Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Feds' Arizona Immigration Lawsuit on Shaky Ground? | On the Record

Special Guests | Rep. Darrell Issa

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," July 12, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Congressman Darrell Issa has a message for the feds about illegal immigration -- forget what you were doing and try this. Congressman Issa, ranking member of House committee on Oversight and Government Reform went "On the Record."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman, thank you for joining us.

REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.: Thank you, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's no secret you don't like the lawsuit that the federal government has filed against Arizona and Governor Brewer in her official capacity. Why?

ISSA: Because it's frivolous. There are a series of federal programs designed for states to help thwart illegal immigration. E-verify is obviously one for employers.

And then since before I came to Congress 10 years ago we've had a program for arrested individuals to be checked before they are released. And if they are suspected of being unlawfully in the country ICE is supposed to pick them up.

All Arizona is really doing is making these programs standard so they are effective and now getting pushback. If anything they've done a better job by having specific protections, including if you have any form of verified information, a passport, an Arizona driver's license, another state driver's license, as long as they check for whether you are lawfully in the country at the time they issue it -- all of those, on their face get you dismissed immediately.

VAN SUSTEREN: Here's the flipside about this lawsuit. It is going to be swift. It's not going to take evidence, not going to take witnesses. The judge will make the determination whether it does violate the supremacy clause of the constitution or not. So it shouldn't be a complicated process and should at least put that issue to rest at least to the next fight.

ISSA: If you believe that the judge says it's not violating the constitution and that's the end of it, then you didn't practice law, and I know you did.

VAN SUSTEREN: I did. But it then goes up to the 9th circuit, and that six months, eight months, a year down the road --

ISSA: If the administration loses they will ask for an expedited, immediate hearing. This is going to be pushed until the administration wins or loses in Supreme Court. And they are counting on the supremacy clause, which was never intended to stop states from being part of helping the federal government in doing the same things.

VAN SUSTEREN: There's no question the losing party is going to the 9th circuit. But it certainly sends a message. If the federal government loses at this level, that is going to send a blunt message to people who are critical, at least until the appeal is heard.

Likewise, the fact that the United States didn't allow, or didn't argue that the statute is unconstitutional because it racially profiles, that speaks volumes, although some people refuse to acknowledge that fact. At least the lawsuit sorts it out, and it should be fast.

ISSA: I certainly believe in will be sorted out quickly.

On the other hand, when was the last time that the federal government came against the state proactively for its willingness to assist? Could you imagine if Arizona today said, you know what, we don't want to hear from the FBI on gang violence, on interstate trafficking, because we'll do our thing, you do your federal thing. There would be outrage if a state didn't participate --

VAN SUSTEREN: I think it's outrageous that the word illegal doesn't mean what it says. "Illegal" does mean illegal. And I'm not sure why it's OK -- every time you get picked up for shoplifting, that's illegal.

The problem is the federal government has pursued people here illegally and come up with a resolution, whether it be arrest them, or some program if get them integrated within our system. The federal government has failed.

ISSA: You're exactly right. And I think the point that you are getting to is the reason for the suit. The federal government wants to use enforcement as a chip, as a part of the bargaining to get comprehensive immigration reform, which in their case includes a pathway towards citizenship. In the case of Republican, we tend to call it amnesty.

The fact is they lose this bargaining tool if states can individually say, no. Just do your job. We don't want to hear about anything else except do your job.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you want President Obama to do?

ISSA: I want President Obama to realize that the American people do not want amnesty. They are perfectly willing to support a viable guest worker program, but that's a guest worker program.

VAN SUSTEREN: That's after the securing of the border. Your thought is first secure the borders?

ISSA: I believe a combination of e-verify and a reasonable amount of slots to take care of filling the slots where people are being sent out of the country is a simultaneous event. I think they've always been a simultaneous event.

The problem is one side says enforcement first. The other side says give us amnesty and we'll keep from it happening again. Both sides have to be willing to give. You can't have six million, seven million workers disappear at once.

At the same time you have to have a program where people understand they are not going to get to stay here forever just because they came illegally.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is wrong with enforcing the borders first? And then once that has been done -- there's been success in California in the Yuma sector it has been successful. Why not secure the borders and then make a strong commitment to sit down and figure out what we are going to do with the other people who are here?

ISSA: Greta, I'm absolutely for securing the borders. But let's understand, as a border congressman, the border is not problem.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's one problem. People overstaying their visas is another problem. We have to start someplace in trying to resolve this problem. So far we are not getting any place because the two sides lock horns.

ISSA: Border is important and border enforcement and prosecution of coyotes, people trafficking in human beings are important. But at the end of the day the deal that really matters is the one Arizona is doing, e- verify -- don't let people have a job if they are here illegally and you will displace people quicker than anything.

And by the way, if you go through three e-verifies and can't get a worker, come see us.

VAN SUSTEREN: People use false identification. You can game e-verify, if you want.

ISSA: The Maginot Line failed the French because you can't just protect the border. You have to have staggered defense. That has to be at the employer site. It makes all the difference in the world. It is the best way to reduce that 12 million down do six million overnight.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, I don't have any -- I think we need comprehensive solutions as well. I sense you are opposed to an immediate securing the border, are you?

ISSA: Greta, I have voted for the fence. I have voted for and worked for it. I also was the loudest voice getting Carol Lamb fired for not prosecuting coyotes who were enabling people to circumvent our border patrol capabilities. All of that is critical.

But we will never have secure borders unless we have interior enforcement, something Arizona is trying to assist the federal government in doing. The Obama administration is trying to stop them from the only secondary protection that is going to make our jobs and our homes really safe.

VAN SUSTEREN: Quick question, Michael Steele, you said he's not your leader.

ISSA: I'm elected by the people of my district. And I was chosen by my fellow head a committee. My leadership is John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and so on.

VAN SUSTEREN: You want Michael Steele to step down as chairman of the GOP national committee?

ISSA: No, he's supposed to reflect all of the national committee members consensus on policy and the national platform. He is in fact supposed to be an operative on behalf of that group, but a different channel of elected Republicans.

He's clearly an elected Republican, and he's supposed to reflect the consensus of those Republicans. If he does that, great, he could be a great spokesman. But he wasn't elected the way a member of the Congress, House, Senate or the president was, to lead policy. In fact, that's where he's gotten in trouble.

Afghanistan is not his decision to make. It is our decision to make. What he should do is ask his committee men of the 50 states what their position is and then express that position. If their position is the same as his, fine. But by that time it will be in writing, it will be accurate.

This is a good person who has gotten in trouble because he's become a story.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

www.foxnews.com