AZ State Sen. Russell Pearce (R) and AZ State Rep. Krysten Sinema, (D) appeared on the Fox News program On the Record with Greta Von Susteren to discuss the DOJ lawsuit against SB1070. Portions of the interview are below. With some fact checking...
VAN SUSTEREN: What is -- you know, the -- one of the allegations inside the federal complaint -- the civil suit that -- actually, it's a complaint for injunction against your state -- is that -- there's mention about Mexico and the impact it'll have on the U.S. versus Mexico -- you start to shake your head.
PEARCE: Yes. You know, I've read that -- I've read the lawsuit from DOJ, Department of Justice. It's absolutely outrageous. I mean, this is like letting the DUI guy go because it could have an impact on the family, could lose his job, so we don't -- there is no room for humanitarian in the enforcement of the laws in terms of the -- strictly in terms of the law. There's no provision and there's (ph) never been upheld.
This law is fair. In fact, we go farther than the federal laws we talked about before, Greta. We put safeguards in this law that the federal law doesn't have. But what you've got is the Obama administration trying to insert policy into a lawsuit to maintain their non-enforcement mentality and agenda.
According to the White House:
the Border Patrol has doubled in size to approx 20,000 Border Patrol agents on board.
CBP statistics show that illegal immigration into the United States is down with apprehensions between points of entry having dropped 23 percent in FY09. During FY09 the Border Patrol apprehended 556,041 compared with 723,825 during FY08. El Paso Sector saw a 51 percent reduction in apprehensions, the Tucson Sector saw a 24 percent reduction in apprehensions, and the Rio Grande Valley Sector saw a 19 percent reduction in apprehensions. Those statistics reflect a reduction in the number of people attempting to illegally cross our borders.
And as part of his comprehensive plan to secure the Southwest border, President Obama will request $500 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities.
The president will also deploy up to an additional, requirements-based 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border. Funds will be utilized to enhance technology at the border, share information and support with State, Local, and Tribal law enforcement, and increase DoJ and DHS presence and law enforcement activities at the border, to include increased agents, investigators, and prosecutors, as part of a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any -- I mean, a police officer, every time he or she hits the streets at risk -- at risk in terms of getting shot (INAUDIBLE) something horrible by anybody, by someone lawfully here, unlawfully. I mean, there's always a risk. So there's always a risk to being sued. How does this statute create any greater risk for law enforcement?
SINEMA: Well, one of the problem is that individuals can sue a law enforcement agency if they perceive or believe that a law enforcement officer is not enforcing this law to the fullest extent. So they happen to see an officer talking with a person who may be a person of color. That individual can sue the law enforcement agency if the officer doesn't arrest and detain that person.
VAN SUSTEREN: Wait.
SINEMA: Now, on the other hand...
VAN SUSTEREN: I don't want to get too wonkish -- I don't want to get too wonkish with you, but how in the world is there standing, if I'm walking down the street and I see that happen? I mean, does the law specifically give me, as a bystander, that authority?
SINEMA: It does. The law specifically gives citizens -- lawful citizens in the state the right to sue. Now, we all know that a suit wouldn't be valid, so it would likely be dismissed. But it would cost money and take time for that law enforcement agency to deal with that lawsuit.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. I'm...
SINEMA: On the other hand, if...
VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead, and then I got to -- then I got to go, but go ahead.
SINEMA: On the other hand, if a law enforcement agent does stop someone and detains them and inquire into their status, that person could sue on a claim of civil rights violation, whether or not it's a valid claim. So this really puts law enforcement in a tough position about being sued.
FACT CHECK:
This is true, under Subsection G of SB1070:
G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1.THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.
2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
This section of SB1070 is most certainly not apart of the federal law, and creates a dynamic in which local law enforcement officers may feel forced to profile people in order to avoid being sued by any citizen who may suspect that their neighbor is an undocumented immigrant.