Return to Transcripts main page

Rick's List

Arizona Immigration Law Blocked

Aired July 28, 2010 - 20:00   ET



We are making news tonight. I want to go beyond this ruling. The ball's out of Arizona's court for now. So, tonight, you're going to hear a Republican offer up what may be a new beginning for comprehensive immigration reform in the United States.

Let's start now -- this special edition of RICK'S LIST.


SANCHEZ (voice-over): Here's what's making your list tonight:

A judge sticks a dagger in the heart of the immigration law.


GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: This is a temporary injunction.


SANCHEZ: Where does it go now?


JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: This is a case that really cries out for the United States Supreme Court to get involved.


SANCHEZ: And that's exactly where the man who wrote the law wants it.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm begging for the first fight at the Supreme Court.


SANCHEZ: What do police officers say?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This law will make me feel like a Nazi out there. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: What do supporters of the law say?


DAN STEIN, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: If give them amnesty, Rick, what's -- what happens after that?


SANCHEZ: Will Washington finally have the backbone to come up with a plan for immigration -- one that controls the border and allows some already here to stay?


REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: If President Obama will come part of the way, I guarantee you, people like myself come the rest of the way.


SANCHEZ: One more question: what about people like this?


REPORTER: Did you know it was a crime to have a Social Security number that's fake?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that it's not a crime to work.




SANCHEZ: And, hello, again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez.

Topping the list right now -- those words you just heard right there from Darrel Issa, about meeting the president halfway. We are making news tonight, because this conversation, about immigration, seems to go nowhere every single time it comes up.

But tonight, look, Arizona is saying it is time to move forward. So, let me just take you through that part of the story first, and then we'll do a little catch-up, all right?

Here's what just happened: With a swipe of her pen, a federal judge in Phoenix has knocked the teeth right out of Arizona's controversial new immigration law that was supposed to begin tomorrow. Why?

Well, here -- look, here's the paperwork, right here, all right? This is what the order from the judge, and essentially what she's saying is, this is a federal issue. It's not a state issue.

Let me read it to you. Mark, you over my shoulder? Let's go.

Well, "The 9th circuit court of appeals has concluded that allowing the state to enforce the state law in violation of the Supremacy Clause is neither equitable nor in the public interest."

So, essentially, and -- look, here's another graph (ph), essentially saying -- the judge that is -- this is not a state's jurisdiction, this is the federal government's jurisdiction. That's their holding (ph).

"Even though Arizona's interest may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preemptive laws. 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."

You get that, right? There's another part of this which brings us right to here. These are the four things right here.

Get a shot of this if you would, Mark.

These are the four things right here that the judge is saying, "Arizona, you can't do this," all right? Here it is on paper. It's on page four.

Now, let me show it to you as you can see it easier on your screen, all right? Because we've made a chyron so you can see that, OK?

Number one, the judge says, Arizona, they can't force police to question the status of suspected illegal immigrants. All right?

Two: they can't criminalize the failure to apply for and carry alien registration papers.

Three: they can't criminalize illegal immigrants' right to work or apply for a job.

And, four: they can't authorize police to arrest someone without a warrant if they believe that person might be subject to deportation. Essentially no warrant, no arrest -- different from what we were hearing from the folks in Arizona and the law that so many people there truly supported -- look, including people all over the country.

A horde of Arizona lawmakers were quick to react to today's decision. Governor Jan Brewer was one of them. Both of the state's U.S. senators: Jon Kyl, John McCain.

I want to start with the governor. Take a listen.


BREWER: I think it's important to remind everybody that today, they absolutely -- the federal government got relief from the courts to not to do their job. And that means that now they've got this temporary injunction. They need to step up -- the feds do -- and do the job that they have the responsibility to do for the people of America and for the people of Arizona.


SANCHEZ: This is like a circular argument. Listen to what the governor just said. This is a very important discussion that Americans need to have on this day and moving forward. The federal government under George W. Bush tried to get immigration reform passed. The Republicans and many on the conservative side essentially blocked it. They said, no, it sounds to me like it's amnesty. So, they didn't get the job done at the federal level. So, Arizona steps in and says, OK, you guys didn't get it done, so, we'll do it.

So, now, the federal government tells Arizona, "Sorry, you can't do it, it's our job." So, now, it goes back to the federal government. And people like the president of the United States.

And this next gentleman that you're going to hear from, Congressman Darrell Issa from California, have to somehow come together. And if anybody can figure out a way to do this, it's probably Darrell Issa. He's -- he and I talked earlier about this and he's suggesting that there's a possibility that there maybe some middle ground, because the sticking point here -- Congressman, are you with us?

ISSA (via telephone): Absolutely. Thanks, Rick, for having me back on.

SANCHEZ: Here's the sticking point. And you know it and I know it and everybody watching this newscast knows it. Here's the sticking point: if there's a possibility that if we put, enact, new legislation on comprehensive immigration reform in this country, and one person who's in this country illegally is allowed to stay, then a lot of people on the right will scream at you and say, "Hey, Darrell Issa, we're not going to back you on this, because that's amnesty."

How do we get beyond that hurdle?

ISSA: Well, Rick, I think the important thing is, that the argument for so many years, rightfully so, is there are jobs in America, certain jobs that are excess to Americans. Sometimes agricultural jobs are the easiest ones for the American public to understand, picking strawberries and tomatoes.

Whatever that amount of jobs are, if we provide a sensible guest worker program, and then we open it up to the most qualified, which often, the employers who have illegals now would certainly -- if an illegal walks in the day after we pass a law that says, look you didn't know I was illegal but I was, I'd like to apply for that slot, who do you think they're going to recommend? Of course, they're going to do it.

Now, there may be 3 million slots for 4 million workers who are here illegally. That's certainly a problem. We're not going to keep people that don't have jobs. But the fact is, the first solution the president needs to come forward with is: we're going to fix the broken system of people --


ISSA: -- who have jobs that are not getting filled, that they can justify they need to have --


ISSA: -- additional workers. You do that, by definition, you dramatically reduced the problem both for people who are here illegally and for their families.

SANCHEZ: But let me push you, Congressman, let me push you, because if this administration is not wise enough to be listening to you right now and see an opening -- I hope someone at the White House is watching RICK'S LIST right now and I hope they say: did we just hear Darrell Issa, Republican, say that he's willing to find a way that may include the eventuality of some people who are in this country having some kind of path to residency through some kind of work program that allows them to stay in the country?

That is the first beginning, the first opening that I've heard from the Republican side since George W. Bush and John McCain backed comprehensive immigration reform. Am I reading you right?

ISSA: You are. But I will tell you, when they were backing comprehensive reform, John Shadegg and other Republicans were back and forth, myself included, to the White House, saying, look, amnesty's something we got to get past. Let's find real ways to deal with people who could remain here. Or, quite frankly, people who we could say, you know what? We'll give you an opportunity to apply for guest worker program, but if you can't find a job right now, you can go back to your country, but not be prejudiced against coming back on a guest worker program in the future.


ISSA: Many, many -- those kinds of solutions allow people the hope to have the jobs when they're available --

SANCHEZ: Now, look, I get it --

ISSA: -- may be available in the future in bigger numbers.

SANCHEZ: And if these people have committed crimes while they've been here or they're not in the good standing in any way, or the type of people that we don't want here based on their actions and their behavior, kick their butts out tomorrow. That's what most people in this country -- whether they're legal, illegal, immigrants, Hispanic, or wherever they come from -- would say.

The question is: can you, Darrell Issa -- this is a serious question of a serious man -- can you, Darrell Issa, stand up to the guys, the screaming parts of the right on talk radio who are going to say to you that you're a traitor for agreeing to allow anyone who's in this country illegally to have some kind of path to residency?

ISSA: I believe that many of us can stand up. Obviously, we've said for a long time, we don't want to have the amnesty in the sense that people get to be permanent residents and citizens simply because they were already here illegally.

SANCHEZ: I get that.

ISSA: But when it -- but when it comes to people doing jobs that are available, doing them honestly, doing them above board, the fact is: the vast majority of the people that we don't even know were here illegally are doing just that.


ISSA: Make them come out of the closet. We can provide a system for them. If they get laid off and they can't find a job, we can even provide an ability for them to return to their country and when a job becomes available, come back.


ISSA: That's how effective guest worker programs can solve most -- not all -- but most of these problems. But we first got to start solving as many problems as we can as soon as we can.

SANCHEZ: Yes. I get that.

Congressman Darrell Issa --

ISSA: Thanks, Rick.

SANCHEZ: -- who is agreeing in many ways with people like Jeb Bush in Florida, who's come out with similar proposals. But they're few and far between in the Republican Party. This is why we get different perspectives on this newscast.

And we challenge people who have something -- for example, you're going to hear a different perspective on this newscast tomorrow on RICK'S LIST at 4:00 p.m. I'm going to sit down and interview J.D. Hayworth on this show. He's running against John McCain. He's pushing John McCain to the right on this issue.

The irony of this is that John McCain was one of the guys who first proposed comprehensive immigration reform. Now, he's running away from that issue because of -- many would argue -- J.D. Hayworth.

And coming up in just a little bit -- well, there's another part to this argument as well, because not everyone thinks like Darrell Issa. Take a listen to this.


STEIN: We have a complete legal breakdown, a breakdown of the rule of law, where is it going? If you give amnesty, Rick, what's -- what happens after that? Then what?


SANCHEZ: Yes, then what? In a minute, you're going to hear a lot more from that man. That's Dan Stein, frequent guest here on RICK'S LIST as you've come to know. He heads up the immigration reform group FAIR. They often lead the immigration debate.

Is he willing to create any kind of wiggle room, as Darrell Issa seems to be, to reach an accord on comprehensive immigration reform?

Look, this is going to be a testy conversation. I'll just tell you right out. Also, you know, our legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, he and I have been doing a lot of talking today. He's pointing out that this whole thing is probably heading right to the U.S. Supreme Court, in part, because other states may want to try this exact same thing.

So, let's do a list. Who are these states?

These are some of states whose attorneys general filed a court brief backing Arizona. You should know Texas is there, Alabama is among 'em, Florida is also there. Who else?

All right, I'm going to show you the rest of the states who are on this list who are either backing Arizona or want to do their exact same law just like Arizona. That's on the other side.

Stay us. We're just getting started, folks.


SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.

Too bad we have only an hour because there is so much to talk about on this topic. All right, let's start with this. You think the battle over immigration is just a story that's in Arizona? I want you to think again.

In case you didn't know, we've compiled a list for you. It's a list of nine states where attorneys general are backing Arizona. I showed you the Gulf Coast states just a little while ago, right? Texas, Florida, Alabama.

Look closer. South Carolina is on the list. As is West Virginia. Pennsylvania. Further inland, Michigan, South Dakota, Nebraska -- all standing with Arizona.

As for other states that are actually considering laws of their own, they range from Idaho to Maryland to Utah to Colorado.

All right. You heard Darrell Issa and I having this conversation a little while ago. This is an important conversation, because it's circular and it keeps going back to the very same place. And it seems silly at times. But there are people who, now, are serious-minded enough to try and come up with some kind of -- some kind of cooperative system that creates an immigration legislation for the United States.

However, and this is very important, can he find that cooperation from others? And I want to introduce you to somebody now. It's a lot harder to do what Darrell Issa was saying he wants to do when you try -- when you have to try and convince some of those on the anti- immigration front. Folks like FAIR who are very respectable in their opinion but they're very, very strident in their opinion about this.

So, I want you to hear now from that side of the story. Here's Dan Stein. He's the leader of this group.


STEIN: The basic problem, Rick, is that, you know, you're hung up on this amnesty concept. Do you think the amnesty issue is what's preventing progress at the federal level?


STEIN: That's not the case. Clearly, everybody on our side opposes amnesty.

The issue here --

SANCHEZ: So, wait, hold on, hold on, 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's 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, you know, 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, the 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 --

SANCHEZ: Well, no, no, no.

STEIN: -- misrepresentation, lots of felonies.

SANCHEZ: You're wrong. You're absolutely wrong.

STEIN: Maybe it's not -- it's not -- it's not possible -

SANCHEZ: You're wrong, Dan. You're wrong. The government has moved -- bent over backwards to make sure that they can stay here, still collect their taxes, even though the government knows they're illegal. That's what the tax I.D. is all about. STEIN: Well, but -- no, I have never seen somebody reside 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 and the procurement of benefits jobs or what-have- you. It's not possible. You can't do it.

We've had people walking around with driver licenses who are here illegally. People may have to represent -- look, you have -- you have to violate other laws beside immigration law to live here any length of time.

You've 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.


STEIN: We have lost control of the process.


STEIN: The judge, Judge Bolton, in saying that Arizona cannot assist in a process -- outrageous decision, by the way -- it's just an injunction so it's not final decision. But, basically, it's completely countermands 200 years of constitutional authority.

She herself admits in the decision that the state can actually assist in various ways. So, she's 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.


STEIN: 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 to market. Or the EPA saying, well, we don't have the resources to do it --

SANCHEZ: No, no. I get it.


SANCHEZ: Look, you're right --

STEIN: There's no other area of law in this country -- it's crazy -- we're 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 and hotter.

SANCHEZ: But you, again -- let me -- you're right, and she's 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, to the thing that 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 it includes -- 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. Let me change the word, the removal.

STEIN: Rick, Rick, Rick, come on!

SANCHEZ: The removal.

STEIN: We 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's not enforced. You know --


SANCHEZ: But wait a minute, wait a minute, you can't, 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 these people removed.


STEIN: Rick, you are creating a false -- it's a false paradigm. The Obama administration --

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. The problem is --

SANCHEZ: OK. 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 and MALDEF have brought lawsuit after lawsuit challenging state's ability to assist in the process. No other federal agency helps DHS at enforcing the law. We have a complete legal breakdown.

SANCHEZ: All right.

STEIN: We have a complete breakdown, a breakdown of the rule of law. Where is it going? If you give amnesty, Rick, what's -- what happens after that? Then what?

SANCHEZ: I -- 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're on the record as you are. And I want to continue to have these discussions with you because I think they're important discussions that all Americans should hear.

Dan Stein with FAIR, you're always welcomed on RICK'S LIST.


SANCHEZ: There are people all over the country who are talking about this, including a lot of lawmakers as well on the left and on the right. Let's go there. The tweet board is right over there. There we go.

"We are a nation of laws. Our court of justice have acted to uphold that principle and to protect our rights." That's Representative Becerra of California as well.

Now, take a look at this.


SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: Nobody says I can't go out tomorrow and do what I plan on doing, lock up people that violate the law. And if they're illegal aliens, we're going to take care of that.


SANCHEZ: You know that man. That's Maricopa County sheriff, Joe Arpaio, who's saying today's news isn't going to stop him from going after illegal immigrants.

But what do illegal immigrants themselves have to say about life in Arizona these days? Soledad O'Brien's going to have a report for us in just a little bit.

And just about every major player has weighed in on this case, even the president. But, today, this decision came down to one person -- in fact, one woman. Who is she? Who is this judge? What do we know about her?

Brooke Baldwin's doing all the trending stuff. She's been gathering the information that's coming in on what people are saying about her. Look forward to that.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Don't you want to know who wrote this?

SANCHEZ: I do. I want to know everything that we've learned. We'll be right back. It's Brooke on RICK'S LIST.


SANCHEZ: There's almost something about demystifying a federal judge. It's one of those positions where we don't know much about them. They're not very public. We don't know if they're local or if they come from somewhere else or where they get their thought process.

And so, maybe if you can demystify this for us, we'll all be better off.

BALDWIN: Let the demystification process begin. Because we sat around tonight, we thought who in the world is this woman this judge?

Who is she? She is Susan Bolton. She granted this injunction. That's why we're talking about all of this today, blocking parts of S.B. 1070.

Who is she? She was appointed to her current position as a federal judge by President Clinton, just about 10 years ago in 2000. She has been a judge for decades, since 1989. In fact, before that, she was a federal judge. She was a superior court judge for Maricopa County. And before that, she had her own private practice.

She got her undergrad degree and also her law degree from the same spot, University of Iowa. And she was born in Philadelphia. She's 58 since she was born in '51. She is white.

And, you know, we dug up a bunch of different articles. And, over and over, you know, it sounds like this woman is a tough cookie. She's been written up as being very smart, very fair, thorough. She's a balanced judge.

And so, we also wanted to see what else has she ruled on that's significant. Let me take you back to 2002. She sentenced a smuggler to 16 years in prison after 14 illegal immigrants he helped cross the border died in extreme heat.

Another ruling, 2002, ruled that Border Patrol officials could not be sued for their rule in an immigration roundup that led to 430 arrests and complaints that Hispanic U.S. citizens were harassed because of their appearance.

So, that's what we have as far as Susan Bolton. So, now, you can have smart dinnertime conversation.

Let me also walk and talk and take you to the tweet board, because beyond you our viewers who are very engaged and educated in this whole thing, we're hearing from some key players in this story today.

Let me begin with -- we all know her name, this is the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer. And she was tweeting today saying, "The fight is far from over. Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. Read my statement." So, let's make it easier. We're going to pop part of the statement up on the full screen here. I'm going to read it for you.

She says, "I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit."

By the way, she has also said today, that, hey, if it has to go to the Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, she will continue that fight.

Another tweet -- did you know that the Department of Homeland Security tweets? And here is what they've actually released. This is also a statement I want to read for you.

And they're saying, "The court's decision to enjoin most of S.B. 1070 correctly affirms the federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our nation's immigration laws." They also said they will continue to send more resources to the border. I believe they're sending 1,200, what, troops, I think it's August 1.

And then, our intrepid Ed Henry, our White House correspondent, of course, tweeting when the president was getting the news -- and he said, "One White House adviser told me the president's aides are happy as clams about Arizona ruling but a second adviser was more cautious." Goes on to tweet, "Second White House adviser said the ruling quells the craziness for now in Arizona but administration still sorting out what it all means -- Rick Sanchez, because we keep hearing the A-word -- appeal."

SANCHEZ: I like that word "demystify" that you and I were just talking about a little while ago because I think --

BALDWIN: That's exactly right.

SANCHEZ: Well, I think, in the end, there's so much about this law and so many things that people say on both sides of this argument that are just not right.


SANCHEZ: And, you know, in cutting to the chase and talking about those things is what we hope to be able to do for you. So, as a country we can all come up with something that makes sense for everybody.

All right. Take a listen to this.


REPORTER: Did you know it was a crime to have a Social Security number that's fake?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that it's not a crime to work.


SANCHEZ: All right. That young woman is the human face of this issue. She grew up here. Her family's here. Her young daughter was born here, but she's about to be deported. We got her story as well in this mix.

And then, what about the police officers who would have to enforce Arizona's immigration law? Now, I have -- since the beginning of this -- talked to many, many of them, as some of you know who are used to watching our newscast. Some oppose the law. Some support the law.

Wait until you hear from the one who's coming up in just a little bit -- right here on RICK'S LIST. We're going to be right back.


SANCHEZ: We've told you about some of the things a federal judge says that Arizona can't do. But one of the most important, you can't stop illegal immigrants this judge says, from looking for work. And it sounds like a lot of you agree with this.

There's a CNN poll that we were discussing here yesterday, where it finds 81 percent of Americans say they would be OK with illegal immigrants being allowed to stay in the United States as long as they have jobs and pay taxes. Future taxes and back taxes. But that's not the way it works for a lot of people. So we want to take you through the story of one woman. Here's Soledad O'Brien with this story.


SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tucson, Arizona, awakens to hundreds of protesters in the streets. This is Ground Zero in the immigration war. Isabel Garcia. Chief legal defender for Pima County, Arizona. Many of the people she defends are undocumented, without a visa or work permit.

ISABEL GARCIA, CHIEF LEGAL DEFENDER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: We have 12 million people who support the economy of the United States of America.

O'BRIEN: One of Isabel's most controversial cases involves this 26-year-old, Araceli Torres, who's lived in the United States most of her life, illegally.

Araceli is one of the Panda Express 11, a high-profile case Garcia and her defense team took on last year. Araceli has attended Tucson public school since fourth grade. She was only 7 years old when her family drove across the border. She barely remembers it.

(on camera): Did you realize that you were undocumented?


O'BRIEN: When did you know?

TORRES: When I was ready to finish high school and go to college.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): At 17, Araceli dropped out of high school to help her family make ends meet. Eventually taking a $10 an hour job at the fast food chain Panda Express.

TORRES: I worked their seven years. They loved me.

O'BRIEN: A stable job until March 18, 2008. Araceli came in for her 12-hour shift.

TORRES: We just opened the doors and the first people that came in was the police.

O'BRIEN: Once inside, agents rounded up employees. All told, 11 employees were arrested. All of them working with fake social security numbers.

O'BRIEN (on camera): Did you know it was a crime to have a social security number that's fake?

TORRES: I know that it's not a crime to work.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): After her arrest, Araceli Torres was detained for five months. Separated from her then 3-year-old daughter, an American citizen.

(on camera): Did she ask where you were?

TORRES: Yes, of course. She asked for me. And I used to call her on the phone, talk to her. And she got to the point that she didn't want to talk to me.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): Araceli pled guilty to a misdemeanor. She's been out of jail a year. She faces possible deportation to Mexico being, a country she barely remembers.

(on camera): Do you feel like you're an American?

TORRES: Yes. All my family's here. And my memories are here. I grew up in here. I went to school here.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): It took less than three hours for the court to rule that Araceli must return to Mexico within two months. Araceli plans to appeal.

TORRES: No matter where they sent me to, I'll still be American.


SANCHEZ: That was CNN's Soledad O'Brien. Now Araceli Torres likely faces deportation sometime this fall. All of her family members, interestingly enough, are either U.S. residents or U.S. citizens. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JAN BREWER, ARIZONA: The federal government got relief from the courts to not to do their job. They need to step up, the feds do, and do the job that they have the responsibility to do.


SANCHEZ: That is what this case boils down to now. Whose job is it to enforce immigration laws? I'm going to talk to an Arizona police officer who said "not part of my job." In fact, he sued the governor over this. Why?

Also, you've heard the charge that illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Well, "360"'s Gary Tuchman went to California to do one of those jobs. He picked grapes in 102-degree heat. He even tweeted from the field that no American has ever applied for that job. He'll report on "AC 260" tonight at 10:00 Eastern. Stay right there. We're coming right back at RICK'S LIST.


SANCHEZ: I want to bring in someone now who you're going to want to hear from. His name is Martin Escobar. He's a Tucson, Arizona, police officer who is suing to stop this law. That's right.

It turns out now that SB 1070 has been all but struck down by this judge. But had it taken effect tomorrow morning, you as a police officer would have had to enforce it, right?

MARTIN ESCOBAR, TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT: Good afternoon, sir. Yes, I would have to enforce that law.

SANCHEZ: And you say that you were not willing to do it?

ESCOBAR: No, and the reason why is because I've been looking at the law, the way it was written, and the only way to enforce this law was to take somebody's race into account, racially profile. I feel strongly about that. And if they came down to that, I was not going to violate somebody's rights.

SANCHEZ: But hold on a minute, the law was really trying to get you to do was hold someone to consequences who had broken a U.S. law by coming to the United States illegally.

ESCOBAR: That's correct, sir. But at the same time, the thing is it's a diverse community here. We have a lot of immigrants here, immigrants that have moved legally here, apply for the citizenships. And how are you going to determine who's here legally or not here legally? It's a very complex thing when you start trying to question them. Because the fact is, how do you establish somebody is here? What gives you reasonable suspicion? I've been given factors. And to take into account, as far as the way somebody dresses, the way somebody talks, to use those factors. To me, that's racial profiling.

SANCHEZ: So you're more concerned with the fact that you may have stopped some people who were here perfectly legal. They were either residents or aliens who had permission to be here or even citizens that you had to question or investigate based on the fact that you were looking for people who were illegal. You're uncomfortable doing that --

ESCOBAR: Yes. Very uncomfortable. And how am I going to establish that? How am I going to establish that someone's here illegally?

There was no really clear guidelines as far as what I was given to determine who was here illegally. I mean, unless I caught somebody if I was working close to the border and saw somebody coming over the fence line, you know, that would be -- that would give me reasonable suspicion, a probable cause or the fact that somebody tells me -- yes, sir.

SANCHEZ: Let me ask you --

ESCOBAR: Yes, sir.

SANCHEZ: Let me ask you a question. I get it. I get it. You say prima facie. You want to see if for yourself. But let me ask you a question. How many of -- do you talk to a lot of the officers who I imagine work with you. How many other officers would you say feel the way that you do?

ESCOBAR: You know, it's -- the ones I speak to are the ones who work in my division, and I've had a lot of them that feel the same way. They were hoping that this law would not go into effect. They were really having problems with it, especially after we'd gone through the training. It seemed like a lot of them were saying they were more confused about it.

SANCHEZ: They just didn't want --

ESCOBAR: Or how to apply this law.

SANCHEZ: Yes, I get it. Hey, listen, thanks so much. Martin Escobar, with the Tucson Police Department, joining us to share his candid thoughts on this.

Let's hear now from Larry King. He's standing by. He's got a big show coming up. Larry, always good to see you.

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": Same here, Rick. Good stuff, by the way. And we've got more on the ruling that blocks some key parts of Arizona's new immigration law from going into effect tomorrow. There's, of course, outrage, anger and elation. Our guests will debate both sides of this issue. We'll also talk about President Obama's appearance on "The View." And Jack Hanna is going to be with us later to tell about a near attack by bears. We'll cover it all, Rick. Speaking of bears you know what?


KING: In broadcasting terms, you are a bear.

SANCHEZ: I'm a bear, am I? Hey, is Hanna -- KING: Yes, you know --

SANCHEZ: Is Hanna bringing animals?

KING: You're a bear.

SANCHEZ: I'm a bear. Is he bringing a bear or animals or anything?

KING: No, he was almost attacked by a bear. I don't think he's going to bring it.


SANCHEZ: All right, buddy, we'll talk a little baseball later. Thanks so much. Look forward to seeing you on your show.

KING: Go get them, Rick.

SANCHEZ: Thanks.

OK. On my list that you don't want to be on tonight, a man who says that he believes in the prince of peace. But his message is about hate. Wait until you see what this preacher wants to do.

Also, another state is now signing up to get rid of the electoral college. There is a serious move afoot to choose a president by popular vote. But some on the right are livid about this. Have you heard of this?

We're all over it. Want you to know more. Stay right there. RICK'S LIST continues.


SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. This is RICK'S LIST, your national conversation.

Have you heard about this? There is a movement in this country to change the way we Americans pick the president of the United States. Have I got your attention?

This is not just a technicality we're talking about. This is a radical change. And it's something that you need to know about.

Just last night, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill that would give the White House to the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide. Now, that doesn't mean we throw the electoral college out the window, but it does mean that each state would hand its votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. So no more red states. No more blue states. America becomes one big purple state.

Have you been following this? Five states are already on board with this. And if Massachusetts governor signs this bill, and he probably will, it will be up to six. What's going on? This is part of a movement to change our entire voting process. Will it take? Two hundred seventy electoral votes just like on Election Day, with Massachusetts, the movement would have 73 electoral votes. That's it.

Right now, a total of five states are just a governor's signature away from getting on board. So what does it all mean? The state senator who pushed this vote through in Massachusetts told us that he wants presidential candidates to focus on this on his state just as much as they do on battleground states and said, quote, "We are helping strengthen the foundation of our democracy, the principle of one person, one vote." But opponents, and they're out there, boy, they're saying, hey, wait a second, you're making red states and rural states meaningless.

Listen to this. This is conservative talk radio host Mark Levin. He's one of many who are saying this on the radio.


VOICE OF MARK LEVIN, RADIO HOST: Heavily populated states, in particular, the heavily populated metropolitan areas will call the shots. They'll call the shots. The founding fathers wanted the electoral college for the same reason they wanted a Senate elected or selected by the state. They wanted a role for the states.


SANCHEZ: All right. Now, remember this? 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote. George W. Bush won the electoral college vote. After a recount in Florida, of course, that meant George W. Bush became president. That wouldn't happen if this bill becomes law. So will it? Will this movement sweep the nation?

This is an important story that we just put on our radar. We are going to be all over it. Expect follow-ups. And expect us to have another conversation about it tomorrow, a national conversation.

All right. I want you to take a look at this.

This is a burglar. What is that on her face? The worst mask ever perhaps? That's coming up in "fotos."

Also, you're going to meet a man of faith who is about to do something that's about as far from loving thy neighbor, as far from the prince of peace as you can go. A holy man has a special place on our list.

We're coming right back.


SANCHEZ: All right, I have a book coming out very soon where I talk about what you tell me, what you tweet to me on a daily basis. And you say that you don't want people to preach hate from the pulpit. That's what you say. That's what you tweet. All right. I think this is what you're talking about. Here is the list that you don't want to be on.

I want you to meet Terry Jones. He is the pastor of a Christian center in Gainesville, Florida. At least they say they're Christian. His church is known for angry protest against homosexuals, abortion, same-sex marriage, and now he's turning on Muslims. On September 11, Jones and his church are hosting international "Burn a Quran Day." Church members, church members, plan to set fire to copies of another faith's most sacred book. The book, by the way, that praises Jesus and Mary. Sometimes it's important to put ourselves in the other guy's shoes, right? So imagine how we would feel if we watched Muslims burning bibles.

This Christian church says they have a right to do this. Their leader, Terry Jones, he even goes a step further. He says he believes Islam is of the devil. In fact, that's the exact title of his book. His church is even selling t-shirts with that message. He says these protests are in keeping with the mission of the church to warn Muslims and give them a chance to convert.

Look, as a Christian, I treasure and value my relationship with my God. And I impress this upon my children. That's important to me. It's part of who I am. But I also teach them, all four of my kids, what my God, Jesus Christ, taught me, as the prince of peace and as the prince of love. It's pretty simple. Nothing good comes from hate. Terry Jones hasn't learned that yet from his bible as he worries more about condemning somebody else's.

Tomorrow night, I'm going to confront Terry Jones about the actions of his church. I respect him for agreeing to come on here, on RICK'S LIST, but he must know that it would be almost impossible for him not to be chosen on this day, after all of that, to head our list, you don't want to be on.

It's not news when a bank robber wears a mask, but it makes my list of "fotos" when that mask is made of underwear. You got to see it. We'll be right back.


SANCHEZ: All right, here we go. When in Rome, do as the Romans, right? When in suburbs, wear tennis shoes. Time for "fotos."


SANCHEZ: Hall County, Georgia. Police officers say a burglar resembling a soccer mom blended right in. The perfect cover, right? They say she's hit several homes in the area. This time she hit the worst house that she could have. The owner installed security systems for a living.

Hey, lady, don't you know you're supposed to case the joint first?

Midwest City, Oklahoma, underwear over the counter. A woman swiped cash from the register of this McDonald's while they were between orders. It was a bold heist, and an even bolder fashion statement. Her disguise included a black shirt, black pants and a blonde wig. But it was the panties paper clipped to her face that took the cake. Somebody should tell the guys in the NFL to watch out.

Here we go. This is our favorite of the entire day because a soccer team in Iceland may have taken the touchdown dance to a whole new level. There you go. First you try and catch a fish. Then you bring the fish in. Then you mount it. And then you take your picture with the catch.

Scoring in overtime, these Nordic athletes caught the attention of the web after simulating catching one of their own teammates. This has got to be one of the hottest things on the web. This is amazing. This is something that would have Larry King almost unable to do his show if he's watching it right now.

Speaking of Larry King, we're done here on RICK'S LIST.


SANCHEZ: Here now, the king. We'll see you tomorrow.