This transcript is automatically generated
Joining us -- co author of the Arizona law and many others Kansas secretary of state.
-- -- back also -- this Alberto Cardenas junior attorney.
Of -- or business interest affected by immigration laws a former General Counsel to senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
-- in the running executive director of the national immigration.
Form our -- return to you you're in the court.
-- -- It was a great day for Arizona -- The Justice Department was on the ropes for most of the arguments -- it was clear that.
Their answers just weren't -- -- justice from a stance -- -- Attica weren't satisfying the justices including some of the more liberal justices.
And and I think -- the justices also very quickly went to the hearts of -- the biggest weakness.
In the Obama administration's case and that is.
There is no federal statute that prohibits Arizona doing for what it's doing.
Improvement from doing what it is and as a result the Justice Department is making a very strange argument they're saying the federal government's.
Desire not to fully enforce the law should -- prevent Arizona from doing what it's doing and and -- -- -- said can you show me any precedent for us.
Finding that to be preempted for -- to be preempted if they do that and the solicitor general could not offer any precedence so you know I think that at least that provision of the law is gonna have a substantial number of justices voting to -- and I think many other parts.
-- if not the whole thing will also be -- -- -- your thoughts -- of look those of us who have worked as attorneys know that oral arguments are but one element.
Of this this is one hour of oral arguments that happen before the court there's a lot of other work that goes into effect and there's judicial reasoning that will be -- there.
I believe that there is got to be a uniformity of standards that reasonable suspicion is too weak that you know you probable cause is a better standard and that's part of what is considered in the legislation.
We're going to see what is determined.
What is left standing at the end of the day but.
At the end of the day what really needs to happen is congress needs to step in and create a federal uniform system -- the -- immigration.
Let let's look at what's before us in the -- Now we've been hearing about immigration reform for the past thirty years in this country.
-- we have an amnesty that was passed we have the 1996 immigration law.
Are we now are looking and administration.
-- that has chosen not to enforce laws that this Supreme Court is obviously aware that correct.
That is true you need to have coordination and cooperation between the federal government and the states that you cannot have.
Rogue states taking action not saying that's the case here but there have to be -- and I think that's what court's gonna balance slipped.
Our -- are you encouraged by what you've heard today.
Well today's arguments of the Supreme Court -- technical arguments of those very much.
A technical -- -- that was discussed and frankly it was devoid of any real life consequences.
So if you actually look at the anarchist briefs that were filed.
And one in particular -- filed by 44.
Former state attorneys general he's -- 44 statewide law enforcement officials including a Republican former state AG from Arizona who -- actually governor Burris.
For finance chair for her election bid.
As -- the recent democratic state AG.
In that brief they say.
In order to enforce -- implement SB 1070.
It would require them and other law enforcement officials to engage in racial profiling and discrimination.
As a result those resources -- be taken away from actually being able to keep that public safe.
So yes nobody I nobody on the panel today wears a bad or loss is -- law for hit those this point the point is.
When you look at training manuals and in the training manual it says.
In indication of somebody being -- document that are not may actually do it be what they where so all of a sudden you're not thousands of law enforcement in Arizona if this plaza held.
Asking people okay what are you wearing.
That very -- -- illegal.
-- -- SB 1070 as we drafted it in four different sections expressly prohibits the consideration of a person's race ethnicity.
Our national origin.
So that amicus brief that was just -- doesn't make any sense because they would be violating the law if they considered a person's race race or ethnicity.
And one other point -- and but then concerning the federal government's.
-- what are the point concern the federal government's enforcement efforts -- -- we just got some numbers and a couple days ago.
Over the last three years 0820211.
The total population of illegal aliens in the United States dropped 1% over the three year period.
But in Arizona it dropped 36%.
That shows that if you -- at the level enforcement so that -- it has enforcement.
So and everything -- in going forward we shouldn't if I may -- Jack and fact weren't and weeks there.