Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
We are awaiting a Supreme Court decision that will determine whether key provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law SB ten -- Our constitutional and may be enforced or not the decision could have an impact on immigration -- across the country.
Joining us now to talk about it attorneys general from two border states general Tom Horne from Arizona and general Gary king of New Mexico -- welcome -- Good to be with you thank you for having us -- in general horn I'll start with the instruments -- this is -- -- -- directly impacting your state.
It seems that the arguments went batter for airs on and in many had expected what's your prediction.
Well on their four provisions that are at stake.
The most controversial in the best known is the first one that says.
That if a law enforcement officer arrest someone legally arrest of the -- Dobson has reasonable suspicion that that person is here illegally he must call lies to get verification.
And on that one.
Not only the conservatives but there were too liberal justices Breyer and Sotomayor.
Whose questions indicated that they couldn't see anything wrong with that in fact is that statute that requires that -- respond to those kinds of inquiries.
From federal state and local law enforcement so at least on that first most controversial -- they're very strong indications that Arizona should be successful.
-- the other three it's not -- clear because was less discussion during the oral argument but I would predict that we should be successful.
Because on all four of these issues Arizona law is consistent with federal law.
The the administration has decided.
Under enforce federal -- -- were inconsistent with the administration's.
Desire to under enforced where we want to it strictly enforce federal law.
But the doctrine of preemption which is what the federal government is using.
Doesn't apply to disagreements between the state and the administration's decision to under and force it applies to a situation where there's a conflict between state law and federal law.
And in this case there is no conflict all four of the provisions are entirely consistent with federal law.
Aren't I want to bring in general -- here and sir do you think that.
Loss like SB 1070 are necessary or constitutional or not.
Well -- that two different questions in and I think.
Those of us in the west.
Feel very strongly about our State's rights and so I think that the constitutionality question is important to us and and also -- and looking at what the Supreme Court has done and the questions that they asked I think that they're gonna say that certainly cooperation between.
The federal government in the state governments -- is important and to the extent that this -- Moves -- does that that'll be a good thing with regard to the necessity I think that New Mexico has.
Taken a little bit different approach than Arizona has -- we're really focusing on and on border security and working with our federal counterparts to make sure.
That we that we know who's crossing the border and and that.
There were making our borders more secure.
We are not spending as much time having our local law enforcement trying to enforce the federal immigration line.
-- -- CU both of you the same question and anytime but the answer so if you keep your answers pretty tight for us.
I'll start with you general -- and the president's latest policy directive.
Giving -- a prosecutorial discretion when it comes to those who have been found here to be in the country illegally.
It -- and make your job easier or harder there in Arizona.
Well I don't know how it'll affect our job you know we we also feel it is very important that we strengthen our border we have to.
Parts of our border the Yuma sector on the west in the Tucson sector in the east.
In the Yuma sector President Bush put in a lot of extra resources.
And and we reduced illegal immigration thereby 94% from hundreds of thousands -- about 7500 Lester.
But in the Tucson sector hundreds of thousands are crossing and we've been trying to put pressure on the federal government.
To do in the Tucson sector with President Bush did in the Yuma sector.
And get more control in the Tucson sector if we could get control over our border that would be a major step to solve our problems.
And general -- same question -- -- your reaction to the policy directive.
Well a number of years ago when I was campaigning down on the border I had.
An old rancher tell me that he thought one of the Promos with all our immigration policy is that we were not recognizing.
But there are lots of different reasons that people cross the border that.
There's some people are crossing the border looking for jobs some people are crossing the border intending to commit criminal activity or or maybe even terrorist activity.
And and that we have to focus on those things so it seems to me like it makes sense to focus our the limited resources that we have on.
Looking for those people that are they're intent on committing criminal activity.
I think all of us attorneys general on the border have been working with our counterparts in Mexico.
To help recognize.
Activities by by criminal elements by organized crime and in Mexico that might.
Come across the border into New Mexico so we're really trying to focus our efforts on.
On recognizing those criminal elements and and doing something about that and and I think that the Arizona line has.
Has some segments that are trying to deal with that and I think that.
That -- the federal attorney general's.
To limit resources and decide that we're gonna focus our resources on looking -- those people that are here with the antenna committing crimes makes a lot of sense.
All right general -- and general king we thank you both for your time we'll find out what the justices -- -- that Arizona -- this week.
Thank you for having us we're looking forward to it.
Filter by section