>> know, the arguments brought out protesters for and against the law, similar controversial laws are on hold in five other states, alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina , and utah. again, this is some of the video from outside the courts today, not uncommon to see protests but it is an indicator of how hot of a topic this is and how it could factor into the election. let me bring in an attorney from the aclu's immigrant rights protections. thank you so much, andre, for joining me. let me first get your thoughts, you heard pete williams say some court watchers certainly picked up strong signals that the majority of the justices could uphold the most controversial parts of this law.
>> i know enough not to on the questions, but what we did see from the beginning is a concern by several of the justices about basic civil rights . they were concerned about whether section 2 b, the section that requires officers to investigate the immigration status, if they suspect they might be undocumented, they were concerned it may lead to detention that is are extended beyond what it would take for the original stuff. that's something very important to us because how this actually works in practice and how arizona has been arguing this case is that officers are allowed to detain the person while they investigate their immigration status. arizona is now -- i am sorry.
>> please, go ahead.
>> arizona is taking a difference stance and saying, no, it will only last -- it won't last beyond the time it takes to say give a ticket for the stop, if someone is speeding and they can do whatever they can do during that time and only during that time. that's a big shift and that's an important shift and that's something that we're very concerned about.
>> bring many maria kumar, executive director of vote la teen aand thank you for joining us in this conversation. paul clement defended arizona 's law before the supreme court and here is what he said today.
>> what you saw here i think is a real understanding on the justices part that much of what arizona has done in this statute is really accept the invitation of the federal statutes themselves that put a premium on trying to get communication between state and local law enforcement and federal officials.
>> and, maria , we also heard from jan brewer and basically her argument is the same and that she felt the federal government was not acting so the state of arizona had to protect its citizens is what she described it as. what do you make of at least the tone or what some people are leaning to the justices remarks today.
>> the fact is the tone she has to protect the citizens of arizona , immigrants have demonstrated that in the areas of arizona where they live there is a low crime rate so that's nonsense. in reality you will create a patchwork of immigration laws at the state level and almost equivalent of taking the tax law of the federal tax irs code and basically saying each state you can decide what you want. that doesn't function in a democracy and not going to function long-term. what arizona passed is basically condoning and saying, you know what, it is okay to racially profile individuals and that's not okay. there are a lot of different states that are looking to see what happens with the supreme court to figure out if they should continue passing the very difficult harsh immigration laws .
>> as we know the federal courts blocked four of the most controversial parts of this law, the requirement as we discussed police to be able to stop people and check status and the requirement that all immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers which was a great offense to a lot of people, this notion of having to carry around your papers, and a provision making it a state criminal offense for legal immigrants to seek, work or hold i job. have you the governor of the state and the governors of many other states watching this and who say that the onus should have been on the federal government and they were forced to put this patchwork together like it or not.
>> that's exactly not the case what governor brewer is saying. what unfortunately got lost in the argument here was the harassment that these laws will cause individuals. that is part of the federal pre-emption argument. that is not a separate racial profiling argument. the supreme court has been very clear the federal immigration law is exclusive to the federal government and that's to protect against the harassment of law abiding citizens, lawfully permanent residents, and others. this is not a nation where we're required to carry identification as we're walking down the street. if i accidently drop something on the ground and i am cited for littering, i don't have any identification to prove my status, i very well may be detained while an officer attempts to investigate my immigration status and as we heard during the argument today it takes at minimum 70 minutes and an additional 10 minutes to run the first check.
>> maria , a lot of talk about whether or not this will energize the base for the president if the supreme court sees this as an appropriate law, a law that is within the guidelines here. whether you look at some of the numbers last year alone, nearly 400,000 people were deported. it is a record high. at the same time the administration says that a mere unlawful presence in this country is not a federal crime . there is a lot of if you will conflict it seems from the administration when it comes to these laws and obviously this debate on i am gra i guess and if necessity rule in favor do you believe it will energize the latino vote for lack of a better description important to the president and the republicans would like to see come to their side hence the courting of marco rubio for example?
>> i take the best example is what happened to russell pierce who was the architect of sb- 1070 . he had a recall this past november because of the harsh tone against immigration. he galvanized the latino community. they're looking for a political catalyst and the supreme court upholding racial profiling law that says you can be identified as an american simply by the pigment of your skin will galvanize the community and the only way it will work is if we make sure it is not about a candidate but about issuing and making it personal and be sure we do not provide expediency on the backs of defining what an american looks like.
>> thank you both for your time. greatly appreciate it. as
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন