former federal prosecutor is against it. good morning. bill: the feds say rights of immigrants in alabama are being trampled. they have the evidence to prove it. what do you say? we don t know exactly how the law is being implemented but the fact of the matter the obama administration has losing record before the supreme court. for example the arizona law earlier this spring the supreme court came down whiting versus chamber of commerce allowed the state s law, mandatory use of e-verify and punishing businesses who knowingly hire illegals by stripping their business licenses. those provisions were upheld by the supreme court. alabama had those two provisions in their law and some others that a federal judge temporarily upheld. so i think the administration is frustrated that states are allowed to play an immigration context. they are allowed. the supreme court said so. the federal law said so. bill: here is what the feds always said, michael. i will get you to jump in
the writing seminar faculty at princeton and a professional dance teacher and a small business owner join me in studio and tell me what they re facing. it s good to have you here. i appreciate your time and also your willingness to share your story. josh, what is the situation right now in what you face for henry s possible deportation? henry faces a deportation hearing may 6th so a little over a week from now. the reason he s being deported, he s from venezuela, we re a same-sex couple. we got married last year and yet the federal government does not recognize our marriage. in the immigration context the federal government comes into my home and rips my husband away from me. henry, for you, when you came here in 2002 from vens ezuela a you came on a visitor s visa, did you think then that you wanted to stay, that you wanted to become a green carded citizen here in the u.s. and what steps did you take at that point to do it on your own?
expect, jonathan? well, i certainly would expect the same type of process. i m not as confident as bruce is in terms of the outcome. i think there are at least four justices on the supreme court that would have considerable problems with this opinion. on what grounds, jonathan? well, the issue here is implied preemption. the immigration laws do not expressly say that there s not concurrent jurisdiction, as it s called, with the states. and the supreme court has actually recognized current jurisdiction in passed immigration context. it s a close question. once you strip away all the rhetoric and the heat and passions, there is a legitimate legal question here, and it s a pretty close one. what they re going to have to try to do is get the trial judge to get the judge to give an interlocutory appeal, to stay her case and allow them to go to the court of appeals. she doesn t have to do that, and my guess is that she would.
supreme court held in immigration context that the state could also legislate and complement the federal legislation, which is why you were saying they then have to argue, this impedes and burdens us. this is hard to see what it burdens. they ll have a tough time making the case. if you are in the solicitor general office, they don t bring close cases against laws that haven t been enforced yet, you can t prove it s a burden. they haven t done anything. why are they bringing the case? they are bringing it as part of the president s attempt to rally hispanic voters. bret: they are seeking preliminary injunction to prevent the law from moving forward. what about governor brewer and her pushback in all of this saying they ll be aggressively defending the law? she has just tweeted that she is asking for money to keep arizona safe in this lawsuit. what about that? it sort of makes her in a david and goliath character.
supreme court held in immigration context that the state could also legislate and complement the federal legislation, which is why you were saying they then have to argue, this impedes and burdens us. this is hard to see what it burdens. they ll have a tough time making the case. if you are in the solicitor general office, they don t bring close cases against laws that haven t been enforced yet, you can t prove it s a burden. they haven t done anything. why are they bringing the case? they are bringing it as part of the president s attempt to rally hispanic voters. bret: they are seeking preliminary injunction to prevent the law from moving forward. what about governor brewer and her pushback in all of this saying they ll be aggressively defending the law? she has just tweeted that she is asking for money to keep arizona safe in this lawsuit. what about that? it sort of makes her in a