What the Arizona ruling means to the anti-imgration cause.

Wow you. Is a funny thing. Coaches -- say you know nuance it's not a way. What was that like a year and a half ago. And what you lose 35 pound. 6060. You -- sixty so he's the girl. Everybody in the company consult with -- even listeners. Well check in with the season were the world's foremost expert now. Because he looks so spilt I think of staff of thinking of starting a website what -- it'd -- Dislike you know fat man's guide to lose weight -- the thing -- like hey you ever read these muscle magazines in the east -- that losing program -- things and it's just on this. You know. They take what's eaten its a staff that you never heard of you don't even know how to -- it's just all that stuff they wanna sell yes so I'm just thinking of writing a book or -- website the real man's. Diet loss you know how to how to lose weight without joining expensive gyms and needing. Ridiculous food you've never heard of problems with eating what's -- -- you know you have to do you know how that actually pretty good marketing it is a good idea. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- What you have to do is take this take yourself at the same moment with the same -- everything identical -- but in line. You're you're just -- in your stomach and and make your -- the apostle Photoshop couples don't do that just just make it clear that you're faking it is on Stan instead of trying to make yourself look at that that's a good idea that man's guide to lose and you go for. What's your number one tip your Basil -- eat whatever you eat whatever the value nets that your now Bob -- who's joining us now from fair US dot org used to be fat like. Did you bug never you're never fat now so so you don't know about weight loss on. Not much what do you have to lose anything. I think over the last couple weeks in mind. Yes you where it's been an exciting period so Bob works with the boxes at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Which worked. To craft to the Arizona legislation. That got passed into law in just got overturned by those nasty people at the Supreme Court. So it's a couple days later. You've had time to contemplate that we had a great conversation with -- boss Dan Stein a couple days ago. Who was fired up he was fired up but you and what how -- you -- like a madman. I tell you -- to rip the place apart. Well we've got it would we've gone through 34 days now it just complete nuclear meltdown constitutional crisis on this. Immigration issue -- clearly up a political crisis last week what was it Thursday or Friday the president. Of the United States of America declared that America has a new plan. To deal with the legal immigration into amnesty plan for up to a million and a half illegal aliens we didn't know anything about it congress wasn't consulted. The president usurp the congressional authority to regulate immigration we get a Supreme Court decision. An -- -- two and a half hours after we get the Supreme Court decision which didn't go well the president. Polled felt more tools morial legitimate more legal tools using the apparatus of the department of homeland justice. Basically nullified any game that Arizona had you know it's it's it's -- -- did several a couple of busy day you. Like the new system where you don't have to mess around with -- writing bills and having committee hearings and all kind of stuff. Well hey lucky you know it's -- to be kidding. Well I forget what -- -- the name of that -- is where bill Brooks just stare -- the camera but. In America we have a president who is obligated under the constitution. To carry out all the laws enacted by congress and by the way. Here's a wake up call congress makes immigration laws and not the executive branch. The court was -- That the practice of Arizona whatever it was doing basically. Was unconstitutional. Because. The -- right to make those rules and to enforce those rules if I'm interpreting this correctly belongs with the federal government the understanding -- always been the assumption always was. And I believe prior court ruling supported the notion. Debt even though it was the charge of the federal government to make and enforce immigration law. The tech could not be done without the corporation of the state senate was expected that they would work together. Where are we now and it is this a big change or am I correct in my assumptions. You are what -- -- so when that decision was first announced it looked pretty good at the major section was kept in the others were -- stay out as the day went on and we read the reasons the rationale for the court making. We didn't like it it became apparent it was a very bad decision. Section to do what's kept -- that that was that was the biggest accident briefly that just allows state to require their law enforcement officers to inquire about immigration status. That's good because that's going to its fuel more state action. It's gonna provide I can get some more momentum to the idea that the states are not totally excluded for from participating in immigration enforcement. That's good in the court that the court said the you can do this because this is what congress does encourage the sharing of information. So section that was captain that was good the other sections were scrapped they were thrown out. And the justices claimed basically two things one is that the federal government has preemptive authority over broad areas of immigration enforcement already. Of course they ignored the fact that the executive branch is using that authority to dismantle. Immigration enforcement. The court said that just because the administration isn't doing its job. Doesn't mean the state can't. Even win the state law -- federal laws perfectly so the net result. And certainly to Obama's favor is that now. We now know what it's doing much enforcement. So where does this leave us moving forward. I have been critical of the president I -- here's what I say about President Obama I say he doesn't represent the United States of America doesn't leave the united states of murky he doesn't view that is being relevant to his job he only cares about those people who vote for him. Or who he thinks he can -- I've vented into getting them to vote for him so all of his policies and their policy directives. Are crafted with that in mind. And particular one of the things I've cited was the lawsuit against the state of Arizona if you are representing the United States of America why would you sue. The state of Arizona for trying to enforce. Federal law which -- the -- art art art in forcing. Why would you stand in the way of a state that's trying to do the right thing when I haven't seen the federal government Cummins who. Any any towns and cities that are making safe havens for people who are violating immigration -- you would think those will be the first lawsuits filed. And yeah. It BI darts at it's it's a total double standard in this president seemed to assume that our -- Our republic is based on one branch of government and that is the executive branch in the Obama branches. Government. You know I think what this means moving forward what. It's the justices said that with regard to immigration a top. And what it did they not only borrowed too would be executive branch but they did take a look at the intent of congress they looked at both the executive branch and congress. They said when they scrapped most recent actions that congress doesn't want states doing much the bit disinterested bear with me. That congress doesn't want states doing anything not expressly allowed. And they said they couldn't find any evidence that congress wanted so much participation from the states. Obviously we disagree with that okay so now what does that mean where -- -- moving. You know I think first what congress needs to the needs to wake up. Get out of -- understand they're getting rolled over. -- Congress has got to write more specific statutes that give the states more authority to participate. And in terms of the -- giving the executive branch and and it's discretionary or authority to not enforce that the law. What does that mean. It means to date congress ought to go to work in the ought to define. The limits of what a president can do and it should make laws that actually as odd as this sounds that sounds almost surreal with. But for me to say this but the solution for the crisis here at the congress have to read a law that restricts presidents from ignoring the law. Which is a rather bizarre situation. It's very bizarre bazaar in the -- congress probably needs to write in law. To give the states Morse statutory authority to challenge the president if we refuse it he refuses to do it. -- but they -- they -- -- let me let me just ask you about this one section that got upheld because the thing I wanna clarify. Is is the section that got upheld. That is that if you pull somebody over and you have reasonable suspicion that he might be illegal you can inquire further for proof for right of identity. And the question is is that -- win the for the good guys or is that actually defeat. But it it it it's a huge win for the good guys because it goes against every every instinct that law enforcement officer patents. To not inquire about immigration status we and he has reasonable suspicion that somebody is here illegally looked -- does not mean. That the topic to pull over Jay walkers and spent five hours straight trying to determine your immigration status -- but it does mean that's at some point tonight south of Phoenix and I'll guarantee you. That's on top it's gonna stop an overloaded speeding van. There's going to be fourteen people -- that nobody is gonna speak English nobody's gonna have a driver's license a social number no insurance no registration. The tags are rusty you're dead. If the cops -- lucky he gets a -- gold Jimmy Carter Mexican consular cards. It happens all the time it will happen to donate -- there's a lot of human trafficking and smuggling and drug running neck goes on the -- guns in the car. Taught at common sense at that point might suggest asking about immigration status would protect the public's safety. One yeah I in this scenario you'd just gave I don't even understand why you would need a law if -- -- -- a guy if you got a van full of people. That's speeding nobody's got a driver's license already the burden is on those people. To come through with some proof of America's there -- into the justice system are they not I mean if an American is doing that. If I'm speeding along with over and over filled car that has and numerous violations on it. And I don't have a driver's license I can't find the paperwork for the motor vehicle or whatever. You know -- -- in trouble already. Well I UT UQ certainly should be an absurd extreme example but let -- let's say you know you're doing ninety in -- point five tonight you just one guy in a car. Like it to the cops still had it under this new law the topic. Testing out -- reasonable you'll for -- because we you know we believe in the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. It doesn't mean the cops -- immediately shot that's ahead in the day window and they give me your immigration papers. There is going to be no difference in the procedure just like before the cops could answer driver's license registration. And so okay but if I can provide all those things if it's you're made in we have our paperwork. But where involved in some candidates say worst drug smuggling immigrants illegal -- you know how do they how how can they. Appropriately. Pursue further investigation of the guys I'm driving in the car right on illegal driver but these guys are clearly by all your intuitive census. They're clearly in the country illegally and I I just busted up some kind of smuggling thing -- from the cop. Is there a way to add to exercise the authority of this Arizona law the part that still standing without being accused. -- made it in a way that a court court will support of engaging in racial profiling. Well of course the ACLU was going to have -- you know -- below full court press here to make sure that did the very next stop that happens and Arizona is that going to be replete with. Racial profiling but. All that aside here's the wanting the cops often coming in the absence of any required document in throughout the process of -- lawful inquiry. Reasonable suspicion about immigration status sort of revealed itself. Is that intuitive yet is that the latitude that we provide in trust with our officers yes why because we have to do that. Double -- it into -- the other thing not only after all of this that the police officer. Have the authority to be reasonably suspicious that a president of illegal alien and and even Latin even down. The Arizona law restricts the law enforcement officer in this is the core of it. From considering race color or national origin as part of the reasonable -- a zen like layers upon layers. Creates. What creates the suspicion in my mind if on the cop. If it's not race. If it's not anything else that's protected how to why did you know other then clearly being illegal to let -- a driver's license right off the bat. But if I got paperwork and say did say it's bogus paperwork but the cop doesn't know -- you know what are the things I could uses a cop. That would be legitimate under the law if you're not allowed to profile. It that you you do not have to be a proven a place of residence you're not speaking English Ukraine have no documentation whatsoever that affirms. That you have any legal status in the -- -- as a lack of Inglis is legitimate. You'd have to take that up with the court but I would say that that is part of -- -- total valuation made after. Many other universal verification. Procedures are put into place. All right it doesn't sound all that great but it's something to start with. And out you know the battle lines are drawn we'll see how things play out moving forty guys got a -- try to pass another law and another state what's the effort go to. Next. -- -- At you know I think the next -- it effort is that you got he'd -- it now you've got it. It's the states that have the ability to replicate portions of the Arizona built in inquiry about immigration status. If you take that. And you add on mandatory. You've got eight is very strong model legislation the state level a lot of the state legislators are legislatures. Are out now but when we come back next year. They've got new direction they've got more clarity we will see more states doing. Are right. Move all right the fight continues. I like god Bob Dane from ferry US dot org the federation for American immigration. Risk.