Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Welcome -- Journal Editorial Report I'm -- -- you -- the Supreme Court waded into another controversial election year issue this week hearing oral arguments on Arizona's immigration law.
The Obama Justice Department sued Arizona over that 2010 -- arguing the governor Jan Brewer violated the constitution's supremacy clause by.
Requiring local police to enforce federal immigration statute so.
Are the justices buying.
The administration's argument joining the panel this week Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor Dan and anger.
Political diary editor Jason Riley and editorial board member show.
-- -- so Joseph this is really a case about federal vs state power.
The Supreme Court this week both liberal and conservative -- Justices did not seem very sympathetic -- the federal government's.
Arguments really didn't because their Arizona very carefully crafted the state law to fit in.
To the federal law so really all they're doing and saying look if if you.
-- the police happen to pick up somebody maybe they need to verify their legal status that's part of federal it.
Immigration laws some -- -- -- -- just saying look we're gonna enforce the -- we're gonna a supplement what you do what about the provision -- of the -- -- all of it says look if you're illegal.
It is a crime if you're legally here it's a crime to then go look for work that in the oral arguments -- the Supreme Court seemed to be the part of the law most in jeopardy.
I think so -- and that's definitely the part that's most out there in terms of may be exceeding the federal -- exactly.
All right we'll then what was the argument that the Tempe Arizona used but said that was fine.
Whoa -- what they what they said was it's it's already a crime to be in the legal and so.
We're supplementing that by saying here if you go -- go for work its.
It's another it's another.
-- it's another crime.
Jason why if this if the Justice Department may lose here.
Eight nothing and -- it's possible we don't know for sure but they could and why would they have advanced.
I think they did it for political reasons Paul mom this is about the Hispanic vote showing that they care.
The Justice Department did not need to bring this case other groups -- rights groups and so forth were already suing that kind of let those.
Those cases run their course you'll bond illustration wanted to jump in here and it doesn't even look like this -- going to be close Paula looks like Natalie -- parts of the lobby upheld.
But he went when a liberal justice like Sonia Sotomayor are.
Is skeptical of the government's case you know the the Obama administration what about the argument we cured that -- is this is really racial profiling this -- that this was not argued in the in the in the court itself because even the government isn't making that case but lot of outside groups have been saying that that's what this is and -- that's -- violation.
It is that even at issue here well I believe that the law specifically banned that practice -- and chief Justice Roberts mean technically certain.
And -- down and during arguments here he wanted to make sure so does solicitor general there's no racial profiling going on -- not alleging that right in the government to know.
-- Dan explained -- politics to me of this because if you lose eight nothing.
At the Supreme Court.
That -- -- good politics.
Well I think that the Obama White House in the Democrats.
Have reached the point where it doesn't matter to them all that much whether the Supreme Court rules against them eight to nothing on this they still take away the issue of Republicans and Mitt Romney being anti Hispanic.
I don't think the voting bloc is going to be paying really close attention to the -- -- at the center of this case they're still going to be able to run against the Republicans and Arizona.
-- -- will at least get the law.
As being anti Hispanic and it's purely a political plate but the interesting thing is.
You have to ask yourself this case was just suggesting.
Why did they bring such a loser case to the Supreme Court are they -- and listings Supreme Court itself in their political strategy.
I should add that it would be an eight they're only eight justices sitting on this case because Elena Kagan has recused herself because she was -- -- Justice Department in the case -- being formulated let's talk about the transit immigration whether this laws rewrite needed and because there are two issues here this thing.
Whether this -- constitutional.
And minutes well there.
Efforts like this are effective in reducing illegal immigration which is the goal here that's what we all want and that that the jury's still out on that on that has a lot -- -- I -- other five other states.
These five other states have passed Arizona tight lies.
Some have walked them back a little bit the business community -- like them.
Law enforcement isn't crazy about being deputized as it makes it more difficult for them to -- the communities do their day jobs.
People were afraid of them think that their deportation agents -- court.
I'm so we have to ask ourselves whether these laws work or while there.
There's another way to go in terms of of determining how much one labor which a lot of the -- the big story and immigration is not this enforcement it's the fact that illegal immigration is collapsing it's falling dramatically.
From Mexico and enhanced according to impugn.
-- Foundation survey this week showed that is it's it's really really net zero net zero -- -- -- -- -- amazing -- -- this -- That trend began in 2000 that -- proceeded.
This whole uproar with that we've been having over the OK so what I hate about congress are looking for all -- state laws passed the fraud that.
Illegal immigration but there's already -- OK but the restrictions would say it's because of -- greater enforcement.
Do you agree with that.
I'm sure that greater enforcement has something to do with -- were illegal.
A -- lasting legal immigration there's no doubt about that but we also have a poor economy and we know that most of these are economic migrants.
Coming here in search of jobs so I think that is also literal.
What about the politics of this -- I had going forward let's say the Supreme Court does agree mostly with the state of Arizona Chuck Schumer this week the democratic senator from New York said he wanted to -- a law that would overturn.
The Supreme Court decision.
It in it in the case what's he up to -- Look I think he's trying to be majority leader here -- this he's trying to ride ride this for for all its work.
But -- didn't you have to understand the people that oppose this law they they think it's reign of terror they think it's racial police state.
So I I think they're really gonna put them.
Do whatever they can to oppose this and I think that explains the weakness of the Justice Department's argument -- that I court so the Democrats given their interest groups really feel they have no choice but to fight on this ground even if it's a loser.
Fascinating politically what.
Filter by section