-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
U.S. Supreme1 Court will wait until 2023 to hear arguments on border restrictions2
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, speaks with NPR's A Martinez about the Supreme Court's decision to maintain border restrictions under a public health order known as Title 42.
A MART?NEZ, HOST:
The Supreme Court will wait until next year to hear arguments on the border restrictions known as Title 42. But a group of 19 state attorneys general, all Republicans, scored a victory this week after the justices left in place, at least temporarily, the constraints4 that the Trump5 administration implemented6 as a public health order. Since March of 2020, Title 42 has let U.S. border agents turn away migrants as soon as they cross the southern border on the basis of warding7 off COVID-19. Arizona is one of the states challenging the end of Title 42. Arizona's attorney general is Mark Brnovich.
MARK BRNOVICH: Our reasoning is a legal reasoning that essentially8 says that if Joe Biden wants to rescind9 Title 42, he has to do it in a lawful10 and constitutional manner. And what he did was not consistent with the law. And then we, as the states, tried to intervene to protect our interest. And the Biden administration disagreed, saying the states didn't have an interest. And I think the events of the last two years, whether it's on a cost in health care, whether it's the cost of incarceration11 or whether it's the cost in lost lives, every state in the United States now is a border state, and we all have an interest in making sure we have a secure border.
MART?NEZ: So you just don't like the way he went about it?
BRNOVICH: Look, I think Title 42 was, you know, not designed to be a permanent fix or a permanent solution to what's going on in our border. But the reality is that the Biden administration and Secretary Mayorkas have systematically12 incentivized and decriminalized people breaking the law. And as a result of that, we have seen a historic and record amount of people illegally enter our country.
MART?NEZ: Title 8 actually allows for some prosecution13. It allows for legal action...
BRNOVICH: Yeah. Right.
MART?NEZ: ...Fines, felonies, maybe even, with multiple crossings. So what's wrong with allowing the Biden administration to go back to what we've always had, which is Title 8?
BRNOVICH: The reality is that from day one, when Joe Biden was being sworn in, he started to decriminalize and incentivize people coming into the country illegally. So, I mean, if you remember, there was the interim14 guidance, where the Biden administration was refusing to deport15 people with deportation16 orders, where we had to file a lawsuit17. He stopped building the wall, where taxpayers18 are having to pay for a wall that wasn't being built - the Remain in Mexico policy. The list goes on and on.
MART?NEZ: If they process an immigrant through Title 8, they can prosecute19. But if most of them are done through Title 42, there are no legal avenues.
BRNOVICH: That is part of the problem. The Biden administration is not prosecuting20 people for illegal entry and reentry into our country. They are literally21 letting people make asylum22 claims, and then they're releasing them into our country. And sometimes, you know, they're being told to report to probation23 offices years down the road. What is going on right now is chaos24.
MART?NEZ: From your perspective on this lawsuit, specific to Title 42, how that would help this, as you call it, chaos, how it would all of a sudden control this chaos, because the recidivism25 on Title 42 - you've got migrants that are coming back one, two, three, four, five times that might not have that same ability if they actually were under Title 8.
BRNOVICH: Because what we know right now is the system is not working, and if you talk to anyone in Border Patrol, the ranchers and farmers in Arizona, people that prosecute gang cases or people at the DEA that are prosecuting - going after the cartels, they will tell you the Title 42 is not the end all, be all. It's not a permanent policy. It was never meant to be. But it is one of the few tools we have left in our toolbox that is stopping even more people from illegally reentering or illegally entering our country.
And, look, when President Obama was president, you know, they did, you know, Operation Chokehold. They aggressively sent judges and federal prosecutors26 to our southern border to aggressively prosecute entry and reentry cases. And even during the Obama administration, they were able to stem the flow of immigration. So I'm not saying that this is some magic wand or solution. But until the Biden administration gets serious about securing our border, until they get serious about going after the cartels, prosecuting people for, you know, illegal reentry, we're going to continue to have this problem.
MART?NEZ: But your argument right off the top was you were more concerned over the way President Biden tried to lift Title 42 more than, actually, Title 42 being lifted. So is your justification27 for the lawsuit - for being part of the lawsuit that you don't agree with the way President Biden tried to lift Title 42 or that Title 42 should not be lifted?
BRNOVICH: What I have said consistently is I believe in our institutions as a first-generation American. I believe in the process. And if the president wants to rescind Title 42, he has to go through the lawful process, which includes notice and comments by affected28 parties. So the first fundamental question is, has the president of United States followed the legal process? And we say no.
MART?NEZ: OK.
BRNOVICH: You know, just this week, the Biden administration's talking about making sure people from some countries have negative COVID test. I mean, it's - I think it's the height of absurdity29 where, you know, there's kids being expelled or not allowed to go to school 'cause they won't wear a mask because of COVID concerns.
MART?NEZ: Do you still think there's a pandemic going on, or do you think that is over?
BRNOVICH: What I think is that there are concerns that people have expressed, including the president of the United States, regarding the pandemic and COVID-19. I don't always agree with all of his solutions as a matter of policy. But what I was trying to point out is - from a legal perspective - is that the president and his administration is taking actions, saying there's a pandemic, and they're literally taking actions to try to mitigate30 and control it. Then, my goodness, one of the things they should absolutely be doing is keeping Title 42 in place.
MART?NEZ: So let me ask you this then. How do we fix the system? What do we do?
BRNOVICH: The very first thing you have to do is aggressively enforce existing law. You have to gain control of the southern border. And then once you do that, you can start having a discussion. This is not, like, rocket scientist in the sense that there are countries like Canada and Australia that have immigration systems that are based on merits and points. But it has to begin with enforcing existing law.
And - what? - I'm out here on the - you know, in Arizona, and it just seems like in Washington, D.C., because we don't have term limits, and we don't have balanced budget amendments31, there's there is a permanent political class there - elected political class, too - that has an incentive32 and motive33 in just perpetuating34 these issues and continuing to divide our country. I guess in a lot of ways I am a subjective35 optimist36 but an objective pessimist37 because I just think that the last 20 years, 25 years has shown that the people elected in Washington - Republicans, Democrats38 - a pox on them all. They don't get anything done.
MART?NEZ: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. Thank you very much.
BRNOVICH: Thank you very much.
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 constraints | |
强制( constraint的名词复数 ); 限制; 约束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 implemented | |
v.实现( implement的过去式和过去分词 );执行;贯彻;使生效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 warding | |
监护,守护(ward的现在分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 rescind | |
v.废除,取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 incarceration | |
n.监禁,禁闭;钳闭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 systematically | |
adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 prosecution | |
n.起诉,告发,检举,执行,经营 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 interim | |
adj.暂时的,临时的;n.间歇,过渡期间 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 deport | |
vt.驱逐出境 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 deportation | |
n.驱逐,放逐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 lawsuit | |
n.诉讼,控诉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 taxpayers | |
纳税人,纳税的机构( taxpayer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 prosecute | |
vt.告发;进行;vi.告发,起诉,作检察官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 prosecuting | |
检举、告发某人( prosecute的现在分词 ); 对某人提起公诉; 继续从事(某事物); 担任控方律师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 asylum | |
n.避难所,庇护所,避难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 probation | |
n.缓刑(期),(以观后效的)察看;试用(期) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 chaos | |
n.混乱,无秩序 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 recidivism | |
n.累犯,再犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 prosecutors | |
检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 ); 告发人; 起诉人; 公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 affected | |
adj.不自然的,假装的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 mitigate | |
vt.(使)减轻,(使)缓和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 amendments | |
(法律、文件的)改动( amendment的名词复数 ); 修正案; 修改; (美国宪法的)修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 incentive | |
n.刺激;动力;鼓励;诱因;动机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 perpetuating | |
perpetuate的现在进行式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 subjective | |
a.主观(上)的,个人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 optimist | |
n.乐观的人,乐观主义者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 pessimist | |
n.悲观者;悲观主义者;厌世 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|