the ranking republican on the oversight and government reform committee. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me on and thank you for taking up this important assess -- this important subject. >> to reporters are here with us to help us with the questions. >> the administration has filed a lawsuit, challenging the arizona immigration law that is supposed to go into effect on july 29th. you call a disgraceful and said it shows contempt for immigration laws and the people of arizona. i was wondering if you could tell us why you disagree with this law? bucks when we look at -- >> when we look at as a failure -- amnesty to secure the borders on an interior basis, when arizona decided to take advantage of existing federal law that allows their people to sift through, if you will,

people apprehended for some other region -- some other reason, and then turn them over to law enforcement on a federal level, that should have been greeted with a welcoming, thank you very much, that is why this program exists, for more than 12 years, orange county california has had a program in their jails to try to not release, if you will, people who are both criminals and illegal immigrants. >> you talked about a failure over decades and you have taken the administration to task over this law. you send a very harshly worded letter with some republican colleagues, but it is clear on capitol hill there needs to be some republican cooperation on this law. on national immigration legislation. where do you think republicans are? we of not seen republicans rushed to democrats to craft some sort of compromise in this congress or even the congress before. what good do these letters do if there is no work on capitol hill

for this decade-long failure? >> it is longer than a decade. but basically, the positions are well mapped out. we have only one redline which is not to do another round of amnesty. it did not work in 1986 and it simply incentivized most of the friends and relatives and people from the same communities that had been granted amnesty the first time to come here in large numbers, mostly from mexico. this was on top of half a million, mostly family reunification immigrants we accepted. many of whom were family reunification from people granted amnesty. if that is a clear position of the republicans, after that everything is in play. a full guest worker program that would allow whatever number of people to gainfully be employed without displacing american jobs. certainly, a transition for people already here so that they could be converted to guest worker or exit the country in a

fair way. all that is in play. at the same time, both republicans and democrats, congress and the president, have overtime enacted laws like verify only to have them not used and not enforced. >> could you characterize the discussions you have had with democrats? it does not seem like republicans are rushing to the table to craft any compromise, nor have democrats. >> nothing could be further from the truth. the problem is there are a minority of democrats to say i will do immigration reform without a pathway to citizenship, which is the democratic way of saying amnesty. on the republican side, we get hammered, we get nasty letters if we talk about a solution that is not simply deport them. so there needs to be fair reasoning that both are unacceptable. straight deportation of 12

million people overnight is unlikely and probably almost impossible to do. but,e-verify, causing people not to get new jobs if they are illegally in the country, could be implemented and could dramatically reduce the number of people here and allow us to begin to see how many jobs really could be offered to guest workers. >> there are advocates who say that as long as congress continues dragging its feet, something like e-verify that could make a difference in enforcement does not get done and something like finding out who is here illegally and getting them to register, getting them to pay back taxes and thousand dollars fines or whatever the threshold is, that doesn't get done either and there is a defacto amnesty going on as long as congress doesn't do anything. >> there is no question that there are millions of americans, native born, born of people illegally in this country and

you are creating a generation of american citizens who are children of illegals. there is no question that is going on. but going back toe-verify, lake elsinore has tried to mandate employers to do it. part of the law being challenged is simply saying if you want a job in arizona, every arizona company has to verify you are legally in the country. here is a federal program, designed before i entered congress and passed with the work of a neighboring congressman for me, that in fact arizona simply says we want everyone to do it and the administration says not so fast. why should american jobs be offered to people illegally in the country when congress more than a decade ago passed a law that allows for employers to know someone is illegally in the country and not hire them or certainly not continue to employ them? >> do you consider allowing

people to pay back taxes, requiring them to become proficient in english, some of the other things that have been thrown out there -- to you consider that to be amnesty? you mentioned a transition for people already here, so i'm trying to clarify. >> that is a transition into a guest worker program that does not have permanent citizenship or a pathway to citizenship in it. that's the republican position, 97%. but when somebody says pay your back taxes, on top of being an illegal, your tax cheat, that's similar to what happened to al capone. he said i will pay my taxes, i didn't know my head -- i did know i had to. if somebody is in this country, working around taxes, many illegals are working and paying their taxes, but if they are working around taxes with an employer paying cash under the table, i have a tax cheat who is an employer and an illegal who

is working around it for all cash and taking all of the cash. you are telling me we should allow them to remain here? that is a logical. what i have said all along from the time president bush said there are some jobs americans will not do, i have said i have no problems with quotas and even millions of guest workers if there are america it -- if there are jobs americans won't do, once they know those jobs are available and american citizens and premier residents get first dibs at those jobs. that's the way it is everywhere else in the world. the only reason it's not that way in america is we don't know when you are putting 50 people on for a roofing job, you don't know whether they are legal or illegal. that $22 an hour job with or without benefits is going to ever happens to apply even if they do not have a right to be in the country. >> what should be done for the people here illegally? the estimated 11 million or 12 million people, including a few

million children. there are some people who espoused the idea of doing a roundup like what was done by the eisenhower administration, an operation that was named unfortunately operation wetback. do you support that kind of operation? >> when you look at the administrator -- we look to the arizona law and the administration pushing back on taking people already apprehended for some other violation of law and saying if we catch you doing something wrong, we are going to scrutinize and deport you. that would seem to be a great starting point. if you have people unlawfully in the country, they do not drive drunk, they don't drive without insurance, they do not drive with expired plates, and don't commit other crimes and join gangs, wouldn't that be dramatically improved for the people of those minority neighborhoods for who today are often living in a gang neighborhood backed by people

illegally in the country? it's a simple starting point that the administration is pushing back on. >> let's talk about how states should handle this. you indicated this was a failure of the federal government. would you encourage more states to enact laws like this? it seems like there has been a failure both on the republican and democratic administrations and congress to do something nationally. is this something states will have to take in control for the foreseeable future? >> i think the states should work cooperatively with the federal government -- no sanctuary cities believe we have in california. that is something that's meg whitman has been pushing. we have the all right support of illegals in some cities in california. that's a good start -- don't help people break the law. basically, is a fine -- basically, is a primarily a federal responsibility.

the people -- the fact we have people illegally in this country sitting in jails in this country sitting in jail is reprehensible. they should serve their time in federal prison and be deported. it should not even be a state responsibility, and yet, in california, hundreds of millions of dollars every year are spent and not reimbursed by the federal government for incarcerating people criminally in this country, not just as criminals for being here, but criminals on top of that. >> that is the crux of the federal lawsuit before by the justice department -- it's as federal government has the responsibility and authority over this type of issue and the constitution says where the federal government is dominant -- a state cannot preempt that. >> people the "the constitution tend to be selective when they do so. the administration is being

selective. the supremacy clause has been well understood to be understood that a state cannot be contrary to the federal government. in this case, the state of arizona is still totally supportive of the federal government. there aiding the federal government in doing their job. every day, for interstate car theft, drug dealing, and all kinds of other areas, the federal government relies on state help and support and cooperation and they get. when you wanted, you say supremacy, we are working together. we don't, you claim it's exclusively ours. the federal government, if it has a right, have responsibility. if they do not meet the responsibility and the state attempts to assist them in meeting that responsibility, remember arizona is not incarcerating people for being in the country illegally. they're offering them to the federal government to take their responsibility. it is giving them a silver

platter the job already done. arizona is not going down to the border and apprehending people as they run over the border. they're looking at in forcing it at the worksite and when they apprehend somebody for some other crime. there is no question is supportive of the federal law. there are already a number of federal laws supported to have all that. the administration cannot have it all ways. they cannot have programs for their supposed to take criminals and pass them to the federal government if they are illegally in the country and then fade you do it wholesale so that it works, we are going to come after you. that is unacceptable and a misuse of the supremacy clause. i'm convinced the supreme court will rule that way -- you cannot stop a state from asserting its sovereignty in support of federal law as long as there is some state nexus, which there clearly is. >> but there are some law enforcement people who believe

if you are able to weed out some of the 12 million people who are here to have not committed heinous crimes, they're one in fraction or violation is crossing the border without permission and coming to work here or to live here, and they believe if you could weed out those people, make better use law enforcement resources to target people who are committing crimes and you want to harm the country. why not get the kind of enforcement you want withe- verify and more cracking down on employers in the workplace, when i get that by negotiating with the party in power for a comprehensive immigration bill? >> all you are saying is why not give amnesty to get a promise of enforcement. we did that in 1986 and did not get it. what we are willing to do is give a guest worker program for millions of people without prejudice toward whether they

have been in the country previously in return for enforcement. but that is a guest worker program, a program where people come out of the dark and register, they send their extended families home and work here and go home to mexico or guatemala or wherever else once a year in an orderly fashion. by the way, this is what my farmers in california have been begging for for years. they wanted organized guest worker program so they could have workers for the time they need, pay them above the table fairly. there's no question there are jobs available and workers available, mostly from mexico, that can be paired up. republicans support that pairing but they wanted done under the law. there's no questions that the democrats want another wave of new democratic voters. this has been part of their plan. law-enforcement says they want to work on something else -- they deserve a program but they did not deserve an out on enforcing existing laws.

>> if i could get into the politics of this, proposition 187 which you did not vote for -- correct? the city did not vote for it in california. it drove hispanics away from the republican party. hispanics that were driven away from the republican party in 2000 when barack obama was on the ticket for president. could you talk about the politics of this? republicans have been supportive of the arizona law and hispanics have been overwhelmingly against it. could you talk about the politics and how that will play out come november? >> one of the most famous quotes from ronald reagan is that latinos are republican, they just don't know it yet. that drove the 1986 amnesty by ronald reagan. it drove a decision to do the right thing and get this conflict between the parties and a group of people who came for

jobs and resolved it. it did not work. it did not work because there is no end to how many new immigrants the democratic party would like to have filling their ranks to displace voters coming to the republican party over time. that's the politics of it. in the case of 187, it was a frustration by the people of california, like arizona, and by the way, 221, that we had to do something that it was -- that we had to do some t thing,wo-to- one. 187 was conceptually right. do i think finding legal-born americans as a good tactic? know. the work site enforcement and people coming for a handout -- was a good tactic? no.

i do think parts of 187 were absolutely right. the federal government was not doing its job and the people of california were then and are now, including many legal citizens, latina's citizens, whether they are from guatemala or mexico, they are frustrated because they see their ability to move up and enjoy the american dream stifled by an endless amount of people willing to work under the table for less without any kind of control. everybody needs a system of laws. republicans are perfectly willing to have a large guest worker program, but it has to be under the law and cannot include automatic amnesty. remember, we have half a million people being united, mostly mexican and south american with people who are already here every year. half a million new immigrants that fit the category people are talking about granting amnesty for -- it's easy to say are

going to make that a million or are wriggling to make a 400,000? we can have the debate -- are we going to make it a million or are we going to make it 400,000? i think it's a good point. you did not talk about the racial profiling that is so often asked about. i want to share something with you -- in my district and there are a few others run the country, there are two checkpoints. one on interstate 5 and one on interstate 15. every day, hundreds of thousands of cars pass and border patrol agents 70 miles north of the mexican border look at people's eyes and either a wave them past or stop them with no crime asserted except they are possibly illegally in the country. if you want to have a case for racial profiling, it's trying to figure out how i border patrol agent decides to stop somebody without probable cause simply because they might be legally a

country, knowing that eight red- haired russian would be hard to find if it were illegally in the country. they are mostly looking for brown faces and mexicans. they do that every day. arizona is not doing that. they're picking people up for other crimes that in the ordinary course and saying is this person in the country illegally are not? if president obama once deal with racial profiling, he can come to my district and looked at and determine whether or not how to train somebody is, they can look into the eyes of some be driving by in a car and decide, and by the way, i don't think those border checkpoints are constitutional and that of thing that ever have been. they were ruled constitutional in the '30's because we were sparsely populated in this area of millions of people today. i would love to have president obama, and talk about racial profiling, but talk about how the border patrol business does business -- the border patrol does business 70 miles inside

the border and says let me see your id and whether you are in the country legally. >> to move briefly away from immigration, michael steele, the head of your party -- >> the head of the republican national committee, not the head of my party. >> is this somebody who should remain as the top executive of the rnc? >> rep -- michael steele is supposed to reflect a consensus of republican platform and policies. if he does that, he could certainly remain trade if he is not willing to do that, if he wants to be a political leader on his own, there are plenty of seats open in november, i suggest you want -- i suggest he run for one of them. i feel very strongly is not my leader. he does not make policy for me. the fact is the national republican congressional committee is made up of elected republican leaders, 178 or so of

us. we elect our own leaders and figure out what our policies will be going into november. we are figuring out how to get jobs going in america and get government out of owning corporations and distorting markets. that is what we are focused on. we are focused on jobs and the business of the people from a congressional standpoint. i'm sorry michael steele has become the news because he is a bubbling up of state national committeeman and he is post execute on behalf of their decisions and platforms. he does not represent me. i do not side with the statements he has made. but at the same time, i hope he can realize he should be a consensus explainer for the republican party across america, which i think would be very helpful. i certainly think haley barbour did a great job because he spoke on behalf of consensus and not

make policy. >> if so it is not your position he should step down? >> i think he has to make a decision and everybody at the rnc has to make a decision -- are they going to speak on behalf of the consensus of republicans? if so, that is great. if not, he should resign. he has to design -- he has to decide which he is going to be. the national committee as far as know has never said anything about afghanistan being obama's war at all. i suspect you could find lots of those. he is not supposed to be, nor am i supposed to be a single spokesperson for the party. i speak on behalf of my committee and the men and women who work with me. it's a very limited role, but i was elected to do it and i'm going to do it. at the same time, i'm not crossing the line into policies that are outside of established policies for my party. i think that is foolhardy

because we are having independent come to republicans and see us as the party of smaller government and fear execution of the constitution. that, i want to stand for. >> i have to go back to the racial profiling question. are you saying that you did not think racial profiling will occur when the arizona police or local officials were law enforcement are making arrests? that there will not be racial profiling? >> what i say is that to the extent they are only picking up people who are already committing other crimes, why would there be any profiling? they're picking up the same people have always picked up. >> it isn't there wide latitude in the law in terms of what they depict up for whether it is a crime or -- contact i think is the key word in the law. i realize the amendment says no racial profiling should occur at

but we are talking about human beings. how you read a share -- how the reassure a minority community that has a history and can go back into their history, not just latinos that african- americans in this country, where racial profiling has occurred and they have local law- enforcement target minority communities? sometimes unfairly. how do you reassure them this will not occur with this law? >> the amazing thing is since the only penalty can be applied if you are illegally in the country, if somebody is going to pick you up for jaywalking, and you are not illegally in the country, there's no secondary penalty. if there is a pattern of actual abuse anywhere, and understand it would be one policeman or one small part of state of arizona. if that occurs, then the justice department looks of the pattern and comes in with a heavy hammer for that discrimination. but never before have we challenged something because of

might lead to something. there's no where in the constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely will not do and can be stopped from what it might do. there is no question that discrimination goes on and continues around the country in minority communities and we need to have real enforcement, but for the justice department to ignore real problems around the country and spend time going after a state he simply says we are going to self-help with existing federal programs that have been passed under democratic and republican presidents is absurd. if president clinton saw no problem with e-verify, why is it suddenly what we want to mandate it for everybody, it is racial profiling? where is president clinton saying i signed into law and president bush had expanded. this president has not tried to limit or reduce it. just the opposite treat they tend to say it's a good thing,

but it appears as if it's only good if it is used. >> rep darrell issa, thank you for being our newsmaker. we appreciate it. what me turn to our reporters to do a wrap up of what we heard. the first question out of the gate was about whether republicans can come to the table or are willing to come to the table to craft a bipartisan compromise on a national immigration reform bill. what did you hear? >> mr. issa indicated republicans of come to the table under willing to compromise, but there has been no republican partner who has come out and said we to get this done now. that is something definitely missing from the debate and would leave a number of members of congress to believe it is a partisan ploy to push aside obama's agenda. but republicans will say they have been working hard on this, they just cannot find a

democratic partner, so it is a catch-22. >> in the senate, where is the partnership we have seen on this issue? >> exactly. you could bring john mccain and ted kennedy into this and even though john mccain was not at all of the meetings when president bush was doing closed- door negotiations on -- i forget which year it was, he was still supportive and now we have no one. democrats aresay resisting as well, but you have a lot more democrats working on it than you do republicans. >> them so, if a bill were to come up, when -- so, as a bill were to come up, when the resources say it might come up? >> we are only a couple of months away from an election

which is expected to be extremely difficult for democrats. the willingness from the speaker and majority leader in the senate -- and the majority leader in the house to get this bill together and get a compromise, i just do not see the willingness from democratic leaders to put an emigration bill even in the set where they said it would go first. -- an immigration bill. it just as not seem like it's going to happen. >> what about a lame duck session? >> you have to get through the elections first. i don't think anybody is putting their eggs in that basket yet. there is talk about a piecemeal approach, getting parts of the bill that has some support such as the giving of status of young children brought here and who are still students. there is also agricultural jobs, legal status for the more than 70% of undocumented immigrants working in agrictural fields.

>> it sounds like the congressman as open to that -- >> we did not get to ask him that. i found it interesting he said his constituents are begging for a guest worker program. one exist. there is one for agricultural workers. it's not used to the level it is -- the statistics say 50% to 60% of the people working in the field of u.s. agriculture are not documented. >> it is important vote that there are still many things on the table that need to be completed. not that immigration does not, but the expiry bush tax cuts which the democratic learship in the house say they need to act on. they need to do that in the next three weeks before they head out for the august recess. they're continually of town after word to campaign. that has to be done. tha'