Guests include: Paul Babeu, Pinal County Sheriff; Lydia Guzman, political activist; Carissa Hessick, ASU law professor; David Lujan, State Representative (Dem.); Stephen Montoya, attorney; Rick Murphy, State Representative (Rep.).
Ted Simons: As expected, the implementation of senate bill 1070 produced lots of turmoil. Dozens of dozen people were arrested today, some for blocking access to the 4th avenue jail. Among those arrested was former state lawmaker Alfredo Gutierrez. The demonstrations have been peaceful, but peace is not on the minds of those who sent hundreds of threats to federal judge Susan Bolton, hours after she enjoined parts of 1070. The judge blocked the part of the law that requires police officers to make an attempt to determine the legal status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the county illegally. She also blocked parts of the law that make it a crime to fail to carry proof of legal residency…. That creates a crime for illegal immigrants who apply or perform work….. And the part that allows a warrantless arrest of a person for deportation. Today, lawyers for Arizona filed an appeal of the injunctions. Coming up next, I'll talk to an Arizona state university law professor, but first, David Majure tells us more about what happened today.
David Majure: A judge's preliminary injunction to the key parts of Senate Bill 1070 did little to silence civil rights groups. They were out in force today, the day 1070 became state law. They planned acts of civil obedience starting outside the office of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Sandra Castro: Everybody is going to go in full force and do civil disobedience just because there is a partial injunction doesn't mean that the struggle for human rights is over here in Arizona.
David Majure: That was the message one day earlier outside the federal courthouse after parts of 1070 were enjoined.
Lydia Guzman: This is not a victory; it is a small victory in a big battle. But it is a very good first step What this means to us in the community, is that there is light at the end of tunnel. That this judge is fair and that it will weigh out the constitution when she makes decisions on this law.
Russell Pearce: I would expect more out of Judge Bolton to make decisions that is contrary to this law that disrespects the rule of law and the American people.
David Majure: As expected, the author of Senate Bill 1070 Sen. Russell Pearce, had a different take on Susan Bolton's injunction.
Russell Pearce: It's a temporary injunction , she may even decide that she made a bad decision. If she doesn't we have judges that will tell her.
Lydia Guzman: Right now it is only an injunction, we have not tossed this law as totally unconstitutional because the law is still in effect, it has only been enjoined. However this means we still have a long process to go. The merit of this case will be discussed and it may take years. We'll see what happens.
David Majure: In the meantime, what's happening is political demonstrations.
Sandra Castro: People feel like civil obedience will make it so we can be heard by Obama and city officials here.
David Majure: Civil Rights groups continue to organize acts of civil disobedience much like the one when the US justice department's lawsuit challenging SB 1070 was heard.
Martin Manteca: We want to send a message that this law is unjust. It's our dividing the community and we need to ask individuals who are promoting this law and signing and backing this law to back off and start working with the people of AZ. Not only are we going to be working hard organizing people but also mobilizing them to vote.
David Majure: Martin Manteca was one of seven people arrested for refusing to stop blocking an intersection outside the fed. Courthouse in Phoenix.
Russell Pearce: For all those people in the streets shouting and celebrating about this victory. They need to know something, that It's a shallow victory because the handcuffs came off on law enforcements today. I'm talking about the political handcuffs that we placed on the law officials and communities, sanctuary policies that were in Chandler, Mesa, Tucson, Phoenix. .. I would hope those were rewriting these policies at midnight because they are now illegal.
David Majure: Pearce is claiming victories about the parts of 1070 that were not enjoined. Namely the prohibition of sanctuary policies that limit the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Russell Pearce: It also goes after day labors. If you knowingly pick up day labors and impede traffic, you're in trouble you will be charged and your vehicle will be impounded for 30 days mandatory. So we won a big battle. But (Bolton) She robbed the American people.
David Majure: Pearce admits that it's a weaker bill without the parts enjoined. But he says it doesn't mean it's a time to write a new law
Russell Pearce: There could be things re-written but I don't think so. Her logic was bad and she inserted policy instead of law and ignored precedence. She ignored the constitution and many other rulings. I'm not willing to give her them. I think it's a good law.
David Majure: In fact Pearce believes the entire law will ultimately be upheld.
Russell Pearce: I not only think we will prevail I almost guarantee we'll have a victory at the Supreme Court.
Ted Simons: Here to talk about the court decision on senate bill 1070 is ASU law professor Carissa Hessick. What did you note regards her decision?
Carissa Hessick: Judge Bolton could have decided this a couple ways. She could have said as a general matter it's a usurpation of federal power. The government made some of those arguments in their brief. They also went through and made arguments about specific sections and the judge said essentially the federal government had the burden to prove that each and every section of the law violated federal powers or usurped federal power. To the extent they made a more general argument as they did with section 1, she said, I'm only going to look at your very specific arguments. Even there she rejected one of them.
Ted Simons: even there as well she mentioned the court cannot enjoin a purpose.
Carissa Hessick: that's right.
Ted Simons: so you could say whatever you want for the purpose but don't worry about that. Let's get to the particulars.
Carissa Hessick: that's right.
Ted Simons: let's get to the particulars then. Let's get to section 2, a biggie here. The mandatory status determination.
Carissa Hessick: any time you arrest a person you have to verify their immigration status. The federal government was very concerned about that because they were concerned that it was going to eat up federal resources and divert federal priorities. The only way that the state can verify someone's immigration status oftentimes requires them getting in touch with the federal government.
Ted Simons: so basically it puts a lot of responsibility, taking a lot of time from law enforcement, allowing for a lot of detention by people who you don't even know if they are guilty or not.
Carissa Hessick: that's right. It's one thing for state law enforcement to make their own decisions about whether to verify things but the federal government was concerned by making this mandatory for every single arrest, especially in connection with the citizen lawsuit provision of SB 1070, it meant there would be a flood of requests directed at the federal government. Immigration and naturalization falls under the same general heading as department of homeland security. They have a lot of other things they have to do and other priorities in addition to simply checking the identity of someone who is maybe arrested for a dui.
Ted Simons: You mentioned the citizen lawsuit aspect of this. She didn't have a problem with that.
Carissa Hessick: I might not say she didn't have a problem with it. What she told the federal government is you didn't give me specific arguments as to why this section is preempted by federal law, so she didn't give me any specific arguments, you didn't carry your burden.
Ted Simons: is that the kind of thing that could be changed later on when it goes through the appeals process?
Carissa Hessick: I supppose the US could try to appeal whatever injunctions they didn't get from judge Bolton, but that's not likely.
Ted Simons: Also the idea of limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws, sounds like she was on the side of the state on that one.
Carissa Hessick: What exactly are you talking about?
Ted Simons: The idea of municipalities saying you can't go to the length of the law.
Carissa Hessick: That was again another section that the federal government didn't challenge. I'm not sure they would have a particularly strong argument there. So when with talk become the state trying to usurp federal power we're talking about the balance of power between the federal and state government. That provision about sanctuary cities is really about the balance of power between state and local governments. The federal government doesn't really have a dog in that fight, so they didn't make specific arguments about it.
Ted Simons: Also on section 2 she talked about restricting the liberty of lawfully present aliens. That's again mandatory attention?
Carissa Hessick: She actually -- that's for the mandatory arrest but also --
Ted Simons: Determination.
Carissa Hessick: yes. She actually took language directly out of one of the Supreme Court cases in the field, one of the few in the field, and the Supreme Court in that case, which was a 1941 case, talked about the burden that would be placed on aliens who are lawfully here. She said the government made a pretty good showing here that if someone always had to demonstrate their immigration status that would be the sort of thing that the federal government would be in a position to either impose that burden or not impose that burden.
Ted Simons: section 3, the requirement to carry registration documents. Impermissible she said.
Carissa Hessick: Really sort of falls much more squarely than any other section in that Supreme Court case I just mentioned. The 1941 case. The US Supreme Court said when it comes to registration of aliens that is the sole responsibility of the US government, not an area where states should be involved.
Ted Simons: all-embracing system she says.
Carissa Hessick: Exactly.
Ted Simons: It's the fed's responsibility, not Arizona's.
Carissa Hessick: yes.
Ted Simons: She also wrote that you can't make law inconsistent with the purpose of congress, which I think was also mentioned in another section. That again we're talking preemption here primarily.
Carissa Hessick: The reason that preemption -- we throw the word around, I want to clarify that has a constitutional basis. There's language in the constitution that says the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land. The state can't enact laws that are contrary to what congress does. That's been interpreted to also mean if the us. government has set up a really comprehensive chem about how to regulate something then the states can't come in and put in their own regulation, can't mess with that framework because congress has shown they need their regulations to govern everything. This is one of those areas.
Ted Simons: As we keep moving to section 5, another one she focused on, folks unauthorized not being able to apply for or perform work. She basically says congress has an idea for that and this isn't it.
Carissa Hessick: That's right. The U.S. government in their paper spent a lot of time showing in legislation congress enacted in 1986 and some additional legislation later on thought about whether they were going to have sanctions for people who were here employed even though undocumented. It was in some previous versions and got taken out and congress made the affirmative decision not to have these sorts of sanctions in it. To the extent the state was trying to have these criminal sanctions they were acting contrary to what congress intended.
Ted Simons: Congress says we don't want fines or these sorts of -- what am I trying to say? We don't want it. We purposely didn't include it here and she took that into consideration.
Carissa Hessick: That's right. Congress essentially according to all of the stuff that the federal government put in their paper said we want to deal with the problem of people coming illegally to the United States to work by focusing on employers. We don't want to go after people coming here trying to get these jobs and we only have limited penalties if they are here working illegally having to do with presenting false papers, stealing someone's social security number. Since congress made that decision that's not the sort of decision the state gets to second guess.
Ted Simons: We have a couple other sections. Were you surprised by anything we have talked about so far coming from the judge?
Carissa Hessick: Not particularly surprised. I actually think that this was a very sort of modest decision on judge Bolton's part. The one section about the human smuggling in Arizona, she put the U.S. government through its paces and didn't think their arguments were up to snuff. She -- it seems to me wasn't looking to strike down anything here that the government -- the U.S. government didn't make a really strong case for.
Ted Simons: That was section 4, I believe. [Laughter]
Carissa Hessick: That's right.
Ted Simons: Okay, let's go back to section 5. Transporting and harboring unauthorized folks. This was an interesting set of reasoning in that -- the commerce clause not applicable? Is that what she basically said, but other aspects were? Explain, please.
Carissa Hessick: The point she was trying to make goes back to another Supreme Court case. Explains that even though immigration is an area that's ordinarily regulated by the federal. It doesn't mean states can't do anything just because it might impact immigration. The idea of human smuggling and there was also something else in section 4 about, you know, being in the process of committing some other criminal offense, I think that judge Bolton read this section to be one of those areas where the state might be able to be involved even though. She was actually quoting justice Alito saying this section of the law said that Arizona law enforcement could immediately arrest anyone who they believe has engaged in a deportable offense. Committed some sort of offense that could lead to their deportation. Justice Alito in some very different cases about the right to council and what lawyers have to tell their clients explained that's an extremely, extremely difficult thing to know. Sometimes lawyers don't know exactly what will lead to deportation and what won't. So it's really sort of unreasonable to expect Arizona law enforcement will necessarily know that.
Ted Simons: some of the harshest words, at least from a cursory reading of the decision, substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens and imposes extraordinary burdens on legal resident aliens. Strong stuff.
Carissa Hessick: That is strong stuff. Probably the one section of the opinion where I think people have criticized her, saying she's making some assumptions there about the training that Arizona law enforcement are going to have, how well they would be able to make these sorts of decisions, and so some people say she should have waited until the law went into effect to see how it got enforced and then determine whether it was a problem.
Ted Simons: Overall everything we have talked about so far, she says she finds the likelihood of harm to the federal government and the status quo is more preferable.
Carissa Hessick: That's right. She is relying again on other cases. In some ways a cautious opinion, relying on the Supreme Court, the 9th circuit. She says there's essentially a rule of law in place that says if a state is usurping the power of the federal government we treat that as irreparable harm and we want to maintain the status quo until the case is decided.
Ted Simons: It's in the public interest the way she sees it?
Carissa Hessick: There's a whole other factor whether the U.S. government would succeed over all and irreparable harm.
Ted Simons: interesting. That's going to be debated quite a bit as to whether it's in Arizona's best interests. Appeal today to the 9th circuit. Talk about this process. What happens?
Carissa Hessick: So this isn't your regular appeal, but the Arizona government has appealed her ruling and they want an expedited appeal from the 9th circuit court of appeals. With their motion, which means they basically get to cut in line for everybody else waiting to get their appeal heard, they submitted a schedule that they would like to have the appeal follow, when the briefs have to go in. I believe they said they wanted oral argument to occur September 13. Even if Arizona gets their way and they get the motions for an appeal granted we wouldn't see any movement from the 9th circuit court of appeals either affirming or reversing her until the middle of September.
Ted Simons: And if it's not expedited?
Carissa Hessick: Then it depends how bad their docket is right now. The ninth circuit has a lot of cases. They have one of the heaviest work loads in the country.
Ted Simons: We're still waiting on other suits.
Carissa Hessick: We are.
Ted Simons: How many? Six others?
Carissa Hessick: I think that's right. The department of justice is -- seven suits.
Ted Simons: It's not over until it's over.
Carissa Hessick: This really was only the beginning for her.
Ted Simons: Thank you for helping us figure this thing out. We appreciate you being here.
Carissa Hessick: My pleasure.
Ted Simons: Among the plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits against senate bill 1070 is phoenix police officers David Salgado, who said it would have caused him to use racial profiling. Joining him is his attorney, Stephen Montoya and Pinal county sheriff Paul Babeu, who supports 1070. Sheriff, your thoughts on the decision.
Paul Babeu: Well, it's not everything for everyone. You have strong, heated emotions on both sides from law enforcement perspective: -- it's a little bit complicated. We have found individuals in a vehicle stacked like cord wood. You don't have to be a detective to figure out what's going on here, to not call the border patrol. This, in fact, says that myself as an officer -- I think it changes the whole conversation and discussion where, yes, the bill basically from a layman's perspective was gutted. So for those of us that are -- there are still many life lines for an officer or deputy to call out. We still have 287-g, which is highly successful. Legitimately cross certified in federal immigration law. You have ice and border patrol. Those are all vehicles that you can use separate and apart from any state crime.
Ted Simons: Reaction to the decision.
Stephen Montoya: I think it was no surprise. I think this law went way overboard. This law was unprecedented. I do agree with the sheriff that law enforcement have always had a lot of tools to use at their disposal to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. I do believe that this law was completely unnecessary. I believe that this law was really a political law that attracted a lot of attention and was used to allow some politicians to raise a lot of money and defeat their political adversaries, but 12 as far as changing the what way law enforcement officers do their job in Arizona, I don't think it will have any impact at all. I think the sheriff is absolutely correct that tools that were already available for literally years and years and in some cases decades were sufficient for law enforcement officers to use in order to deal with the problems of illegal immigration that allegedly justified this law.
Ted Simons: So when we hear that senator Pearce, author of the bill, saying this does not necessarily gut the bill, you say --
Stephen Montoya: He's -- senator Pearce is a very talented politician. But he's completely wrong. I think what the sheriff just said is right. Since 1952, local and state law enforcement officers have had the right to arrest anyone that they believed or anyone they had probable cause to believe was involved in smuggling humans. That has been against the law since 1952. More over, if any law enforcement agency in the state of Arizona wants to enforce immigration law across the board, they can as the sheriff just acknowledged quite correctly. 287-g, a federal law passed in 1986 authorizes state and local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law with federal supervision and with federal approval obtained in advance, so I really do think that this law was just a political spectacle. It didn't give law enforcement officers any tools they didn't already have. This was really a political farce that has cost the state of Arizona, unfortunately, a lot of money.
Ted Simons: What's all the hubbub?
Paul Babeu: I would disagree. It's not a farce. Clearly Washington says the supremacy clause; inherently this is our job, federal immigration, to enforce that. We agree with that. We would just ask that there's legitimate and full not only security of the border because I have said from day one the SB 1070, though I support it in eliminating any sanctuary policies that have existed, which is a problem because there's a lack of uniformity, to have the federal secure the border and stop illegal immigration. Here's why. My chief deputy and I were talking. It's like a water hose on your back deck. You could try to mop it up, and until you turn it off you'll be mopping all day and get nowhere. We can never get to the point where a lot of us want to eventually get to. What do we do with 12, 13,14, 15 million illegal immigrants here in this country? That conversation, because of the tenor of where we're at in our society, we're not going to get there because the federal government, instead of putting the resources necessary to secure the border, even if they were looking at it politically to appease the other side, has not happened. That has to take place. I don't think -- not only it wasn't a farce; this is additional tools where I mentioned 287-g. I only have 11 deputies that could enforce that. Now with this law if it was fully enforced, as a class one misdemeanor we would have 214 deputies.
Stephen Montoya: But sheriff, you are free to certify more 287-g officers if the federal government allows you to do so. Have you asked? With all due respect, I think you are wrong. The federal government is enforcing federal immigration law more than it ever has in the history of the United States. More undocumented immigrants are being deported this year than in any other year in the history of the United States. Less undocumented or a smaller number of undocumented immigrants are crossing the United States border this year than in any year in the United States. so the federal government is doing a better job than it has ever done in our nation's history, and they are promising to do an even better job. The 15 or 12 million -- first of all we have 1 million less undocumented immigrants this year than we had last year. I'll tell you why. Because now the employer sanction law is being enforced by the federal government, and that's the way to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States. By enforcing the federal laws that already exist. In fact, this administration is enforcing those laws to a greater extent than any administration in history. So there's a lot of rhetoric going around, but with all due respect, sheriff, I have watched you and I think that you are a very talented speaker, but sometimes I think that I don't live in Arizona, that I live in Afghanistan. Arizona is not in a state of siege. Crime is down in Arizona, in Phoenix, in Flagstaff and immediately more at the border.
Paul Babeu: Here's where you're wrong. You can't have it both ways. One you're saying this is a federal responsibility to enforce immigration law then you say, why don't you get all your deputies certified on 287-g? This is not our primary job. That's what I'm saying. I have said that from day one. This is the federal government's job. I have been deployed in Yuma where that border is secured. 95% reduction in illegal entries. Why? Because the federal government deployed soldiers there. It was under president bush. President Clinton authorized that double barrier fence. Here in Tucson, what I'm asking for, to take those successes and bring them to Tucson.
Stephen Montoya: That has nothing to do with 1070, though, sheriff.
Paul Babeu: That's what I'm saying…
Stephen Montoya: So you admit 1070 is not necessary?
Ted Simons: let him speak.
Paul Babeu: This is not our job. You're arguing it's -- in their whole brief. So do your job. The only way that we'll be able to do it, aside from hiring 10,000 additional border patrol agents, this is just back office stuff, secure the border. Build the fence. Stop it where proven. It's a shame you and other people to use it as a weapon against us being dramatic about things.
Stephen Montoya: You have used this to raise money. I have seen your website. Tell the audience how long you have been a law enforcement officer in Chandler.
Paul Babeu: If you're going to try to make this about me personally, to attack me --
Stephen Montoya: You are an elected official. You are looking for contributions. you're using this --
Paul Babeu: Every person…If we were to listen to you everything is fine.
Stephen Montoya: better than it's ever been. Do you admit that?
Paul Babeu: No, I don't. Gains have been made before the Obama administration. If you think it's okay that 250,000 people have been apprehended by the border patrol -- [speaking simultaneously]
Stephen Montoya: It's their job.
Paul Babeu: By their own admission they say that's one out of every 2.6. We have 300,000 people to enter the state of Arizona and we have no clue that they are. That's the open borders.
Ted Simons: We have less than a minute left.
Stephen Montoya: can I respond?
Ted Simons: Very quickly.
Stephen Montoya: This is all about politicians raising money. The federal government is doing its job better than ever before. Less undocumented immigrants are traveling to the United States through Arizona than ever before.
Paul Babeu: explain the facts that went from
Stephen Montoya: If we were to listen to you we would think --
Paul Babeu: You're making it all about personalities.
Stephen Montoya: -- well --
Paul Babeu: Yes you are.
Stephen Montoya: You already had all the tools you needed --
Paul Babeu: What have I said from the beginning? Secure the border. You're trying to attack anyone out there about standing up for the state of Arizona.
Ted Simons: We're out of time. We're out of time. Gentlemen, I think we discussed something a little bit there. Thank you both for joining us. We appreciate a spirited discussion.
Thank you.
Ted Simons: One of the actions that might be taken now that the immigration law has been enjoined is a change to the law by the state legislature. Here to talk more about that and reaction to the injunction is house minority leader David Lujan and also representative Rick Murphy, who supports 1070. Good to have you here.
Both: thank you.
Ted Simons: David, what did the judge get right, what did she get wrong?
David Lujan: I think she got most of it right. A few days before Governor Brewer signed 1070, I sent a letter and a couple others outlining details we felt concerned for was really a lot of the same things that judge Bolton found in hers, that the senate bill 1070 goes too far in terms of the federal preemption clause and I think that that's what she found in her ruling, a lot of the same provisions we had concerns with are the ones she had concerns with.
Ted Simons: What did she miss?
David Lujan: I think she was actually pretty right on in terms of her decision. That means that at the legislature there's a lot of things that we can focus on, but I think the judge Bolton was pretty much right on in terms of her decision.
Ted Simons: Rick, as far as hits and misses?
Rick Murphy: Since she left sanctuary city prohibition in there I guess David would have voted for that bill. Not to be too snarky. I think that she got a lot of it wrong. It wasn't really a surprise frankly. We figured we would be really winning this battle at the Supreme Court level anyway eventually. I think that's what will happen. She really relied heavily on a precedent from 1941. There have been three major immigration changes in the federal law since then, and her ruling really doesn't address that. The fact of the matter is the parts of 1070 that she said were unconstitutional really are parallels of federal law. There's no reason other than politics or maybe carrying the water of the administration that those should have been thrown out.
Ted Simons: Didn't the idea of preemption which seemed to hold sway, seemed this is the federal government's responsibility, not the state, and so the federal government has proven harm if this law goes into effect. You're saying you're not buying that.
Rick Murphy: No, I'm not. For example, on the inquiry into the immigration status, the reasoning that she used to say that it was preempted and would cause harm to the federal government wasn't that it was somehow different from the law that they have or that there were different criteria or anything like that. It was -- that's a congressional decision of what they are going to make the law. It was all about the executive branch and the way that they choose to enforce it or not enforce it. By actually enforcing it would create too big of a burden, a bigger burden than they wanted to carry. That's why it was preempted. That's really not what preemption is. The fact of the matter is that was the whole point. We wanted to interfere with the way they are not enforcing the law because they are not enforcing the law.
Ted Simons: Sounds like a judge says you can't interfere.
David Lujan: I disagree with rick. The Supreme Court has been very consistent over the years saying that federal government has the authority and has brought authority to regulate immigration issues. That's where 1070 went too far into the federal jurisdiction. But I think now what we have to do at the legislature is focus on what are things that we can do as a state to really go after the issues that relate to immigration. That is going after the crime associated with immigration, drug cartels, human traffickers, money launderers.
Ted Simons: Do you expect that to be the focus and do you expect, perhaps, some legislation to come through addressing parts of the law that were enjoined?
David Lujan: Well, you know, two weeks or a week after 1070 was passed the legislature went through and did a fix bill. That was supposedly the fix to try to address some of these issues. So I don't think that the legislature is going to try to fix some of the issues the judge raised in her decision. I think you'll see as Russell Pearce has said he's going to try to politicize this even more by going after a birth certificate or citizenship. I think we'll see more legislation that is used as really political gamesmanship, not really a solution to our immigration issues.
Ted Simons: It's a moving target with the appeals process. We're not sure how this plays out, but is there a possibility that things that were blocked by the judge could be readdressed?
Ricky Murphy: I would say maybe it's possible, but we have a limited legislative session. We can't pick up any time we want and have a legislative session. We're at the mercy of the timing of that appeals process. I kind of tend to agree with David as far as the likelihood of what's going to happen. I think we're more likely to see efforts in different directions or other areas that haven't been addressed in 1070 as opposed to readdressing items.
Ted Simons: Some of those areas are --
Ricky Murphy: I think the birth certificate and citizenship issue is clearly one that Russell Pearce has said he wants to look at and maybe there's something else out there too. I don't know.
Ted Simons: Over all politics here, let's start with the Republican Party. Most folks think that the republicans and conservatives and the right wing on the losing side of this decision for the most part. That's a general consensus. First do you agree with that, and secondly, how does that impact the party this election season?
Ricky Murphy: Well, it's interesting. I think first of all that the characterization of the right side of the spectrum losing on this particular decision, that's like calling the game in the first inning. The reality is this is going to be an appeals process that goes through the ninth circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court. The reality is most of us that supported this bill were not surprised by this ruling. Frankly expected to not really have victory until the Supreme Court. Really this is just getting the ducks lined up. It's a step in the right direction and it's getting the ball further down the field.
Ted Simons: Does this help or hurt the Democratic Party? It's kind of one of those things, you're punting here, another football metaphor. The issue is not going away, it's standing there. What does it do to the party and its chances this election season?
David Lujan: I prefer to say this isn't a partisan issue, that we should be working together to come up with reasonable solutions. When it comes to democrats starting with terry Goddard and down through the legislative races democrats have been consistent in saying we have to go after the drug cartels, human traffickers, and money launderers. The democrats in the house introduced some real sensible solutions. When we talked about some things we can do next year in the legislature I hope they would look at some of the things we put forth. I introduced a bill making it a class 3 felony to rent or purchase property that's used as a drop house. Another piece of legislation we worked on with terry Goddard would increase penalties to purchase weapons under false pretense whether you're transferring those to drug and human smugglers. It would give prosecutors real tools to go after these issues. These bills have never even received a hearing in the legislature.
Ted Simons: But do you expect after a decision like today, we're having protests and demonstrations in the streets and more to come, do you expect that kind of cooperation any time soon? Does this change the game?
David Lujan: Well, I would hope so. What we have seen is the legislature putting forth ideas trying to politicize the immigration issue. Two years ago it was employer sanctions and that was the answer. We have seen two prosecutions under the employer sanctions, one to a company that went out of business right after they were -- shortly thereafter. So they keep putting that forward ideas that there aren't real solutions.
Ted Simons: I keep hearing that it's all politics and face time. How do you respond?
Ricky Murphy: It's not all politics. The reality is we want to solve this problem as much as anybody. The reality is the democrat party is out of step when it comes to this issue. They are politicizing it to try to get votes. They don't want to alienate the Hispanic vote. Employer sanctions is something they had a drumbeat for a while. When we agreed with them and went ahead and moved forward they were not only surprised, they were not really very happy about the fact that we did it. When we do try to go ahead and take an idea that is a democrat sponsored bill and run with it, all of a sudden we're bad guys trying to politicize it.
David Lujan: That's not the case. I just gave you two examples of bills that were democratic bills that would have given prosecutors real tools to deal with our immigration issue. They have never even received a hearing. I think when you're talking about immigration, let me give you another example. Funding for public safety. We have watched -- I have understood we lost 180 dps positions since the first of the year. Our local law enforcement need to play a role in that. We have lost 180 dps officers. Our county sheriffs have had budget cuts as a result of the cuts from governor brewer and the republicans. It works both ways.
Ted Simons: Will those kinds of ideas -- I don't want to call them peripheral, certainly ideas not necessarily focused -- will those things get punted around a little bit in next legislative session? Will more of these things be heard or are we so far downfield that's in the past?
Rick Murphy: I think it's hard to say. It depends on how some of the elections shake out and who ends up being in the house and senate. Frankly as somebody not on the judiciary committee I wasn't familiar with those particular bills. Maybe it was a different committee. The one about the drop houses in particular sounds like it would be of interest. It's the kind of thing I would look forward to looking at more closely.
Ted Simons: We will stop it right there. Gentlemen, thank you so much. We appreciate it.
Both: thank you.
Ted Simons: We continue our discussion of the court's action on senate bill 1070. Joining us is Lydia Hernandez of the institute for Mexicans abroad.
Lydia Hernandez: Thank you for having me on.
Ted Simons: Reaction to the judge's decision.
Lydia Hernandez: confusing for us. There's mixed emotions in the community. Personally for those of us working in and around immigration, it certainly is a victory. I think it's a step forward, but we have a lot of work ahead of us anticipating a slew of anti-immigrant legislation coming before the next session. A lot of work ahead of us.
Ted Simons: On a personal note, where were you and what was the reaction around you when you heard of the injunction?
Lydia Hernandez: We started earlier. There was a lot of planning meetings Wednesday, yesterday evening I was expecting some colleagues coming from out of state. So we welcome those. We were at a preparation meeting in the evening around the civil disobedience. Kind of some information from attorneys in that. In the morning I actually hadn't even turned on the TV when I was getting bombarded with calls, so it actually got to me from friends, calling me, what does this mean?
Ted Simons: You mentioned civil disobedience. Does the decision take some steam out of those demonstrations?
Lydia Hernandez: I would personally think that it would. It hasn't. I have been in a lot of conference calls nationwide. I serve as an advisory board to a coalition. It's actually quite the opposite. I personally was expecting that I was actually fearing that it might. It hasn't. The talk around the nation is we have got to continue. We can't ease up. We have to continue with the actions. We have to continue with the forums. So we keep plowing ahead.
Ted Simons: describe today's protest. What did you see?
Lydia Hernandez: People were not easing up. There are still some of the women at the capitol that have been doing visuals. It's a victory for them. Some were emotional, some were crying. This means a lot to us. There are so many activities going on that we didn't get the thousands around a specific action, but there they were certainly widespread throughout phoenix, a combination of vigils, forums, the physical presence at the state capitol, demonstration outside the jails and civil disobedience actions.
Ted Simons: Let's talk about that a little bit. Does it make sense to have civil disobedience after what many people would consider a victory? Not a complete and total victory but I don't think many think this was a loss for the activist community for this particular issue. Does civil disobedience make sense in that situation?
Lydia Hernandez: It certainly does. For those of us working in and around the issue for years, but you continue the work, so I think right now the sentiment is we're not going to ease up. We're going to continue as if this hasn't happened. We're certainly celebrating, but we're going to be reacting in this fashion because we have to continue. I think the road, the end; the main primary victory would have been immigration reform. Obviously we're not there yet so we can't ease up. That's the price.
Ted Simons: for those watching and learning about folks lying down, blocking access to the jail, other acts of civil disobedience, and they want to know what good does it do -- what good does it do?
Lydia Hernandez: We're self-expressing our sentiment. That is how we feel about it. We're being impacted by it. it's going to have to take extreme measures to get the attention that we have received and that we're going to continue to receive. Obviously we have been involved in it for many years. It hasn't gotten to this point, so I think if it hadn't been for sb 1070, we wouldn't be discussing that or having such actions. Those actions have to continue.
Ted Simons: Representative Grijalva has called for an end to the boycott of Arizona. Do you agree?
Lydia Hernandez: Again, mixed emotions. Being one that lives in Arizona certainly we need employment. We need people. However, from organizations nationwide and … how do we help your cause, the answer, what they can do is by supporting those boycotts. It's one of those darned if you do, darned if you don't.
Ted Simons: With that in mind a lot of people say the damage is already done. If so, how do you repair the damage?
Lydia Hernandez: I'm a believer that damage has already been done. I think the education of our community -- I think more involvement, more equitable laws. There's an answer. There's a solution to this. This is immigration reform. We want a document, a previous conversation with the sheriff from Pinal county sharing concerns about open borders. We don't want open borders. We want every person coming into our country to be documented. We want to protect our law enforcement, our residents in the U.S., but there has to be a way of documenting.
Ted Simons: We're hearing of an exodus of Hispanics, legal and otherwise, from
Arizona. Are you seeing this? Are you hearing about this?
Lydia Hernandez: yes. I also served as president of an elementary school district on the west side of phoenix. We had to close down three schools. I'm alarmed with what we face in august. What this means to our district in terms of resources that we're already lacking to provide an array of services for students. I am seeing people leave. I'm seeing a lot of empty homes. I'm seeing a lot of intimidation, fear. A lot of families that are just going hungry, really. Some are moving out of state. There's a combination. I wouldn't say it's a complete exodus because there are people willing to stay and not just run.
Ted Simons: Last question. Those who are capable, able to vote, it's often been said that the Hispanic community and along with young people are the two crowds that politicians love to court but can't get to the polls. Does this change that?
Lydia Hernandez: I believe so. I believe there's a lot of education, a lot of organizations taking part in bringing the education about getting the importance of the vote to our communities more than at any other time. I'm a believer that this November we're going to see the beginning of the changes. I think we have a lot of work ahead of us, but I'm going to venture to say by 2014 we'll have a Latino electorate that will be a lot more meaningful.
Ted Simons: thank you for joining us.
Lydia Hernandez: thank you.
Paul Babeu:Pinal County Sheriff;Lydia Guzman: political activist;Carissa Hessick:ASU law professor;David Lujan:State Representative (Dem.); Stephen Montoya:Attorney;Rick Murphy:State Representative (Rep.);
