Impact of AZ immigration law ruling on other states
Will similar laws be affected?
- Duration 3:57
- Date Jun 25, 2012
Will similar laws be affected?
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Holding a key provision of Arizona's tough new immigration law police holding up that provision for now.
-- that part of the law calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop is a simple way of putting it there -- some.
Particular requirements that they have to follow before they do that so.
Which is -- keep that in mind but overall.
The ruling from the Supreme Court struck down.
The other parts of the -- unconstitutional and -- five other states followed Arizona's lead.
And fashion similar crackdowns.
On illegal immigrants -- Todd is one of those states in joining me now senator might be a Republican from you talk.
He's on the Senate Judiciary Committee he also clerked for Supreme Court justice out and veto.
Which is part of the reason why maybe he's on the Supreme Court steps right there -- he was awaiting its decisions today to senator -- what does this mean for your state and for the law that you have in place now.
Well with regard to states generally that are trying to tackle the immigration issue it means that they'll have to.
Be careful not to run afoul of what the Supreme Court has now said.
As significant preemption precedent it means it'll be more difficult this for states to set their own penalties on conduct its already against the law federally.
I think this is an unfortunate decision and it's one the states will have to grapple with.
It's one that for reasons pointed out by -- centers especially Justice Scalia today.
Is -- problematic from an historical.
Standpoint and from a constitutional standpoint who's the winner.
Well the winner is perhaps the Obama administration who took the position that.
Because congress has spoken and the federal government has acted in the area of immigration generally the states cannot act and so -- the winner but I think the American people.
The state governments have lost something today.
And what do you think we've lost.
Well we've lost the ability for states to take problems that they themselves are facing.
And to do something about it we have to remember that states face enormous burdens as a result of the federal government's failure to secure the border.
As a result of the -- the government federal government's refusal to enforce federal immigration laws.
It they have to pick up the slack when it comes to providing services.
To those living within their states including and especially -- illegal immigrants and to tell the states that they are somehow powerless to do anything about it.
When the federal government refuses in many instances to enforce those same laws is itself very problematic for the people.
He hit a Wall Street Journal was writing -- -- every viewing this is still coming in as everyone's looking through some of the the information that's been put out there on the ruling on immigration law the Wall Street Journal puts it this -- and says.
Basically this is a win for federal sovereignty we've seen.
We've seen obviously the battle between state rights and federal rights individual rights the -- the government is something that's played out as a team.
-- -- we've been talking a lot about over the last several weeks.
-- -- say that basically this is a battle between Republican states and a democratic administration.
Would you phrase it that way.
I would phrase it that way I would phrase this as a constitutional debate a constitutional discussion that needs to go on.
Now as you pointed out we've had a number of decisions over the years that have a -- to the benefit of the federal government that have given congress more and more power.
And often done so at the expense of the states this is yet another one of those decisions.
It's not about the states themselves it's about the people represented in the state legislatures the people become less powerful whenever congress becomes more powerful.
Quick question -- think this means for the health care law.
I'm not sure that this sends any signal necessarily with regard to which way the health care law's going.
The health care law deals with a different question it doesn't deal with preemption questions.
It deals with the extent of congress' power to tell the American people they have to buy something.
That's completely unprecedented in American history.
And so it's a very different set of circumstances.
I don't think this sends a message one way or another.
Thank you for bringing your unique background to our conversation today senator -- nice to have you we look forward to -- back.
Thank you --