and chris landeau, here on behalf of lawyers for romney. the great dick wily, one of three co-chairs of the romney justice advisory panel. dick? lee rodobsky, deputy general council, romney for president. michael morally, romney for president. with that, i want to thank -- sorry? >> anybody mentioned -- >> we're leaving the last few minutes of this to go live to a senate judiciary subcommittee hearing to hear about state and local law enforcement of immigration laws. charles schumer has entered the hearing room. this hearing is focused on arizona's immigration law, which goes before the supreme court tomorrow.

court will determine the constitutionality of the law that allows local police officers to check the immigration status of someone they think could be an illegal immigrant. aamong the witnesses, arizona state senator who wrote the law and a senate legislator who wants to repeal it.

we mentions the supreme court is considering the constitutionality of ard ar's immigration law tomorrow. justices are considering whether arizona has the authority to

enforce the immigration law or if the federal government has exclusive authority when it comes to immigration. you can hear oral arguments on friday night on c-span at 8:00 eastern.

good morning, everyone. the hear willing come to order. today's hearing, we will be discussing the constitutionality and prudence of the many state and local immigration laws enacted during the past few years. in 2011 alone, state legislators

from across the country introduced 1,607 bills and resolutions relating to immigration. by the end ofrp t the year 42 ss enacted 197 new laws. tomorrow the supreme court is going to be considering whether the arizona law, known as sb-1070, is constitutional. specifically, the court will be deciding if stated can enact comprehensive immigration enforcement laws designed to promote the self-deportation of illegal immigrants. five states, alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina, and utah, have crafted laws following arizona's example. court challenges have been filed against all five of those laws and the outcome of those cases will likely be dictated by the supreme court's decision in the arizona case. discussing both the constitutionality and prudence of these laws is necessary because the supreme court will base its decision upon what the

senate had previously said about the role of state and local government in enforcing federal immigration law. the wisdom of the arizona laws also currently being debated around the country. for instance, sb-70, recently endorsed as a model for the country by mitt romney, republican nominee for president, others such as marco rubio said they do not believe the arizona law should be expanded nationwide. in my view, these state laws are both counterproductive and unconstitutional. in terms of being counterproductive the statistics couldn't be any clearer in terms of the economic damage these laws cause. in arizona, studies have shown that, after sb-1070 was passed the convention and tourism industries lost as much as $140 million. moreover, the agriculture industry has seen much of their crops destroyed, due to a lack of labor. alabama, a study by the university of alabama, found that the alabama laws projected

to shrink alabama's economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the state $70,000 per year. sorry. 70,000 jobs per year. in terms of being unconstitutional, our founding fathers gave congress plane area power over immigration law. the supreme court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in article i to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government. even though some on the other side want to limit the federal government's power and increase the power of the states, immigration is not, and never has been, an area where states are able to exercise independent authority. this makes sense, both legally as a matter of constitutional interpretation, and practically as a matter of sound, public policy.

immigration involves international commerce and sensitive foreign relations, just as we would never allow 50 states to have their own inconsistent and independent trade laws, we shouldn't have 50 states establishing and enforcing their own inconsistent immigration laws. and even if states like arizona say they are only helping the federal government to enforce the law, this issue is much like federal tax law where the federal internal revenue service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to 50 state agencies going to people's houses to ensure that they properly filed their federal tax returns. only federal comprehensive immigration reform can accomplish the three objectives most americans want to see achieved with regard to immigration. first, ending illegal immigration. second, fixing our dysfunctional legal immigration system and, third, addressing the status of people here without legal status. in 2010, many of my democratic

colleagues on this committee released the white paper with me outlining our proposal for immigration reform. then, as a good-faith down payment to encourage negotiations with those who said fix the border first, we passed a $600 million supplemental border security act that added 1,500 troops on the border, deployed more unmanned aerial drones, and increased border fencing and technology. the border bill was hailed by my arizona colleagues as a significant border security accomplishment that they were proud to co-sponsor. as a result of this bill, arizona's 373-mile border with mexico is patrolled by over 5,200 border patrol agents and 300 national guardsmen, a 31% increase from 2008, which resulted in a 61% reduction in unlawful border crossings over the same period.

and yesterday, study reported that immigration from mexico has dropped to net zero when comparing the number of people terning the u.s. from mexico to the number of people returning from mexico. some in arizona might wish to take credit for this but the study shows this is a national trend, based on increased federal enforcement at southern border and decreased availability of jobs for foreign workers. and this deals -- this chart reveals immigration to the u.s. from mexico. it's national. and because of what we've done on the border, as you can see, the number has gone significantly down from a high of 770,000 people in 2000 to a now 140,000 people in 2010. that's a dramatic drop. we've repeatedly invited our republican colleagues to sit done with us and discuss how best to reform our broken

immigration system in a manner both parties can support. it will only pass if it's bipartisan. to this date, our colleagues will not even sit down with us and discuss comprehensive immigration reform legislation. finally, when small noncontroversial immigration matters are proposed na can help create jobs, they are blocked in the senate. consequently, states are taking matters into their own hands and passing a multitude of immigration laws that touch upon a variety of subjects, such as employment authorization and verification, border security, work visas and higher education, areas that have always been the exclusive province of the federal government. i believe it's simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy. i also believe that congress has clearly and repeatedly indicated its intent to preempt states from creating their own immigration enforcement regimes

which is why i believe sb-70 and laws like it are unconstitutional. for instance, in 1997, congress passed section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act, which allows state and local law enforcement to enter into partnerships with i.c.e. to conduct immigration enforcement with their juror ris diction in enacting 287-g, congress made it clear it did not want the states, like arizona, taking immigration enforcement matters into their own hands and, instead, wanted state officials to act with guidance, training and supervision of the federal government. in addition, congress explicitly wrote employment verification laws designed to punish employers rather than employees for violation of immigration law. arizona, by contract, has decided to criminalize the individuals who seek work to feed their families. this conflict of law plainly contravenes our stated intent in

passing numeral federal immigration statutes. i'm therefore announcing that, should the supreme court choose to ignore these plain and unambiguous statements of congressional intent and uphold sb-1070 i'll introduce legislation that congress does not intend for states to enact their own immigration enforcement schemes. my legislation will reemphasize the state officials can end engage in the detection, apprehension, and detention of unlawfully present individuals if they're doing so pursuant to an explicit agreement with the federal government and are being supervised and trained by federal officials. states like arizona and alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply helping the federal government, quote/unquote, to enforce the lay when they are really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with the mission of arresting everyone and anyone who might

fit the preson received profile of an illegal immigrant. preacted from enacting their penal penalties. i hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort in the event it becomes necessary, which i hope and believe it won't because i do believe the supreme court will decide that sb-1070 is not constitutional based on the evidence that is all on one side here. i now look forward to hearing from our -- i now would like to turn it over to senator durbin for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, thank you very more for calling this hearing of the immigration subcommittee on the question of sb-1070, the arizona immigration law, which i jo

join you in hoping the supreme court finds unconstitutional. under our constitution, states do no have the right to pass their own laws preempting federal laws of immigration. it is wrong can counterproductive to criminalize people because of their status, their immigration status. law enforcement, incidentally, does not have the time or resources to prosecutor incarcerate every undocumented immigrant. the arizona immigration law will simply deter undocumented immigrants from being part of the community and cooperating with law enforcement where necessary. don't take my word for it. ask the arizona association of chiefs of police who oppose s-1070. there's another troubling aspect of the arizona immigration law. according to experts, this law encourages racial profiling. last week i held a hearing on racial profile, the first one in ten years, on capitol hill. we heard testimony about the

provision in this law, arizona's immigration law, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of any individual, if they have, quote, reasonable suspicion that the person is an undocumented immigrant. the ex-plan nation of the law went further to say how you can gather this notion of reasonable suspicion and it went tonight say, by the way a person dresses or by their command of the english language. now one of the witnesses at there's racial profiling hearing was ron davis, he's the chief of police of east palo alto, california. chief davis, an african-american, along with 16 other chief law enforcement officers, and major cities' chiefs of police association, filed a brief in the arizona case before the supreme court, this is what they said. quote, the statutory standard of reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the united states will, as a practical matter, produce a focus on minorities

and specifically latinos, end of quote. instead of measures that hurt law enforcement, and promote racial profiling like sb-1070 we need practical solutions to fix our broken immigration system. i could not agree with my colleague, senator schumer, more. congress needs to face its responsibility to pass immigration reform. 11 years ago i introduced the dream act. this legislation would allow a select group of immigrant students who grew up in this country, came here as infants and children, but would give them a chance to earn their way to citizenship by attending college or serving in the military. 11 years we've been struggling to pass this. we've had majority votes in the senate floor but never the magic 60 number that we need to pass it. the best way i've said to my colleagues to understand what the dream act is about is to get

to meet the young people who would qualify for this legislation. as senator rubio of florida has said, let's let these young people get right what their parents got wrong. these people call themselves dreamers. under the arizona law, these young people, sb-1070, under the arizona law, these young people would be targets for prosecution and incarceration. why? it's beyond reasonable suspicion. they have stood up and said, we are undocumented, we are dream students, we want a chance to become american citizens. under the dream act, they would be future citizens, who would make our country a better place. i want you to meet six targets of this bill, the arizona immigration law. each and every one of them is a resident of arizona. they have stepped up publicly to tell their stories about being brought to the united states by their parents as infants and

children, now begging for a chance to earn they're way to legal status and citizenship. the first, dolce, she graduated from arizona state university with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. she cofounded the arizona dream act coalition, an organization of more than 200 dream act students. last week, she was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by "time" magazine. she is a target of the arizona immigration law. now, meet mara garcia. she's president of the cottonwood youth advisory commission in her hometown of cottonwood, arizona. she graduated from high school in 2010 with a 3.98 gpa. she's now a sophomore at a prestigious university in california. she would be a target of the arizona immigration law.

now meet juan rios, in high school, juan was the leader in the air force junior rotc. in 2010 he graduated from arizona state university with the degree in arreronautical engineering. juan has put his life on hold because of american law, he cannot enlist in our military or work in the aerospace industry. juan is a target of the arizona immigration law. now meet jose magana. jose graduated as valedictorian at his high school. he joined the speech and debate team where he ranked fifth in the nation. in 2008, jose graduated summa cum laude day with a major in business management from arizona state university. later this year, jose will graduate from baylor university law school in waco, texas. he cannot be licensed to practice law in the united states because he has no

country. jose is a target of the arizona immigration law. finally, meet angelica hernandez. in high school, she served in the junior rotc and was president of the national honor society. last year she graduated from arizona state university as the outstanding senior in the mechanical engineering department. angela ka is a target of the arizona immigration law. unlike the arizona immigration law the dream act is a practical solution to a serious problem which treats these young people and thousands of others in a humane and just way. sb-1070 would harm law enforcement and encourage racial profiling going after the very people that you have just met. that is not consistent with our values as a nation. it is not consistent with our constitutional values. mr. chairman, thank you for this hearing. >> thank you, senator durbin, for an excellent and heartfell

statement. we will, having no other people here, will turn to our panelists. i'm going to introduce each of them. their entire statements will be read into the record, and we will let each of them make a statement. russell pearce is currently the president of banamnestynow.com. an organization advocating for increased immigration enforcement in border security. he was the former president of the arizona state senate, a position he held until november 2011. he's most widely known as the author of sb-1070, the arizona law, whose constitutionality is being decided by the supreme court and subject of this hearing today. he was originally elected to the arizona house of representatives in 2000 in the arizona senate in 2008, he also served as the director of arizona's motor vehicle division, the director of the governor's office of highway safety, and is a deputy for 23 years with the maricopa

county sheriff's officer. dennis dconcini served as u.s. senator for 19 years from 1977 to 1995, prior to that, he served as people macounty attorney, the chief prosecutor and civil attorney for the county and school district within the tucson border area. currently serves a partner in a law firm with offices in tucson, phoenix, washington, d.c. state senator steve gallardo a member of the arizona state senate, representing district 13. he previously served in the arizona house of representatives from 2003 through 2009, he has served on numerous state and local boards and committees, and is the leading sponsor of the state senate bill, arizona state senate bill that would repeal sb-1070. todd landfried is the executive director of arizona employers for immigration reformer. a grassroots organization comprised of 400 small, medium,

large businesses committed to federal immigration -- sensible federal immigration policy. mr. landfried's organization filed an amicas brief with the supreme court in opposition to sb-107 on purryour entire state will be read into the record. mr. pearce, you made proceed as you wish, sir. >> good morning. i am russell pearce, the author 0 and driving force behind sb-1070. which is overwhelmingly supported by citizens across this nation. thank you. chairman schumer for invite me here and before this honorable committee. it is an honor for me to appear. as you know, illegal alien problem is a critical issue, not just in arizona but across the nation and the effects of it rill. throughout society. we must begin by remembering we are a nation of laws. we must encourage, have the courage the fortitude to enforce

with compassion without apology those laws to protect the integrity of our borders and rights of our citizens from those who break our laws. sb of 1070 removes the political handcuffs of law enforcement. all law enforcement agencies have the legal authority and moral obligation to uphold our laws just like sheriff joe who keeps his oath did does the job he was hired to do. the invasion of illegal aliens we face today, convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, terrorists, pose one of the greatest threats to our nation in terms of political, commission, national security. during the debate of sb of 1070 a friend of mine, rob, was murder on the border by an illegal alien. i've attended funerals of citizens and law enforcement officers murdered by illegal aliens. i have a son, deputy sheriff, critically wounded in the line of duty in a gun battle with illegal aliens while serving a warrant. i, too was critically wounded

shot in chest and hand in line of duty. i've seen the real cost and damage caused by the presence of illegal aliens in the country. in arizona the annual costs of illegal immigration problem is $2.6 billion to educate, medicate, incarcerate. and those numbers don't reflect the cost of crimes committed by those here illegally or jobs lost by residents. the terrorist attack of september 11, 2001, underscore for all americans the length between immigration law enforcement and terrorism. four of the five leaders of the 9/11 attack were in vie last of the immigration laws and had contact with law enforcement and were not arrested. the failure to enforce the immigration laws was instrumental in deaths of nearly 3,000 people on that tragic day in america. under federal law, policies are illegal but the obama administration does not sue those cities that adopt such illegal policies.

instead it chooses to sue arizona for enforcing the law, protecting its citizens, protecting jobs for lawful residents and protect the taxpayers and citizens of the republic in attempting to secure our borders. during my 11 years in arizona, i authored numerous legislative initiatives it designed to protect the state of arizona from adverse effects of illegal immigration and importantly to uphold the rule of law. they include, 2004, voter i.d. at polls passed by 57% of voters. 2006 a constitutional amendment denying bond to illegal aliens who commit serious crime. passed by 78% of the voters, 60% of hispanics. also in 2006, illegal aliens who sue american citizens cannot receive punitive damages, passed by 75% of voters. 2007, protect american jobs and honest employers by mandating

the use of e-verify for every business in the state of arizona. i'm also proud to say that each of these initiatives have become law and survived the various legal challenges. in fact, the last time was in washington, the supreme court upheld the e-verify law against the unpatriotic challenge of the chamber and the obama administration. because most provisions of sb-1070 are in effect it accidents of arizona are safer. according to phoenix law enforcement association which represents rank and file police officers and i quote, since sb-1070 phoenix experienced a 30-year low crime rate, 600 police vacancies, budget and cuts and policing strategies did not bring about falling crime rates. sb-1070 did. deterrence factor of the legislation brought about was clearly instrument until our unpr unpru unprecedented drop in crime. all of this without a single civil rights racial profiling or