sonia sotomayor, they'd probably figure out i was a citizen. but let's assume it's john doe, who lives in grand rapids. >> the citizen problem is actually a significant problem. there isn't a citizen database. if you -- >> i'm sorry, there is or there isn't? >> there is not. if you have a passport, there's a database if you look "passports." so you could be discovered that way. but otherwise, there is no reliable way in the database to verify that you are a citizen unless you're in the passport database. so you have lots of circumstances in which people who are citizens are going to come up no match. there's no -- there's nothing suggesting in the databases that they have an immigration problem of any kind, but there's nothing to -- >> so if you run out of your house without your driver's license or identification and you walk into a park that's closed and you're arrested, you -- they make the call to this agency. you could sit there forever while they -- >> yes, and i -- >> -- figure out if you're -- >> while i'm at it, there is a factual point i think i'd like to correct. mr. clement suggested that it

takes 10 minutes to process these calls. that's true, but you're in a queue for 60 minutes before it takes the 10 minutes to process the call. so the average time is 70 minutes, not 10 minutes. >> i had a little -- wasn't sure about your answer to justice kennedy. is the reason that the government is not focused on people who are here illegally as opposed to the other categories you were talking about because of prioritization or because of lack of resources? you suggested that if the -- every illegal alien that you identify is either removed or prosecuted, that that would cause tensions with other governments. so i -- i don't understand if it's because you don't have enough resources or because you don't want to prosecute the people who are simply here illegally as opposed to something else. >> well, it's a little more complicated than that.

i think the point is this, that with respect to persons who are unlawfully present, there are some who are going to fall in our priority categories, there are those who have committed serious offenses, there are those who have been removed and have come back, and there are other priority categories. because we have resource constraints and there are only so many beds in the detention centers and only so many immigration judges, we want to focus on those priority categories. find them, remove them. there's a second category, and that is individuals who are here in violation, technically of 1306(a), but who have a valid asylum application or application for temporary protected status or other -- and with respect to those persons that we think would -- it's affirmatively harmful to think that they ought to be prosecuted. and then there is an additional category of people who are not in the second category and not priorities, and the form -- and we think there, the idea that an individual state will engage in a process of mass incarceration of that population, which we do think is what section 2(h) commits arizona to do under section 3, raises a significant foreign relations problem. >> well, can't you avoid that particular foreign relations

problem by simply deporting these people? look, free them from the jails -- >> i really think -- >> and send them back to the countries that are -- that are objecting. >> this is a -- >> what's the problem with that? >> well, a couple of things. first is, i don't think it's realistic to assume that the aggressive enforcement of sections 3 and 5 in arizona is going to lead to a mass migration back to countries of origin. it seems a far more likely outcome it's going to be migration to other states. and that's a significant problem. that's part of the reason why this problem needs to be managed on a national basis. beyond that, i do think, you know, the -- it's worth bearing in mind here that the country of mexico is in a central role in this situation.

between 60 and 70 percent of the people that we remove every year, we remove to mexico. and in addition, we have to have the cooperation of the mexicans. and i think as the court knows from other cases, the cooperation of the country to whom we are -- to which we are removing people who are unlawfully present is vital to be able to make removal work. in addition, we have very significant issues on the border with mexico. and in fact, they're the very issues that arizona's complaining about in that -- >> so we have to -- we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please mexico. is that what you're saying? >> no, your honor, but what it does -- no, your honor, i'm not saying that -- >> it sounded like what you were saying. >> no, but what i am saying is that this points up why the framers made this power an exclusive national power. it's because the entire country feels the effects of a decision -- conduct by an individual state. and that's why the power needs

to be exercised at the national level and not the state level. >> and your concern is the problems that would arise in bilateral relations if you remove all of these people, or a significant percentage or a greater percentage than you are now. nothing in the law requires you to do that. all it does is lets you know where -- that an illegal alien has been arrested, and you can decide, we are not going to initiate removal proceedings against that individual. it doesn't require you to remove one more person than you would like to remove under your priorities. >> right, but the problem i'm focused on -- we're focused on, mr. chief justice, is not our removal decisions, but arizona's decision to incarcerate, and the foreign relations problem that that raises. that's why this power has got to be exercised at the national level. >> and that arises under 3 and 5. >> correct. >> but not 2. >> well, 2 identifies the population that's going to be prosecuted under 3 and 5. i haven't -- i've been up here a long time.

i haven't said anything about section 5 yet. and i don't want to tax the court's patience, but if i could spend a minute on section 5. >> section 5. >> the -- i do think the fundamental point about section 5 here is that in 1986, congress fundamentally changed the landscape. congress made a decision in 1986 to make the employment of aliens a central concern of national immigration policy. and this court has described the 1986 law as a comprehensive regime. now, what my friend, mr. clement, says, is that it may be a comprehensive regime for employers; it's not a comprehensive regime for employees. and therefore, it's -- there ought not be any inference here that the states are precluded from criminalizing efforts to seek or obtain employment in arizona. but i really think that's not right. the -- employment is one problem. and congress tackled the problem of employment and made a decision, a comprehensive

decision, about the sanctions it thought were appropriate to govern. and congress did, as justice ginsburg suggested, make judgments with respect to the circumstances under which employees could be held criminally liable, as well as the circumstances under which employers could be held liable. and i think it is useful in thinking about the judgments congress actually made -- >> you think field preemption; is that your argument with respect to -- >> it's both. i think we're making both a field and a conflict preemption argument here, justice scalia. and the -- i think it's worth examining the specific judgments congress made in 1986. on the employer's side -- and, after all, this is a situation in which the concern here is that the employer is in a position of being the exploiter and the alien of being the exploited -- on the employer's side, congress said that states may not impose criminal sanctions, and even -- and the federal government will not impose criminal sanctions for the hiring of employees unless there's a pattern or practice. it seems quite incongruous to

think that congress, having made that judgment and imposed those restrictions on the employer's side, would have left states free to impose criminal liability on employees merely for seeking work, for doing what you i think would expect most otherwise law--abiding people to do, which is to find a job so they can feed their families. so i think that's a significant problem. in addition, congress made clear in the law that the i--9 form could not be used for any other purpose than prosecutions for violation of the federal antifraud requirements. and if congress wanted to leave states free to impose criminal sanctions on employees for seeking work, they wouldn't have done that, it seems to me. so that i think there are strong indicators in the text that congress did make a judgment, and the judgment was this far and no farther. and it's reasonable that congress would have done so, for the same kinds of foreign relations concerns that i was discussing with respect to section 3. it would be an extraordinary thing to put someone in jail merely for seeking work. and yet that's what arizona proposes to do under section 5

of its law. now, of course, there is an express preemption provision, but the express preemption provision, as this court has said many times, does not operate to the exclusion of implied preemption, field or conflict. so we do think those principles apply here. we think there's a reason why the express preemption provision was limited to the employer's side, which is that after decanas laws had been enacted on the employer's side, and with -- congress was making clear that those were preemptive, there were no laws on the employee's side at the time. and therefore, no reason for preemption. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. clement, 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: i'd like to start briefly with the enforcement issues and then talk about the other provisions. the last thing i'll say about the enforcement provision, since i

do think that the government's rather unusual theory that something that's okay when done ad hoc becomes preempted when it's systematic, i think that theory largely refutes itself. but i will say one thing, which is to just echo that there's no interference with enforcement priorities by simply giving the federal government information on which to bring their enforcement priorities to bear. and this is really illustrated by a point this court made in its florence decision earlier this month, which is that sometimes you pull somebody over for the most innocuous of infractions, and they turn out to be the most serious of offenders. and so if you preclude officers, as happened in phoenix, from communicating with the federal government, the federal government will not be able to identify the worst of the worst. and if you want an example of this, look at the declaration of officer brett glidewell at joint appendix 183 to 186. he pulled somebody over in a routine traffic stop and was shot by the individual. now, the individual it turns out was wanted for attempted murder in el salvador and was also guilty of illegal reentry into the united states. he was stopped on three previous occasions, and his status was not verified. now, if it had been, he certainly would have been apprehended. in at least two of the stops, his immigration status wasn't checked because of a city

policy, city of phoenix. now, if the state, i submit, can do anything, it can at the state level override those kind of local policies and say, that's not what we want. community policing is all well and good, but we want to maximize communication with the federal authorities. so i think the enforcement policy and priorities argument simply doesn't work. as to section 3, two points about that. one is, i respectfully disagree with the solicitor general as to whether the various things that he led off -- read off -- the litany of situations where somebody is -- technically doesn't have registration would be a violation of 1306(a). and the reason i takehat position is that provision says "a willful failure to register." now, maybe the prosecutors take the view that there's willfulness in those circumstances, but i don't think many judges would. i think they would say that if you've been told by the federal government that you're perfectly fine here and you don't need to register, that that would be good enough to defeat a finding of willfulness. so i don't think 1306(a) covers this case. >> but you're inviting -- you're inviting the very sort

of conflict that he's talking about. because what's going to happen now is that if there's no statement by the federal agency of legality, the person is arrested, and now we're going to have federal resources spent on trying to figure out whether they have an asylum application, whether they have this, whether they have that, whether they are exempted under this reason, whether the failure to carry was accidental or not -- i mean, you are involving the federal government in your prosecution. >> well -- >> now, you may say we're not, because all we're going to show is -- what? that we got a federal call -- we got a federal answer that the person wasn't registered? that, we're going to say we communicated with the federal immigration officials, and they told us this is somebody who's

perfectly fine and doesn't have to register. >> no -- no confrontation -- no confrontation clause problem with that? with relying on a call to a federal agency and the police officer says, you're arrested, you're charged, it's not an illegal alien -- or it is an illegal alien. >> my supposition, is that they would use that call to not bring the prosecution, so the issue wouldn't even arise. but i do want to be clear about -- >> no, no, no. how about -- how about they get a response, yes, it's an illegal alien? >> and they bring a prosecution under section 3 -- >> so how -- where do they get the records that show that this person is an illegal alien that's not authorized to be here? >> i -- >> who do they get it from? >> i think they would get it from the federal authorities. i think it would be admitted. there might be a challenge in that case. i mean, you know, this is a facial challenge. i'm not going to try to address that potential sixth amendment issue. what i would like to say is two things. sloppinessre's some in the way the federal government keeps its records so that there's lots of people that really should be registered but aren't, i can't imagine that

sloppiness has a preemptive effect. the second thing i would say is that i do think, in thinking about section 3 in particular, the analogy is not the fraud on the fda claim in buckman, it's really the state tort law that says that it's a violation of state tort law to not even seek the approval that's needed under the fda for a device. now, states impose tort law for people that market a device without getting the necessary approval, and nobody thinks that's preempted, because it serves the federal interest. it doesn't have a deluge of information. it forces people to get fda approval. and in the same way, this state law will force people to register, which is what the federal government's supposed to want in the first place, so there's no preemption there. there's no conflict. as to the employment provision, i do think it's important to recognize that -- >> finish your sentence. >> -- before 1986, the government was not agnostic about unlawful employment by aliens. the employees were already covered, and they were subject to deportation. so the government said, we're going to cover the employers for the first time. i can't imagine why that would have preemptive effect.

thank you, your honor. >> not a discussion on deportation. a look at how taxpayer dollars are spent, what the purpose is and how it affects the bottom line. we are talking about the u.s. deportation system and the role of the customs enforcement. thank you for being here. we have been focusing on immigration. you are preparing for the supreme court to announce the arizona immigration law. hows talk about deportation's actually work and

how someone is treated if they're in the country illegally. guest: it has a start with them being identified. there are different ways. we know that there are about 12 million undocumented immigrants here in the country. that is an estimate. they need to be identified. often the way it happens, i was on the border earlier. they catch them in the desert. sometimes it will happen through workplace raids. then it is up to the immigration authorities to decide what they're going to do with the person. if you're in the country illegally, you are in violation and the need to be free mood.

was sometimes of felony. that happens with repeat offenders. if you are caught illegally, you are formally send out of the country. it is a process that has multiple levels. i have listened to some of these people talk about them. it is complicated. they do a good job of trying to sell us out how much effort is needed. some cases day in court. some get put on a bus. it will go to texas. then they walk across the border and they are done. host: a recent story was called "kinder, gentler."

talk is there some of the changes that have been happening when it comes to enforcement. guest: these are small changes. they are the kinds of things that advocates for immigrants have been asking for for a long time. that particular one involves a waiver process that this is not a new waiver process. this is a current waiver process for people who are in some sort of limbo status. it is a rule change. it is a slight rule change. if you're going to ask for a waiver, you do not have to leave the country while waiting for a decision. it is a little bit easier for people to see them. it means to do not have to leave the country while you are waiting. host: tell us about immigration and customs enforcement. what is their role? are they doing the actual lead

or? -- legwork? guest: they are the agents. i.c.e. is the terminology. you'll hear it a lot. their job is a range. a lot of what the administration has been doing is audits. they will audit workplaces. they will be looking for things like our their social security numbers from employees that are used multiple times, which would point that some of them might be used frequently. are there certain name patterns that we are looking for? they will do massive audit of an entire company, sometimes really big ones like chipotle. have also seen agents on the ground. there are two different wings of

the enforcement agencies. there is also the customs and borders protection. these are the guys that literally patrol the border. it seems they have someone who is undocumented, people they pick along the border in texas or in arizona. they will get turned over to i.c.e. sometimes it is routine. sometimes it is and death. host: $5.8 billion the total fiscal budget. that is in the range of $2 billion. other programs are transportation and removal. there's also secure communities. let's get to the phones and test our first call -- take our first call. valerie is an independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning.

my question is, i feel more comfortable if we had american border patrol. my son graduated from college. a lot of americans know that. the preference spanish-speaking people to get these positions. host: they can still be americans. they just might be spanish- speaking americans. caller: i lived in san antonio. my brother had no problem with no identification. i appreciated the fact that a major i had my identification. host: let me just -- it sounds a

there are two different parts of this. one is about how they employee the i.c.e. officials and others. spanish-speaking is helpful if you are patrolling along the southern border. that is just one piece of that operation. the one thing that happens to , the walk along the fence on the southern border. they will literally be chasing them in the desert. they need to go to a course where they essentially learn elementary spanish. it is work-related spanish. the ones who are native spanish speakers say they are not fluent but they can definitely yell out instructions which is

often what they're trying to do. it makes the job a little bit easier. if you are a restaurant runner, you also need to be speaking spanish. it is not a necessary requirement. it sounds to me like the other part of the question involves how and who the ask for i.t.. there are antidotes from what i have seen and heard myself. some civil-rights room are checking it. -- groups are checking it. if you're hispanic down on the border, you are more likely to be asked for your identification. as for me, they just wait you through. i think there's a certain amount of that. the their job is to look for things that are suspicious.

it is definitely something that civil-rights groups by keeping their eyes on. we do not wanted to see racial profiling. host: democrat line. caller: good morning. i have a question and then the comment. who is paying for the deportation of the illegals in this country? is the government tax dollars tax credits that is correct. -- is a government tax dollars? guest: that is correct. caller: i still work in chicago. they would come in with two or three buses and go up into these high-rises. there were hundreds of people working. they would check ids. when they left, the buses would be filled. my suggestion would be to help

pay for this all the employers that hire these illegals for their jobs would pay $5 -- $5,000 or $10,000 per head. this money could go to a foundation for is flirtation. guest: i guess i should be a little clearer. it is sure that taxpayer dollars to go through the entire operation. there's also a fair amount of money that comes into the treasury as a result of employer finds. those fines of actually increase our the past of the several years. the last immigration bills that passed congress in 1996. there are still some that can say they need to go a little bit higher. there are certain types of violations that are a simple

slab on the wrist. there is a significant amount of money that comes in as a result. it is not enough to be covering the full cost. is you saw a huge increase in the money that went down to border control. largely it was the result of 9/11 enforcement problem that have been ignored for a long time prior to 9/11. people realize they needed a little more infrastructure down there. they spent a ton of money over the past 10 years. what i have seen is that they're leveling out a little bit. the administrators, janet napolitano down, will say they need to keep the money to continue to keep the border secure. it is a significantly less

porous border than it was even four or five years ago. host: let's look at the numbers that the obama administration has spoken. the boosted the numbers. we're also talking about not just deportation, the number of removals. there has been a change in policy. last year, they announced a shift in the focus of who is actually deported. tell us about that change and what it means. guest: that was a shift meant to go after the worst of the worst first. i do not think it was a huge for a complete shift in policy from what they were doing before. they formally announced hiring. they have lists of things that will make you more deportable. here are the things that make you less of deportable. if you are a woman, pregnant, if

you have children, if you have been there for a long time, if you're elderly. those are considered low priority deportees. people who have criminal records, across the border multiple times, people in any way been human trafficking are high on the list. they went and listed them out as guidance for those to look for the ones who are basically in jail. that is what he did last summer. one other thing i might mention in connection with that, another thing that had changed in terms of deportation for the immigration is that it used to be even for five years ago that people who were caught crossing the border were sent back on a

voluntary waiver system. this is typical in terms of getting them out of the country quickly. put they might be bringing in drugs or people. they would have them sign a waiver and say never to do that again and put them on a bus the same day and send them back. that has changed. now those people are formally deported. it means if there ever caught in the country again illegally, they're not charged with the full of crime and it becomes a more serious offense. host: as part of the enforcement, at the deportation review, at the new york times has reported they leave you 411,000 cases but only to% -- 2% have been closed so far. is that taking longer than expected? what is the challenge in reviewing these cases? what does it mean to close them? guest: it is helpful to note

that these are the minority of cases that uc that go on for a long time -- that you see that go on for a long time. there do something you might be in some kind of violation. i have been talking a lot about the people who cross the border illegally. they are the standard that people are thinking about it. they need to shut down the borders. but let's talk about different kinds of people. someone you came to the country on a student visa, for example, and graduates and do not have a job. or somebody came in on a tourist visa and stayed over without perhaps realizing that. the kinds of people that come to the country where one part of the family might be legal, and

another part of the family may not be legal. people who have children. people who are u.s. citizens. quite frankly, there is not a ton of resources available to help these people, so there can be a long backlog. it ends up delaying the cases for quite a long time. and: let's hear from david, republican caller, from champaign, illinois. caller: good morning. did morning, america. i have been wondering about this immigration. there are people to commit terrible crimes, and they come out, and they cannot receive any welfare. they cannot receive any housing, and yet a southern immigrant comes over, when they come over, they receive welfare.

they get social security. they get more than what most americans get, and i do not understand that. there are those that are harboring illegal, and nobody goes after them. no one. guest: there are a couple of different things we can talk about. it is a common complaint that a lot of people about what happens. one thing that i should make clear is that just because you are in the country illegally, that this not mean you are a felon. you have to have committed another kind of crime for that. i.c.e. agent take that pretty seriously. when you're in the ground -- in the country illegally, that is grounds for automatic deportation. that is what the administration has focused on. the last four years. the other issue is what kinds of benefits are these illegals getting?

they can receive hospital type benefit and enrolled in schools. it is less common for them to receive medicare and medicaid. one of the things i've noticed about these communities, andthis is an area with a high level of undocumented immigrants. you do not always know. it is not particularly court to ask about it, like you are a principal in a border school. they tend to be very conservative about the various benefits they have. i think it is an alabama and arizona where they have these enforcement laws.

some of the parents will pull their kids out of school out of fear. my argument, the caller makes a good point. there are some benefit the americans might not realize they have available to them. anything that would offer social security numbers. host: let's hear from bill, independent line. from walnut creek, california. good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. good morning. i'd like to know two things. what is the impact of sanctuary cities on deterring the enforcement of immigration law? how ken the federal government -- how can the federal government go and prosecute arizona for enforcing federal law and yet allow sanctuary cities to exist? thank you.

guest: there's a little bit of debate. lets talk about the sanctuary cities. these are areas in which the city council, chicago is a good example. tucson was a good example, wherethey have decided that they are going to treat the undocumented population if you come forward with tips, they will not actively go after the undocumented. it is a little bit dicey. local law-enforcement, their job is to protect the street not asking about whether and not somebody is in the country illegally. sometimes they happen upon this. some of the law enforcement i have spoken with, especially ones that support the law, sanctuary cities really do get in the way. they feel like they cannot go

forward and ask all the questions they want to ask because of the way that the local city officials have decided that they will run the city. this creates a bizarre patchwork of the way the country works. some are considered friendly and others not friendly. that will direct the different traffic of where these immigrants might go. it makes the country look a little strange. there are a lot of networks. with the administration, the administration is prosecuting arizona for its law, and not based on sanctuary cities. what they are doing, this is solely a question of whether and not the state is imposing on the federal government's right to enforce laws.

it is around a really hot and volatile issue. sometimes i think people forget that. that was very clear during the oral arguments. they're making it clear that it is about preemption. can the federal government prevent the state government from doing its own thing? >> this story, that it is no accident the obama administration is touting record deportation for the second tier in the row. if they have one related mission, it is to remind people that the u.s. is tougher than ever on illegal immigration. look at some numbers in the department of comment security. total removals, 396,000. 20's term were repeat violators. elevens are for the border removals' you're talking about.

talk to us about the white house message. we're seeing others report that there is a softening of the image and the perspective. >> this is a hard path for the administration to walk. the people who are involved, and janet napolitano understand immigration intimately. her job is to enforce the border. then we have one of president obama's top aides who before she came to the white house was a reward winner for her civil rights activism largely involving immigrants and hispanics. she understands these issues terribly well.

she cares deeply about the fate of a lot of these undocumented immigrants. back in 2006 or 2007 when there was a broad immigration building discussed in congress, it is one of the biggest things i have ever covered. there was an argument that people were making. the border is not secure. we're letting the border fall down. the border is crumbling. people are flowing across our borders. it was among the people that have been pushing for a comprehensive immigration reform system. they said later that they see did the argument when they -- they ceded the argument men -- when they should not have. border enforcement has consistently gotten better thereof the bush administration. once obama took over, and the up to the ante. they put thousands of troops along the border. they started deporting everybody they could.

they were out of the country. janet napolitano has been good about saying to anyone she can come down to the border and look. come look at what we have done. see how much better it is. i took them up on the offer. are doing. they're always flawless. her job has been to say we are tough and we are up holding our and of the bargain. -- our end of the bargain. then you have the other and were you have the hispanic community upset there is nothing else done. they are upset with obama because the dream act has failed. there's a little bit change in message or the administration is saying we're trying to make sure we're only deporting the guys who we do not like. the ones that we do not think have done anything wrong with kids that came with their

parents. we're not going to deport them. we're going to give them some kind of deferral. they need to make this clear. host: let's hear from michael in wisconsin. deportation efforts, how much they cost. go ahead. michael? caller: good morning. my question is on the immigrants who have not broken laws. my in-laws have come to the asylum. they did not have any criminal record whatsoever. they were detained in theirthey were taken to a prison, separated and kept there for six months.

my in-laws and not even have a speeding ticket. fly them back home. money to fly them home instead of the taxpayers? this is regarding south america. guest: i cannot speak to that particular case. what i can say is that there are some pretty clear and fairlyyou have to be removed. there are a number of people particularly in the white house and analysts in washington who criticized the current federal law and say some of these penalties are too harsh. if you are found to be in the country illegally, it even if you have not committed any other crime, you can be sent home and embarked 45 for 10 years. no matter what. i cannot speak to the situation of what happened to the in-laws. this is a system that is more

complex than the tax code. it is more politically volatile than the tax code. it needs to be revised and updated and overhauled so that situations like this do notthe biggest die-hard conservatives in not want to see a lot of immigration into this country. the problem is, in order to fix it, it is like a huge elephant parity cannot clip a huge elephant and say it is done.

this administration has been taking so many executive actions. this is something they can do on their own. there are a lot of people in congress that have little changes just like this. they cannot get it through. host: she covers a range of issues including immigration, transportation, and education. her past work includes the "wall street journal" and congress daily. our last caller talked about illegal immigrants who have broken no laws other than being here illegally. they have not committed a crime. the obama administration announced this change and who was going to focus on getting out of the country. first and foremost. last year we saw this change were they're really going after

people with criminal records. and targeting them. as you mentioned, parents or those tied legally to the country. guests go people not like the in-laws of our last caller. host: how does this actually play out? how does this play out if you are here illegally? let's say you're here from china. you came in the country on some sort of a student visa. you just stayed. he may be working here illegally. violations. how realistic is it that you will be deported? guest: i do not even know. if you are part of this it ups this considerably. they're only a few companies. it is hard to know who is here

illegally and who isn't. administration is not looking for. but there are a lot of different things. people that are here illegally, we have seen some of this in the reports. some the higher profile people will talk about getting a driver's license are on the airplane. even if you're not doing anything wrong. it thing to realize is that this new policy that the administration unveiled is that we are not going to deport this group of people. knowledge ever that we have seen the administration do anything like this. if you're here illegally, something needs to happen. there is not a lot of wiggle room. they have done a lot to try to stretch the wiggle room as far

as making it buying to apply for a waiver. we're not going to do its. -- do it. we are going to create a new program for these kids. they are here through no fault of their own. host: letting people be in the country and work, louisiana. hi. caller: good morning, c-span. host: good morning. caller: i have two parts. i'm not willing to answer right off. can an illegal alien in this country vote in this presidential race? coming up? yes or no? guest: no. guest: cannot vote? guest: the only way you can vote is it your u.s. citizen. that would mean all the people

who are here legally but not u.s. assistance also cannot vote. caller: this is my next question. i am a conservative. to all you people, i realize mitt romney is not much. he is a good family man. he does have business experience. that is what we need. now. he will maintain and try to get this country. guest: i do not know if that is true. is the the times and i disagree -- that is the saying that i disagree. it has been a little difficult to tell exactly what mitt romney would do, especially in the last couple of weeks. this has really risen through her a national dialogue. he gave a major speech to a hispanic group last week where he promised that he would have a new and rational system for

processing illegal immigrants. he sounded like he was sympathetic. the response from the hispanic groups and the reform advocates was pretty weak. that i have not heard from romney. the chairman of the judiciary committee. this is a pretty strong enforcement a guide. there are a couple of people in the senate in the same boat. what i have heard from romney is that the republicans in general are upset with obama for taking the step he did in terms of the undocumented students. they say makes it harder for them to come to a solution. there has been no solution. i've been covering this for years.

and there has been no solution. and from what i can tell, mitt romney's sounds as though he is just as perplexed as the rest of us. i cannot say i disagree. it is a really tough question to get around. i do not think that romney would do a lot of things differently. he was certainly push on enforcement. host: romney campaign is vague over the immigration move. there is one person who treats -- tweets in and asks, how many have been identified by secure communities? what percentage has beenguest: i do not think any have been let go. the secure communities is one of those things the administration has done to boost their enforcement. it is a formal agreement between a local officer and the federal enforcement officers to share

information about the immigration status. have been arrested for any kind checks. about their status, and then, if they are undocumented, they're often deported. i do not know the answer of how many have been detained and how many have been deported. the way the system works is if you are caught under -- under this agreement, you are in jail. your deterrent to be in the country illegally. almost everyone is appointed. if there is not, there is some kind of waiver. rather than the role. this comes from the hispanic community. they complain. and cannot see any reason to doubt this claim.

from traffic violations. they're concerned about this. they feel it is a profiling tool for people who are illegal. georgia. caller: hello. dalton, georgia. good morning. good morning. one question i have if they change the way they count their deportations, because now they are formally deporting people who are on the border, is in it disingenuous for the obama administration to say that they are deporting more people? regarding the illegals, some of the voted en florida.

they are not legally afford to vote but they lie about it. i believe it is a felony to perjure yourself which is what a lot of them do it in order to get government social services and jobs. is it not a felony to perjure yourself? guest: let's walk back a little bit. it just to talk about the deportation policy of the administration. i do not think it is disingenuous to say the deportations have gone through the roof. some of those involve people who waivers. it is like a gray mark on your

record. it is cleaning up the process that was used years ago when this was not the problem. i do not think anyone will argue that they have not up to the policy. but i do not think anyone is going to argue that the demonstration has not increased its deportation policy. when it comes to the way that undocumented immigrants conduct themselves inside the united states, there is a whole range of what is considered violations. as far as i know, there is not a swearing under oath you have to do for almost anything including non driver's license id. a social security number might involve this. there is a whole range of different ways people live in this country. many of them do not have driver's licenses. if they use social security numbers, but many are using them

fraudulently. other issues have random numbers they can get without having to swear anything under oath at all. it depends on the state. it depends on how well the state manages these type of things. particularly when it comes to voting. it is almost like we could picture all of the of the ways in which enforcement generally in the country is conducted, and you can see all of the different holes that someone who might be here illegally might come through. >> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, which will focus on the supreme court decision about the arizona supreme court law. our guest includes jess bravin and paul gosar and silvestre reyes. we will also talk to brian sigritz.

"washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> it could be that the republicans look feeble. there would be a nominee, and the republicans would then rally around that nominee. it is going to be close. i would have told you that the media would eat that up. this is a race. and i tell you what the next phase is going to be. the next phase is going to be that the media is going to be more alert to the fact that mitt romney has been completely evasive about his positions. he has been all over on many of them, and he has tried to play a game of hide and seek with the american people, and i think the news media will be challenged to challenge him to b more

forthcoming, and then the story is going to be that for a while. that is the nature of this business. >> look beyond the process when you want on line with the c-span video library. >> in a few moments, the head of the export import banks talks about those financing trade deals, and in a little less than one hour, a report on social security. and then part of our coverage of the national housing issues. several live events to tell me about tomorrow morning. the senate judiciary committee looks at deceptive practices in federal elections. that is on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, and then on c-span, bill gates speaks about the future of public education at the association of public and land grant universities.

>> july 7 in july 8, booktv and american history tv explores the culture of the missouri state capital, jefferson city, with booktv on the campus of lincoln university. >> this is probably our most famous. this is what we like to show to visitors when they come into the archives at the library. this is a book about harriet tubman. and the special thing about this, the book was written in 1866. the special thing about this book is that harriet tubman made her mark on there, and that is really the most famous autographs, if you want to call it that, what we have here in the library, and obviously she could not read or write, so she left her mark, the side of the

cross. >> watch for booktv and american history tv july 7 and july 8 on c-span2 and c-span3. >> the head of the export import bank says export opportunities for the u.s. are being challenged by countries to finance trade deals under the table. speaking at the center for american progress, working with other countries, including china, to establish a new framework for export finance. this is a little less than one hour. >> hello. welcome. i'm president here at the center. we're really excited for today's remarks. as you all know, they support this by supporting exports to the world. the chairman of the bank has long been the focus. i'm excited to have him here. he will be discussing an annual

competitiveness report. we believe the best way to revitalize the u.s. economy is their policies and investments that create jobs and insure everyone can participate. as we have look for changes exports have been a key driver of growth. his work has been central to the bright spot that we are seeing in the u.s. economy. the heat is being challenged never before. the driving force is striving. u.s. companies and markers are finding it harder to exceed levels of prosperity said americans have enjoyed. they get more access to foreign markets.

they can compete on an even playing field. we're seeing challenges in the world. investments are ensuring that we may not see a level playing field. the work has been so central. in addition to being chairman of the exporters, we are lucky to have the chairmen here. and he is a champion of key investments of the united states and making sure we are competitive by insuring that we have investments then this. we are excited to have him here. he has a long expertise and

economic matters. is he also ran the small business administration and the clinton administration. he has been a fierce advocate for making sure it the american economy can compete here. we're lucky to have him here. >> i have to be a reserve speaker. thank you.

i want to thank you in the entire team for hosting me again. it talks about our competitiveness as a country and our ability to create middle-class jobs for the next decade and beyond. all of this rests on america's ability to sell more of what we make around the world. 95% of the world consumers live beyond our borders. a vibrant middle class countries are emerging. take china. there are 250 million middle class people right now. by 2020, at bay will have over 600 million with a purchasing power rivaling the american middle-class. it should be clear to all of us that exports must be a prime driver of american growth for years to come. other countries have reached a

similar conclusion. foreign competition is tough and getting tougher every day. that is why president obama has been relentlessly focused on strengthening american exports and manufacturing. fundamental to that is the export/import bank. with a pretty simple goal, to help grow exports and jobs that they create. we do it by providing export finance for american companies selling into foreign markets. as we did last share, they are releasing their annual competitiveness report. it has findings of a wake-up call for everyone in this room, a city, and america. this is the report.

let me take a moment to thank the entire team for putting this remarkable report together. it is a report that is mandated by congress to assess competitiveness against other credit agencies around the world. specifically the 34 advanced economies for economic cooperation development. on this report card we made on a roll. last year with the third consecutive year of record- breaking activity, we provided $33 billion of support. we financed airplanes, power plants and locomotives. all of these exports traded good paying jobs for american workers.

for the first time in five years we did a higher volume of loans than any other eca in the g-7. i would like to think this is all because you're so billion of the work we do. we have a little bit of help. the european debt crisis made lenders about providing loans. the result, they stepped into the breach and providing more jobs. this is the good news. school is out. the most striking finding is not what they did but it is what rest of the world is doing. this is changing dramatically and not in ways that necessarily benefit the united states. i want to discuss these changes and show how america can respond.

we need to build a broader framework for export finance that includes more countries and more transparency. we need to reorganize the trade functions which president obama called for last year. in developing, we look beyond regulatory finance which most of our competitors have since 1978. they keep them in the background can also out of the shadows. they wanted to make it transparency. this is not because they were supported by cut-rate financing. this was effective for decades. our report notes that it is showing the age. for the first time this year, it they sent a team of analysts around the world and many other

stops in between. we interviewed buyers, banks, and others about the challenges -- challenging nature of export finance. what did we find? we found a stunning increase in the amount of eca financing underground and in the dark. we found an increased use of unregulated oecd programs as well as the growing presence of eca's in china. what do i mean by unregulated? i mean forms of finance that advanced medium to longer-term interest.

when xm provides financing, we find out whether it is necessary. countries operating outside the oecd framework can promote any number of long-term national interests. for example, canada's export agency delivered $100 million to colombia's exit for troll with the understanding that they were getting a look at future investment and procurements positions. or when japan delivered $200 million to india. it is a wink and a nod. finance now for future benefits. this is happening more and more.

unregulated government export finance the seeds all export finance activity with the g7 combined. -- exceeds all export finance activity with the g7 combined. there was an additional 60 billion from the countries. my guess is the estimate is still too low. export finance is a little bit like the wild west. this has dropped from 2/3 two 1/3 of export finance and the last decade.

it is continuing to fall. this is why the united states is working to build a new international architecture. they directed the u.s. and china to begin work on a new space and transparent framework. this is diplomatic speak for we are making progress. the plan is for an agreement to be reached by the end of 2014. it is critically important to american workers that would create this framework. the conditions that allow them to have such a powerful impact last year are transient. the rapid rise is not. for the foreseeable future, our economic competitors will support their industries that

have served. they will continue to try to create their own national champions. this is the new order of things. how america responds will determine if we create the millions of jobs are nations will need. growing exports is essential to future economic growth in creation.

that is a fact. president obama knows that. so does every ceo of every major company you can name. they report that america needs to create 21 million new jobs by 2020 to once again achieve full employment. this will require robust economic growth. good only get it from certain places. government spending and exports. the first are facing big headwinds. exports support 10 million american jobs. the type of good paying jobs many more of. america needs to become the top exporter in the world. we need to reclaim the position we gave up a decade ago to

germany and china. it is unacceptable to be in third place. america is a top producer of goods and services in the world. we must sell more of them overseas. we can. if we stick to the vision of president obama's export initiative which gives our company more financing and other tools they need to compete abroad, then we can leave again. doing more exporting is a no- brainer. american double our exports in the last decade. president obama wants to double it again in half the time. they are not standing still.

in the last decade china's exports have grown sixfold. brazilian exports have tripled. that did not happen on its own. competitors were is strategic. others were single-minded the focus on outcomes. they identified industries with growth potentials. the shows a hands off approach to the maintenance of our trade prospects. we had such a huge domestic market for so long that these were an afterthought. we did not have a real plan. we make great products and have little competition. we were complacent. our complacency went beyond exports. for years the u.s. invested in education, infrastructure, research and the other foundation of economic

competitiveness. president obama has been working to rebuild that since the first day he entered office. it is just in time. look around the world right now i europe struggling. many emerging countries have to grow at 7% 48% just to tread water. china alone is working to create 45 million jobs over the next four years. china and other countries will not be shy about using any tool us much as they can for as much as they can and as long as they can. they will leverage everyone in a attempt to out compete us. but not be long before they have the opportunity to do so.

our report from any buyers have many before reaching parity. they're getting closer with the advanced equipment. airplanes, the number one export could well be next. brazil has a first-rate regional aircraft business. china will still becoming to market that will try to compete directly with this. this is one that continually innovates cutting edge products and services from aircraft to i.t. to farm equipment.

i would like to close with a few prescriptions for the export finance elements. america needs to lead the world in developing a new framework for export finance. in developing that comment they must pay firm need to keep supporting small businesses in fast-growing one. this is exactly what we're going to do. i just returned from russia where they signed a $1 million agreement to boost exports of aircraft and other goods and services. the bank is once again on track

for the fourth consecutive year. if america demonstrates that, others will have a lot more incentive to join. if we fail, international export finance a show the cluster of call dealerships. this is what we need to avoid. we cannot have a race to the bottom to see who can offer the most cut-rate financing.

but cannot have it used for six competitive advantage. in the end we all lose and it is not sustainable. if we get everyone playing by the same roles in adhering to the same standards, we will get more stabilization. we just want everything above board. this is a goal everyone in congress can agree upon. here is a second thing. congress can make it easier to reach organize america's trade related agencies. they can give president obama the fast track authority to submit a reorganization plan. the president made his request last year.

it would basically reinstate the authority that presence have enjoyed for the better part of 50 years from franklin roosevelt to ronald reagan. this has often been reactive. responsibility is contused against too many agencies. other countries are more strategic. many foreign export agencies have their own domestic versions. they take this, poured into one pot and offer their own entry point for their country's business interests. there needs to be a healthy debate about what configurations will ultimately work. congress needs to act and give president obama the authority to make our government more streamlined, effective and responsive to needs of their citizens.

these prescriptions come at building a better framework worldwide. these are urgent. this has a deep-seated change in the way washington thinks. as you know, this came after a bruising reauthorization for congress. in the end we rallied to have american companies and their workers with the financing for the nea. the debate was not just about this. we're proxies' from a rigorous one. i have to say i do not get it. almost no one in congress questions whether the united states should have a strategic and defense interests abroad. when it comes to fighting our

economic interests that falls away. we have too many that think america should disarm this. this creates no sense. their 60 agencies around the world. each and every one of them is working to expand the footprint. this is the world we live in. we've got to see the world as it is. american companies have what it takes to win in the global economy. they can go head-to-head with any company in the world. the can go ahead with those visible and hidden. president obama is right.

we need a government that will fight for our economic interests. pro-business and pro trade which means pro export per jobs. that means supporting partnerships between business to grow our economy. there is no time to wait. it is time to get to work. >> i will moderate as little as i can. i think this is on. we will have questions. i will ask a questions from the beginning. we will let that people identify themselves.

you raise the whole specter of the bank reauthorization. you also talked a little bit about the role of state directed capital. the question i have is that understand the arguments. we are now facing countries like china where a day are morphing the way they do preference capital. do you think we will have this annually? do you think because of the arguments that the broader concern are having any that the federal level? >> we have a reauthorization. the bad news is i think that is

still a big debate. we're going to see if play out. the model has changed. the model is not the european model we have dealt way. even our partners are finding ways that are legal. >> the good news is we have a three year reauthorization. the bad news is i think that is still a big debate in this country. we will see it played out in the next nine months moving on

towards november. what is the role for government to create jobs and how american companies [unintelligible] the model is not the european model we have dealt with. our partners are operating in ways that are legal but outside. they help their country and their national champions. we have to face up to that reality. it is not part of the romantic view we have of how business operates. >> given that reality, should we change? should we act more? you discussed the need for a free market. if companies -- countries are not following rules of transparency already, should we become more nationalist in our policy? should we tie our national interest to these decisions more?

>> i think we should. let me say this. our portfolio now is in the $100 billion range. the best way we can bring to the rest of the world a better framework is to come with full force and indicate we will not retreat or back off. we will keep meeting our competition and supporting american companies. we have a lot of mey to do so. we are more likely in the end to get a better framework. we will stand firm and will not back off. i will say we have to be more rigorous and more robust and if we do that right, we could probably get to a point where everybody backs off a little. >> he said in the past that when you see countries acting unfairly, you will go the extra mile. can you give us an example of that? >> one example i talked about last year -- where pakistan is looking to buy locomotives. they made this purchase and china offered the financing that was outside of the realm of

the acd. we made a decision. the administration, we would match china's financing. if you buy american locomotives -- they are more expensive but that is up to the ge. we made sure we give the same financing offer. by now pakistan is still reviewing that proposal. that is where we can step forward and say -- we do not want anybody in the united states to lose a sale because someone else gave them cut rate financing in the cannot match it. >> one last question -- there has been a lot of press recently about slowing down in countries like china, india, perhaps brazil. we have had rapid growth in our export which has been one of the

areas -- a bright spot for us. do you see that slowing down or do you think our companies will be able to continue to do well even as these markets decline? >> we have had great tailwinds because of those emerging economies that have been growing. they are still growing. there's still a lot of business to be done out there. it will be much more competitive. i just returned from russia. they want to create 25 million jobs. the only have 70 million today. china wants to have a 45 million jobs.

so there will be intense competitive pressure. from the u.s. companies when i was in st. petersburg, companies like ge, siemens in america, boeing, all of them fighting for orders against -- whether airbus or mitsubishi. there is this is to be done. if you think about the world economy, globally we have terrible infrastructure. and we have a lot of unethical business practices. a lot of corruption and lack of transparency and yet the world economy is still growing. if we can fix some of the infrastructure, we can rebuild it. i think there are a lot of opportunities out there for american companies. it'll just the an intensely competitive market jerry >> are you looking at an emerging markets like africa? it has not had as much focus as asia. >> one of our vice chairs, lest there be financed about 8% of all exports to sub-saharan africa. last year we did $1.4 billion worth of financing and already this year we can see that number. the prior year was an all-time high.

i think it is growing -- after asia, it is the fastest-growing region in the world. the other strong area is less than america. colombia has been growing rapidly. our portfolio in mexico is our largest globally. so i see a lot of bright spots. turkey has been strong. last year we financed about 20% of exports to turkey. >> in places like africa, there has been a discussion about china using its economic policies to meet its long-term foreign-policy goals. >> china negotiates their natural resources by making these investments in sub- saharan africa. it may be controversial in some ways. china's focus has been a wake- up call for american companies. shined a light.

there is a lot of great business to be down there. the governments have more and more stability. technology is changing those economies in rapid ways. it is a strong market for power -- farming equipment and air transportation, increasingly a strong market. >> let's turn to the audience. if you can identify yourself. we will try to get reporters and other people. real people. [laughter]

he said it, not me. go ahead. >> thank you for the opportunity. i wanted to ask about the new international framework the u.s. is working on with china. he said in a diplomatic speech, you are making progress but can you give us more of a sense of what your market on with china. i understand you were talking on a work plan and were supposed to meet next month to work on that. can you give a bigger sense of what the discussion is now? how far away are you from getting to the point where you can launch these negotiations? you also mentioned other countries are involved in the talks. are those members who are currently in the agreement or do you have some of these other countries that you flagged in your speech?

is there any indication they are interested in participating? the practices that even oecd partners are engaging in, do you plan to address that in this new international framework? do you want new disciplines? >> president obama met with him in february saying a we are directing our respective governments to conduct a framework. it was a big step forward. what we're doing now is mapping. what do we mean by long-term finance? short term? and how do we define some of

those things? it is in the definitional stage. it is including other members to be a part of this conversation. when i say it is showing its age, it is probably because that everybody is in it. there is a lot of financing going around it. people like them to be as broad and encompassing as we can. china is the second-largest economy in the world and the largest exporter of goods. that is the foundation we are doing it at. the closest thing to brazil -- we made progress there. we have to see what the next steps are.

not nearly as specific as we have with china. >> i'm asking my question as share of the xm advisory board. >> is that fair? >> he spearheaded the effort with our advisory committee. he bought the recommendation to a cohesive letter be sent to congress. thank you. now i will take the question. >> my question has to do with

one of the findings in the advisory committee's letter. it has to do with small business. you talked about whether other countries manage to package their services to their own businesses in a way that is easy to use. you have identified out reach to small businesses in areas where the bank needs to continue. looking for, how do you see the bank of reaching out to that important constituency and helping them create the jobs that the ge's and others have been ahead of? >> i worked under president clinton. i assume that was part of the reason president obama wanted me to come to bring that perspective to it.

we did $6 billion worth of loans, guarantees and financing to small business last year. that is up 90% over the last two years. it is not nearly enough. it is probably the hardest part of the area to go forward in. when i was in russia, we talk about slowing the enterprises. we have something called the g11. there is great interest in small business. i have not seen another country doing much more than lip service, to be honest. one of the great hidden advantages we have as a country is our diaspora community. one of our directors will be meeting in los angeles. finding ways we can have people from other countries, small businesses he start a business here, understand they have relatives in other parts of the world is one way we can grow small businesses.

and there is a good international diplomacy aspects to that. we are trying to get more small businesses find more banks that will lend to them. we announced a new product called global credit express', i direct loan from the xm bank to small businesses. the president announced that in february. it is hard to find any bank in the country that wants to make a loan for that amount. the transaction is high. we're working with banks on that. >> i'm with bloomberg news. you mentioned a lot of unregulated activities happening within the countries, until there is a framework in place, does the u.s. engage?

and what incentives do they have to get it right if they are benefiting from this? >> i am unaware of any loan programs we do of an unregulated nature. that is just not how the u.s. government operates. when aid does work in a country, it is to help build education, health care and so forth, not to further the u.s. commercial and sales efforts. that is different than the way much of the rest of the world operates. we do not operate that way. the incentive for china is -- there's more pressure from the g-20.

president obama has made that clear. it ultimately becomes uncompetitive. it becomes too costly to try to run those kinds of below market financing schemes. it may not be immediate but my example of the car dealerships, at some point they realize it is not sustainable. china is coming to their understanding. they are looking at growth rates moderating in china. thy are looking to become part of the wto. it is like the un for commercial interests. i think they're looking to find a way there. president obama has been a strong advocate on that. >> john nelson with wall street. just got back from los angeles working with the federal reserve bank there on how to better

leverage federal credit enhancement programs. there was $1.4 billion of stimulus credits. we came up with a way of leveraging special platforms. don't the other nations have sovereign credit programs that could be impacted for broadening of these kinds of credits internationally? we might be able to show them

how those could be enhanced with special support programs. >> i am not familiar with the specifics of the program mentioned but clearly it is in the interest of the united states to try to get more muscular and a greater stimulus to create growth around the world. we are in a growth deficit. we need to get growth going. i was in business for 20 years. we always said growth covers a lot. a lot of things can go wrong and they still work out. once we get past growth, you will not save your way to a better economy. it cannot work that way. >> i am with the sierra club. you talked about transparency and internationally. i wanted to ask about transparency within the u.s. the bank does not disclose the companies involved in projects you're looking at financing and what is being financed until after the deal has been approved.

to this process we have seen the bank finance over $800 million into the fire plant in india despite the fact that the company had not finished the land acquisition. there are losses. there is an ongoing coal crisis in india causing plans to go bankrupt. and the project in south africa. low rates for guaranteed to industry during apartheid and the price to build a plant was being paid for by people who could barely barely afford electricity. even here, financing kohl exports from places like west virginia -- my question for you is when will we see this type of transparency in the process domestically so that we can have input on the projects and make sure that renewable projects and those helping to build our industries and help people are being financed other than these coal projects that are damaging to communities.

>> we made -- large projects go through two votes by the board. the first is based on its environmental soundness then the subsequent vote is made on the project finance. the two projects he meant to go through a two-step voting process, mandated by our transparent environmental policy which is the only one in the world that is fully transparent. not one of our trading partners has a transparent policy like we do. we are at a disadvantage because be do this in advance of approving any project. people inside and outside the oecd. we went forward with those two

products because they have a portfolio approach to renewable. we're not supporting coal plants that would be environmentally above the target level of 850 units of carbon. it is only in countries such as south africa. we're only looking at it where we will support a country that is making a genuine effort to have a balanced energy program and we want to be a part of that.

many of these cases, they're being built anyway. we have a choice. we can bill them with american equipment and engineering or let them be built by somebody else. but they will be built one way or another. i believe i'd rather build with our technology and engineering and will keep jobs here in in america. >> we have time for one more question. >> i am a management consultant. what do you see is the enduring principle american values that you leverage to build a constituency for your programs here, bipartisan our allies?

how do those play into our international competitiveness? >> we are guided -- the xm bank was started by fdr about trading jobs. canada and italy are two good examples. they can approach -- if it is built by canadians or italians, that is good enough. we require it to be built in america because we are looking to create jobs here at home. our value system and one guy does in making decisions -- is

it necessary to close the deal and is creating jobs here at home? we financed a solar power plant in india. creating good jobs here in the united states. created 600 jobs in india and ongoing 200 full-time permanent jobs. to me, that is a strong statement. that makes us a welcome country to export products and services to. we're not sending workers over there to do exports and one country and take all the jobs in the country where that exports are dent -- destined for. >> a great ending to a great discussion.

thank you for coming again and for your work in manufacturing. >> thank you.

local content bagels on the campus of lincoln university. >> that is probably our most famous book. it is what we like to show visitors when they come into the archives. this is a book about harriet tubman. this was written in 1866. she made her mark their that is the most famous autographs. . she cannot read or write. she left her mark as the scion of the crust.

>> july 7 and eighth. >> the latest fiscal report. them part of our coverage of housing conference on housing issues. represented paul gosar. we will also look at the fiscal state with the national association of state budget officers. clacks i could have told do this

is how we would rather be by the republican primary. they would look people. they would then rally around that nominee. romney is surging. this is a raise. i would say what the next phase is going to be. the media is going to become more alert to the fact that romney has been completely evasive about his position. he has tried to play a game of hide and seek. adding the news media will be challenged to be more forthcoming. the story will be that for a while. >> look behind the presidential election process.

>> the latest fiscal report on social security. the house ways and means committee talks about current revenues will be able to fund the program for 20 years. this is little less than 1.5 hours. >> this hearing will come to order. good morning. thank you for being here. according to this year's report from social security board of trustees, social security will keep its promises. it will be increasingly

difficult to protect benefits for those who rely on them most if we delay action much longer. this year's chesty report contains troubling but not unexpected projections about the finances. it emphasizes that congress needs to act to ensure long-term solvency. will reach their full retirement age and 2035. everyone else will face benefit cuts of 25% less unless congress acts. the insurance program will be an able to pay full benefits.

this covers 797 benefits. this is true money for those three giving via fixed income. the last major reform was in 1983. in their report the social security trustees said without legislation the old age and survivors trust fund will be unable to make this no later than july 2083. the rich able to pass on a bipartisan basis the social security amendments of 1983. come on in.

we just started. despite the near failure of the greenspan commission and the senior advocacy groups including aarp, social security is interrupted. i believe our nation has the will to save social security. today we would hear from the public trustees. we in congress are trustees, led to. the longer we wait the more difficult be choices will become. with all the financial anxiety that americans face, we should not increase the burden by failing to fulfil our duty and protecting our nation's most important safety net program.

we need to act now before it is too late. do you have an opening statement? youtube. -- you do. >> thank you again for listening. i had a statement. i understand your on your way. i will recognize him for any opening statements you have. >> thank you. in the event of is not able to make it, i got my daughter to her program on time. thank you for being here. i would like to say what i have been saying for some time. social security even through the worst recession since the great depression is a program that

people have grown to rely upon. the typical middle-class family lost somewhere between $26,000 in their net worth. that is about four out of $10 o.

.

i wanted to spend a few minutes talking about topics that hud is involved in. one is homelessness. on the homeownership side, i want to focus on the recent servicing agreement that you may have heard about. you may not know all of the details on it. it is between a number of different federal agencies and state partners that resulted in providing $25 billion in relief. this came about because of unfair lending practices.

and it really got best over, frankly. i wanted to highlight some of the things in this agreement that are particularly relevant to our veterans and service members. there are four or five i would like to share. in addition to that, additional compensation. we are still charged excessive interest. short sale agreements and waivers are being provided due to military orders that forced their relocation. i see this all the time in terms of families having to relocate, having no idea that was going to happen. i think it will be great relief to many service members around the world. there are others that directly

relate to service members for veterans. the have been receiving hostile fire and imminent danger pay, even after their initial foreclosure notice. as we all know, it is a shame for men and women to risk their lives for us in iraq and afghanistan, only to come home and to literally have no home whatsoever and the living on the streets or in their cards. -- in their cars. they're finding ways to literally and homelessness.

when i was listening to the deputy secretary, he identified a number of things. i am familiar with those interventions. we realize there is no single way to end the veteran homelessness or veteran homelessness -- or homelessness in general. one of the things that does matter is that key working relationship. while we worked together for a long time, what i have seen in the last three or four years has been phenomenal. it was reignited as a program. i had a chance of being on a team to create it.

as i look around government, there are very few examples i've ever seen -- and i have been around government almost 30 years -- were you have two agencies to work together well. that is not easy to do. it is certainly adding value that you can never get by just trying to do everything. they may not be good at everything. that is certainly the case when providing housing or services to other people. there are about 40,000 vouchers out there. the vast majority of those vouchers have been going to people who are chronically homeless. that is, people who are out on the streets or in shelters for extended periods of time, have disabilities, and without a

permanent solution will never get off of the streets. the cost the community an exorbitant amount of funds. it costs about $50,000 to deducted -- to do nothing for a homeless person in the city. at the end of the year, they're still out there. cities in curb exorbitant costs as opposed to providing a real solution to end the persons homeless problems that can focus on unemployment. this is vitally important to figure out how to prevent it.

let's figure out what we can learn to prevent homelessness for veterans just now returning from war. sites that have large numbers of returning soldiers. this is a very tough thing, we are learning, to prevent homelessness. who is a risk of going from their housing to going to the streets. we hope to learn more. one lesson we have learned a lot from is the recovery act program. this is the most exciting program i've worked on in many years the as it tries some brand new things. it provided rapid rehousing which is a concept we knew something about the we had never

gone to scale on it. it is this concept as saying that somebody is homeless, let's immediately stop that state. about 90% of all the homeless persons that have been serving did not fall back into homelessness once they got short-term assistance. it seems to have incredibly great success. that is one of the examples i want to give. we need to be thinking creatively. budgets are tight. we are having to dig deeper into

thinking how can we end homelessness overall. it is doing things like being smart about how we use the hut program. one of the great examples of innovation comes from the private sector. you'll hear a little bit later today in a symposium session. in new york city and other cities, hud bash has not been working as long as it should be. new york city was taking three and a 75 days to house a veteran. that is ridiculous. but the problem was that there is a lot involved. you of the local public housing agency.

the did a boot camp in a couple of cities to begin with. i went to the one in in new york city. it was fascinating. we cannot sit down until we solve the problem. after a couple of hours, you're thinking quickly. looking at every step that new york city was using. i think it was 90 steps to house a single homeless person. we realize that we could quickly eliminate a lot of problems. new york city now has a plan in place for their going to get it down to 76 days. los angeles is going to have an 82% reduction. it is that kind of creative thinking that will make this

happen. the house veterans and a much, much quicker way. it takes great contributions like we've heard already this morning about the home depot foundation. really stepping up to think about how they can assert themselves to make a real difference. and using creative ways to focus on outcomes to make sure we're getting the outcomes we need. we can do the same very smart way. i take a train.

about an hour south of here. i have been engaging him for probably four months now, trying to see if we can give him a voucher. i will show up and he is still there. what is going on? are you still here? and he says well, there are situations. it will work out. so i called the case worker and he says that he refuses to go do the interview so we can i get him the housing is wanted in the car. it is a powerful reminder to me that we solve this problem one person at a time by looking at what they need and it turned out how to make that a solution. because you look at housing one day, but we cannot give up on him. he served our country for years

and there are too many out there on the streets. i thank you. i know many of you are working on this to reduce the number in this country. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have time for just a couple of questions. good morning. >> [inaudible] the local community or housing authority should update the pavements of the community in

which the housing is located. is that correct? >> it varies by the cost of housing in that committee, so, yes. >> what would you suggest that one to if one is working with the housing authority that refuses to do the payments? >> i would talk to mark after the session. [laughter] >> two questions. what is the contingency plan if a new congress decides to cut funding to hud? and secondly, when the program is put into place, was there any about how it should be donated? >> good question.

in terms of the first question, my experience has been that homelessness has never been a partisan issue. it doesn't matter who is in the white house or congress. for various reasons, everyone wants to end homelessness. the bash program was created under a republican administration, frankly. i don't think it will be a republican issue. the congress agreed about six years ago that we needed about 60,000 vouchers to end the problem of homelessness among veterans. we have to have some very strong rationales. in terms of your question or

furnishings, we have been approaching philanthropy group specific in how about. i was visiting salt lake city utah about one year ago. i visited different projects. i saw that every room had the same kind of furniture. it was nice, wood furniture. it had kitchen tables, chairs, etc.. for the chronically homeless, it does not focused. the had the same furniture everywhere i went. it is actually a church in that community that had donated all of the furniture. there is a lot of that that is going on and, frankly, could be going on if we would ask. >> one remaining question. yes.

>> this is not so much a question as a thank you. thank you for these programs help the programs. i am an advocate for the city of manassas. i have found two veterans since the january. another one over the last 30 years was approximately 15 years thomas. a lot of what you said about people who do my job, these help them get the first step. and then the connections. >> congratulations. thank you very much. [applause] >> the supreme court yesterday

struck down most of an immigration law, while upholding the part about holding up the immigration status of the suspect there in the country illegally. it could make it a crime. it would not allow officers to arrest people without a warrant if they had probable cause to because they are an illegal immigrant. as with the court's decision over the next hour and a half, we will see the supreme court oral arguments followed by reaction from proponents to the bill and the governor jan brewer. on "washington journal" this morning, we will focus on the decision to strike down most of the arizona law.

jess braven, and paul gosar, and silvestre reyes from texas. "washington journal" is a live on c-span every day at 7:00 p.m. -- 7:00 a.m. eastern. several live events to tell you about this morning. the senate judiciary committee on deceptive practices in federal elections. and then at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span, bill gates speaks about the future of public higher education. and 8, booxtv explores jefferson city.

>> is probably our most favored -- a favorite. this is a book about harriet tubman. it is called here it, the moses of her people. this book was written in 1866. the special thing is that when harriet tubman made her mark on their and that is really the most famous autograph if you want to call it that of what we have here in the library. obviously, she cannot read or write, so she left her mark as the sign of the cross. >> july 7 and 8. >> justice anthony kennedy wrote

the opinion for the supreme court, striking down most of the arizona immigration law. he is joined by justice roberts and ginsberg. the court upheld the provision that requires police officers to review an immigration status of the suspect that person is in the country illegally. up next, the oral arguments of the case. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 11--182, arizona v. the united states. mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the state of arizona bears a disproportionate share of the costs of illegal immigration. in addressing those costs, arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own, and attempted to enlist state resources in the enforcement of the uniform federal immigration laws. notwithstanding that, the united states took the extraordinary step of seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the statute as impliedly preempted

on its face before it took effect. the ninth circuit agreed with respect to four provisions, but only by inverting fundamental principles of federalism. the ninth circuit essentially demanded that arizona point to specific authorization in federal statute for its approach. but that gets mattersbackwards. -- but that it matters backwards. a state does not need to point to federal authorization for its enforcement efforts. rather, the burden is on the parties seeking to preempt a duly enacted state law to point to some provision in statutory law that does the preempting. now, the united states can't really do that here, and the reason is obvious. there are multiple provisions of the federal immigration law that go out of their way to try to facilitate state and local efforts to communicate with federal immigration officials in order to ascertain the immigration status of individuals. so, for example, 1373(c) specifically requires that federal immigration officials shall respond to inquiries from state and local officials about somebody's immigration status.

1373(a) goes even further. that provision says that no federal agency or officer may prohibit or in any way restrict the ability of state and local officers to communicate with federal immigration officers to ascertain somebody's immigration status. indeed, if the dhs had -- >> mr. clement -- >> yes. >> -- could i interrupt, and turning to 2(b), could you tell me what the state's view is -- the government proposes that it should be read on its face one way, and i think the state is arguing that there's a narrower way to read it. but am i to understand that under the state's position in this action, the only time that the inquiry about the status of an individual rises is after they've had probable cause to arrest that individual for some other crime?

>> that's exactly right. so this only operates when somebody's been essentially stopped for some other infraction, and then at that point, if there's reasonable suspicion to try to identify immigration status, then that can happen. of course, one of the things that -- >> can i -- can i -- >> sure. >> -- just stop you there just one moment? that's what i thought. so presumably, i think your argument is, that under any circumstance, a police officer would have the discretion to make that call. seems to me that the issue is not about whether you make the call or not, although the government is arguing that it might be, but on how long you detain theindividual, meaning -- the individual meaning -- as i understand it, when individuals are arrested and held for other crimes, often there's an immigration check that most states do without this law. and to the extent that the government wants to remove that individual, they put in a warrant of detainer.

this process is different. how is it different? >> well, it's different in one important respect, and that's why i don't think that the issue that divides the parties is only the issue of how long you can detain somebody. because i think the federal government takes the rather unusual position that even though these stops and these inquiries, if done on an ad hoc basis, become preempted if they're done on a systematic basis -- >> no, i understand that's their argument. i can question them about that. >> okay. but -- so that's -- >> but i want to get to how -- assuming your position, that doing it on a -- there's nothing wrong with doing it as it's been done in the past. whenever anyone is detained, a call could be made. what i see as critical is the issue of how long, and under -- and when is the officer going to exercise discretion to release the person? >> and with respect, i don't think section 2(b) really speaks to that, which is to say, i don't think section 2(b) says

that the systematic inquiry has to take any longer than the ad hoc inquiry. and, indeed, section 2, in one of its provisions, specifically says that it has to be implemented in a way that's consistent with federal, both immigration law and civil rights law. so, there -- what -- >> what happens if -- this is the following call -- the call to the -- to the federal government. yes, he's an illegal alien. no, we don't want to detain him. what does the law say, the arizona law say, with respect to releasing that individual? >> well, i don't know that it speaks to it in specific terms, but here's what i believe would happen, which is to say, at that point, then, the officer would ask themselves whether there's any reason to continue to detain the person for state law purposes. i mean, it could be that the original offense that the person was pulled over needs to be dealt with or something like that. >> i'm putting all of this outside of --

>> but -- but if what we're talking about is simply what happens then for purposes of the federal immigration consequences, the answer is nothing. the individual at that point is released. and that, i think, can be very well illustrated by section 6 -- i don't want to change the subject unnecessarily, but there's an arrest authority for somebody who's committed a public offense, which means that it's a crime in another state and in arizona, but the person can't be arrested for that offense, presumably because they've already served their sentence for the offense; and then there's new arrest authority given to the officer to hold that person if they are deportable for that offense. now, i think in that circumstance, it's very clear what would happen, is an inquiry would be made to the federal officials that would say, do you want us to transfer this person to your custody or hold this person until you can take custody? and if the answer is no, then that's the end of it. that individual is released, because there's no independent basis in that situation for the state officer to continue to detain the individual at all. >> but how would the state officer know if the person is removable? i mean, that's sometimes a complex inquiry.

>> well, justice ginsburg, i think there's two answers to that. one is, you're right, sometimes it's a complex inquiry, sometimes it's a straightforward inquiry. it could be murder, it could be a drug crime. but i think the practical answer to the question is by hypothesis, there's going to be an inquiry made to the federal immigration authorities, either the law enforcement support center or a 287(g) officer. and presumably, as a part of that inquiry, they can figure out whether or not this is a removable offense, or at least a substantially likely removable offense. >> suppose it takes 2 weeks to make that determination, can the alien be held by the state for that whole period of time -- >> oh, i don't think -- >> -- just under section 6? >> i don't think so, your honor, and i think that, you know, what -- in all of these provisions, you have the fourth amendment backing up the limits, and i think so whatever -- >> what -- what would be the standard?

you're the attorney for the -- for the alien, he -- they're going to hold him for 2 weeks until they figure out whether this is a removable offense. and you say, under the fourth amendment, you cannot hold for -- what? more than a reasonable time or -- >> yes. ultimately, it's a reasonable inquiry. and i think that under these circumstances, what we know from the record here is that generally the immigration status inquiry is something that takes 10 or 11 minutes. i mean, so it's not -- we're not talking about something -- or no more than 10 if it's a 287(g) officer, and roughly 11 minutes on average if it's the law enforcement support center. >> how do they have -- well, the same question, but -- but i'm trying to think of examples. example one is the person is arrested. now, it says any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. so i wonder if they've arrested a citizen, he's hispanic-- looking, he was jogging, he has a backpack, he has water in it and pedialyte, so they think, oh, maybe this is an illegal person. it happens he's a citizen of new mexico, and so the driver's license doesn't work. and now they put him in jail. and are you -- can you represent to us -- i don't know if you can or not -- can you represent to us he will not stay

in jail, in detention, for a significantly longer period of time than he would have stayed in the absence of section 2(b)? do you want to represent that or not? >> i don't want to represent that. what i do want to represent -- >> all right. now, if you cannot represent that -- and i'm not surprised you don't want to -- i mean, i don't know -- >> sure, sure. but what i can represent -- >> what? >> -- is that he's not going to be detained any longer than the fourth amendment allows. >> oh, fine. >> and -- but, well -- >> but the fourth amendment -- for -- i mean, that's another question. i don't know how long the fourth amendment allows. i don't know on that. there probably is a range of things. but we do know that a person ordinarily, for this crime, x, would have been released after a day. oh, you know, the fourth amendment would have allowed more. so now what i want to know is what in practice will happen? from your representation, i think that there will be a

significant number of people -- some of whom won't be arrested; it takes 11 minutes for some. for citizens, it might take 2 hours, it might take 2 days. okay. there'll be a significant number of people who will be detained at the stop, or in prison, for a significantly longer period of time than in the absence of 2(b). is that a fair conclusion? >> i don't think it is, and here's why it's not. because even though there certainly are situations where state authorities will arrest somebody and then release them relatively rapidly, they generally don't release somebody until they can nail down their identity, and whether or not they are likely to come to a court hearing at a subsequent event -- >> anyway, if this is a problem, is it an immigration law problem? >> it -- >> or is it a fourth amendment problem? >> justice scalia, it is neither -- >> is the government's attack on this that it violates the fourth amendment? >> no. of course, the federal government, that also has a lot of immigration arrests that are subject to the fourth amendment, is not making a

fourth amendment claim here. and it's neither an immigration law concern or something that should be the basis for striking down a statute on its face -- >> that's a different argument -- >> but i do want to -- but i do want to be responsive and make the point that i think the factual premise that this is going to -- 2(b) is going to lead to the elongation of a lot of arrests is not true. >> all right. can i make the following statement in the opinion, and you will say that's okay? imagine -- this is imaginary. "we interpret" -- imagine -- "we interpret section 2(b) as not authorizing or requiring the detention of any individual under 2(b), either at the stop or in prison, for a significantly longer period of time than that person would have been detained in the absence of 2(b)." can i make that statement in an opinion, and you'll say, that's right? >> i think what you could say -- >> can i say that? >> i don't think you can say just that. >> no. >> i think you can say something similar, though. i think you probably could say, look, this is a facial

challenge. the statute's never gone into effect. we don't anticipate that section 2(b) would elongate in a significant number of cases the detention or the arrest. i think you could say that. and the reason is, as i indicated, it's something that happens even without this law that, when you arrest somebody, and there are some offenses that are -- you can arrest and release under state law, but before you release the individual, you generally want to ascertain that that individual is going to show up at the hearing. and that's what really distinguishes those cases where there's arrest and release from those cases where there's arrest and you book somebody. now, here's the other reason why i don't think factually, this is going to elongate things. because already in a significant number of booking facilities in arizona, you already have the process that people are systematically run through immigration checks when they are booked as part of the booking process. that's reflected in the record here in the maricopa county

system, that that's done by a 287(g) officer as a matter of routine. the federal government doesn't like this statute, but they're very proud of their secure communities program. and their secure communities program also makes clear that everybody that's booked at participating facilities is -- eventually has their immigration status checked. and so i don't think that this immigration status check is likely to lead to a substantial elongation of the stops or the detentions. now, obviously -- >> i want to make sure that i get a clear representation from you. if at a call to the federal agency, the agency says, we don't want to detain this alien, that alien will be released or -- unless it's under 6, is what you're telling me. or under 6, 3, or some -- one other of arizona's immigration clauses. >> exactly. obviously, if thisis somebody who was going, you know, 60 miles an hour in a 20-mile-an- hour school zone or something,

they may decide wholly apart from the immigration issue that this is somebody they want to bring back to the station. but for the purposes of once they make the contact with federal immigration officials, if the federal immigration officials say, look, we have no interest in removing this person, we have no interest in prosecuting this person under the federal criminal provisions, then that's the end of the federal case of the -- >> all right. then tell me -- >> so you'll -- you'll concede that the -- that the state has to accept within its borders all people who have no right to be there, that the federal government has no interest in removing? >> no, i don't accept that, justice scalia, but -- >> that's all the statute -- and you call up the federal government, and the federal -- yes, he's an illegal immigrant, but that's okay with us. >> well -- >> and the state has no powerto close its borders to people who have no right to be there? >> well, here -- justice scalia, here's my response, which is all of this discussion, at least as i've understood it, has been about 2(b), and to a lesser extent 6. now, section 3 of the statute

does provide an authority under state law to penalize somebody who has violated essentially the federal registration requirement. so if that's -- as to that provision, there would be a state authority, even under these hypotheticals, to take action with respect to the individual -- >> i think -- >> -- but not with respect to the federal -- >> i think justice scalia's question was the -- was the broader one, just as a theoretical matter. can we say, or do you take the position, that a state must accept within its borders a person who is illegally present under federal law? >> well, and i think the -- >> and that is by reason of his alien issues -- >> and i think my answer to thatis no. i think the reason my answer is no has more to do with our defense of section 3 and other provisions than it does with respect to the inquiry and arrest authority provisions, 2(b) and 6. >> well, before you move on to the registration requirement, could i take you back to an example that's similar to the

one that >> was referring to. let's someone -- let's say someone who is a citizen and a resident of new mexico, has a new mexico driver's license, drives across the border, is stopped for speeding, not 60 miles an hour in a 20--mile zone, but 10 miles over the speed limit on an interstate. and the officer, for some reason, thinks that this person may be an illegal alien. how would that work out? if you do the records check, you're not going to get anything back, right, because the person is a citizen. so what -- where would the officer take it from there? >> well, if i can just kind of work back for a second. i mean, obviously, it's a pretty unusual circumstance where somebody produces an out-- of--state driver's license, and that doesn't dispel reasonable suspicion for the officer. but, i'll take the hypo that -- >> why would it dispel reasonable suspicion if it's -- if the officer knows it's a state that issues drivers' licenses to aliens who are not lawfully -- >> and that might be a situation where that's the case, and then -- then it wouldn't dispel the reasonable suspicion. but, say, in the average case,

i think it would. they would then go further. and then they would then make the inquiry to the federal officials. and then if -- because of the fact that the individual actually is a citizen or something like that, then what would happen is at some point, you'd get to the end of a permissible terry stop, and the officer would release the individual. now, it might not be the end of the matter, because, of course, you know, they still have the name, they still have the ability to collect that information and try to continue the check as they move forward, taking down the information on the new mexico driver's license. but i think the important thing is that, you know, this statute doesn't authorize them to detain the individual, certainly beyond the -- the fourth amendment limits. and it really doesn't authorize them to do anything that the official couldn't do on an ad hoc basis without the statute. now, it does do -- >> that may be the case, and i would like to ask general verrilli about that. but, under the fourth amendment, presumably, if the officer can arrest, the state officer can arrest a person simply on the ground that the person is removable, which is what the office of legal counsel

opined some years ago, then presumably the officer could continue to detain that individual that i mentioned until they reached a point where the terry stop becomes an arrest, at which time, they would have to have probable cause. but if they had probable cause to believe the person was removable, then they could hold the person, presumably, until the -- the person's status was completely verified. isn't that correct? >> i think that's correct, your honor. now, as we read section 6, because there's a pre--existing definition of "public offense" in arizona law, we don't think this is kind of the full office of legal counsel situation, where you have broad arrest authority for removable individuals. this is a relatively narrow slice of additional arrest authority that happens to give arrest authority for people that seem

to fit the federal government's priority, because it really is going to apply to criminal aliens. but i don't -- i don't take any issue with what you're saying. i do think, though, it's important to understand that 2(b) really doesn't give the officer an authority he didn't otherwise have. it does do one thing that's very important, though, which it does have the effect of overriding local policies that actually forbade some officers from making those communications and -- because that's one of the primary effects of 2(b). it just shows how difficult the government's preemption argument is here, because those kind of local policies are expressly forbidden by federal statute. 1373(a) and 8 u.s.c. 1644 basically say that localities can't have those kind of sanctuary laws. and so one effect that 2(b) has is on a state level, it basically says, look, you can't have local officers telling you not to make those inquiries, you must have those inquiries. >> counsel, could -- does section 6 permit an officer to

arrest an individual who has overstayed a visitor's visa by a day? they're removable, correct? >> they are removable. i don't think they would have committed a public offense -- absent a very unusual situation, i don't think they would have committed a public offense under arizona law. so i don't think there actually would be arrest authority in that circumstance, as justice alito's question has -- has -- >> what is the definition of public offense? >> a public offense definition -- it's actually -- it's a petition appendix -- well, i'm sorry. the definition is basically that it's something that is a crime in another jurisdiction and also a crime in arizona. and so what makes this kind of anomalous is normally, if something is a crime in arizona, there's arrest authority for that directly. so what this really captures is people who have committed a crime are no longer arrestable for the crime because they have served their sentence or some other peculiarity, but they're nonetheless removable because of the crime.

>> counsel, maybe it's a good time to talk about some of the other sections, in particular, section 5(c). now, that does seem to expand beyond the federal government's determination about the types of sanctions that should govern the employment relationship. you talk about supply and demand. the federal government, of course, prohibits the employment, but it also imposes sanctions with respect to application for work. and the state of arizona, in this case, is imposing some significantly greater sanctions. >> well, it's certainly imposing different sanctions. i mean, you know, it's a little bit -- kind of hard to weigh the difference between removability, which is obviously a pretty significant sanction for an alien, and the relatively modest penalties imposed by section 5(c). but i take the premise that 5(c) does something that there's no direct analog in federal law. but i -- but that's not enough to get you to preemption, obviously. and one of the things that makes 5(c), it seems to us, a weak case for preemption is that it only targets employment that is expressly forbidden by federal law. and so then we look at, you know, essentially, the

government is reduced to arguing that because in 1986 when congress passed irca, it only focused on the employer's side of the equation and didn't, generally speaking, impose restrictions on employees, that somehow they're going to draw a preemptive inference from that. >> counsel -- >> would you agree that -- would you accept as a working hypothesis that we can begin with the general principle that the hines v. davidowitz language controls here, and we're going to ask -- our principal -- our primary function is to determine whether, under the circumstances of this particular case, arizona's law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress? is that an acceptable test from your standpoint? >> i think it's an acceptable test. i mean, justice kennedy, you know, there obviously have been subsequent cases, including decanas and whiting, that give additional shape and color to

that test, but i don't have any -- i don't have any real quarrel with that test. and here's why i don't think that -- >> but then the government on this section is going to come and say, well, there maybe -- this must be -- this -- the enforcement of this statute, as arizona describes it, will be in considerable tension with our -- with our basic approach. isn't that what i'm going to hear from the government? >> it may be what you're going to hear, justice kennedy, but i don't think you just take the federal government for its word on these things. you know, it's interesting, in decanas itself, the sg said that that california statute was preempted. and in decanas, this court didn't say, well, you know, we've got this language from hines, and we have the sg tell us it's preempted, that's good enough for us. they went beyond that, and they looked hard. and what they did is they established that this is an area where the presumption against preemption applies. so that seems one strike in our favor. we have here a situation where there is an express preemption provision, and it -- it only addresses the employer's side of the ledger. so the express preemption provision clearly doesn't apply here. so the only thing they have is

this inference -- >> well, for those of us for whom legislative history has some importance, there seems to be quite a bit of legislative history that the -- that the idea of punishing employees was raised, discussed and explicitly rejected. >> sure. >> the preemption language would be geared to what was decided to be punished. it seems odd to think that the federal government is deciding on employment sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees. >> but, there's a big difference between congress deciding not as a matter of federal law to address employees with an additional criminal prohibition, and saying that that decision itself has preemptive effect. that's a rather remarkable additional step. and here's why i think, if you consider the legislative history -- for those who do, it really supports us -- because here's what congress confronted. i mean, they started thinking about this problem in 1971.

they passed irca in 1986. at that point, here's the state of the world. it's already unlawful, as a matter of federal law, for the employee to get -- to have this unlawful work. and if they seek this unlawful work, they are subject to removal for doing it. in addition, congress was told that most of the aliens who get this unlawful work are already here -- they illegally entered, so they're already subject to an independent criminal offense. so at that point, congress is facing a world where the employee is already subject to multiple prohibitions. the employer is completely scot--free as a matter of federal law. and so at that point, in 1986, they address the employer's side of the equation, they have an express preemption provision that says nothing about any intent of preempting the employee's side of the ledger. and in that, i don't think -- >> but they did provide -- i mean, your position was the federal legislation regulates the supply side. that leaves the demand side open. but there is regulation, and the question is whether anything beyond that is

inconsistent with the federal -- it's not just that the person is removable, but if they use false documents in seeking work, that's a federal crime. so we have the -- what you call the supply side is -- is regulated, but you want to regulate it more. >> two quick responses, and then i'd like to save time for rebuttal, justice ginsburg.the first is that if you look at what they regulate on the employee's side, it's really things that actually assist in regulating the employer's side. because what they're worried about is a fraudulent document that then is used essentially to trick the employer into employing somebody who shouldn't be employed. the second thing is, the more that you view irca as actually

regulating part of the employee's side, then i think the more persuasive it is that the express preemption provision doesn't reach the employee's side of the equation. >> we'll give you plenty of rebuttal time, but i'd like to hear what you have to say about section 3 before you sit down. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i appreciate the opportunity to do that. i do think as to section 3, the question is really -- it's a provision that is parallel to the federal requirements, and imposes the same punishments as the federal requirement. so it's generally not a fertile ground for preemption. but of course, there are cases that find preemption even in those analogous circumstances. they're the cases that the government is forced to rely on. cases like buckman, cases like -- >> would double prosecutions be -- suppose that an alien were prosecuted under federal law for violating basically the terms of 3, could the states then prosecute him as well? >> i think they could under general double jeopardy principles and the dual sovereignty doctrine. obviously, if that was of

particular concern to you, that might be the basis for an as-- applied challenge if somebody was already prosecuted under federal law. but, of course, this court has confronted exactly that argument in california v. zook, where you had the statute of california that prohibited somebody operating as an interstate carrier without the icc license. it was raised -- well, you know, you have to let just the feds enforce that law. otherwise, there's the possibility of duplicative punishment, duplicative prosecution. and this court rejected that argument there. >> mr. clement, it seems that the -- i would think the largest hurdle for you is hines, which said the registration scheme -- congress enacted a complete registration scheme which the states cannot complement or impose even auxiliary regulations. so i don't see the alien registration as a question of obstacle preemption, but appeal preemption that alien -- we don't want competing registration schemes.

we want the registration scheme to be wholly federal. >> well, justice ginsburg, i think that's part of the reason why i accepted justice kennedy's characterization of the relevant language in hines, because although there's some general discussion there of field preemption, when the court actually states what its holding is, it does state it in terms of obstacle preemption. and here's where i think there's a critical difference between what the court had before it in hines and what you have before you here. in hines, pennsylvania passed its statute before congress passed the alien registration statute. so not surprisingly, you know, they weren't -- they weren't soothsayers in pennsylvania. they couldn't predict the future. so when it got up here, there was a conflict between the provisions of the pennsylvania registration law and the federal registration law. and this court struck it down on that preemption basis. here, it's quite different.

arizona had before it the federal statute. it looked at the preciseprovisions in the federal statute. it adopted those standards as its own, and then it imposed parallel penalties for the violation of the state equivalent. and so i think the right analysis is really the analysis that this court laid out in its whiting decision, which says that in these kinds of cases, what you look for is whether or not the state scheme directly interferes with the operation of the federal scheme. >> can i ask you something? >> well, in that instance -- >> justice alito. >> in that regard, we are told that there are some important categories of aliens who can't obtain registration, cannot obtain federal registration, and yet they're people that nobody would think should be removed. i think someone with a pending asylum application would fall into that category. how would section 3 apply there? >> i think it probably wouldn't apply. there's two provisions that

might make it inapplicable. the first question you'd ask is whether that individual in that category would be subject to prosecution under 1304 and 1306. and if i understand, you know, the government's position, there are certain people where, you know, they can't really get a registration document because of the narrow class that they're in. and as i understand it, it is not a violation of either 1304 or 1306 to not get a registration document when you're somebody who can't get one. so you're not liable for the willful failure to get a registration document, and when you don't have a registration document to carry, you don't run afoul of 1306 on the carry -- >> well, of course, if you've entered the country illegally, you can't get a registration. >> well, sure. >> but -- >> but that's not the narrow class we were talking about. >> no, i understand that. i didn't understand the distinction you were drawing, that you can't be prosecuted for lack of a registration if you couldn't have gotten a registration. >> well, if you're in -- no, if you're in the country lawfully, i mean, you can try to register. and so somebody who enters illegally -- i mean, they're already guilty of one federal misdemeanor by the illegal entry. >> right.

>> but at the point that they stay 30 days and don't try to register, then that's an independent violation. so maybe i need to fix what i said and say, look, if you're somebody who -- if you did go to register, would be told: you're fine, but we can't give you a registration document, then that individual's not subject to prosecution under the federal statute, therefore wouldn't be subject to prosecution under the state statute. >> thank you, mr. clement. general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: >> before you get into what the case is about, i'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about. no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it? i saw none of that in your brief. >> that's correct. >> okay. so this is not a case about ethnic profiling. >> we're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case. mr. clement is working hard this morning to portray s.b. 1070 as an aid to federal immigration enforcement. but the very first provision of

the statute declares that arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement, and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the state. that is something arizona cannot do, because the constitution vests exclusive -- >> general, could you answer justice scalia's earlier question to your adversary? he asked whether it would be the government's position that arizona doesn't have the power to exclude or remove -- to exclude from its borders a person who's here illegally. >> that is our position, your honor. it is our position because the constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government. >> well, all that means, it gives authority over naturalization, which we've expanded to immigration. but all that means is that the government can set forth the

rules concerning who belongs in this country. but if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in arizona, arizona has -- has no power? what -- what does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders? >> your honor, the framers vested in the national government the authority over immigration because they understood that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is a vital aspect of our foreign relations. the national government, and not an individual state -- >> but it's still up to the national government. arizona is not trying to kick out anybody that the federal government has not already said do not belong here. and -- look, the constitution provides -- even -- even with respect to the commerce clause -- "no state shall without the consent of congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except," it says, "what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws." the constitution recognizes

that there is such a thing as state borders, and the states can police their borders, even to the point of inspecting incoming shipments to exclude diseased material. >> but they cannot do what arizona is seeking to do here, your honor, which is to elevate one consideration above all others. arizona is pursuing a policy that maximizes the apprehension of unlawfully present aliens so they can be jailed as criminals in arizona unless the federal government agrees to direct its enforcement resources to remove the people that arizona has identified. >> well, if that state does -- well, that's a question of enforcement priorities. well, let's say that the government had a different set of enforcement priorities, and their objective was to protect to the maximum extent possible the borders. and so anyone who is here illegally, they want to know

about and they want to do something about. in other words, different than the current policy. does that mean in that situation, the arizona law would not be preemptive? >> i think the mandatory character of the arizona law and the mandatory character of the obligations it imposes, especially as backed by this extraordinary provision in section 2(h), which imposes civil penalties of up to $5000 a day on any official in the state of arizona who is not following section 2 or, as we read it, the rest of s.b. 1070, to the maximum extent possible, does create a conflict. but i do think the most fundamental point about section 2 is to understand its relationship to the other provisions in the statute. section 2 is in the statute to identify the class of people who arizona is then committed to prosecute under section 3, and if they are employed, also under section 5. >> well, i have the same question as the chief justice. suppose that the federal government changed its priorities tomorrow, and it said -- they threw out the ones

they have now, and they said the new policy is maximum enforcement. we want to know about every person who's stopped or arrested, we want to -- we want their immigration status verified. would the arizona law then be un--preemptive? a no, i think it's still problem, your honor. these decisions have to be made at the national level because justice alito: well, i have the same question as the chief justice. suppose that the federal government changed its priorities tomorrow, and it said they threw out the ones they have now, and they said the new policy is maximum enforcement, we want to know about every person who's stopped or arrested, we want to we want to their immigration status verified. would the arizona law then be un-preempted? general verrilli: no, i think it's still a problem, your honor. these decisions have to be made at the national level because it's the national government and not it's the whole country and not an individual state that pays the price justice scalia: do you have any example where where enforcement discretion has the effect of preempting state action? general verrilli: well, i think we should think about section 3 of the law, your honor. i think

it will help illustrate the point justice scalia: i'll point out another case of ours where we've said that essentially the preemption of state law can occur, not by virtue of the congress preempting, but because the executive doesn't want this law enforced so so rigorously, and that preempts the state from enforcing it vigorously. do we have any cases general verrilli: i think the preemption here focusing for a moment on section 3 the preemption here flows from judgments of congress, from the registration system that congress set up in sections 1301 through 1306, from the decision of congress in section 1103 in the law to vest the secretary of dhs and the attorney general with the authority to make the judgments about how this law is going to be enforced justice scalia: well, they do that with all federal criminal statutes. and you acknowledge that as a general matter, states can enforce federal criminal law, which is always entrusted to the attorney general. general verrilli: they can make they can engage in detention in support of the enforcement of federal law. that's what the olc opinion from 2002 says. it does not say that they can prosecute under federal law and make their own decisions. that's a far different matter.

and it really goes to the heart, i think, of what's wrong with section 3 of this act, in that chief justice roberts: well, but you say that the federal government has to have control over who to prosecute, but i don't see how section 2(b) says anything about that at all. all it does is notify the federal government, here's someone who is here illegally, here's someone who is removable. the discretion to prosecute for federal immigration offenses rests entirely with the attorney general. general verrilli: that's correct, but with respect to and let me address something fundamental about section 2. that is true, but i think it doesn't get at the heart of the problem here. section 1 of this statute says that sections 2 and 3 and 5 are supposed to work together to achieve this policy of attrition through enforcement. and so what section 2 does is identify a population that the state of arizona is going to prosecute under section 3 and sect5.