Clarissa Martinez de Castro

>> HINOJOSA: 12 million

undocumented immigrants, one

polarized country.

In a few days, the controversial

Arizona immigration law, SB1070,

will take effect.

Some oppose it, some welcome it.

But both sides agree that

something has to change.

My guest today is the director

of immigration for the National

Council of La Raza, Clarissa

Martinez de Castro.

I'm Marina Hinojosa.

This is One on One.

Clarissa Martinez de Castro, you

are the head of immigration for

the National Council of La Raza.

Welcome to our show.

>> CASTRO: Thank you for having me.

>> HINOJOSA: And just so people

know, the National Council of La

Raza is like the NAACP, the

oldest Latino civil rights

organization.

>> CASTRO: That's right.

>> HINOJOSA: You have dedicated

the past several years to

fighting on the issue of

immigration in Washington, DC.

But as an academic and as a

writer, you have spent a lot of

your time thinking and writing

about how this country handles

immigration says a lot about who

we are as a country.

So before we get into the

specifics of Arizona, what does

the handling of immigration

right now say about who we are

as a country?

>> CASTRO: Well, we in America have had

a very tortured experience with

immigration.

If you look at our legacy,

almost every wave of immigrants

that has come in has experienced

a great deal of rejection and

backlash.

Whether you're talking about

those who were forced

immigrants, now African

Americans, then... or whether

you look at Italians or the

Irish, the Chinese, Japanese,

everybody, it seems, has gone

through this cycle of being

rejected and being isolated.

The Germans in particular as

well as the other groups.

But, you know, at the time,

German were said to be not

worthy of being an American, not

loyal to this country, that they

didn't want to learn English.

It's interesting.

If you look at how each of those

groups was treated, the very

same things that you hear today

about Latino immigrants were

said before about numerous

others.

And what I would hope is that we

go through this phase which is a

repetition of that history and

that we don't last in it that

long.

That we know it's inevitable.

People get integrated into

America.

That's what makes this country

what it is-- out of many, one.

But hopefully every... as we

move forward, these waves of

rejection will be diminished,

and the flourishing of the

integration and what comes with

it will excel.

So in a way, Latinos are not

that special in the sense that

we are experiencing a huge

backlash right now.

Many others have gone through

it.

I think right now, as with those

previous waves, our country is

really having a conversation

about demographic change, about

what it means to be an American,

and who is deemed worthy of

being an American, and it's all

kind of confused and intertwined

with the issue of immigration.

>> HINOJOSA: So when you think

about Arizona and what's about

to happen there in a matter of

hours, really, how does that fit

into this idea that you have,

which is, "Well, I would hope

that we would learn better"?

Is Arizona a manifestation of

things getting better, people

voicing their opinions, saying,

you know, "We don't trust the

federal government, that they're

doing their job, we're going to

take control"?

Is it a manifestation of

something good, or is it a

manifestation of the worst

example of xenophobia and

isolation and racism?

>> CASTRO: I think it still represents

that part that repeats our

tortured past.

There's a couple of things

happening in Arizona.

One, there is legitimate

frustration in the country about

the broken state of the

immigration system.

And look, we share that

frustration.

We've been working to try to fix

that system for over two

decades.

I think the problem is that for

many, in the face of inaction by

the federal government, any

action seems like a good thing.

And the dangerous thing here is

that anything seems like a good

thing in this case means

legitimizing, legalizing, racial

profiling.

And that's one of the dangerous

things about the immigration

debate.

On the one hand, we need to fix

the system.

And there are compelling

reasons, just from public policy

perspective alone, public policy

on immigration.

If we don't have a legal

immigration system that works,

it continues to feed the

illegality that everybody is

railing against.

But there is no way to...

there's no way that Arizona can

fix our legal immigration

system, because they don't have

the jurisdiction to do it.

So what you are seeing there is

really some politicians that are

pushing a lot of buttons with a

legitimate frustrated public,

but very tragically knowing full

well that they cannot fix the

problem with this law, and that

they're actually going to saddle

the state's taxpayers with legal

fees while ostracizing the

Latino community in the state.

>> HINOJOSA: So what do you

believe... what are you saying

is their motivation?

You say that they're knowingly

doing this, knowing that they're

not going to be able to really

change anything by putting in a

restrictive law like in Arizona.

So are you saying that they

have... what motivations to do

this thing?

>> CASTRO: Well, first, the groups

behind the law in Arizona... you

know, a lot of times you think,

"Oh, these laws arise

organically, out of the public

demand."

The reality is that the folks

behind the Arizona law, the

Federation for American

Immigration Reform, a group

that's been designated a hate

group by the Southern Poverty

Law Center, who follows the KKK

and similar groups, their legal

arm has been behind almost most

of the state and local

ordinances we've seen in other

places, from Hazleton,

Pennsylvania to Farmer's Branch,

Texas, to just more recently

Fremont, Nebraska, to previous

laws in Arizona.

And this legal arm actually has

been training some of the

deputies that are part of

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's group,

someone who has a lot of fame

from Arizona, because he's been

enforcing immigration laws, and

in many of those instances

abusing the rights of US

citizens and legal immigrants.

>> HINOJOSA: Okay, but I'm going

to stop you for one second.

We'll talk about Arpaio in a

second.

But there would be people would

would say, "Well, what's the

problem if you have FAIR, an

organization that's based in

Washington that is active on the

issue of immigration, what is

the problem with the fact that

they are involved in a state

like Arizona, or in Hazleton,

Pennsylvania, or Nebraska?

You know, maybe they are in fact

tapping into the sentiment of...

right now, what is it?

51% of the American people think

that what's happening in Arizona

is the right way.

So what's the problem with an

organization like FAIR doing

that kind of work, giving voice

to the perspective of many

Americans who say, "I'm done

with this illegal immigration

situation"?

>> CASTRO: I think for me the problem,

frankly, as a voter and as an

American is not that you have a

variety of voices debating an

issue.

I think what I find problematic

is when groups misinform in

order to advance an agenda, and

at the end of the day are not

really interested in finding a

solution.

>> HINOJOSA: So where are they

misinforming?

What... and basically, who's

doing the misinformation that

you believe in a case like

Arizona?

>> CASTRO: The Federation for American

Immigration Reform and a lot of

the groups associated with it

twist a lot of the facts around

immigrants.

>> HINOJOSA: For example?

>> CASTRO: It's an issue that is already

complicated enough.

But they try to feed this notion

that there's a horde invading

our country, that crime and

anything else that is wrong is

the fault of immigrants.

So on the one hand, they blame

immigrants for taking jobs, and

at the same time they blame

immigrants for being on welfare.

So it's like, okay, which one is

it?

Are they here to work or for

that?

They've also made

representations about they don't

make any contributions to the

economy, they only take, even

though there's a great deal of

academic research, not by groups

like mine, that you could say

have an opinion, but by many

others, whether it is

economists, whether it is social

scientists, about the impact of

immigration in the country.

And regardless of how you feel

about the issue, I think what we

do need is a space where we can

have a constructive debate, and

we can get to a solution.

And here is the biggest irony

about this issue-- there is much

more consensus around the issue

than one would imagine from

looking at news or from looking

at Congress.

The reality is that the vast

majority of the American public

supports a pragmatic approach

that is going to put smart

enforcement measures on the

border, a workable way for

employers to determine if their

employees are eligible to work

in the country, and also a way

for people who are here

illegally to come forward, go

through background checks, and

then get on a path where they

are playing by the same rules as

everybody else.

>> HINOJOSA: And you're saying

that the majority of Americans

support that?

>> CASTRO: The majority of Americans

support that.

And here's the thing-- they

support that even in light of

the economy, and they support

that even in light of Arizona.

So in those same polls that

everybody keeps talking about,

that a majority of Americans

support Arizona, the thing that

we're missing is this-- people

support Arizona because they are

frustrated that the federal

government hasn't fixed the

problem.

But they also support in equal

or larger numbers the workable

and pragmatic solution that is

actually going to fix the

problem.

>> HINOJOSA: So what's going on

here?

Because it would seem then that

we should be moving towards a

path of actually resolution.

But in fact it seems like we

couldn't be farther away from

resolution now.

And the White House even is

critical... has been critical of

organizations like yours,

saying, "Look, why is the

National Council of La Raza

attacking President Obama when

what we really need is we need

the National Council of La Raza

going after the Republicans and

making sure that they all fall

in line so that we can get them

to sign comprehensive... sign

on to comprehensive immigration

reform?"

When you hear this from the

White House, basically coming

back at you and saying, "Guys,

get on the same page here,

support the President, don't you

see?" what's going on for you at

the National Council of La Raza?

I think that... you know, I've

always said that for an

organization like ours, which is

nonpartisan, our candidates are

the issues that affect the

Latino community.

And we're going to work with

those who are willing to work on

those issues regardless of what

party they come from.

So on the issue of immigration,

we don't doubt that the

President cares deeply about

this issue and understands the

injustices of the broken system,

both that are leveled on the

Latino community and other

sister ethnic communities, and

as well about the peril of

continuing down this path for

our national security and a

variety of other things.

We don't doubt that he cares

deeply about those things.

But what we are saying is that

on an issue like this, where we

have to defend the public space

where we can have a constructive

debate, the White House has a

big role in creating that space,

in exercising leadership.

So we want to see the President

do more to push that forward.

>> HINOJOSA: What would you like

to see him do?

I mean, people... Democrats,

I've heard, have said, "Look,

we're not happy with the

President because of the fact

that he's suing the state of

Arizona."

>> CASTRO: Well, and that is one of the

interesting things, right?

So that's the other irony.

The issue of immigration, in a

way, is the perfect issue to

demonstrate a couple of things.

One, it's... there's a policy

urgency there that is

undeniable, whether you are

thinking about border security,

our legal immigration system,

and how it feeds our

competitiveness when our economy

gets back on track.

What do we do with ten to 12

million people who are in our

communities?

We cannot be secure and pretend

that those folks are either not

here, or the fantasy that we're

going to massively deport that

many, right?

So on the policy urgency side,

there's... it's clear.

On the moral imperative, it also

is clear-- we are ripping

families apart that are made up

of US citizens, legal permanent

residents, and people who are

undocumented every day.

>> HINOJOSA: But those stories

are not being seen, you know?

I mean, I think about the fact

that when I was in Arizona and

we met a family, pretty typical,

some of them have papers, some

of them don't have papers.

And the panic, the state of

panic of the mother, who said,

"Now if my son, who's an

American citizen, is caught

driving with me in the car, not

only will they deport me"-- his

mother-- "but they will arrest

him," for having transported

her, because he's in a car with

an undocumented immigrant.

There's a lot of, as you say,

misinformation around the law in

Arizona.

But what specifically does it

do?

I mean, it does say that the

police can question you about

your immigration status, but

only if they've already stopped

you.

>> CASTRO: Right.

So let me just finish on this

piece, though.

So the moral imperative is clear

for the reasons you said.

I think a lot of people in our

country think that you can

clearly excise somebody who is

undocumented or all of those who

are undocumented without

affecting the rest of us.

The reality is that our fates

are so intertwined that we tend

to not acknowledge how much

impact there will be on our

social fabric, our economic

fabric.

And the last thing is that it's

politically smart, because like

I mentioned, the majority of

Americans actually support a

workable solution, not to

mention Latino voters, who very

clearly see that they are being

caught in the crosshairs of this

debate.

But on the piece of what Arizona

does, I think that they amended

the law to try to deflect the

charge that this law is about

racial profiling.

But what they did is try to

slightly prop one door while

opening another.

So what constitutes a lawful

stop, for example, is now being

expanded so broadly that you

could be asked for papers if you

are playing your radio too loud.

And that is one part that I

think people don't understand.

They just think, "Well, if you

were stopped, it's because you

were doing something, so you're

a bad person."

But the reasons why somebody

could stop you and then lead to

ask for your papers have been

expanded tremendously.

And when there's already been a

Pulitzer Prize winning report,

an investigative series that

says that there's already

underway a practice of

questioning people and then

making up a reason for stopping

them later, we already know

what's coming, right?

>> HINOJOSA: But the people who

defend the Arizona law say,

"Look, those charges of racial

profiling are extreme, because

if you have a population of,

let's say, 30% Latinos in the

state of Arizona, there is no

way that all of those Latinos

are going to get stopped."

And so people like you who are

saying, "Oh, racial profiling's

going to happen all the time,"

and some are saying, "Relax,

it's not going to happen like

that."

And they say it's not going to

be a police state.

What do you respond to them when

they say that?

They're like, "Look, it's not.

It's going to be impossible.

There's no possible way that

everybody's going to be racially

profiled."

And you say?

>> CASTRO: Well, look.

Let's take law enforcement's

voices at their own word.

I think within Arizona as well

as outside of Arizona there's

been a number of chiefs of

police, sheriffs, saying, "We

don't want this.

We think that this law drives a

wedge between law enforcement

and the communities they seek to

serve."

Let's take the example you

mentioned, of a mother than has

a citizen child.

When this young man, if he

gets... if he comes across a

problematic situation and he

wants to report it to the

police, he may think twice,

because what if he gets

questioned and they take away

his mother?

So those kinds of spillover

effects...

>> HINOJOSA: But people are not

thinking about the spillover

effects.

They're not thinking about what

could happen in a family

divided.

They're thinking, "Oh, my gosh,

the federal government is doing

nothing here.

And all I see is more and more

people who I don't understand,

and I believe that they are

harmful."

And so they are saying, "We need

something to be done now."

And at this point, it looks very

possible that at least certain

parts of the Arizona law will go

into effect.

So have organizations like the

National Council of La Raza,

have they been misreading the

American public?

You know, how did this... in a

sense, how could this happen,

right?

If you're saying, "Look, all of

these people really want to

change the status of immigration

reform in a positive way," then

how could Arizona happen?

Have you misread the mainstream

on this issue?

No, I don't think we have.

I think what's happening is that

we are allowing certain folks

who are playing for political

points to manipulate our

frustrations, and in many cases

our prejudices.

And you know, when you're

frustrated you can act out, or

you can lash out, if you take

action before you kind of calm

down and look at things

objectively.

And that's what these

politicians are taking advantage

of.

I mean, nobody can deny that in

Arizona the reason for moving

SB1070 forward is purely

political.

And that's one of the things

that I think American voters are

frustrated about, that politics

are taking precedent over

solutions.

If... in Arizona, for example,

how ironic is it that you have

two senators in Arizona that

rail against the problem of

immigration, while at the same

time they pledge to block every

effort to address it.

And in doing that, they accuse

and wave their finger at the

federal government, when last

time I checked, being a senator

means that you're part of the

federal government.

And if those two senators... I

kid you not.

If those two senators, Mr.

McCain, Mr. Kyl, stepped

forward, we could solve this

problem in a matter of months.

>> HINOJOSA: So what's going on

here?

I mean, are you saying that it's

purely about them saving their

elections?

I mean, someone like John

McCain, who had been at the

forefront of trying to create

comprehensive immigration

reform?

>> CASTRO: Sadly, for years we have seen

an attempt to use immigration as

a wedge issue to mobilize

voters.

For years, particularly in...

more explicitly in 2006, after

the Sensenbrenner bill.

Now, at the time... there's been

several election cycles that

show that American voters are

not buying it.

They are concerned about

immigration, but they understand

that a lot of this is rhetoric,

and they're tired of it.

I think the dangerous point

right now is whether we allow

our frustrations to get the best

of us, and give a pass to

politicians that are actually

enacting laws that are going to

affect all of us.

And look, right now it's clear

that I think many Americans

think, "Well, maybe there's

going to be racial profiling,

but I'm not going to be the one

getting racially profiled."

And I think that once we start

dividing ourselves and condoning

that some people who are US

citizens being discriminated is

okay, we are in really dangerous

territory.

>> HINOJOSA: But there are

people who just say, you know,

this is... it may be difficult,

it may be painful, and they have

said, "It's not going to happen

to me."

And you know now that there are

a list of states that are

falling into line.

So what is going to be the

practical impact of... let's

assume that there are parts of

the Arizona law that go into

effect at the end of this week.

What is going to be the

practical effect of that on

people's lives and in terms of

other states saying, "This is

the way we want to go as well"?

>> CASTRO: Well, there is a great deal

of fear, not only in Arizona

obviously, but in other

communities.

And it also must be noted, this

is not a Latino issue, right?

It's not just an immigrant

issue, and it's not a Latino

issue.

It's affecting many other folks,

and indeed the lawsuits include

folks who are Asian American,

who are citizens, who've been

stopped already, even before the

law goes into effect.

I think that what Arizona has

done, aside from the things that

are very dangerous about it, is

that it has brought to the

national attention the crisis in

the immigration system, and the

unintended consequences of what

happens when we allow certain

measures to go forward that

don't solve the problem but

create others.

In this case, racial profiling.

I think it's brought a lot of

the national civil rights

community to focus on the issue,

because racial profiling is a

clear side effect if not an

intended effect of this law.

I think it created a great deal

of momentum.

There are city councils across

the country passing resolutions

against the law, or asking for

the workable effective solution

of immigration reform, and

pushing congress.

>> HINOJOSA: Those stories don't

get as much coverage as the rest

of the states that are saying,

"We want to do what Arizona is

going."

>> CASTRO: Well, in taking what the

other states are saying, right,

we have had states like

California and Texas, where the

governors have said, "Yeah, you

know, people in my state may be

talking about it, but that law's

not for us."

And more recently, looking at

the dangerous things that are

unleashed by it... so we heard

about the Utah hit list.

And it was called a hit list by

the Attorney General in Utah.

And I think that's really

helping folks realize the

underbelly of this beast-- that

this environment of persecution,

unleashing unfettered and

untargeted persecution across

the board, is not who we are as

a country.

And we can be frustrated, and

there's ways to channel that

frustration.

And I hope that Americans across

the nation can join hands so we

can push congress, both parties,

as well as the White House, to

deliver the solution we need.

Because 50 state laws, 50

immigration laws, are only going

to add to the chaos.

And I think we can all see that.

>> HINOJOSA: So what would be

the motto if you would... if you

could create the slogan that

makes people kind of understand

what is the issue, why they

should support what you believe,

comprehensive immigration

reform, what's that motto?

What is it?

What is it that... you know, I'm

trying to get to the one thing

that's going to bring the

American public together to

understand.

Is there a slogan, is there a

statement, is there an image?

What is it?

>> CASTRO: Look, this is like losing

weight almost, right?

You can simply eat less, or you

can exercise, or you can take

better care of your health.

What makes that sustainable and

workable is if you do a little

bit of all those things.

That's a little bit of what's

going on right now with our

approach on immigration.

Everybody right now is talking

about enforcement, enforcement,

enforcement on the border.

We've been doing that for over

ten years, and alone it hasn't

worked to make us safer, right?

And everybody's been talking

about that.

Crime has gone down on the

border, whether people find that

easy to believe or not, given

the coverage in the press.

But the FBI statistics say so,

right?

But here's the thing.

We cannot make our border more

meaningfully secure if all we

keep doing is putting money on

the border and more boots on the

ground.

We need the legal immigration

system that works, that goes

with it, and we need to make

folks who are here illegally to

play by the rules.

>> HINOJOSA: Clarissa Martinez

de Castro, we'll see how it all

works out.

Thanks for joining us.

>> CASTRO: Thank you.

>> HINOJOSA: Continue the

conversation at

wgbh.org/oneoneone.

Captioned by

Media Access Group at WGBH

access.wgbh.org