it is not a fertile ground for pre-emption. there are cases that find pre- emption even in those circumstances, the cases that the government is forced to rely on -- >> would double prosecutions -- in prosecuted under federal law for violating the terms of -- could the states prosecute them owls welle? >> igood. if the wallace a priority -- if that was a priority to youth, but this court has confronted that argument were you have the statute of california that prohibited someone operating without a license. you have to let the fence in force of law. this court rejected that argument you're a good -- that argument. >> congress enacted a complete registration scheme, which the states cannot complement, so i do not see the alien registration as a question of pre-emption that when we want where registration scheme to be federal. >> that is part of why we exempted the characteristic of language, because while the court actually states what its holding is, it states in terms of obstacle preemption, and here is where there is a critic

the pre-emption issue is the same argument, the open border crowd is using.

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

it was clear they thought the justice department was overreaching and that the -- pre-emption was there. -- sonya sotomayor. i thought it was a clear victory. i think we will been a minimum of a 5-3 and maybe even greater on some of these things. [inaudible] >> [inaudible] it has been political sound bites and that's why they never raised it. thanks for coming. it's a great day. >> i am tom. we filed on behalf of the author of 1070, the second brief was on behalf of state legislators from 20 states who wanted their voices heard in support of 1070, and the court hearing went very well. looks like to us the majority of the court uphold key provisions. the obama administration has run away from its earlier incendiary rhetoric suggesting this is about racial profiling. it's clear to me this is a political lawsuit, that the administration says this lock conflicts with its political parties and has to be thrown out by the court. but that is not to the way our constitution works or how our federal system works. the court will rule in favor of 1070, at least. the provisions least that thank you

pre-emption asked if there is a conflict between federal law and state law. the state law uses the exact praises of federal law and merely mirrors federal law. there is no way the rest of the provisions of the areas of law -- it was a good day for arizona. it was a good day for the u.s. constitution and a very bad day for the administration. >> thank you. first of all, i want to applaud team arizona, led by our quarterback, jan brewer. this shows a team effort in regard to identify the problem and coming up with a solution. what we have to look at is we are tired of the fear tactic techniques. more than two out of every three americans actually endorse arizona's immigration law. we saw that today. we also see bad behavior from the department of justice. i hope america overseas and hold them accountable for all of that. today was a good day for arizona and a good day for the constitution. i would like to introduce two of my colleagues. >> having actually been in the state legislature, this is not a new battle par arizona. what is new is the absurdity of many o

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

in florida and it's getting worse because the nra has introduced a new law, called a firearm pre-emption law that made it illegal to create new laws and preventing people from posting anything about guns. you can't post a sign any place in florida, and you want to talk to the people that are mad, talk to the people that raise cattle and horses and they can tell you what kind of a problem that is. that will reverberate to the next legislative session. >> i think the consensus, i would think, from this entire panel, is that the democrats are weak when it comes to gun laws and gun control and gun issues. >> you're not going to find many democrats who would oppose people being able to possess a firearm. we recognize the second amendment. it gives the right to americans to hold a firearm. but the question is, which americans? should it be convicted felons? should it be child molesters? can they be restricted? can domestic violence perpetrators be restricted in their ability to possess a firearm? what are reasonable regulations. and the thing is, the nra opposes any and all legislation, includ

that is part of the federal pre-emption argument. that is not a separate racial profiling argument. the supreme court has been very clear the federal immigration law is exclusive to the federal government and that's to protect against the harassment of law abiding citizens, lawfully permanent residents, and others. this is not a nation where we're required to carry identification as we're walking down the street. if i accidently drop something on the ground and i am cited for littering, i don't have any identification to prove my status, i very well may be detained while an officer attempts to investigate my immigration status and as we heard during the argument today it takes at minimum 70 minutes and an additional 10 minutes to run the first check. >> maria, a lot of talk about whether or not this will energize the base for the president if the supreme court sees this as an appropriate law, a law that is within the guidelines here. whether you look at some of the numbers last year alone, nearly 400,000 people were deported. it is a record high. at the same time the administration

there has never been a pre- emption. it has always been a collaborative effort to secure this nation. that should always be our priority -- the rule of law, dignified, compassionate, respectful, but not apologetic for enforcing our laws, securing our borders. >> i appreciate that. i want to give you the opportunity to state your case, because obviously you are out- numbered here. >> that is years away the case. >> i do want to ask the question, if the border were completely secure, and the government could agree that we could show that no new people were crossing the border, you would still want sb-1070 to be in effect people that were already here would leave, were apprehended, were deported. >> let me give you the answer. again, we are a generous nation. we allow more people in this country than any other developed nation, but yes, the laws must be enforced. there ought to still be arrests and deportations. the largest gangs might not be illegal aliens. the kidnappers, the drug smugglers -- you can not carve out a litt

there has never been a pre- emption.has always been a collaborative effort between local law enforcement and the feds to secure this nation. the should always be our priority. it is the rule law, dignified, compassionate, respectful, and not apologetic for enforcing our laws and securing our borders. >> i appreciate that and give you the opportunity to present your full case, because obviously you are outnumbered your picnics that is usually the case, mr. chairman. >> i do want to ask the question again, if the border were completely secure, if the government could show we would all agree that no new people are crossing the border, however was, as, you would still want sb 1070 to remain in effect so that people who are already here without status would leave or be apprehended and deported. is that right? >> i am going to be difficult. >> give me your answer to that question. >> we have more people in this country than any other developed nation. yes, the laws must be enforced. with that number you talked about, there oug

the pre-emption issue is the same argument. the misinformation, tourism is up in arizona. with cannot retreat from this. i love my country. i love and respect those that come here. many of those who do not come here lately are not that people. some of the people. those laws must be honored. >> he had a statement thinking that this was political theater and not meant to be productive hearing. what do you say to that as >> i do not entirely disagree. we knew it was mostly politics. he can run this bill. it was a popular bill supported across america. it was supported across america. i do not think he can get it heard in the house. >> was it worth their while to come on here today? >> i came here. absolutely. even though we are here, it is important that i come here and represent the state. >> even though they're only two senators up there, do you think it was productive? it to be shown in the media. i hope that they cover it well. >> what is your message to them faxed you want to see them leave the country. >> my heart goes out to them. no blanket policy. i am not apologizin

conflict pre-emption has a conflict. the state law here is the exact phrase of federal law in nearly mayoress a federal law. there is no way that the provisions are going to be pre- empted after this oral arguments. it is a good day for arizona. it is a good date for the u.s. constitution. >> thank you so much. i want to applaud governor jan brewer. wher this is a team effort in terms of finding a solution. i think america resonates that. two out of every three americans endorse arizonas immigration law. we saw that today. we also see bad behavior from the department of justice. i hope america wholesome accountable. i would like to introduce to my colleagues. then we will take your questions. >> having actually been in the state legislature, this is not a new battle for arizona. what is new is the absurdity of many of those opposing it and what they're willing to say. you have someone opposition standing behind these microphones to claims to be a lawyer making up a scenario that could not happen under this law. one of my

that is not necessarily a pre- emption issue. what this caller raised was the problem the federal government is not enforcing its own law. that raises the question. does the state have the power to enforce the law? in the oral argument this week, that is exactly the issue that came up. does the state have to remain disarmed so to speak to protect its own citizens if the federal government is not doing so? none of this has anything to do with the substance of the immigration policy. i would probably join mike in saying our substantive immigration law leaves much to be desired and we need something like worker provisions to have itinerant workers coming in for agriculture and so forth. the issue under the 10th amendment is one of concurrent enforcement. host: back to the phones, louis, missouri, scott is on the line for republicans. caller: i know we're talking about states' rights. the supreme court justices views regarding states' rights and the rights of the federal government to step in, what are your thoughts? guest: is little

are pre-empted from enacting their own employment verification laws and penalties, a federal pre-emptionf employment verification loss has been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce and many other business groups and trade associations. i hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort, in the event it becomes necessary, which i hope and belief it will not, because i believe the supreme court will decide that this law is not constitutional. based on the evidence that is on one side. i now look forward to hearing from our panel. i turn it over to senator byrd and. >> thank you for calling this hearing of the immigration subcommittee. on the question of the arizona immigration law. i join you and hoping that the supreme court finds it unconstitutional. under our constitution, states to not have the right to pass their own laws preventing federal laws on immigration. it is wrong. it is counterproductive. decriminalize people because of their status, their immigration status. law-enforcement, incidently, does not have the time or resources to prosecute or incarcer

pre-emption asked if there is a conflict between federal law and state law.he state law uses the exact praises of federal law and merely mirrors federal law. there is no way the rest of the provisions of the errors of law -- of the areas of law -- it was a good day for arizona. it was a good day for the u.s. constitution and a very bad day for the administration. >> thank you. first of all, i want to applaud -- team arizona, led by our quarterback, jan brewer. this shows a team effort in regard to identify the problem and coming up with a solution. what we have to look at is we are tired of the fear tactic techniques. more than two out of every three americans actually endorse arizona's immigration law. we saw that today. we also see bad behavior from the department of justice. i hope america overseas and hold them accountable for all of that. today was a good day for arizona and a good day for the constitution. i would like to introduce two of my colleagues. >> having actually been in the state legislature, this is not a new battle par arizona. what is new i