SCOTUS hears first arguments in AZ immigration law case
What's at stake in highest court ruling?
- Duration 4:53
- Date Apr 25, 2012
What's at stake in highest court ruling?
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
On Arizona's controversial immigration law and now it's before the Supreme Court is we've been telling you.
The justices hearing oral arguments for and against the measure which gives police the right.
To check the immigration status of anyone they stop and they suspect of being in the country illegally.
Chris called -- coauthor of Arizona's immigration law.
He's currently the secretary of state of the state Kansas Brent Wilkes is national executive director for the League of United Latin American Citizens.
And gentlemen it's good to talk with both the view mr.
secretary I understand you were inside.
The court today mr.
-- I understand you -- but let me start with -- what's your main argument.
Against Arizona's law.
Well this -- a power grab by the states violating federal supremacy on the issue of immigration.
On the federal government has had that supremacy since the country was founded and -- the Supreme Court in the crowds and the constitution clearly back that up.
If we were allowed this to happen.
We could end up with a patchwork of fifty states having fifty different laws -- immigration when this is really a federal responsibility just like our foreign policy is.
And on top but this is the human told that this would have.
And millions of families in state of Arizona would lose their jobs.
Would be afraid to send their kids to school would be under fear of being stopped by the police just because they looked like they might be -- undocumented immigrants and harassed.
This is -- really a racial profiling bill.
That's legalizing racial profiling in the state of Arizona and so if the Supreme Court yes -- historic role right of defending the rights of minority populations.
They will strike the slowdown and because we've -- victory in coming in June secretary call Bob what's your response to that you've heard the criticism before what do you say.
Well if any along with who's in the courtroom noticed the justices made very clear that there is no racial profiling claim in this argument.
Indeed the Justice Department didn't even make a racial profiling argument -- they filed this lawsuit because they knew they lose.
The law that we drafted prohibits racial profiling for different places this is a very good day for Arizona and Supreme Court today.
The US justice -- was on the ropes and they had a very hard time answering the arguments and adjusted -- the questions of the justices.
Because when we drafted this -- -- nature that it mirrors federal law very precisely he's in the exact language of federal law so that there is no possible conflict with any federal statute.
And as a result the Obama Justice Department has to argue well.
This Arizona law conflicts and our desire not to enforce federal laws.
And the justices weren't buying it they -- for the it's solicitor general was pressed time and again to give an example.
Something like that being used to preempt a state law he could not give an example I think there's and is gonna win and I'm pretty -- And mr.
-- -- one point.
Just -- suddenly your -- telling the solicitor general the arguments a year working here are are not quite.
Working what else have you got what else could you give us and that seems to be the general consensus that the justice is really across the board.
Were sympathetic to the problems that are going on.
In the state of Arizona a doesn't there need to be some kind of enforcement of immigration laws in this country for people who come here and try to work illegally.
We've seen that there has been drastic enforcement we've expanded the Border Patrol ten times since.
Just a decade ago we've seen electrified fences we've seen.
All kinds of border enforcement and the result is bad.
That immigration to the United States undocumented immigration has dropped dramatically so the State's argument that they need -- Pick up where the federal government's failed to do their job that doesn't hold any water.
There hasn't been in that my -- might.
And and I'm negative migration of quality and other Mexicans out of the United States that's happening now -- -- is now there's just no depositors while what is all about though.
This is the folks wanting to pick on minority populations they've done it before in Arizona.
They refuse to recognize the Martin Luther King Jr.
holiday another back and they think they've found a legal way to do it and it would be a crying shame if the Supreme Court held that up.
And allow that to become the law the nation because all the white supremacy in America will jump on this all right we figured all right well let's agree that the secretary responsibly.
Article about going at -- he says there's been a dramatic drop in the illegal alien population because -- federal efforts.
We just up the numbers on a couple days of these -- federal government numbers in the last three years between how way to -- -- in 2011.
Nationwide there's only been a 1% drop in illegal -- population but in Arizona there's been a 36%.
That shows that if you're serious about enforcing the law and you ratchet up the level of law enforcement we can really solve this problem and for some reason the Obama Justice Department.
Doesn't like Arizona's desire to actually enforce -- Race and we're gonna have to leave it there gentlemen of course -- we we await the decision of the court.
A modest that's justice Kagan who has recused herself from this we'll hear from the court.
A coming up in the next couple of months but -- -- thank you so much Chris -- -- the Kansas secretary of state and Brent Wilkes who is the executive director of the league.
For united Latin American citizens gentlemen thanks.
-- -- -- --