Return to Transcripts main page


Rewriting the 14th Amendment?; Killing the BP Well

Aired August 3, 2010 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: A lot to cover tonight. We are going to be telling you about the push under way right now to kill BP's damaged well, crews trying to choke it to death with tons of heavy drilling mud -- 106 days into this disaster, can the well take it? We have a live update from down in the Gulf.

Also tonight, the fight over illegal immigration -- the White House trying to slap down efforts to rewrite the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, giving the kids of illegal immigrants born here automatic citizenship. John McCain got into the act today, calling for hearings, the White House calling it political gamesmanship. The two sides square off tonight.

And a major step today towards an Islamic center near ground zero. The debate, though, is only intensifying right now. We will talk to one of the loudest voices on the right calling for an investigation into the Muslims behind the planned center, "Keeping Them Honest."

That is where we start tonight. Should a group of Muslims be allowed to build an Islamic center near ground zero? Nine years after the worst attack on American soil, most of ground zero is still under construction. It is an open pit, an open wound. It is hallowed ground.

Not far away -- take a look -- just two blocks north and one block east, on Park Place, is where the Islamic center and mosque would be built, 15 stories, $100 million. That's the plan, a community center, like a YMCA, say its backers, with a 500-seat auditorium, a gym, a prayer center.

They also say it's to promote interfaith understanding and promise to have Jews and Christians on their board. The imam, a man named Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is the -- who is the public face at the center, is a naturalized U.S. citizen, a man the State Department has deployed overseas to show that America is not at war against Islam.

He's operated a mosque in Lower Manhattan since 1983, and there's no evidence he has done anything illegal. Opponents, however, are outraged, saying this is a victory monument by Muslims that they suspect are anything but moderate.

They point to an interview that imam gave on "60 Minutes" after 9/11, in which he said -- and I quote -- "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." He was talking about blowback from the Islamic fighters the U.S. funded to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the '80s. He also said during that interview -- quote -- "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam."

Critics, though, also say he has not repudiated Hamas. They also question who will fund this project. Opponents had tried to block the project by having New York's Landmarks Preservation Committee declare the site -- and that's the site right there, which is now a dilapidated former clothing store -- protected.

The outcry today was intense and emotional at the hearing, but the commission said the building is not a landmark. That means it can be demolished. The Islamic center can go forward, though opponents now plan to sue.

And there are plenty of big-name opponents to tell you about. Sarah Palin wrote weighed in, tweeting that it stabs hearts and calling for -- quote -- "peace-seeking Muslims to reject in the interest of healing." She called on them to -- again, her words -- "refudiate it."

Newt Gingrich said there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. And the Anti-Defamation League, which traditionally stands up for religious freedom, denounced the planned location because it said it will cause some 9/11 victims more pain.

And former Congressman Republican Rick Lazio, running for governor of New York, is calling for an investigation by the government into the funding of the center. Mayor Bloomberg and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo have rejected those calls. And, today, Bloomberg said ruling against the mosque, however much 9/11 wounded you, would be handing al Qaeda a bigger victory than anything they themselves could do. Listen.


MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (I), MAYOR OF NEW YORK: The attack was an act of war, and our first-responders defended, not only our city, but our country and our Constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God's love and mercy.



COOPER: And joining us now is Rick Lazio, a former New York congressman who is now running for governor of the state.

Thanks very much for being with us.


COOPER: You say that the attorney general should investigate what -- who is behind this group, the funding of them. Do you have any evidence whatsoever, though, of any wrongdoing?

LAZIO: Well, the fact, this is the attorney general's responsibility.

What I have said, Anderson, all along is, we should have transparency. There's no suggesting that this is not an emotional issue for a lot of people. A lot of families of victims of 9/11 question whether a $100 million mosque belongs in this location.

But that's not really what I'm calling for. I'm calling for just a transparency, a sense of where the money is coming from.

COOPER: But you're calling for an investigation.


LAZIO: Well, I'm calling for an inquiry. The attorney general of New York has got jurisdiction over registered charities, and so he has got the ability to get behind this and figure out where the money is coming from.

My question really is, when you have an imam who is spearheading this effort who on the very month that we were attacked on 9/11 said that we were effectively responsible for that attack, that we were an accomplice, in his words, to the crime, when he says that Osama bin Laden was effectively created in the U.S., and refuses to condemn or distance himself from Hamas, that raises some pretty questions.

COOPER: But he says he's not a supporter of Hamas, but he is not necessarily going out there condemning it.

But this is a guy who the U.S. State Department vetted. The U.S. State Department sends him out around the world to -- to -- to basically be a bridge to the rest of the Muslim world and say that the U.S. doesn't have a war against Islam.

Aren't you proving the opposite point? Aren't you showing that the U.S. has a problem with Muslims?

LAZIO: I think, in fact, if you had nothing to hide, you would be very comfortable saying to people that have a lot of emotional investment in this area, I have nothing to hide. We will be happy to show you what the funding sources is.

In fact, but he says...

COOPER: But you're calling for a government investigation of a religious group, of an Islamic center, without any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. It's a very slippery slope. I mean, you're a Republican. Shouldn't you not be calling for more government intrusion?

LAZIO: This is exactly the same position at the Anti-Defamation League. They agree with me, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Governor George Pataki, people that have been through the 9/11 situation.

COOPER: Yes, Mayor Bloomberg, though, doesn't support this at all, in fact, says it's completely antithetical to -- to...


LAZIO: And then you have people like Peter King, who is the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives, who agrees with our position.

In fact, when you have an imam who is associated with Perdana Global, the group that tried to run the blockade, finance the block -- the flotilla.


COOPER: You say he's associated with that group.


COOPER: In truth, he spoke at a thing years ago that was sponsored by them. He says he's not a leader of that group, though it may say so on a Web site.

LAZIO: Yes. He is listed as an important figure on their Web site.

COOPER: But if all of his connections -- I mean, it seems like a lot of criticisms of this guy, again, who the State Department is sending out to represent Muslims in America, it seems like a lot of the criticism is, well, his wife's uncle was once -- is something.

LAZIO: No, no, no, no, no.


COOPER: I mean, he once spoke to a group, and you're...

LAZIO: That's not really what I'm saying.

I'm saying, when somebody says that America was responsible for the attack of 9/11, refuses...


COOPER: He didn't say America was responsible.

LAZIO: Well, he said -- he said they were an accomplice -- America was an accomplice to the crime of 9/11. Those are his words, his precise words.

When he says that Osama bin Laden and all that he represents, including the execution of over 3,000 Americans, was effectively made in the USA, those are not the words of a bridge-builder or a peacemaker. He's talking about building a $100 million mosque that is so close to ground zero.

COOPER: So, has the U.S. been wrong in sending this guy out? I mean, you think this guy is, what, a secret extremist?

LAZIO: I'm saying that it is our responsibility, in fact, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's responsibility, to seek transparency, to determine whether or not foreign governments are investing in this mosque, if -- if radical Islamic organizations are investing in this mosque.

And, if that's the case, at ground zero, effectively, then we should know about it before we go forward. We haven't even finished the reconstruction of the ground zero buildings that -- where the World Trade...


COOPER: Right, which is, in itself, incredible.

LAZIO: Nine years, we're still waiting for it.

COOPER: Right. Ridiculous.

LAZIO: And now we're rushing forward and refuse to ask questions about a $100 million mosque, when this organization files with the state of New York and says they only have $18,000.

Well, if you only have $18,000, where is the $5 million coming from to acquire the property, and where is the $95 million coming from to build this facility?

COOPER: Well, there's no doubt he's probably going to do fund- raising, he says in the United States.

But no doubt, even if he gets foreign governments involved or foreign groups involved, what is wrong with that, as long as they're transparent about it down the road?


LAZIO: Yes. This is a mosque that is built two blocks from the site of the worst terrorist attack in American history.

COOPER: Well, it's an Islamic center where they're going to have a pool and recreational activities.

LAZIO: And a mosque. I mean, that's how it was originally...

COOPER: A prayer room.

LAZIO: It was originally called by them as a Cordoba mosque. That was their words, not mine. So...

COOPER: But this is a man who -- and a group which has been in this community for years. I mean, they have been operating in this area, in this neighborhood in New York, for a long time.

The -- New York City has a very extensive intelligence network with their police department investigating and infiltrating mosques to monitor activity.


COOPER: Clearly, if they had a problem with it, you would think the mayor of New York would say, you know what? We have an issue with this.

LAZIO: The only person who has jurisdiction over registered charities is the attorney general, Andrew Cuomo.

COOPER: How much of this, though, is about politics? I mean, you're running against Andrew Cuomo. He is far ahead of you in the polls. I mean, clearly, you have got to see -- you clearly see this as an issue which you can make some inroads on...


LAZIO: Listen, I would be talking about this if this was a vastly unpopular issue. I spoke out on the issue of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of 9/11.

COOPER: Have you ever raised concerns about this imam, who has been in the ground zero for years, before?

LAZIO: Well, he didn't announce that he was going to build this mosque until fairly recently.

COOPER: And to those who say getting the government to investigate a group which there's no evidence at all that they have done anything wrong is a dangerous precedent to set, you say?

LAZIO: Except -- except the fact, if it was any other -- if it was any other church, by the way, or synagogue, and it was being driven and run by somebody who had made the kind of statements that he had made, completely callous to the feelings of the people who had lost loved ones on 9/11, if you're telling people the very same month that 3,000 Americans were slaughtered that it was effectively American policies that were accomplices to this, we're responsible, I just disagree with that.

This sets off, to me, all the light bulbs about the fact that we need to look further into this. This is...


COOPER: And you have no problem with the government investigating a religious institution that there's no evidence against? (CROSSTALK)

LAZIO: This -- this institution could obviously become transparent overnight. They could agree to say, listen, we understand how much emotion, how emotionally charged this is, how difficult this is for so many people.

He could say, in fact, I do condemn Hamas. Those -- those -- that is a terrorist organization.

The fact that -- that...

COOPER: Look, but there's more than a billion Muslims around the world. And you know what? A lot of them probably don't necessarily support Hamas, but also don't necessarily condemn them, and they're not all terrorists.

LAZIO: But they're not building -- but they're not -- they're not building a $100 million mosque at ground zero. That has got special significance in that area, special significance.

And if you don't -- as an imam, if you don't have enough sensitivity to understand the sacred ground, the emotions, the sense of loss, the open wounds that people still feel around that -- that 9/11 site, that ground zero site, then you are completely out of touch, in my view, with what healing and reconciliation and bridge- building is all about.


COOPER: And to those who say you're using this basically just to score political points against Andrew Cuomo and to make some inroads in the polls?

LAZIO: It's -- it's -- it's nonsense. OK? That's why -- what are you going to say about the Anti-Defamation League? They're doing the same thing? That Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki are doing the same thing?

COOPER: Well, the critics say that they're basically caving to pressure from the right.

LAZIO: The Anti-Defamation League?


LAZIO: Yes. Well, when is the last time the Anti-Defamation League caved to anybody?

You know, I think that's -- to me, when the Anti-Defamation League, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Lazio all say, let's have transparency, let's have an open process, let's get to the heart of the matter, let's find out where the money is coming from and what the motivations are for the people that are giving the money, that ought to be enough, I think, for people to say, well, maybe that's a credible point.

COOPER: How close to ground zero is it OK for a Muslim to pray, for a Muslim to go to a mosque?

LAZIO: People are -- are praying right now, you know, within a few blocks of ground zero.

The question is about the money, the financing and the purposes by the people -- for the people that are actually giving this money.

COOPER: Rick Lazio, appreciate your time. Thanks.

LAZIO: Thank you, Anderson.


COOPER: Well, let us know what you think about it. Join the live chat right now at -- a lot of people weighing in on both sides.

Up next: both the White House and Republicans ratcheting up the battle over changing the 14th Amendment, changing the Constitution to fight illegal immigration. We will bring you the latest.

And a special 360 investigation: Is craigslist doing enough to block ads that sell sex? They say they are. That was their promise. But police around the country are telling us a different story. We're "Keeping Them Honest" -- ahead.


COOPER: Well, "Raw Politics" now.

We touched on the First Amendment, religious freedom at the top of the program -- now the 14th, which, among other things, defines what it is to be a citizen, who gets citizenship.

Now, as you know, there's a growing movement to change the language, saying that anyone born in America is, with a couple exceptions, an American. Today, Arizona Senator John McCain joined fellow Republicans in calling for hearings on the 14th Amendment. And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pushed back hard, saying the move is -- quote -- "based purely on politics."

This is all about illegal immigration and not allowing the children of illegal immigrants to automatically become citizens. Supporters of changing the 14th Amendment say that the drafters never intended it to apply to illegal immigrants.

And, technically, of course, they're right. There were no illegal immigrants at that time. There were no laws against immigrants in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

But, as we learned last night from one of the preeminent historians of that -- that period, the debate back then over the 14th Amendment encompassed immigrants' children. Supporters of changing the 14th Amendment say it was only meant to apply to citizenship for African-Americans, freed slaves.

Here is what historian Eric Foner said about that last night.


ERIC FONER, HISTORY PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Completely false. That's completely false.

They were trying to set up, after the Civil War, a new standard of citizenship for the United States.

The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so.


COOPER: Well, history and intent aside, the question remains, should the 14th Amendment be altered?

I'm joined once again by Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, co-sponsor of Arizona's tough new immigration law, and political analyst Roland Martin.

Senator Pearce, I saw you shaking your head listening to the professor, Foner. You think the intent of the framers had nothing to do with the children of aliens or illegal -- of immigrants?


In the debate -- in the debate, Senator Howard, who wrote the amendment, said it had nothing to do with foreigners or aliens. It was clear.


COOPER: They debated the children of Chinese immigrants. There was fear about Chinese immigrants overrunning California. They debated this for months.


PEARCE: Right. Absolutely. But that case was (INAUDIBLE). Let's go back to the real history.

COOPER: That case was what?

PEARCE: First of all, we had the Dred Scott -- we had the Dred Scott decision, a terrible, terrible decision that denied African- Americans citizenship. The 14th Amendment was written to fix that.

COOPER: Right.

PEARCE: It was a tremendous injustice. And it has stolen the 14th Amendment from the African-Americans. This is their legacy.


PEARCE: Had nothing to do with aliens at all.


COOPER: But it distinctly said they -- because of the Dred Scott decision, they distinctly said birth is what gives the right of citizenship, birth, not...


COOPER: ... or anything.


PEARCE: No, no, no, let's go back. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, let's -- again, here everybody loves to leave out this phrase -- and for those whom we have jurisdiction -- and for those whom we have jurisdiction.

The courts have ruled that meant complete jurisdiction. Do you know the American Indians weren't -- weren't allowed citizenship under the 14th Amendment?

COOPER: Right, because they were a tribe. That was a different thing.


PEARCE: That's right. They were born in the United States, though. I mean, that is where you're missing the point.

COOPER: So, you're saying...


PEARCE: You can't ignore that.

COOPER: I don't want to argue this with you, but we had the preeminent historian of Civil War...

PEARCE: Three congressional decisions.

COOPER: ... Reconstruction on last night, the preeminent historian from Columbia University, who says, flat-out, you're wrong.

PEARCE: Well, I can read you the quotes. He can say I'm wrong all day long. Apparently, he hasn't read it all.

It's kind of like Eric Holder. You know, reading it apparently isn't an issue, apparently. You know, let's read it, the Constitution. It says those born and naturalized and for whom we have jurisdiction.

And right in the decision, or the debate, Senator Howard made it clear. He said, this does not apply to foreigners or aliens at all.

COOPER: OK. OK, Roland -- Roland Martin... (CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: I mean, good grief. This is an abuse. This is a tremendous abuse.


COOPER: Let's move beyond -- let's move beyond the historical argument.


COOPER: Roland Martin, should the 14th Amendment -- why shouldn't -- why should children of illegal immigrants, people who came here illegally, why should they get automatic citizenship? Doesn't that in fact reward their illegal activity, their illegal behavior, by coming here?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: At the end of the day, it is the law of the land. It is in the Constitution.


MARTIN: We can all take issue with the Constitution.

There are people right now who disagree with the Constitution that anybody can own any number of guns, there should be no kind of gun control whatsoever.


MARTIN: But the Supreme Court has ruled. Anderson, here is the reality. And that is, this is the kind of Band-Aid approach to the immigration problem that we have.

This is a sideshow, OK? In golf, it's called the silly season. This is the silly season. The problem we have right now is that Democrats...

PEARCE: Well...

MARTIN: ... and Republicans refuse to step up, truly confront the immigration issue.

Even if you change this -- first and foremost, it has to get through Congress.


MARTIN: Then it must be ratified by various states. But, again, even if you do this, you still are going to have 10 million people in this country. So, guess what? It's still not going to solve our immigration problem.

PEARCE: Roland...

COOPER: Senator Pearce?

PEARCE: Roland, I'm -- Roland, I'm very disappointed that you wouldn't recognize the legacy of the African-Americans.

This amendment was for them. Of all people, you ought to understand that. We had -- we just had a summit on this issue.



MARTIN: First of all...


COOPER: Wait. Wait. Let him finish.


COOPER: Roland -- Roland, let him finish. Let him finish.


PEARCE: Laugh it away. Laugh it away. But this is clear.

Senator Howard made it clear. You ignored the Constitution, just like you would ignore those break into our country. You want amnesty. You want ignore the damage to this country. Arizona is doing something about it. We're going to do something novel called enforce the law.

And, yet, what did we get from our federal government? We get sued. That's the kind of help we get from our federal government, because their approach is amnesty, ignoring the rule of law, rewarding people who break our laws.


PEARCE: That's what the 14th Amendment is doing, too. We're inducing people to break our laws by rewarding them.


COOPER: I want Roland to be able to respond.


MARTIN: First -- first of all, I can guarantee you, I don't need a history lesson on African-Americans from you. I can guarantee you that.

PEARCE: Well, apparently you do.

MARTIN: The point I'm making is, we can stand here -- well, no, no, no, no. Excuse me. We can stand here and we can go back and forth, back and forth. The point I'm making is, we have an immigration problem today. We have people in Congress, Republicans and Democrats...

PEARCE: We have an illegal alien problem.

MARTIN: .... who do not want to -- no, no -- excuse me, sir -- I haven't -- I haven't interrupted you -- who don't want to confront the issue.

This will not do it. It will not do it. What has to happen is, you have to have bipartisan support to be able to confront the immigration problem. Even if you do this and change it -- and it might take five, 10, 15 years.


MARTIN: Guess what? We still have people in this country illegally. So, what do you do? How do you fix that?


COOPER: Senator Pearce, let me -- Senator Pearce, let me -- let me ask you a question.

PEARCE: Very easily. Very easily.

COOPER: Is your argument -- but -- well, let me ask you, is your argument based -- if -- say -- say you are -- just hypothetically, say you're wrong about what the framers had in mind.


COOPER: If the framers did want to include the children of aliens, can you still make the argument that the 14th Amendment should be changed? Or, if, in fact -- is the framers' intent the number-one be-all and end-all, or, if the framers intended something different than you think, can you still make the architect the 14th Amendment should change?

PEARCE: Well, you know what? Just like the entire Constitution, people ought to go back and read what the founders intended when they start saying what the founders intended.

It's pretty clear. In the debate that Senator Howard had on the floor, he made it clear. Secondly, you don't need to change the Constitution. All it takes is clarification. It was honored that way for the first many years after that. It wasn't until later the Kim -- in the Wong Kim Ark decision, it was changed, yes.


COOPER: You're saying the interpretation of what the founders wanted is paramount, that, if you are wrong, you wouldn't make...

(CROSSTALK) PEARCE: No, no, no, no, no. Anderson, Anderson, listen. OK, first of all, it's not my interpretation. I'm reading what Senator Howard said on the floor.

MARTIN: Anderson, can we...

PEARCE: And -- and the fact is, it was intended naturalized, born, and for those who we had jurisdiction, complete jurisdiction.


PEARCE: That's why the Indians were not included.

MARTIN: Anderson, there's -- Anderson, our system...


PEARCE: And let me answer one other thing Roland brought up.


PEARCE: He said, what...

COOPER: What would you do with...


PEARCE: ... with all those other folks that are here?


COOPER: What -- so, OK.


PEARCE: They would leave on their own. Enforce the law. Enforce the law. I know it's a novel idea. But to reward law breakers is how you get more lawbreakers. You enforce the law, they will leave on their own.


COOPER: So, you say they're going to leave on their own. You say they will leave on their own.

Roland Martin, will they leave on their own?


PEARCE: They're doing it in Arizona. They're doing it in Arizona.


COOPER: OK, Roland, go ahead.

MARTIN: Anderson, first of all, our framers established a Constitution. We had to have the Supreme Court later clarify it.

The Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott. The Supreme Court later decided Brown vs. Board of Education. This individual and other officials, they are not going to decide what the framers thought. That's the purpose of our Supreme Court.

Now, if somebody wants to sit here and sue, they want to do that, fine. Go ahead. But to sit here and say, well, we're going to clarify it, that's nonsense.


MARTIN: And I'm surprised that Republicans who call themselves strict constructionists all of a sudden are saying, well, no, no, we now want to reinterpret what is said because we don't believe it now.


PEARCE: Well, first -- well, first of all, don't put words in my mouth, because, you know, again, I read the debates. Let's understand very clearly, very clearly, what the Constitution says, very clearly. And, at the end of the 14th Amendment...

MARTIN: It's clear.

PEARCE: ... at the end of the 14th Amendment -- hang on. At the end of the 14th Amendment, it says Congress will regulate this amendment. All it takes is clarification.

COOPER: OK. We are going to have to leave it there.

PEARCE: I mean, you guys go to the extreme. It's -- it's like (INAUDIBLE) enforce the law. You are going to round them all up? That's not the issue.


PEARCE: Enforce the law, they will leave on their own.

COOPER: We are going to have to leave it there.



COOPER: Senator Pearce, we liked having you on. I appreciate you being with us.


PEARCE: Thank you.

COOPER: Roland Martin as well.

PEARCE: Well, thank you for having us.


COOPER: Another angle when we come back -- we are going to take you inside a sanctuary city and talk to an illegal immigrant who has been in the country for decades about why he thinks he should be allowed to stay and, surprisingly, who he thinks should be sent home.

And, later, a live update on just what is going on right there now, as engineers try to kill that well for good.

We will be right back.


COOPER: Well, as states like Arizona try to toughen their immigration laws, illegal immigrants are running scared to some sanctuary cities in states considered more tolerant of their plight.

Gary Tuchman went "Up Close" and found out that life for many immigrants is anything but easy.


GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Pedro (ph) makes $12 an hour digging this irrigation ditch outside a garage here in Santa Fe. He moved to New Mexico this summer because he's an illegal immigrant and was fearful of new Arizona's immigration law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I understand there's a frustration that people think there's too much competition in the workplace. I understand why some people would want us to go back.

TUCHMAN: But Pedro doesn't want to go back to Mexico. He has been in the U.S. an undocumented worker for almost half his life.

(on camera): How many years have you been out of Mexico?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Twenty years, 21 years.

TUCHMAN: Do you have any family in Mexico?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No more family.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Though much has been said about the benefits illegal immigrants enjoy in the U.S., the fact is many of them say life here is much harder than you might imagine.

(on camera): Where is your room?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My room is over here.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Pedro lives with a Mexican family whom he recently met. This is where he sleeps.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is my bed. I don't have any clothes -- the only clothes I have.

TUCHMAN: This room contains all his worldly possessions. He needed money and sold some of his other things when he left Arizona.

(on camera): How hard is it to have so little? You have a sleeping bag. You only have four shirts. You have two pairs of shoes. That's all you own in the world right now. How difficult is it for you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's really, really difficult. I think nobody wants to have this kind of life.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Hard as life is and as long as he has been living in the shadows here, he still has big dreams, to some day get his contractor's license, to get a formal education, and to find a wife.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have a lot of hope. I want to restart again.

TUCHMAN (on camera): You have a lot of hope that things will get better for you?


TUCHMAN (voice-over): To be clear, Pedro would like to be a U.S. citizen, but like so many illegal Mexican immigrants, doesn't want to go back to Mexico indefinitely, while waiting for the small possibility of approval, especially with no family there.

He feared that, if he stayed in Arizona, he would get arrested for a motor vehicle violation and get deported back to Mexico.

(on camera) What were you scared of in Arizona?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The police, the sheriff.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): But in New Mexico, which is widely considered more tolerant to immigrants than Arizona, there are residents who think their state needs to be more strict.

(on camera) Do you feel that New Mexico needs to toughen its laws against illegal immigrants?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do they need to -- well, considering the threat, you know, terrorism, I would say yes.

TUCHMAN: Pedro says he thinks the bad guys should be kicked out, too, but he says he's a good guy.

(on camera) You've been in this country 21 years.


TUCHMAN: Do you feel more like a Mexican or an American?


TUCHMAN (voice-over): Despite new pressures in the new law in Arizona, Pedro says he's digging in, more committed than ever to staying in the U.S.


COOPER: So Gary, is the family allowing Pedro to live in their house? I mean, are they worried they're going to get in trouble?

TUCHMAN: The reason I'm not worried about Pedro is because the family, the husband and wife who live in the house are illegal immigrants, also, but they have two children, two teenagers you saw in the story, and those children were born in the United States. And as we know from this program, this discussion today, those children are U.S. citizens.

COOPER: And the people who hired Pedro, do they know he's an illegal immigrant? They must.

TUCHMAN: Well, that's interesting. The man who hired Pedro to do this work by his garage today did not want to appear on camera, but let us tape the story on his property. What he told us was I didn't ask whether he was legal or illegal. They just knew that he was a good worker.

COOPER: Gary Tuchman, appreciate it.

Coming up, what could be the beginning of the end of the worst offshore oil spill in history. Or maybe the end of the beginning. We have the latest details on BP's static kill effort now underway in the Gulf and whether it will seal the company's ruptured well once and for all.

Plus, is Craigslist profiting from prostitution? Critics say it is. Police say it is. And a special 360 investigation confronts the founder of Craigslist about the ads his company posts and the promises they made to police them.


COOPER: As we said at the top of the program, BP has finally started the process in hopes to seal its ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico for good. It's called the static kill. We've been talking about it a lot. It involves pumping heavy mud into the well. It's news that everyone affected by the oil spill obviously has been waiting to hear for more than three months. Tom Foreman joins us right now from New Orleans with the late details -- Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Anderson, the static kill has been under way about seven hours now, and officials are anxiously watching every dial, every readout, every sign of what's happening on the Gulf floor at this minute.

The effort was launched after a series of tests this morning, which a BP official says produced textbook results, meaning they showed no odd pressure fluctuations, no obstructions in the pipe, leading from the cap on top of the well through the rock and sand, through the natural oil reservoir far below. That green light at the static kill, and so far, Anderson, there have been no signs of anything going wrong with it either.

COOPER: I should point out, Tom, once again, that we are once again reading tea leaves and just waiting for press releases from BP, because they have continued to refuse -- even though they once said they were going to do it -- to actually have some sort of real-time explanation of what is going on in the live picture. Correct?

FOREMAN: Yes, exactly. We get periodic updates through either press releases or maybe a brief phone conference. But that's about it.

COOPER: And so we don't know -- we won't know for a while -- I mean, this ship is, what, it's pumping a lot of barrels of heavy drilling fluid. Do we know what's going on?

FOREMAN: Yes, exactly. That's what we do know. We won't know if it's working for some time. This ship that you can see in these pictures is pumping many barrels of heavy drilling fluid, or mud, as they call it, down into the oil well about a mile under the water.

They're steadily increasing the pumping pressure, too, and that should have the mud pushing the oil back down through the well pipe, but officials are taking a very slow, very cautious approach. And they say even though don't know when the process will be complete, although they say it could involve up to 70 hours of pumping -- Anderson.

COOPER: And how do they know that they've reached the goal? I mean, this, you know, how do they know it's been stopped?

FOREMAN: Yes. That's a good question. It's in that word "static," Anderson. They're taking periodic readings and in case -- in this case when we say, when we use the word static is not moving. Static means not moving.

Right now, I want to show you this little demonstration here. The oil is pushing up very hard inside that well pipe, about 7,000 pounds per square inch. And they're adding the mud with pressure on the top, because without the pressure there's so little mud initially, that it would blow it right back up if you didn't have that pressure pushing back on it.

But the mud is heavier than the oil. And as they continue to push it in there, gradually the pressure of the mud itself will become so great that it starts pushing that oil down. And, at some point, you'll reach a balance point, they hope, where no longer will the oil have the ability to force it out. That's when it is static, nothing is moving. The downward force is equal to the upward force. They say at that time you could take the cap off entirely, and nothing would move. But of course, they want to get it permanently sealed so that won't happen.

But tonight, as I said, they're anxiously watching to see if this first step can work -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Tom Foreman, appreciate it. Thanks, Tom. Of course, we're going to continue to follow the progress of the static kill.

Let's get caught up right now on some of tonight's other stories. Joe Johns has a "360 Bulletin" -- Joe.


Police in Connecticut may have a motive in this morning's murder/suicide that left nine people dead. Manchester police say an employee at a beer distribution company killed eight colleagues before turning the gun on himself. He just left a disciplinary meeting where he was given the option of resignation or termination following the accusation of theft.

The suspect's girlfriend says he was a victim of racial harassment, that he reported it to the company and his union, but that no action was taken. Union officials say Omar Thornton never filed a complaint and deny race played a role in the shootings.

The Mexican government says drug-related violence has killed more than 28,000 people since 2006. That's when President Felipe Calderon took office and stepped up the war against violent drug gangs.

Super model Naomi Campbell will get an extra security detail Thursday when she testifies in the war crimes trial of former Liberian president, Charles Taylor. It's expected Campbell will be asked is she received so-called blood diamonds from Taylor, who's accused of selling diamonds to finance rebels in Sierra Leone's long civil war.

And Brett Favre, is he finally retiring? That is the question swirling around the 40-year-old star quarterback of the Minnesota Vikings again. There are reports that Favre told some of his teammates he's hanging up his cleats for good. But the Vikings coach says Favre hasn't told him anything.

Sounds like a long-running soap opera to me. People call this guy the drama queen of the Minnesota Vikings.

COOPER: It's been a while. Joe thanks.

Still ahead, is Craigslist doing enough to block ads that sell sex? What our 360 investigation uncovered, next.


COOPER: Tonight, a special 360 investigation into the popular Web site Craigslist. It's the largest classified advertising Web site in America. It's an amazing site, helps you find just about anything anywhere.

What you may not know is that a large chunk of its revenue comes from one type of ad alone, adult service ads. Craigslist has stated that they screen all adult service ads carefully and reject those that appear to be selling sex, but we've been hearing from law enforcement officers who say the Web site is not living up to that promise. So CNN's Amber Lyon went to one of the busiest online prostitution markets in the country, Washington, to investigate. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMBER LYON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I want to show how easy it is for these pimps to use Craigslist to sell their girls. So we're actually going to post an ad for a fictional prostitute right now. Don't try this at home, OK?

It says right now that it will cost $10 per ad, five bucks to repost. One of the big things going on with Craigslist right now is they're saying that they're monitoring all these ads that come through on adult services to check to see if any of these girls are underage or young.

We put some words in here, "sweet," "innocent," "new girl." And we're going to see what happens. We'll see if Craigslist is going to let our ad post. We'll also see what kind of calls we get.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw your ad on Craigslist.

LYON: Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. What's your donation for an hour in- call?

LYON: What are you looking for? What type?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just half an hour. Just a quick, you know, half an hour get together.

LYON: What's your name?




LYON: So what is that now. We've had 15 calls and the ad has only been up for three hours. Fifteen calls in three hours.

We're on the main page of the Washington, D.C., Craigslist section right now. And to get down to the adult services section, you scroll past the "for sale" section. Right underneath pet services is adult services.

(voice-over) Craigslist says its staff manually screens all of these adult services ads and will reject any that make it look or sound like you're selling sex. That might not be easy, but when we looked through the ads, most of them were pretty blatant.

(on camera) Look at that. She's sitting here in her underwear.

(voice-over) On a single day last week, we counted 7,000 adult services ads in the major metropolitan areas where Craigslist is most active. Dozens had photos with young-looking females. Dozens more had words that used youth as a selling point. The Fair Fund investigating juvenile trafficking.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And most of the young people that we've worked with who have been exploited online talk about Craigslist, not the other sites. Craigslist is like the Wal-Mart of online sex trafficking right now in this country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We post ads around like 4:00 or 5:00 and wait for you to get a call, wait to get a call.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From everything we understand, when they are being exploited by a pimp or trafficker, more accurately described, the trafficker is keeping the money.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And if I didn't get it -- yes, he would beat me.

LYON: So we're here at George Washington University, and we just found out that Craig Newmark, he's the founder of Craigslist, he's going to be speaking here today at a tech conference. He doesn't know we're coming. He's been very media shy lately about all these allegations against him.

This guy is the Craig in Craigslist. It's his list.

So can people trust that children are not being sex trafficked on Craigslist?

CRAIG NEWMARK, FOUNDER, CRAIGSLIST: I think we explained that pretty thoroughly in our blog.

LYON: That's where Jim Buckmaster says that you will...


LYON: ... immediately contact law enforcement if you suspect any ad...

NEWMARK: Jim does a great job showing that we do more than anyone in this area. Pretty good for a community of 50 million people.

LYON: This is inspector Brian Bray with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. He's also in charge of the prostitution enforcement unit.

In Craigslist blog they say that they're going to immediately contact law enforcement any time they see a suspicious ad. And you say you've never been contacted by them?

BRIAN BRAY, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT: That's correct. I -- It does bother us from a law enforcement perspective, because the problem is so rampant that, you know, to get a handle on it, we need all the assistance we can get. And if they're notifying, I'm not sure if they're notifying the right people because we're not getting the call. LYON: What are you guys doing to protect these girls? You guys say in the blog that you will remove any ad that looks like the person might be suggesting they're going to offer sex. Look at this ad. It says, "Young, sexy, sweet and bubbly." Clearly here, she writes "$250 an hour." I mean, what do you think she's selling in her bra and underwear, a dinner date? And she's in her bra and underwear.

What are you guys doing? But you guys say you screen all these ads manually on your blog.

NEWMARK: I've never -- I don't know what this is.

LYON: But in Jim Buckmaster's blog, he says these are being screened.

NEWMARK: Have you reported this to us?

LYON: Why do I have the responsibility to report this to you when it's your Web site? You're the one posting this online. I just want to know -- I mean -- OK. It's just that we've run into a lot of victims and a lot of advocates that pretty much call your site the Wal-Mart of child sex trafficking.

(voice-over) In 2008, Craigslist agreed to report any suspicious ads to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which works with police to find and rescue trafficking victims. Two years and hundreds of thousands of sketchy ads later, the center says Craigslist has reported fewer than 100.

(on camera) Thank you for your time, Craig.


COOPER: Amber, let me just play devil's advocate here. First of all, I mean, not all these women are necessarily being trafficked by pimps. I assume some are just doing this on their own on the site to make money. And also, is it really the job of the company, of Craigslist, to police every single ad that they have?

LYON: Anderson, I think lately it hasn't really been a question of whether it's their job to police this. It's a question of what they're saying they're doing. And CEO Jim Buckmaster's blog he repeatedly states that they're manually screening these ads, that if they suspect any ads are for minors that they'll immediately report them to law enforcement.

But as you saw, the D.C. -- the head of the D.C. child sex trafficking unit says that they've never been contacted by Craigslist.

Now, if you look also at the legal side under the Communications Decency Act, Craigslist is not legally responsible for the content that users publish on its site. And that's another thing lawmakers are hoping will be reviewed.

COOPER: Interesting. Amber Lyon, appreciate the report. Thanks. A quick program note: tomorrow on 360, using the Internet to crack down on drunk drivers. CNN's Ted Rowlands reports on the tragic death of a person names Paul Mayman's who was killed by a drunk driver named Miranda Dalton. Now Mayman's family is keeping track of her court case and striking back against his killer on Facebook.


TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On the day of Paul Mayman's wake, two things happened. Dalton was released on bail, and Team Paul came back to life. The Web site and a new Facebook page became a rallying point to urge people to pressure the legal system not to go lightly on Dalton. It also became a spontaneous surveillance network.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can never be hard enough on her, ever, because she's done it before, and she would do it again. And the next time it could be my child or my neighbor's child.


COOPER: You can see Ted Rowlands' full report tomorrow night on "360."

Still ahead tonight, a major announcement involving California's Prop 8, which took away same-sex couples' right to marry in that state.

And Bristol Palin makes an announcement about her second engagement to Levi Johnston. Are they, in fact, re-engaged? We'll have the answer for you in a moment.

And, yes, I'm talking to you, Kathy Griffin.


COOPER: Couple of other stories we're following. Joe Johns joins us with another "360 Bulletin."

Highly anticipated ruling on the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. A San Francisco federal judge will decide whether Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, violates gays' and lesbians' rights under the Constitution.

A source close to Wyclef Jean says the hip-hop singer is expected to announce exclusively Thursday night on "LARRY KING LIVE" that he plans to run for president of Haiti. Jean was born in Haiti and was one of the first celebrities to offer aid to that country after that devastating earthquake in January.

Kagan is expected to be confirmed Thursday and could be sworn in by week's end.

The engagement of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston is off once again. According to "People" magazine, Sarah Palin's daughter broke up with Johnston after finding out that he apparently lied to her about a recent trip to Hollywood. She says he shot a music video mocking the Palin family on that trip.

Bristol and Levi broke off their first engagement two months ago after their son's birth in December 2008 after Sarah Palin and John McCain lost their bid for the White House and, boy, this would just make a great reality TV show.

COOPER: Well, they've been shopping around a reality show. I wonder if that means that deal is off or now this is just another -- this is like season two of the reality show.

JOHNS: Right. Yes. We could have two or three years of this. I'd love it.

COOPER: Yes. Well, maybe this -- now Kathy Griffin, I think maybe her ears perked up now that Levi is back on the market. Who knows?

Joe, thanks.

Time for "The Shot" tonight. Who says parrots and monkeys are the only pets that copy their masters? Here is a goat that follows its master off the trampoline. Take a look at that.

Seems a very happy-go-lucky goat. I kind of wanted to see the goat on the trampoline, frankly, more than the goat off the trampoline. OK. I like that you have a goat in the house. Yes. Interesting idea.

Of course, this reminds us of -- yes, got us thinking, that's right. We haven't played that in a while. Here we go. Bear on the trampoline. Oh, my.


COOPER: I know. The bear was not injured, apparently. There's a bear trapped in a tree in Missoula, Montana, tranquillized.

JOHNS: Unbearable.

COOPER: Stop the punishment. Joe, yes, thank you very much.

JOHNS: Sorry.

COOPER: Have a good evening, everyone. I'll -- we have more news at the top of the hour. We'll be right back.


COOPER: Thank you for joining us. A lot to cover tonight. We're going to be telling you about the push under way right now to kill BP's damaged well. Crews trying to choke it to death with tons of heavy drilling mud. A hundred and six days into this disaster, can the well take it? We have a live update from down in the Gulf.

Also tonight, the fight over illegal immigration, the White House trying to slap down efforts to rewrite the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, giving the kids of illegal immigrants born here automatic citizenship. John McCain got into the act today, calling for hearings. The White House calling it political gamesmanship.