works, it's a blanket, everybody. it doesn't carve out individually. it's a blanket amnesty for those folks. there are exceptions that i think the law allows certain exceptions of the law, but those ought to be carefully executed exceptions, mr. durbin. >> mr. pearce, the dream act is not blanket amnesty. >> yes, sir. >> you have to earn your way into legal status. let me introduce you to another one of your neighbors from arizona. i'd like you to get to know him a little bit here while you're at this hearing. his name is oscar vasquez. he grew up in your home state, spent his high school years in junior rotc. he entered a college-level robot competition sponsored by nasa. he was competing against students from m.i.t. and other top universities. he won first place. in 2009, oscar graduated from arizona state university with a degree in mechanical engineering. not exactly a criminal, drug dealer or human trafficker or gangster. he was one of the top three

students in his class. let me tell you what happened after he graduated and realized he couldn't be licensed as an engineer because he's undocumented. his parents brought him here as a child. he has no legal status in this country. he went back to mexico. and while he was in mexico, the obama administration granted oscar a waiver to re-enter the united states. now, at any time before he left for mexico, he could have been pulled over under your law under sb-1070, reasonable suspicion, maybe the way he dresses or the fact that he may have an accent. without his waiver from the obama administration, oscar would have been barred from returning to the united states for at least ten years and separated from his wife, carla, and their 2-year-old daughter, samantha, who live in arizona and are american citizens. well, the good news is, he was given the waiver, came back to the united states. he's an example of a dream act-eligible person. you know what he did when he came back to the united states,

mr. pearce? i'm about to tell you. he immediately enlisted in the united states army. he completed basic training, and then he was sworn in as an american citizen. today, oscar is serving our country and his country, the united states of america, in afghanistan. now, you've criticized the dream act as "some liberal dream of creating an american military staffed with foreign soldiers." do you consider oscar vasquez a foreign soldier? >> mr. durbin, you know, oscar is a good story to use, the exception was made. that's exactly what i'm talking about. those exceptions ought to be carefully thought out, not just a blanket amnesty or support. there's a cost to the american taxpayers for all this. you know, if you want to make exceptions, i'm okay with the proper exceptions and i think oscar's probably one of those that met all the criteria that any american would be proud, and certainly i'm proud that he would join the military, proud that he would defend the nation that he wants to be a part of. those are good things, mr.

durbin. don't take -- [ everyone talking at once ] i'm not in favor of a blanket amnesty approach to the dream act or anything else. it's costing us hundreds of millions of dollars. i'm talking about the exceptions are appropriate -- >> mr. pearce, you were in the legislature. i've got to get you away from the cliches to actually read the bill. senator deconcini, these stories about your fellow arizona residents, you must know many yourself, families that are going through this. we're now reaching a point where these dream act students are stepping up and self-identifying so people know who they are, what their dreams are and what part they can play. you had the honor of representing the state of arizona for so long. can you put their stories in the context of your home state in this debate over 1070? >> mr. chairman, i'll make an attempt to do that. had i been here, i would have supported the so-called dream act now. i supported immigration reform that is orderly, safe and legal, and does create a pathway, not

amnesty, a pathway. there are numerous examples here of people. i serve on the arizona board of regents. we govern the three universities, eight appointed members. we have constantly had the problem of these people coming to their presidents and some of them petitioning members of the board of regents, the board of regents to grant them some kind of exemption, some way to stay in school, and our legislature put forward legislation that says they have to pay out-of-state tuition if they're going to stay here, and they're not deported under sb-1070. it has caused immense pain and suffering in the latino community. i know many of them. and you know, as long as we're on the subject matter, my distinguished colleague, former senator pearce, tell you about, is it not profiling. is it profiling. police officers tell you that, that it's profiling. they feel they have to. there's two sheriffs on the

county, on the border with mexico, santa cruz and pima county. these two sheriffs are opposed to this bill. these two sheriffs are against it because it infringes on federal law, and they're not train trained. under secure community program that the dhs has put in, has helped them train, but they refer people over when there is a violation of the law. so, it is absolutely absurd that to state here that this does not profile. this has become such a profile issue in arizona that two of our sheriffs, elected sheriffs, one in the largest county, is under investigation both criminally and civilly. the civil action is based on profiling, and that's the reality because people are being profiled. and you know, you can talk about, well, wasn't the intent. maybe it wasn't the intent. we don't want to do that. but that is the fact. imagine two law enforcement

officers duly elected, enforcing this law, are under investigation, one for criminal, one for criminal and civil, and the civil part is profiling, the other one is misuse of the office, and i could tell you stories that will make your hair stand on end of public officials, including the superior court judge that was indicted because he opposed this particular sheriff and a member, two members of the maricopa county supervisors who were indicted. that county attorney that indicted them with that sheriff has been disbarred in arizona, and that sheriff is under investigation. so, you know, it's gotten so political. and if you talk out against some of the law enforcement people, you get arrested in arizona. if you're a judge and you rule against him -- he brought criminal action against the jung. all thrown out.

all thrown out. maricopa county just set ailed a million-dollar lawsuit by one of the supervisors who had sued after the case had been all dropped because of the action of that prosecutor and because of that sheriff. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. and i'll just close. thanks, senator schumer, for the extra time here. just, i want to echo his words, as we did at our hearing on racial profiling. i have the highest respect for our law enforcement officials. the men and women who get up every morning and put that badge on and risk their lives for me, my family, my community, my neighborhood, this state and this country deserve our respect. we do not help them in their job when we create laws like this, which puts them in a position of calling people out because of their status, not because of the suspicion they've even committed a crime. and that is not fair to them. it doesn't make their job any easier. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator durbin. i just have a few more questions, and these are to the other three witnesses.

first, all of you are arizona citizens and residents, right? do you -- can you point out ways that illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants dress differently than other people? i mean, what does it say about the arizona police when they say that's one of the things to look for? >> mr. chairman, if i could just comment, as former senator, former prosecutor, native of arizona, mother native of arizona, i'm embarrassed for my state. i apologize for arizona's actions towards our latino community, legal or illegal. this is not a way to treat people. so many of the religions in our state, they have outreach programs. they don't ask whether or not their immigration. as senator durbin pointed out, for a violation of violence, domestic violence, for any other

kinds of crimes, they don't ask. >> right. >> because that's what america is all about. and the federal government has that responsibility. thank you, mr. chairman. >> all right, either senator gallardo or mr. landfried? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> in terms of my question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senate bill 1070 has been the worst piece of legislation ever passed in the state of arizona. if you look at section 3b, what you were mentioning before, "where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the united states, reasonably suspicious." the only way to determine this it's not by clothing, it's by the color of skin, end of discussion. there is no way to enforce senate bill 1070 without using race as the determining factor if someone is here legally. i would propose that if mr. pearce and myself were walking

down the street and you asked law enforcement to pick out the person who they suspect would be here undocumented, they're not going to be pointing at mr. pearce. they're going to be pointing at me. they have to use race in order to enforce senate bill 1070. that's the unfortunate part. and mr. chairman, if senate bill 1070 was so popular, why did the sponsor get recalled out of his own legislative district? at the end of the day, this bill is bad public policy for the state of arizona. it has put a black cloud over the state of arizona. it has given us a negative image that's going to take us years to get out from underneath. it is poor public policy as well. >> legislation, as you know, is before the supreme court tomorrow. we reached out to many arizona officials. i'll say this for mr. pearce, he was the only one who would come. if you believe in the law, if you voted for the law, if you're enforcing the law, why can't you come and defend it? but mr. pearce was the only one who would come.

he's had his opportunity to make his case. governor brewer didn't want to come. we reached out far and wide to incumbent officials who supported the law. no one would come, which says something, i think, about the law, but it also is to your credit, mr. pearce, that at least you have the integrity to come here. i wanted to ask senator deconcini, the clip you showed, which was powerful and moving, i take it that happens frequently. >> mr. chairman, i don't have factual information to give you a number. i'm told -- >> but it's not -- mr. pearce was sort of making it seem like it's an exception. >> i'm told by law enforcement officials, sheriff of pima county has conveyed to me that, yes, that happens. and he feels that his deputies should not have to be put in a position of being liable if they

should not ask somebody. >> mr. gallardo, are you familiar with how the law's being enforced? well, it hasn't had much time to be enforced because it was adjoined, but -- >> and mr. chairman, i think that's the -- >> i think the clip was actually before the law was passed, right? is that right? >> mr. chairman, it had passed both houses and the governor signed it about three days later, but the intent was there, obviously. so, law enforcement knew it was going to pass. the governor had said she was going to sign it. >> understood. go ahead, senator gallardo. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i think that's the critical part of senate bill 1070, it has not even been fully enacted. yes, we are still already seeing the consequences over the last two years. we had julio mora who was arrested, detained, he was brought in and he's a u.s. citizen. >> right. >> and these are situations after situation, situation. juan verella, a united states citizen who gets in an argument days after governor brewer signs

the bill and violence occurs, and mr. verella is dead over senate bill 1070. these are the unintended consequences that comes from legislation when the state tries to fix what is ultimately a federal immigration problem and that forces law enforcement to try to enforce it. and then there's penalties against any law enforcement officer who doesn't enforce it. and -- >> are you familiar with any other statute in arizona, you or senator deconcini, where a private citizen can sue because the individual officer was not enforcing the law? >> not one. not one, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i have not done the research, but i served as a county attorney there. i knew no laws at that time -- that was way last century, i must say, and i haven't read every law, but i' talk to polic officers all the time. i know of no other law. perhaps there are some, but i don't know of any. >> we couldn't find one. there may be one or two, but it's certainly the exception to the law. mr. pearce -- >> mr. chairman, it is the exception, if there is. >> if there is, yeah.

mr. pearce, you get the last word before i conclude here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i get a little disappointed, you know that we're the bad guys for enforcing the law. first of all, proposition 200 passed in 2004 overwhelmingly by the citizens of the state of arizona, also has that right of action to citizens to sue their government if they're giving out benefits to those that are ineligible. >> what is that one? >> proposition 200, known as -- >> is that immigration law? >> it dealed with voter fraud and proof of citizenship, i.d. at the polls and no benefits for those in the country illegally. and that right of action is in that bill. >> and did that allow law enforcement explicitly to be sued? i don't think so. >> it was just the benefits. and this, again, mr. chairman, and i may argue with you bit, but i'll correct you again. law enforcement helped write that section. they got qualified immunity in that bill, qualified immunity to

enforce the law. as to the officials or a policy setting position and agencies that set those policies. >> okay. >> but i'm little disappointed when folks talk about embarrassed for the state of arizona. 2-1 across this country, we have a national crisis. and yet, everyone wants to ignore that. the cost, the damage, the crime. and we can go through this, and if i had the time, mr. chairman, or were allowed the time, i could give you a lot more information, too. it's just the little antidotal things that we pick out a victim that said, you know, because all of us are disappointed when inappropriate action is taken on anybody. this bill -- and again, illegal is a crime, not a race. it doesn't pick out any nationality. it just so happened that 90% of those who violate our immigration laws come from across that southern border or are hispanic. you know, this law doesn't pick those out. i mean, common sense -- if i've got three young kids in the middle of sun city at 3:00 in the morning, i don't care what color they are, they're going to get stopped and questioned.

kids don't live in sun city. 3:00 in the morning's another element. i mean, just a little common sense. mr. chairman, we have a national crisis, and yet, we continue to ignore it, you know. and there are some who run for office talk about things but never hear it against once they're elected. i think americans are tired of the drive-by statements by politicians instead of dealing with the issue at hand. enforce our laws, secure our border. it's not too much to ask, mr. chairman. >> we've made big progress in that direction, sir. >> we have made some. >> let me conclude by saying this. first, let me thank the witnesses. i'm sure it didn't escape notice that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to this hearing. that's not surprising. they're absent from this hearing just as they've been absent from every attempt we've made to negotiate a comprehensive solution to our immigration problem. we need people to sit down, people on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way and solve this problem.

we have been unable to find negotiating partners. and so, the absence of people here today, not only shows an unwillingness both in arizona and here in washington of them to defend this law or be associated with this law, but it shows an absence of an ability -- it's broader. we don't have anyone sitting down and saying here's what we want to do to solve this immigration problem. we get a lot of rhetoric out there on the campaign trail, but we don't get any action, even if they would disagree with the kind of proposal that i and my colleagues have made to do that. and so, they're not here, it's not surprising. it's been typical in terms of being absent on the entire immigration debate except in terms of rhetoric, sometimes unfortunately, very inflammatory. with that, i am going to close

this hearing and thank our witnesses. i just have to do a little housekeeping here. the record will remain open until tuesday, may 1st, 2012, for further testimony and questions. i would like to thank individuals and groups for submitting testimony for the record. without objection, it will be added. that includes the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, the american immigration council, the rights working group and the american civil liberties union. i'm asking unanimous consent these statements be inserted into the record and my colleagues have until may 12th to put in statements as well. i thank the witnesses again and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> and, yeah, i'm disappointed others weren't here. >> criticized politicians to take a drive-by approach to immigration. do you feel confident that mitt romney is going to follow through on that? >> he had the same advisers when he ran four years ago. i believe he's very sincere and, again, good people can disagree. good people can disagree and i'm always disappointed somebody wants to take this to a mean-spirited rhetoric. very disappointing. i'm a passionate guy. looked like an evangelical preacher. my wife told me to tone to down, sounds mean. i'm not mean. i'm passionate. and i am, too. >> what about the supreme court vote -- >> or the democrats. >> no. absolutely not. that's the difference. latinos that are american support this overwhelmingly. in '06, four ballot initiatives

on the ballot. they voted 60% of all four of those. >> why do we -- >> hang on. hang on. >> why do you demean the hispanic community? huh? why would you demean them? >> for some reason or -- hang on. let's -- one question at a time. why would we think there ares they american than us? i deal with these groups all over. anna gaines, immigrants who come here. folk whose have fought for this country and other groups. they love this country as much as you and i. i find it demeaning to assume that they are illegal just because they're is hispanic. >> is it true you are leaning to people that is investing in building more prisons and -- >> no, that is not true. absolute lie by mpr, invented the story. i find it amazing -- i think

they woke up from a dream and just wrote an article. absolutely no truth to that article at all. zero. >> four years ago the said the supreme court could fight for -- are you that optimistic? >> i am. probably a 5-3. recused herself, read the solicitor general her opinion. recused herself. my guess is she'll recuse herself again. if not, a 5-4. recuse herself, 5-3. >> you volunteer -- >> not going that far. i knew the rick of coming here and knew i would have the odds. i knew that everybody on that panel would probably be against me. the democrats especially, who are pro-amnesty. call it reform. i like the term that they use to cove the real intent. but i knew that, and i'm willing to defend arizona whether i'm one guy in a crowd or whether i have colleagues with me, because the majority of americans stand with me. the majority of americans, and

i'll stand for americans and i'll stand for those citizen whose have a right to have the laws enforced. >> senator jon kyl to defend you? >> ask senator jon kyl -- >> the fact is, if you were set up, if some of your republican colleagues had bothered to show up, maybe we would have gotten a more balanced hearing. >> again, i don't know their reasoning and i don't want to speak for them. you know, if they thought it was going to be unfair, you know i would have appreciate add phone call about they're concerns. i didn't get that either, but, again, i'm not one to run from what i believe is the right thing to do. i have my moral compass and i know right from wrong. >> the romney is making a -- they're really -- backing off of that. how do you feel about that? >> i'm not going to comment on something -- i haven't read that. >> senator, has the -- >> the -- >> right. that's in -- >> he said specifically he

wasn't referring to it as model. did you tick that from that at the time? >> absolutely. >> how do you feel about them saying that's not it? >> i'm not getting into specks. the folks that, advisers on this i worked for three years and have great confidence and trust on him. i know romney is compassionate, most of us are, but i think he understands the crisis, and the need to secure or bourde eboredi admired him about that. >> you shared tears with -- when was that? >> at the convention at the downtown -- during the last election, 2010. went off in the corner, a half dozen of you and i have to admit. it was very touching. these were exceptional kids, and i understood their plight. again i say, exceptions. i think can be carved out. you can't just do blanket policies and forgive the world for breaking our laws or use taxpayer dollars to subsidize them. >> if you support their plight, would you support a dream act

specifically targeted at those students? >> it's like reform. congress has a hard time getting much of anything right. anytime they want to do something, and they want workers, 26-year high unemployment, record foreclosures but we think it's okay to import illegal foreign labor. they never learned how to separate woeshgs -- it's not a path to citizenship. two separate categories. some come stloimp work but nerve ker get a right, they'll never get it right and never anything passed because both sides are -- >> you support a car vote just for the dream about the students? >> each has to be taken individually. individually. i will not support any blanket policy. >> are you looking to -- how it's going prevail in court tomorrow? >> absolutely. very confident. they won't rule ton a few months. >> but if they -- get rid of -- are you, any part of those, or different aspects of it,

considered, would render the bill obsolete or get away the -- >> already proved constitutional and the courts already agreed bp four sections of the ten in question. and i believe all four of those will be upheld. again, read the bill. all mirrored after federal law and constitutional. i wrote it carefully. chris coalbuck and i sat down and went through every line. i consider him the number one attorney in the nation on preemption issues. we very careful, knew would go to court. >> under federal law it is a civil offense for a person to seek work when they are not document pd under arizona law it become as criminal offense. tell me exactly how we're mirroring federal law here? >> civil, and that's one of the greatest misunderstandings, howie, civil under federal law is a criminal offense. you can get fine and go to jail for it. not the same at state civil. we need to make sure that's clear. you know, entry and remaining here under federal law is a

crime. >> so, senator, what -- did the supreme court, besides that, all of those four sections are unconstitutional. >> againance states -- all this did was put it, the state law in a manner to be enforced and eliminate sanction policies. it shon shouldn't have been necessary. imposeed by police chiefs and mayor ace cross arizona and across this nation. that's why it's in place. to remove the illegal -- illegal -- policies and we've done that. so the major part of is in full force, the others an important section. i wouldn't have written them in if they weren't important but i'm very confident the supreme court will uphold them. again, doesn't change much of anything. if they don't uphold it it will about chilling effect on other states wanting to model this, but it doesn't change constitutional -- i've been

enforcing immigration laws signs was a puppy in march of 1970, when i was with the sheriff's office. it was nerve are never an issu. states never preempted. never. i'm going to say, states have never been repempted. >> the fact is, if the supreme court con clunds the states don't have a plenary authority you keep insisting -- >> no. that won't be the decision. the decision, whether states can merit into state statute rather than -- it won't remove one piece of state police inherent police power. not one. is it important, yeah. >> but if he deny this is part of state's police power to get involved -- >> i don't think that will happen. >> you're making a prediction. that's fine. but if the supreme court -- i realize ural brilliant, but if the supreme court doesn't see it your way, if the. see court rules 4-4, you lose it seems to me justice would be