>> smith: today on "face the nation," the battle over immigration, and the war in afghanistan. last week, a federal judge struck down several of the essential elements of arizona's new immigration law. where does the fight go from here? we'll hear from both sides: senator jon kyl, republican of arizona, and thomas saenz, head of the mexican-american legal defense and education fund. then, in the last week of what has been the deadliest month for americans in afghanistan, tens of thousands of war documents were released by wikileaks. how much damage has been done? we'll ask admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and get some perspective from richard haas from the council on foreign relations. but first, the fight over immigration on "face the nation."

captioning sponsored by cbs "face the nation" with cbs news chief washington correspondent bob schieffer. and now, from washington, substituting for bob schieffer, anchor of "the early show," harry smith. >> smith: good morning. republican senator jon kyl is a supporter of the arizona immigration law. he is in phoenix this morning. we thank you for joining us. >> thank you, harry. >> reporter: your governor in arizona has vowed to fight this court decision all the way to the supreme court. is it realistic to think that the arizona immigration law will prevail in the end? >> i think it should. i think the court's decision was wrong. the governor and legislative leaders have talked about possibly "tweaking," to use their phrase, the law to see if they can obviate the concerns the judge expressed. i don't think they can because her decision was very sweeping. i think it more likely that

congress could act to actually fix the problem, both by reaffirming that it is congress's intent that the law be enforced rather than having the administration decide that they don't want to thoroughly enforce the law. and therefore, that the state's intention to do so would run counter to their policies. also to provide some more resources. the bulk of her decision rests on the proposition that the checking that would be done on status... >> smith: too difficult to enforce. >> yeah, that there are 152 people in the unit that does that and that this would overwhelm them. the obvious answer is to hire a few more people. >> smith: many other states are trying to pass similar legislation. from your perspective, what is the greatest threat posed by illegal immigrants? >> well, first of all, the philosophical problem is that if you reward illegal behavior, you're going to get more of it. we are a nation of laws. we should be enforcing the law, whatever it is. but as a practical matter,

during the times that we have right now where there is a lot of unemployment, illegal immigrants can take jobs that americans are willing to do. illegal immigrants pose a real burden on the state's financially, who must provide education to the children, who must provide medical care, and who do provide a great many benefits, including various kinds of welfare benefits. to me, the most important thing is the crime associated with it. not necessarily committed by illegal immigrants, but committed on illegal immigrants, as well as the roughly 15% of the people who cross the border each year illegally who are criminals. >> smith: because one of the things that has come to light over the last couple of weeks is in some of these border towns that were thought to be susceptible to law-breaking of illegal immigrants, crime is actually down. crime in phoenix, for instance, is down significantly over the last couple of years. >> well, that's a gross generalization. property crimes are up. certain violent crimes on certain parts of the citizenry are up.

phoenix is a very large source of kidnapping. it's called the kidnapping capital of the united states because the illegal immigrants who are brought to phoenix for distribution throughout the country are held in drop houses. they are mistreated, horribly treated. they are held for ransom for their families back in mexico or el salvador or wherever to send more money or they won't be released. so there's a great deal of violence and crime associated with the presence of illegal immigrants. >> smith: there is a movement afoot to rescind the law that makes anyone born in the united states a u.s. citizen specifically aimed at the children of illegal immigrants. do you support that? >> well, actually this is a constitutional provision in the 14th amendment that has been interpreted to provide that if you are born in the united states, you are a citizen, no matter what. there are limitations on that; for example, for the children of diplomats and so on.

so the question is if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior? what i suggested that my colleague lindsey graham from south carolina suggested that we pursue that. what i suggested to him was that we should hold some hearings and hear, first, from the constitutional experts to tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is. >> smith: so much of this goes back to the absence of what would be a comprehensive immigration legislation. do you see that actually coming to pass any time in the next year? >> harry, not until the border is secure. i don't think the american people want that until the border is secure. as a result, i was very disturbed to see a memorandum that's being circulated within the department of homeland security written by four lawyers on the staff of the unit in charge, basically talking about non-legislative ways to achieve amnesty. for 11 pages, they go on and on about how they can redefine terms.

they can, by rule and regulation, achieve the same thing that amnesty would achieve for vast swaths of the illegal population here. that's the kind of thing that the american people don't like. they want enforcement of the laws, not bureaucrats trying to figure out a way around the law. >> smith: is amnesty, in the end, the bugaboo, a thing that neither republicans nor democrats nor the state legislators, is that the one thing that will never be agreed upon? >> it all depends on how you define the term. nobody likes the term "amnesty," but the pro immigration folks do want to see at the end of the day a way that all the illegal people here can find a way to become citizens. there are different degrees of what they would have to do to try to achieve that. that was part of the immigration reform of three years ago. as i said, until the american people believe that the federal government really intends to enforce the laws against people being here illegally, i don't think that the political will will be there in congress to consider comprehensive reform.

>> reporter: very quickly, finally, bills like the arizona laws and others are perceived at least in some communities or in many communities thought to be anti-hispanic. couldn't that cost republicans? could this come at a political price? >> well, there may be some. i'm sure there are some to try to take political advantage of any situation. but if you live here in arizona you appreciate the fact that we have a great tradition, particularly with our neighbor to the south, mexico. it's not a matter of being anti- hispanic, it's a matter of wanting to enforce the law. >> smith: senator jon kyl, we thank you for your time this morning. we appreciate it. >> thank you, harry. >> smith: now to a top opponent of the arizona law, thomas saenz, president of the mexican- american legal defense and education fund. he is in los angeles this morning. good morning, sir. >> good morning. >> smith: how should state and local governments stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the united states? >> state and local governments under our constitution can use

their representatives in congress and in the united states senate to advocate for a change in federal immigration policy and federal enforcement. it's a well established, longstanding constitutional principle that the federal government has the exclusive authority to regulate immigration, so the state and local government have no role to play in that regard, except through their representatives in washington. >> smith: do you feel like the federal government is doing enough to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, or should it? >> i think the fact that there are millions of people in this country, who have toiled here for years and in some cases decades, contributing to our economy and our culture and our community, in many cases raising united states citizen children here is an indicator of the fact that we need comprehensive immigration reform. that issue has been on our national agenda for over a decade. it's more than time for our representatives in washington to move on enacting concrete steps toward arriving at an immigration system that is fair and better serves our national

interests. >> smith: it sure doesn't seem as if that is bound to happen any time soon. do you view laws like the arizona law that was, by and large, struck down this week, do you view laws like this as anti- hispanic? >> i think that whenever you enact something that requires police officers, as the law would have done, to engage in stereotyping, to engage in racial profiling, acting on what they understand to be the "undocumented" profile, that's going to result in discrimination against latinos and others who may appear to be foreign, who may appear to be immigrants. they're going to be swept up in that kind of a dragnet. in that very practical sense, it is an anti-latino law. its effect... had it not been held up in a great victory for

the constitution this week, its effect would have been to discriminate against latino residents in arizona. >> smith: we were talking earlier with senator kyl about this movement afoot to make it impossible for illegal... for the children of illegal immigrants to become citizens automatically as was talked about in this interpretation of the 14th amendment. what do you think of this move? >> i think it's deplorable. i think it's a... it's an attempt to turn our back on 150 years of constitutional history and tradition. i think it's contrary to the values of this country. i think it's an assault on the recognition that ours is a country of immigrants and always has been. the 14th amendment is very clear-- anyone who is born here, unless you are the child of a diplomat, is a united states citizen. that has led to great success. it's part of what has made this nation the great nation that it is in 2010. i think determining to change that would be a grave mistake. >> smith: the lure of economic opportunity in america is almost irresistible. it has been the magnet that has drawn generations of immigrants since even before the country was founded.

if laws were enforced that prohibited employers from hiring illegal immigrants, do you think that would be sufficient to stem the flow? >> the fact is that there are a number of industries in this country, beginning with agriculture, that absolutely depend upon an immigrant work force. our current immigration system doesn't provide enough of a workforce to maintain that critical industry. that's why we need to enact immigration reform, starting with concrete steps that would address our national interest in ensuring that we have a work force, that we continue to attract those immigrants who are ready to make a powerful economic contribution, and also arrive at a system that better reflects our constitutional values-- fairness, due process, non-discrimination. we need our congress and the administration to act on immigration reform. >> smith: thomas saenz, we thank you very much for your time this morning. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> smith: we'll be back in one minute with the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mike mullen.

>> smith: chairman mike mullen thank you very much for joining us. >> good to be with you, harry. >> smith: let's start with some of the news of the week, especially the wikileaks. about julian and his collaborators, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an afghan family. do you know in this last week of any direct link between these leaks and an attack on an afghan or on a u.s. soldier? >> what i said this week is i certainly extremely concerneded about the potential. i very much meant what i said, including what you just quoted of what i said. and specifically endorsed by the taliban leadership, which has come out, in the last day or so, which said that they are looking at the names that are leaked. i certainly think that's an

indicator of what's possible. what i don't think people that aren't in the military and in conflict understand is the danger of these kinds of leaks. the ability to net together what is seemingly information that may not be related, and then to take advantage of it. i think it's, you know, irresponsible, and could very well potentially end up in the loss of lives. >> smith: have you all been able to move in any way to protect some of the afghan informants that were named in these leaks? >> there are certainly efforts going on to do that. but i couldn't speak to specifics right now. >> reporter: but there are efforts going on? >> i think secretary gates said it earlier in the week-- we do have a moral obligation given their exposure and given what they've done, to do all we can to ensure their safety. >> smith: in your conversations with the other branches of the government, i know that you don't want any more of these documents to be released. is there anything the government

as a whole can do to prevent it? >> well, there's obviously an investigation, which is open and expanding as necessary. i actually feel very strongly that the release of additional information could continue to jeopardize as i've indicated. i'm not specifically aware of any action that's been taken in the government to bar anybody from leaking more information. >> smith: also in the news this week is the army's suicide report. and the number of suicides, the number of attempted suicides are at record levels. do we really know why? and is there any effective countermeasure that can be done to help bring it down? >> the essence of what the army leadership was addressing was to its own leadership-- i fundamentally believe this is a leadership challenge and problem. it continues to grow.

the rates have gone up not just in the army but in all our military services fairly dramatically for the last several years. we now exceed the... >> smith: civilian rate. >> ...the civilian rate throughout the country. it's a very complex problem. i believe, even though there are some that don't, i believe it does have to do with the deployments, the inability to spend enough time at home. >> smith: statistically, it doesn't necessarily match up. >> i understand that. it's just that i've been doing this a long time. i understand the pressures. i see the pressures in families and in members routinely, although there are many who have taken their lives who haven't deployed, so i certainly don't say it's all specifically tied to that. but it's a big factor. the leadership has got to grasp this. the army has undertaken a significant study, a national level study. there aren't many studies that comprehensively get at this.

it's a five-year study, but it's also producing results early. so there's a tremendous amount of focus on this as there needs to be. we've got to see if we can turn it around. >> smith: americans are waking up this morning and realizing that july was the deadliest month for u.s. soldiers in afghanistan thus far, since the war started in 2001. some of these americans, as they're looking at this, are wondering why we're still there and why this war has not been won. >> the focus of the president's strategy is really on dismantling, defeating and disrupting al qaeda who struck us from afghanistan because the taliban ran the place. they had a safe haven. they're now moved for the most part to pakistan. and we've... it's a regional strategy that focuses on both pakistan and afghanistan. the focus is on securing the

afghan people so that afghanistan will not be able to return to the safe haven it was for extremists, al qaeda specifically, but other terrorist organizations as well. we left afghanistan in the late '80s. we left pakistan in the late '80s. and we find ourselves back there now. and certainly the questions that are out there from the citizens in those countries-- are we going to stay this time or not? i believe that we've got to stay. we've got the right strategy, the right resources. in fact, it hasn't been resourcesd really until the last year. so, yes, it's the most deadly month. sadly and tragically, we predicted this would be a very difficult year. but we've got the right strategy and leadership and this, over the course of the next year or so, is really a critical time. >> smith: admiral, thank you very much for being with us today. >> thanks, harry. >> smith: richard haas is the

head of the council on foreign relations. he is in our new york studio this morning. good morning, richard. >> good morning, harry. >> smith: you just heard the admiral. he said we have the right strategies and resources in afghanistan as well. recently, you wrote in "newsweek" that it's time to scale down our ambitions in afghanistan. why? >> first of all, i don't think it's really worth it. i don't think afghanistan warrants the scale of investment the united states is making. the c.i.a. director, leon panetta, as you know, harry, estimates there's only 50 to 100 al qaeda people left in the country. so the scale of what we're doing is way too much. also, i don't really think it's going to work. to try to do a nation-building or state-building effort in a place like afghanistan, which has no tradition of a strong central government, which is divided along sorts of ethnic and tribal and geographic lines. also you have a sanctuary in neighboring pakistan. i simply don't think the sort of strategy we're doing can succeed.

instead, i would scale back. not to withdraw, but i do think the united states ought to scale back dramatically to do something much more along the lines of counterterrorism, more akin to the sort of limited actions we're doing in places like somalia and yemen, where we use drones and we use cruise missiles. we use covert operatives and special forces to go after the terrorists, but we do not try to remake a society. >> smith: because we look at what's happened with al qaeda. as the admiral just said, a lot of it has moved to pakistan. some of it has moved to yemen, somalia, places like that. does al qaeda even require a home base? >> it certainly doesn't require one in afghanistan. there's nothing special or unique about afghan real estate. al qaeda requires some places to work out of. but it could also be out of new jersey or out of michigan. al qaeda is not an organization in the sense of a tight knit i.b.m. of terror. it's much more cellular, it's diffuse. it needs access to money and to the internet; to train and quip

people. it's very diffuse. there's nothing special about any single country. it doesn't need a single face. >> smith: is the deck stacked against the united states in afghanistan? we don't have a good partner in karzai. pakistan intelligence service has been helping al qaeda, helps the taliban. is there just too many variables there that don't help paint a better picture for a future in afghanistan, especially with an american partnership? >> the deck is stacked if we try to accomplish great things. we can't succeed. but sometimes in foreign policy, you've got to think not about what it is you want to create; you have to be more modest and think about what it is you want to prevent. what it is we ought to be trying to prevent is that afghanistan again become a place where terrorists operate freely. we also don't want afghanistan to become a base to destabilize pakistan. what i'm arguing is that we can do those things with a far more modest american force. >> smith: one of the other

factors in this, because there's this target date of drawdown next summer, some of it is incumbent upon training the police and army in afghanistan, a process that took years in iraq. it is arguably much more difficult in afghanistan. is it realistic to even think about doing a troop drawdown next summer? >> i think it's realistic. indeed i think it's wise to do a troop drawdown. but we shouldn't bank on creating a strong central miss or military. i would think much more about arming the locals, various tribesmen and so forth. that's the nature of afghan territory. or afghan society. i would also think about talking directly to the taliban. i don't assume and i don't understand why the administration assumes that if elements of the taliban regain footholds in afghanistan as they surely will. why do we assume they are necessarily going to make the

same decision they did last time and bring back al qaeda? it's quite possible that many of the taliban can be persuaded not to get back into bed with al qaeda. that ought to be something we explore. >> smith: the part of that partnering up again with the taliban brings the fear of the kind of ruthless rule that pervaded there for the longest time. everyone saw the picture of "time" magazine this week-- a woman whose ears and nose were cut off. we can't prevent that in the long term in the future, but if we're not there in a significant way, doesn't that leave that vacuum for the taliban to move back in again? >> some of that, unfortunately, is going to happen in those areas that the taliban once again prevail in. i don't like it. on the other hand, i don't think, harry, we can ask 100,000 american men and women in uniform to essentially put their lives on the line to try to remake the politics and society of afghanistan. i don't sit here and say that happily, but i think we have to be realistic about what it is we use our military for and what it is we ask people to put their lives on the line for. >> smith: richard haas from the council on foreign relations, we thank you so much for coming in this sunday morning. do appreciate it. we'll be back right after this.

>> smith: that's all for today. be sure to tune in tomorrow to "the early show," where we will have more of my exclusive interview with president obama. thanks for watching.

captioning sponsored by cbs

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org [ female announcer ] this is a strawberry pop tart.

but this is warm, fresh-baked strawberry toaster strudel. [ music ] see the difference? pillsbury toaster strudel, the one kids want to eat. swimming is♪ y favorite thing. and only two things can get me out of the water. pruned toes... ♪ and totino's. ♪ we're the kids in america