residen 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 have the honor of representing the state of arizona for so long. can you put their stories in the context of your home state and this debate over s-1070? >> well, 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 cover the three universities' eight appointed members. we have constantly had the problem of these people coming to their presidents and some of them petition iing members of t 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 had to pay out of state tuition if they're going to stay here and they're not deport ed under sb-1070. it has caused immense pain and suffering in the latino community. i know many of them. and as long as we're on the subject matter, my distinguished colleague former senator pearce will tell you it is not profiling. it is profiling. police officers tell you that, that they feel 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 trained under secure community programs 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 thus the reality. because people are being profiled. and you know, you can talk about, well, it wasn't the intent. maybe it wasn't the intent. oh, i've got a heart and we don't want to do that. but that is the fact. imagine, two law enforcement officers duly elect ed enforcin this law are under investigation, one for criminal, one for criminal and civil. 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

sheri sheriff. and two members of the maricopa county supervisors who were indi indicted. that county attorney who 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 them. he brought a criminal action against the judge. all thrown out. all thrown out. maricopa county just settled a million-dollar settlement lawsuit by one of those supervisors that 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. and 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 340r7bing and put that badge on and risk their lives for me, my family, my community, my neighborhood, my state and this country deserve our resp t respect. we do not help them in their job when we create laws like this, which puts them in the 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 toward 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 yum grace. 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's all about. and the federal government has that responsibility. thank you, mr. chairman. >> 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 3-b, 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 their 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 i 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

enown legislative district? 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 it's going to take us years to get out from underneath. it is poor public policy. >> 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 not asking. >> but i'm told -- >> mr. pearce was sort of making it seem like it's an exception, and -- >> i'm told by law enforcement officials, the 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 the position of being liable if they should not ask someone. >> mr. gallardo, are you familiar with how the -- well, it hasn't had much time to be enforced because it was enjoined. >> and mr. chairman, i think that's -- >> i think the clip was actually before the law was passed, is that right? >> mr. chairman, it had passed both houses, and the governor signed it about three days later. but the intent was there and law

enforcement knew it was going to pass. >> 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 seeing the consequences over the past two years. we have julio mora who was arrested, detained, brought in. and he's a u.s. citizen. these are situations after situation after situation. juan varela, a united states citizen who gets in an argument just days after governor brewer signs the bill, and violence occurs and mr. varela 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 then forces law enforcement to try to enforce it. and then there's penalties against any law enforcement

officer who doesn't enforce it. >> are you familiar with any other statute in arizona where a private citizen can sue because the individual officer was not enforcing the law? >> not one. not blurngs chairman. >> mr. chairman, i have not done the research by served as a county attorney. i knew of no laws at that time. that was at the end of last century i must say. and i haven't read every law. but i talk to police 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 rule. mr. pearce. >> mr. chairman, it is the exception if there is. >> yes. mr. pearce, you get the last word before i conclude here. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i get a little disappointed 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 knows that are ineligible.

>> what is that one? >> proposition 200. known as -- >> is that an immigration law? >> it dealed with voter fraud and proof of citizenship. no benefits for those in the country illegally. and that action is in that bill. >> did that allow law enforcement explicitly to be sued i? don't think so. >> it was just the benefits. and this -- i don't mean to argue with you but i'll correct you again. the law enforcement helped write that section. they got qualified immunity in that bill. qualified immunity to enforce the law. has to do with officials, the policy, setting, position, and agencies that set those policies. >> okay. >> but i'm a little disappointed in folks talking about embarrassed for the state of arizona. 2-1 across this country we have a national crisis. and everyone wants to ignore that. the cost of the damage, the crime. and we can go through this. and if i had the time, mr. chairman, we were allowed the time i could give you a lot more

information too. instead these little anecdotal 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. just so happens 90% of those who violate our immigration laws come from across that southern border are hispanic. 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 that run for office talking about build the darn fence but never hear it again once they're elected. i think americans are a little 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. let me conclude by saying this. first, let me thank the witnesses. i'm sure it didn't escape notices 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 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'd 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 till may 12th to put in statements as well. i thank the witnesses again, and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> lone guy. you know. i understood that. but i believe in the law. i'm going to defend the law. >> senator kyl didn't come here -- >> yes, i am. yes, i am. this is message slaigs. 200,000 left the state of arizona. crime's down. cost is down. we know it works. i'm disappointed. we lead this nation. we're at the front of the parade on this issue. the other states are proud of what arizona's done. and the governor has stepped out to support this bill after signing it. and yeah, i'm disappointed that others weren't here to do it. >> you criticized politicians who take a drive-by approach to legislation. do you feel confident that mitt romney is going to follow through on that? >> i hope not. 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. you know, and i'm always disappointed in someone who wants to take this to mean-spirited rhetoric. it's very disappointing. i'm a passionate guy. kind of reminds me of herman cain who was getting a little loud and kind of looked like an evangelical preacher the other day and then he backed down and said my wife tells me to tone it down, i sound mean. he said i'm not mean, i'm passionate. and i am too. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> that's the difference. latinos that are american support this overwhelmingly. in '06 we had four ballot initiatives on the ballot. they voted 60% on all four of those. so why do we demean -- >> but why -- >> hold on. why do you demean the hispanic community? why do you demean them? for some reason -- >> is it true -- >> hang on. one question at a time. why would we think they're less of an american than us? i deal with these groups all over. albert rodriguez.

anna gaines. immigrants who come here. folks who have fought for this country, had -- and other groups. they love this country as much as you and i. i find it demeaning to them to assume they support illegal just because they're hispanic. that's not fair. that's not fair to them. >> is it true you are -- >> is it true what? >> that you are leani inlinked people investing in prisons? >> no, it's not true. it's an absolute light by npr. invented the story. not even a little bit of truth to it. i find it amazing that somebody would -- i think they woke up from a dream and just o'wrote an article. there was absolutely no truth to that article at all. zero. >> four years ago you said the supreme court will fight for in favor of sb-1070. are you still that optimistic? >> i am. i think it will probably be a 5-3. kagan should recuse herself. she's already written the solicitor general. she recused herself on employer sanctions. i think -- my guess is she'll recuse herself again. if not then it will be a 5-4

decision. recuse herself it will be a 5-3 decision. i'm fairly confident on this. >> do you feel you were set up here today even though you volunteered? >> i'm not going to go that far. i knew the risk of coming here. and i knew that 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 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 majored of americans stand with me. and i'll stand for americans and those citizens who have a right to have laws enforced. >> why wasn't senator jon kyl here to -- >> you'll have to ask senator jon kyl. >> the fact is if you were set up, if some of your republican colleagues bothered to show up maybe we would have gotten a more balanced hearing? >> maybe. but i don't know their reasons and i don't want to speak for

them. if they thought it was going to be unfair, i kind of would have appreciated a phone call with their concerns. i didn't get that either. but again, i'm not one to run from what i believe the right thing to do. i have my moral compass. >> the campaign is making a big point of insisting that they weren't saying that sb-1070 was a model. >> who said that? >> the romney campaign. >> they're backing off. >> how do you feel about that? >> i'm not going to comment on -- i haven't read that. >> self-deportation. remember that? >> right. and that's in sb-1070. >> but he said he wasn't referring to it as a model. is that what you took from it at the time? >> absolutely. >> and how do you feel about them saying that wasn't it? >> again, i'm not going to get into specifics. i can tell you the folks who said as his advisers on this i have worked with for years. i know romney's a compassionate man as most of us i'd like to think are. but i also think he understands the crisis and the damage to this republic and the need to enforce our laws, secure our

borders. and i admire that about him. >> you said you shared some tears with dream act students at a.s.u. when was that? where was that? >> it actually was at the convention at the downtown during the last lerks 2010. we went off into the corner about a half dozen of us. and i have to admit i was very touched. these were exceptional kids. and i understood their plight. again, that's why i say exceptions i think can be carved out. but 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? >> i think we have those exceptions. it's like reform. congress has a hard time getting anything right. anytime they do something -- 26-year record high unemployment, record foreclosures but we think it's okay to import illegal foreign labor. they never learned how to separate workers is not a path

to citizenship. there's two separate categories. some people come here to work here. that's why they'll never get it right and get anything passed because most -- >> would you support a carve-out just for students, for those dream act students? >> i think each one has to be taken individually. i will not support any blanket policy. >> are you confident that sb-1070 is going to prevail in court tomorrow? >> yes, absolutely. very confident. >> what if it doesn't? >> they won't rule on it for a few months. >> if they get rid of part of it, are you -- any part of those four different aspects would render the bill obsolete or -- >> it's already been proved constitutional and the courts have already agreed. there's only four sections of the ten that are in question and i believe all four of those will be upheld. again, read the bill. it's all mirrored after federal law and constitutional. i wrote it very carefully. chris colbach and i sat down and went through every line -- i

consider him the number one attorney in the nation on pre-emption issues. we knew we would be sued. we knew we'd go to court. we wrote it to go to the supreme court. >> let's talk about one of those specification sections. under federal law it is a civil offense for a person to seek work when they're not documented. under arizona law it becomes a criminal offense. so tell me exactly how we're mirroring federal law here. >> civil -- and that's one of the greatest misunderstandings. civil under federal law is a criminal offense. it's not the same as state civil. we need to make sure that's clear. entering and remaining here under federal law is a crime. >> senator, what if the supreme court decides that all of those four sections are unconstitutional? >> well, again, states still have -- all this did is put it into state law in a manner to be enforced and eliminate policies. 1070 shouldn't have been necessary except for illegal

sanctuary policies were imposed by police chiefs and mayors all across arizona. that's why it's in place. to remove those illegal, illegal policies. and we've done that. the major part of sb-1070 is in full force. and the others are important sanctions. i wouldn't have written in them if they weren't important, but i'm very confident the supreme court will uphold that. >> but what if the supreme court doesn't? >> well, again, that doesn't really change much of anything. if they don't uphold it, it will be a chilling effect on other states wanting to model sb-1070 but it doesn't change inherent constitutional police powers the states have. i've been enforcing immigration laws since i was a puppy in march of 1970 when i was at the sheriff's office. it was never an issue. it's never been pre-empted. the states have never been pre-empted, never been pre-empted. in case you didn't catching that, howie, i'm going to say, that the states have never been pre-empted. >> but the fact is if the supreme court concludes the states do not have this plenary authority you that keep insisting -- >> no, that won't be the

decision. the decision is whether the states can mir more the state statute versus just following federal statute. that's really the issue. people seem ton be able to get that right. it won't remove one piece of states' inherent police powers. not one. is it important? yeah. it's important. >> but if they deny this as part of states' police power to get involved -- >> i don't think -- >> so you're making the prediction here that's fine. but if the supreme court does -- i realize you're brilliant, walk on water. but if the supreme court doesn't see -- if the supreme court even rules 4-4 and you lose, it would seem to me that the justices would be saying no, the states don't have that authority. >> well, no is a failure and you're right but it wouldn't be saying no. it would just not be passed because you didn't have majority vote. the point is it will pass. second it's the same issue with employer sanction when's they ruled in a 5-3 decision. the pre-emption issue is the same argument, the open border crowd is using.

and the misinformation -- tourism is up in arizona. i get a little tired of the misinformation as we try to demagogue a good bill about enforcement of security borders and protection of our citizens. we can't retreat from that. i don't apologize for any of that. i love my country. i love and respect those that come here legally. and many of those who don't come here legally i don't aren't bad people. many are bad people but some of them are not bad people, escaping a terrible life. but we have a method of coming here and those laws must be honored. >> senator kyl released a statement saying that he thought this was more political theater and not actually meant to be a productive hearing. what do you have to say to that? >> i don't entirely disagree with that. we knew this was mostly politics. they don't have a vote. the supreme court does. schum kerr can run his bill. he may get it out of his committee. that's where it will die. to undo 1070. it's a popular bill. he won't even get it out of the senate. >> senator, was it worth your

while to come out here today? >> absolutely. again, i wrote the bill. i felt obligated to defend it. and even though you always worry about decorum and being able to say what needs to be said, i think it's important that i come out here and represent the state of arizona. >> even though there were only two senators up there, do you think it was productive? >> well, see, it doesn't matter whether there was 2 or 15 up there. the story that's going to be told is in the media. so i hope they cover it well and make that -- >> there were a lot of youth that were mentioned during this hearing. what is your message to them in their specific cases? will you want to see them leave the country? >> blame those who put them in that position because my heart goes out to them. but again, we've already covered this. those exceptions have to be carved out properly. no blanket policy just for giving those who have broken our laws. i know some of those are good kids. my heart goes out to some of those. and i'm not apologetic for having set down with them. and actually was very tearful in terms of -- my heart was touched very clearly by a couple of

them. but still, my heart is touched also by kids who go to jail who break the law. every day. americans. my heart is touched by parents who have kids who make terrible decisions every day. i can't change that. the laws must be enforced. >> you're not concerned that sb-1070 can net kids like this? >> the laws must be enforced. first of all only federal government can fix that. some states don't have control over. states have no ability to set the conditions of coming here or remaining here. that's a federal purview entirely, exclusive. >> senator deconcini said he was embarrassed for his state based on sb-1070. >> deconcini's a friend. i'm going to be very candid here. maybe he shares the same feeling that michelle obama feels when she said the only time she's been proud of america is when they elected her husband. i'm proud of this country. i'm not embarrassed we enforce