isn't doing its job on immigration, so Arizona tries to do its job on immigration. It gets slapped down today by a federal court judge. So, now it goes back to the Obama administration, and you say and most Americans say, come on, federal government, come up with some kind of comprehensive immigration reform so we can get this damn thing fixed once and for all in this country.
So, they will try to do that. But as soon as there's an inkling in that comprehensive legislation that any people who are in the United States illegally might have an opportunity to stay, a "path to citizenship," as it's often been called, then Dan Stein at FAIR and a lot of people on right-wing talk radio shows will scream amnesty, everything will fall apart, and just like it happened under a Republican administration, this thing won't happen again.
Are you concerned about that?
ISSA: Rick, I'm concerned about one thing and one thing only. And that is that the path from illegal to legal, if people insist that they're only here for jobs, they weren't trying to circumvent our immigration laws, they weren't trying to come here to be citizens while others waited in line for decades to get that opportunity, if that's the case, the pathway from illegal to legal is the opportunity for a guest worker program, not an opportunity to be a citizen.
So, amnesty is an issue only because if as many Republicans and almost all Democrats say, well, we want them to go to the end of the line. Rick, the end of the line doesn't actually get you in this country in our lifetime. The end of the line for most of the five million people that come here is they don't get here.
So, if you go from being illegal to being a guest worker, you're already getting a tremendous benefit. And Republicans are willing to convert real workers to guest workers without dealing with their past indiscretions as long as it was only being in this country out of status. What we're not willing to do is put them ahead of countless, not millions, but billions of people who want to come here and cannot come here if they play by the rules. They simply never come to the top of the list.
SANCHEZ: Well, just let me ask you this before I bring Dan Stein into this, because this is a really important conversation, and I'm so glad we're having it. And Every American should be listening to this.
Is that guest worker suggestion that you make something that that person -- because, look, let's face it, there are people who have been in this country 20, 30 years. Their kids have gone to school, played football, don't speak Spanish. They've paid all their taxes. They have done everything. They've never broken a crime.
Does that person who you now say should be at least allowed to be a guest work in this country eventually have the right to turn that guest worker process into a legal resident process? Would you agree with that or would you still say, no, absolutely not, that would be amnesty?
ISSA: I would set the term as follows: Everyone who comes here on a legal guest worker program, such people as H1B, people who come here as highly skilled labor, they are not prohibited from making other application for residency that's permanent. I would not discriminate against four or five million guest workers and prohibit them from applying for other immigration statuses.
I think that's only fair. They should be able to apply for the lottery, they should be able to apply for family unification, whatever it is. But they should not go ahead of anyone else.
If that pathway to citizenship is, start playing by the rules that have existed for everyone else, and if you happen to get to the front of the line through those other processes, great, there won't be a single Republican objecting to that, because Republicans have stood and supported one million people coming through the front door every year for the whole 10 years that I've been in Congress, and that includes John Shadegg and others from Arizona.
So I think people sometimes represent Republicans as not supporting immigration. I haven't heard a peep about a million legal workers a year from my colleagues in the 10 years I've been here.
SANCHEZ: But what we're talking about are the 12 million or so who are already here who, in many cases, have been -- or let me put it this way -- you could argue have, in many ways, benefited the system, have paid their taxes, have assimilated, do have children, have learned to speak English, haven't broken any other crime except the fact what was long a misdemeanor, and that is entering the country illegally.
What do you do about them?
ISSA: Rick, you've made the most wonderful (INAUDIBLE). If those conditions all agree, why wouldn't they be able to apply and be considered? Remember, you said they didn't break any other laws.
SANCHEZ: Right.
ISSA: You just said they speak English. You just said they have been working and paying taxes.
Now let's go the other way. They don't speak English. They don't have tangible skills. They can't prove they worked and paid taxes. In fact, they were working in a cash economy.
SANCHEZ: OK.
ISSA: And they've got three convictions for misdemeanors and/or Class 3 felonies. What do we do with those people?
SANCHEZ: Kick their asses out.
ISSA: Exactly. The rule of law first starts with saying, OK, we have a certain amount of guest workers we need. Let's have a legitimate, decent way for those people to come through the front door. And if putting the people who already are desirable to their employers, and their employers say I'll employ this person who I know about, or perhaps for the reason they've already worked for me, great, no problem.
We can have a program of one, two, three million. We can have a program where a family that's already here and being supported can continue to stay with that guest worker, and we can have them able to apply for other programs. And over time, many -- maybe not all, but many of them would get the opportunity if they wanted to become permanent residents and citizens.
SANCHEZ: OK.
ISSA: There is no problem with it. But all those exceptions of "if they're already this, this, and this," you just said it perfectly. If they're not those things, then they should be behind those who are willing to meet all those requirements.
And that's what comprehensive guest workers should be about and what immigration reform should be about, is how do we get the best people into the system and eliminate the back door that has allowed, to be honest, many of those people to be abused, including some of them dying in the Arizona and California desert?
SANCHEZ: No, you're right.
ISSA: We have got to end that part of the system. That's where Republicans and Democrats will come together.
Like I say, we move past the amnesty argument pretty quickly when we say, look, we don't have a problem with people having an opportunity to apply for immigration processes that are created. But, you know, if I'm here and a guest worker, and let's say I'm a legitimate guest worker already, I should be ahead for the application for that of the guy that comes in tomorrow that was an illegal and wants to become a legal.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
ISSA: And so, you know, all of the legal immigrants -- and your audience, you've got a countless amount of people who are legally here but not eligible for citizenship -- they certainly want to remain ahead of all those other people, and that's part of the process of rule of law. We can take this from broken to fixed. We can use Arizona as a wakeup call that we've got to fix the problem. And if President Obama will come part of the way, I guarantee you people like myself will come the rest of the way.
SANCHEZ: Wow. I'll tell you, you're making news right here on RICK'S LIST.
Darrell Issa fired up and really, look, breaking ground here. I mean, we're talking about getting over this hurdle that nobody in this country in the last -- at least the last decade has been able to overcome, getting over that hurdle that usually starts with the word "amnesty."
My thanks to you, Sir, for joining us and taking us through what appears, I think, to most Americans listening to you, like, you know, a reasonable approach.
Dan Stein is joining us now from FAIR. And you know Dan. He was probably listening in on that conversation as well.
So you have the floor, Dan. You just heard what Congressman Issa said. It sounds like he's creating a little bit of wiggle room for finding a way to screen or decide these folks are worth keeping and making some kind of way for them to stay in the country. Those guys over there, not so much.
Do you agree we can come up with some kind of process like that, whatever the barriers are?
DAN STEIN, FAIR: Hey, look, I love Darrell. He's a great guy. Genius, as far as I know. I couldn't hear what he said though, Rick.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: He couldn't hear.
STEIN: But let me tell you, if he said something that I don't agree with, then I want you to know that we don't agree with him.
SANCHEZ: All right. Let me try and explain as best I can to you.
STEIN: Listen, you know, I think the basic problem, Rick, is that, you know, you're hung up on this amnesty concept. You think the amnesty issue is what's preventing progress at the federal level.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
STEIN: That is not the case. I mean, clearly, ,everybody on our side opposes amnesty. The issue here is -- SANCHEZ: So -- hold on. You just said everybody on our side opposes amnesty. Let me just be clear about what you just said.
Are you saying when you say that to the American people, everybody on our side opposes any legislation that would allow someone presently living in the United States, who is not legal, to in any way have a path to citizenship so that he can acquire residency?
STEIN: Well, if the person can acquire it through lawful means like marriage to a U.S. citizen or what have you, but if they've fallen out of status, willfully disregarded U.S. immigration law, I wouldn't have given Obama's aunt asylum, for example. Look, laws are laws. Laws matter.
It is impossible for somebody to live here illegally, violating immigration law, and not violate a lot of other laws as well -- tax laws, withholding laws involving fraudulent documents, misrepresentation. Lots of felonies.
SANCHEZ: No, you're wrong. You're absolutely wrong, because --
STEIN: It's not possible --
SANCHEZ: You're wrong, Dan. You're wrong. The government has bent over backwards to make sure that they can stay here and still collect their taxes, even though the government knows they're illegal. That's what the hell the tax I.D. is all about.
STEIN: But I have never seen somebody residing in this country illegally for any length of time who didn't commit a series of other misdemeanors and felonies associated with fraud or misrepresentation in the procurement of benefits, jobs, or what have you. It's not possible. You can't do it.
We had people walking around with drivers' licenses who were here illegally. People have to misrepresent. Look, you have to violate other laws beside immigration laws to live here any length of time.
You have got this paradigm about amnesty. Here's the problem. The American people no longer believe the federal government has the ability -- the ability to control and regulate immigration in this country.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
STEIN: We have lost control of the process.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
STEIN: The judge, Judge Bolton, in saying that Arizona cannot assist in the process, outrageous decision, by the way. It's just an injunction, so it's not a final decision. But basically it completely counters 200 years of constitutional authority.
She herself admits in the decision that the state can actually assist in various ways, so she essentially adopted the idea that the federal government has the right to decide if it's not going to enforce immigration law affecting millions of people who break our laws. Now, try to imagine the FDA saying to the American people, well, you know, we don't have the resources to check these drugs, so we're going to let them go out to market, or the EPA saying, well, we don't have the resources to do --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: No, no. I get it. I get it. You're right.
STEIN: There is no other area of law in this country. We are going to a constitutional and political crisis. It's an affront to our participatory democratic system. It's a political disaster for the Obama administration. And I'm telling you, this debate is going to get hotter and hotter.
SANCHEZ: But you -- again, you're right, and she is basically saying the supremacy clause goes into effect here and you can't let a state make a decision that essentially is the jurisdiction of the federal government, and that will get argued by people who have more stripes than you and I do on this.
So let's move to the last, the thing we started the conversation with.
So you're on the record once again saying that the only way that you will back any kind of immigration reform in this country is if it includes the elimination of 12 million people now residing in the United States?
STEIN: The elimination? I think that's not the proper term.
SANCHEZ: The removal. Pardon me.
STEIN: I'm not going to let you -- Rick, come on.
SANCHEZ: The removal.
STEIN: You know what we're trying to do. People were leaving Arizona before this injunction. The deterrent value of the law works. People come illegally because they know the law is not enforced.
You know, if you want to drill down on this amnesty question --
SANCHEZ: But wait a minute. You can't -- Dan, you can't address one without the other. You can't say we want immigration reform, but we won't let it go or pass in any way if anyone in this country who now is here illegally can stay or have a path to citizenship. So what you're saying is you want all 12 million of those people removed.
STEIN: It's a false paradigm. The Obama administration is taking credit --
SANCHEZ: I don't see how.
STEIN: The Obama administration is taking credit for deporting 400,000 criminal aliens in the last, whatever, 12 months. If you can deport 400,000, then you can deport 12 million in about five or six years. I don't understand why this is such a big deal.
SANCHEZ: OK. So that's what you're saying we need to do?
STEIN: How do you expect the American people to back an amnesty when the ability of the government, the executive branch to regulate immigration, is in jeopardy? The ACLU has brought lawsuit after lawsuit challenging states' ability to assist in the process. No other federal agency helps DHS in enforcing the law.
We have a complete legal breakdown, a breakdown of the rule of law. Where is it going? If you give amnesty, Rick, what happens after that? Then what ?
SANCHEZ: I couldn't be more pleased with the fact that you've come on and defended your position, and that we've been able to discuss these things, and that you are on the record as you are. And I want to continue to have these discussions with you, because I think they are important discussions that all Americans should hear.
Dan Stein, with FAIR.
You're always welcome on RICK'S LIST. Thanks for being with us.
STEIN: Thanks, Rick.
SANCHEZ: We've got Dennis Kucinich coming on right after this from the other side.
We'll continue in just a moment. Thanks for being with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
We've got some folks joining us here.
We'd like to welcome all of you coming into RICK'S LIST here, as usual. Give us a wave.
You're waving now at Dennis Kucinich, the congressman from Ohio, who is good enough to join us once again.
Congressman, the reason I want to ask you this question is I'm starting to hear a little bit of heat coming from the left about the possibility that if this president, especially after another $59 billion was doled out to Afghanistan, that if this president doesn't start finding a way to get the United States military out of Afghanistan as a result of what some call a quagmire there, that he might get some competition from his own party, maybe even in the next primary go-around for the presidential election.
You, Sir, have run for the presidency in the past. Would you counter this president? Would you oppose president Barack Obama if by the time the elections come around, he has not been on the record as trying to find a solution or get our troops out of Afghanistan?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO: Well, we have to -- let me answer your question directly.
I don't oppose President Obama. I support him. I have a sharp disagreement with him on a number of foreign policy questions, including Afghanistan.
I think we should get out of Afghanistan. I've been very clear about that. I've helped spark debate in the House about that and I will continue to do so.
SANCHEZ: But do you see anything in Obama's policies that in any way is in agreement with what you just stated though?
KUCINICH: No, it's not. And I think that there are a lot of reasons why we would want to continue to have Barack Obama in the White House. I don't agree with his foreign policy, and I think it's a legitimate subject for debate. But I don't think it needs to be a precondition of his presidency.
SANCHEZ: Would you challenge him on those terms?
KUCINICH: I'm not -- listen, you know what? I'm here to represent the 10th congressional district. I'm honored to do that. I'm not interested in trying to throw down a gauntlet saying, look, it's either my way or the highway. You don't do that to the president of the United States.
SANCHEZ: No, no. I know that. And that's honorable.
KUCINICH: But Rick, a good case can be made, we should get out of Afghanistan.
SANCHEZ: We'll leave it at that. But here's the reason I'm asking. The governor of Pennsylvania has said that he expects somebody in the party will pick up the gauntlet and challenge this president if he doesn't do what they want him to do in Afghanistan.
Are you that person?
KUCINICH: I am the person who continues to challenge staying in Afghanistan. I challenged the Bush administration not to go into Iraq, to get out of Iraq, not to stay in Afghanistan, not to attack Iran. I'm challenging this administration.
I stand for peace. I stand for a budget that can meet the needs of people here at home. You can't do that if you keep pressing these wars.
I'll continue to challenge the administration on that. But as far as wading into presidential politics, that's not necessary. We need to focus on the issue at hand, which is bring our troops home and to have an honest and legitimate debate about the policy without trying to muddy it with presidential politics. SANCHEZ: We wanted to spend so much more time talking to you, Congressman Dennis Kucinich. And I really wish we could. We'll do it again, I promise. But we're out of time, because "THE SITUATION ROOM" is coming up around the corner with Suzanne Malveaux standing by.
Thanks for being with us. I'll see you again tonight at 8:00 on the issue and immigration and several other things that we're going to be doing.
Here's Suzanne Malveuax.
