do you believe that many national political leaders agree with your policy of self-deportation or do you think you have a minority view here, even within your own party? >> mr. chairman, i have a majority view. sb-1070 is supported by 2-1 from coast to coast across this nation. they originally passed 73%, rasmussen poll, 73% of arizonans supported sb-1070. it is still, by far, the majority in favor of sb-1070. 34 states have had contact with have indicated their desire to pass 1070-like bills. it is -- >> so, you believe it's a majority opinion of your party and of the country, is that right? >> yes, by far the majority opinion in my party, but the majority opinion of america from coast to coast. >> thank you. i want to talk a little bit about racial profiling. there are many critics who say sb-1070 is unconstitutional because it will lead to racial profiling of latinos, asians and other groups. so, i wanted to try to break down the law step by step with

you to understand your thought process better, because you're the author. no one knows this better than you. first, to be clear, as you said to several arizona news outlets -- march 5th, 2012, "you know why sb-10 was written and know every section of the bill. there's nobody better to explain this law to the senate than you." is that an accurate quote? >> it's an accurate quote. >> so, let me go to section 3b, known as the "stop and arrest" section, whose language is behind me. you're familiar with that section, i presume. you wrote the law. >> yes, sir. >> okay. i want to show you a blowup of the official training manual given to the arizona police officers on sb-1070. behind me here on the screen are the factors. the training says police may consider in developing a reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant and needs to be checked.

i'm going to highlight a few. it says "in the company of other unlawfully present aliens." it says "the vehicle is overcrowded or rides heavily." it says "dress." and then it says "demeanor -- for example, unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact." the one that arouses my curiosity and bothers me is "dress." what does an illegal immigrant dress like? why is "dress" in those factors, listed in those factors? >> mr. chairman, that was put together by "ag post," and i understand they worked in cooperation with i.c.e. to develop the profile of those folks after making legitimate contact. >> but explain to me as the author, do you think dress is an appropriate -- >> this is -- mr. chairman, this is from "az post." this is training material for az post, not a part of the bill. >> yes, from the arizona police. >> right, not a part of the bill. >> i understand. well, do you think dress is an

inappropriate measure? a reason to stop somebody because of their dress? and then i would ask you, if it's not inappropriate, what does an illegal immigrant dress like? >> mr. chairman, almost all -- when you train a police officer -- i've been in this business for a long time, in law enforcement, public safety. it's a compilation of issues that tend to raise the level of suspicion to the level of probable cause, not any one isolated incident. this is just a list of things that lead you to ask questions. i know questions are a dangerous thing. people might actually give you an answer. so -- >> sometimes questions are a dangerous thing because they lead to profiling. >> no -- >> and it seems to me when the word dress is used, just give me -- in your experience -- you've lived in arizona your whole life, i believe? >> yes, sir. >> do illegal immigrants dress any differently than legal immigrants or american citizens? >> i don't want to be in a competition -- >> no. >> but i want to tell you, this

is a list of things to look for, and they're trained by i.c.e. this was i.c.e. training in terms of the compilation. it's like anything -- >> i.c.e. didn't suggest -- >> if i'm responding to a bank robbery or a circle k robbery and i've got a description kicked out by radio of a white male, average height, white t-shirt, dark pants, running down the street, i'm responding to that crime scene and i see a white male, white t-shirt, dark pants, i stop him, i have a reason to ask questions. when i get to the circle k and find out he's not the guy, he gets released, you have to respond to reasonable suspicion to do your job, mr. chairman. this is just a list of things to look for. >> first, i don't believe i.c.e. sanctioned the use of the word dress. we'll check that out. if they did -- >> i'm just told that that's who they worked with in cooperation in developing that criteria, mr. chairman. >> so, let me ask you this question. instead of going through these criteria and other criteria, why

didn't you just say -- and again, the criteria are not yours, the arizona police, as you said -- that's what we say up there, mandatory check. but why didn't you just say that everyone who was stopped by police has to be checked for legal immigration status? why do you require the police to form opinions about whether a person is an illegal immigrant first before requiring police to ask that person for proof of legal status? doesn't the way you wrote the law either require, or certainly invay towards racial profiling? >> just the opposite, mr. chairman. again, under federal law, you know -- under the u.s. constitution and the arizona constitution, you know, we have the equal protection clause. i knew those kinds of issues would be raised by those open-border folks that are against any enforcement. we've been sued on everything we've done from voting fraud to stop voting fraud, welfare fraud, to going after illegally,

immorally and have a competitive edge over the honest employer. doesn't seem like no matter what we do, mr. chairman, we're attacked for simply enforcing the law, trying to protect american citizens and jobs for americans. so you know those questions would be asked, you knew they would come after you. we simply wrote the bill to preempt those silly arguments and try to protect everybody's rights as a civil libertarian. i'm a believer that everybody, you have to have a reason to do stuff. i don't want a police stuff, i want a reason. that's why the bill was written in the manner it was written. >> so let me ask you again, if you wanted to, why wouldn't it have done just what you say, rule of law, not discriminate, why wouldn't it have been better to say that everyone stopped by the police should be checked for their status? why come up with obviously a really problematic definition of suspicion? and you've seen in the regulations that it is problematic. >> well, mr. chairman, i don't agree that it's problematic.

in arizona, first of all, we made the proper exceptions. if you have an arizona driver's license or a driver's license from a state that requires proof of citizenship or legal presence, you're automatically exempt from that. that is at that point reasonably that you're legal. all we wanted to do in this bill was common sense. >> right. >> we teach our officers to have common sense, you know, respond to reasonable suspicion. not everybody -- you know, you stop somebody -- i don't want to hold a family up while i'm asking all kinds of silly questions when there's no reason to ask those kinds of questions. this was based on reasonableness, mr. chairman. >> okay, well, i guess many would disagree with that. >> i understand. >> including some on the panel. let me ask you about minors. if a police officer stops a minor, what documentation is the minor supposed to show the police officer to prove that he or she is a u.s. citizen? >> mr. chairman, it's a little different for minors. let me just say they're not required -- if you're an adult,

you're required under federal law to carry your inyeesha with you at all times under 1304 and 1306. so again, reasonableness is the thing. if there is not a reason to ask, officers aren't going to ask. >> well, let me ask you this. there's a car driving, there's an adult driving it, there are minors in the back seat. now, the law allows the children to be checked, right? >> well, mr. chairman, at a certain age. and i'm not recalling with the age. at a certain age -- >> no, there's no age. it's just all the children can be checked and should be checked under the law in its regulations. what are the children supposed to show? >> mr. chairman, if they don't have i.d., they're not supposed to show anything. you're not required to have i.d., you know, unless you're a driver or, you know -- in arizona, we allow passengers to go down and get an arizona i.d. at any age if -- >> so, under this law, children, to prevent themselves from being

sent to a detention center or whatever, would have to carry some kind of i.d. >> mr. chairman, that's not accurate. >> well, that's -- >> mr. chairman, there's a reason, once again, for it. you know, you're taking the extreme, and i understand trying to make a point, but mr. chairman, it's just not accurate, it's just not so. >> well, does the law say anywhere that children don't have to be checked when they're stopped in a car in the situation? i understand the law says the opposite. >> mr. chairman, it gives an out. this law makes exceptions to law enforcement to make reasonable decisions based on the circumstances at the time. i suspect, and again, i think it's demeaning to law enforcement to assume they don't know how to do their job in a respectable, proper way. >> i want to go to demeaning to law enforcement, because -- yeah, i'm just going to submit for the record section 3b, and it doesn't list any exceptions at all. >> mr. chairman, it's modeled after federal law. >> okay. well, but there are no exceptions here.

i don't believe federal law is based -- i don't believe this is consonant with federal law. >> yes, sir -- >> let me go -- >> it is with federal law, mr. chairman. >> let's go to demeaning police. doesn't your law permit any citizen of arizona to sue any police department or any individual police officer who refuses to ask for immigration documents during a stop? >> mr. chairman, let me correct you. it does not allow them to sue any individual law enforcement officer when they use the discretion that we give them under this law and other laws. that discretion is allowed the officer, if you read the bill carefully, you'll see that discretion. in fact, we give -- >> but there is a right to sue. >> hang on. i understand, mr. chairman. >> so, just explain that right to sue to everybody. >> yes. yes, sir, and i will. but law enforcement has qualified immunity under this bill because we knew that they'd be sued, whether they do or they don't. what the lawsuit has done, that

phrase in our founding document, "we the people"? in arizona, we still believe in "we the people." we gave we, the people, the ability to sue their agency, their government, if they will, if they fail, have a policy, have a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of immigration laws as required under federal law. so yes, sir, we do give citizens a right -- >> it's up on the chart here. it says "any person who is a legal resident of this state hay bring an action," that's a judicial action, "an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency," not just the agency, but any official -- that's the words of the statute -- "of this state or county or city or town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws. now, john smith could decide that officer jones has adopted a policy of not stopping the right

people in john smith's mind and sue, and that would be an actionable case to see how the court would decide it. and i just want to ask you this -- is there any other statute in arizona that you're aware of that allows citizens to sue police officers for not enforcing a particular law? >> my understanding there are a couple. but let me explain -- >> i haven't come across any, so you can submit them into the record, but i would state for the record, i haven't seen any. we checked that. >> again -- >> so, i'd ask you -- i'm just going to ask you this and then let you respond at some length -- why was this law singled out to allow this action? isn't that demeaning to police officers? >> mr. chairman -- >> and just one other question, maybe the most important. won't that push them to do things, to protect themselves from lawsuit that they believe they shouldn't do? just, you can answer all of those. >> and i'm grateful for the chance to answer that. law enforcement sat down with me

to write that section, mr. chairman, and the officials interpret it as somebody at an official capacity to set policy, and that's what it has to do with. that's why the qualified immunity is to the officer on the street, where we give them the discretion to enforce this law. you know, law enforcement and attorneys sat down as we decided and mulled over that language. that was their language put in by them, a comfortable language that they felt gave the officers the protection they need to have discretion, at the same time, language that was more compelling to the city to eliminate. sanctuary policies are illegal, mr. chairman. it is illegal under a-usa to have a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of these laws. not only not preempted, they're preempted from having a policy that preempts them under federal law. that's what this is about, making sure they do their job, taking the handcuffs off them, as you've stated, quoted me, and that's exactly what this is

doing, and we gave them qualified immunity while enforcing this law and gave the citizens the right to hold their government accountable. >> how does this swear taking handcuffs off law enforcement and then allowing citizens to sue law enforcement because an average citizen with no experience in his or her judgment says they're not enforcing the law? that's sort of a contradiction. and i'm just curious as to why on this particular law you wrote in that provision when it doesn't exist, i don't think, in any other arizona statutes, but certainly not in the vast majority of law enforcement statutes. as somebody who's been a pretty pro law and order, pro police person in my career, the last thing police like is to be sued by citizens supplementing their own judgment. >> yeah. i don't want to, you know, take this into he said, she said back and forth, mr. chairman, but the truth is, they helped write it, that was language they were very, very comfortable with. they sat down with me. we sat with their attorneys and with the associations and wrote

that language to make them comfortable. that's why -- and again, mr. chairman, you know, this whole thing -- you know, when you talk about no other bill. i don't know if any other law that brings me to washington, d.c., in arizona state law that requires me to defend the rule of law. i haven't been here to defend the tough dui laws we have. i haven't been here to defend the human smuggling laws that we have. i haven't been called to washington, d.c., to defend anything else. so you see why we have to very carefully why we wrote this and put those provisions in there? mr. chairman, we knew we'd be challenged by everybody in town for simply trying to enforce our laws and protect our citizens and protect jobs for americans. >> okay, well, thank you. i have one more area of question, but i don'ts see how it either protects police or protects you from being criticized to then allow citizens to sue the police, because in their judgment, they didn't enforce it. but let's go to documentation -- >> can i just -- >> yeah, please. you can answer that. >> mr. chairman, that piece has

not been adjoined. only four sections of sb-1070 have been adjoined, in place. that section is in place. we have had not one lawsuit from the citizens. this runaway train that you're kind of painting the picture of, the citizens are going to jump up and look forward to suing their government, it hasn't happened. we don't have one lawsuit as of today because those policies have been eliminated -- >> but that's because the rest of the law has been adjoined, if it goes back into effect, we will see citizens sue. >> but mr. chairman, that's not true. in the first part of sb-1070, it says you will not have policy that limits the enforcement of these laws to the slightest degree. to the slightest degree. so, there must be some compliance. citizens aren't running to the courts to sue. >> let me go to one final area of questions and i appreciate my colleague, senator durbin, being patient here. there's another chart i want to put up behind me. do you know how many forms of identification exist today that can be shown to prove your

lawful status in the united states by federal law? >> i do not know the exact number. >> no, i didn't, either, so don't feel bad about that. but there are 53. the answer is that there are at least 53 documents that the department of homeland security says will prove lawful status. now again, i'm going to show you, those are the 53. i don't have to read them all. there are a lot of them. that's the point. now i'm going to show you your training manuals, the arizona police training manuals. and it says the only documents are a u.s. passport -- are much more limited, and i'll read them -- a u.s. passport, u.s. military dd-214, u.s. military i.d. card, u.s. military dependent cards, u.s. birth certificate, u.s. and state government employee i.d. cards and tribal i.d. cards and driver's licenses.

so, there are just eight documents. now, according to the law, if a legal immigrant chose any -- this legal immigrant, not illegal -- shows any of these 45 other valid documents to police -- this is according to your law -- they have to be taken to an i.c.e. facility to have their immigration status determined by a federal government official or wait on the side of the road for an i.c.e. official, a federal official, to come before they can be released, is that correct? that's what the law says, right? >> it's not quite correct, mr. chairman. there is a 24/7 hotline that i.c.e. has set up and also trained officers who are trained, cross-certified as federal agents can make determinations for those purposes. it's usually a five-minute phone call on the phone to an i.c.e. agent or to a trained agent. there are 200 and something trained in maricopa county alone, deputies. so it's a five-minute conversation usually on the

telephone. >> well, i just want to submit for the record a statute of the police training manual, arizona state police. if suspicion of unlawful exists and is practical, see below, call i.c.e. or a 287g officer to determine the immigration status of the person. so in other words, you are not consonant with federal law, you're not helping federal law enforcement. in other words, if you were doing what you say you're doing in this statute, you would say the state police officer, if they saw any one of these 53 documents should be able to say, okay, that's i.d. and go on your way. but instead, what arizona does, and it does it in a lot of senses, this is just one little example, is that it restricts the federal law and substitutes its own judgment. isn't that correct? >> mr. chairman, no, that's not correct. and again, they have a hotline. these are guidelines, as most policy -- >> yeah, but --

>> these are guidelines for those officers. and then as you notice, what you just read, to then call. that's a 24/7 line. >> why is it that the state police officer under your law can enforce some provisions that are allowed in federal law but not so many others? isn't that -- that's not helping the federal government enforce the law. that's supplanting your judgment and restricting the federal law. >> mr. chairman, i respectfully disagree. that's not what it does at all. >> okay. >> it simply gives them guidelines of documents that are acceptable on their face, and any other questions you have, you simply call i.c.e. or a 287g trained officer. again, i'll repeat myself and hate to be too redundant here, but it's a five-minute conversation. it happens every day of the week. >> yeah, but i'm sure there are many other instances that are like the clip that senator deconcini showed, where they have to be brought to a particular place, detained and somebody else has to look at them. we'll ask these other witnesses if they're familiar --

>> we do that for dui guys, too, and sometimes they're not sign-and-release, you know. that's an officer discretion. >> okay, thanks. i have a few more questions for the other witnesses, but i've kept senator durbin long enough, so i'm going to call on him now to ask some questions and then i'll go back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your line of questioning. and let me start, if i might, with senator gallardo? >> yes, sir. >> there's an agency in chicago, it's a charity. it's called los mujeros and latinos en actione. it was established in the hispanic neighborhoods of chicago as a domestic violence shelter, primarily for new immigrants to this country and for the undocumented, so that if women and children were the victims of violence, they had a safe place to go. they had someone who would listen to them, counsel them and refer them to law enforcement in

those circumstances where, perhaps the husband has been abusive to the mother, the wife, and even abusive to the child. i have supported them throughout my time in office because i don't believe any of us want to see that happen, and we want to do everything we can to stop those guilty of that type of crime. you talked about the impact of this law, this arizona immigration law, on people living in arizona. could you tell me your opinion as to whether or not this law makes it easier or harder for an undocumented mother to come forward and to report to law enforcement domestic violence or even the abuse of her children? >> definitely, mr. chairman, senator, senate bill 1070 has not been fully enforced.

i mean, there's still portions of it that have not been acted on. and the portion dealing with local law enforcement trying to enforce immigration or forcing them to enforce immigration law -- and just a real quick comment in regards to mr. pearce's comments in regards to law enforcement. the first lawsuit filed against senate bill 1070 was a phoenix police officer. we're talking an officer on the street, who came forward, spending his own dollars to file a lawsuit against the bill because of exactly these types of situations. the wall that is placed between law enforcement and the latino community is there, and the law -- senate bill 1070 hasn't even gone into effect and there's already the wall there. so, you have situations like women who are in a domestic violence situation, who are too fearful of going to law enforcement and report their abuser because the fear of them getting deported and separated

from their kids. so, i mean, this law hasn't even been in effect and we're already feeling the consequences. and it's unfortunate that you see women constantly -- i work real closely with the coalition against domestic violence in the state of arizona, and they, reports after reports of situation where women who are undocumented, who are in a relationship, are, for the most part, held hostage in their own home because of their fear of going to law enforcement. i mean, 1070 has not even been into effect and we're already seeing this barrier. you ask any law enforcement officer in the state of arizona, they will tell you, the number one way for them to solve any type of crime is working real closely with the community, it's community policing. that's how they resolve crime. it's having folks going to law enforcement and reporting these

types of crimes when they're victims or when they witness crimes. unfortunately, senate bill 1070 puts that wall right between law enforcement and the latino community, and particularly with women of domestic violence, too fearful to go to police to ask for help because their fear of, one, being deported, and even worse, being separated from their kids, and that's their big concern. >> or being charged under this law. >> exactly. >> because reasonable suspicion that they are in this country and under undocumented status. so, here is a mother, a wife, a victim of domestic violence, perhaps with a child who is a victim of child abuse or worse, who is fearful to come to the law to protect herself or her child because of this 1070. >> and mr. chairman, senator, we're pointing out an area in the law that -- this is exactly why governor brewer denied the invitation. she can't justify the very bill that she signed!

it's these types of situations that if you ask her these questions, she can't answer them, because it has put a very polarizing sense with law enforcement and the community. i mean, this wall that is placed in front of women or victims of crime that 1070 is really hurting these victims, and it's unfortunate, particularly in the cases of domestic violence where you have women who are just held hostage. they're in terrifying situations. and now we have a bill that hasn't been fully enacted, and it's still already creating this huge, huge wall. >> thank you. mr. pearce, you published something on may, i believe it was may 24th of 2011, entitled "warning the nightmarish dream act is back," and it was on the letterhead of banamnestynow.com.

it was a lengthy piece. "it's back, help us stop the dream act" was the title of it. and on one section of it, you suggested that the proponents of the dream act talk about those who would be eligible as honor students and so forth. and you went on to say, "what the pro amnesty interests never show are the tens of thousands of criminals, drug dealers, human traffickers and gangsters who are caught and sent back over the border each year only to return time and time again. help me stop the dream act." mr. pearce, have you read the dream act? >> mr. chairman, which version? >> well, it's a correct statement, it has changed, but there's been one consistent thing throughout. the one consistent thing is people with a serious criminal record will never be eligible for the dream act, never. there's never been a version of the bill that i've been sponsor of that would allow anyone

guilty of being criminal, drug dealer, human trafficker or gangster to be allowed into the united states under the dream act. do you disagree with that? >> yes, i do, to some degree. >> point out that provision -- >> not all those are convictions, mr. chairman. we're only talking about convictions that would be prohibited from it. secondly, arizona, the voters have voted 75% to not allow the dream act. >> that doesn't answer my question, sir. i'm asking you whether a person who's been convicted of drug dealing is eligible as part of the dream act? >> convicted, mr. chairman, they would probably not be eligible for the dream act. the dream act goes much farther, as you know. it is a form of amnesty within itse itself, you know. and again, i do oppose the dream act, i'll make it very clear, mr. chairman. i mean mr. durbin. you know, these are always difficult issues, mr. durbin. all of us have a heart and all of us have compassion, but laws that have no consequences are no laws at all. >> so, let me ask you this -- >> we know that, so -- >> if you were speeding down the

highway and had your infant in a car seat in the back seat and you were pulled over and charged with speeding, should that infant get the ticket, too? >> mr. chairman, that's not -- mr. durbin, i don't follow that analogy at all. >> no one should, because it's -- >> it doesn't happen. >> well, i'll tell you how it happens. it happens when an infant is brought to the united states and the parents don't file the papers. the infant did nothing wrong. the infant has lived here their entire lives and graduated high school and now want a chance to earn their way into legal status, and you are saying because the parent didn't file the papers, now the child must suffer. >> mr. durbin, if i might respond. you know, again, you need to blame those responsible and not us for having it be a nation of laws. i've met with these students. if i've met with a bunch of them that are in that status, and we even shared some tears together. some of them are wonderful kids. and i don't know how you carve