agencies. every single organization that represents boots on the ground supported sb-1070, and worked with me to make sure that we created the kind of exceptions they could make when doing their jobs -- doing their jobs when necessary. we did not regulate. that is an exclusive responsibility of the federal government. i agree with you, mr. chairman. he enforcement has never been exclusive responsibility. if we do not hear this about drug laws, gun laws, a bank robbery, or other federal crimes we and 4 cents a daily basis. if congress wanted to -- and force on a daily basis. congress has never done that. 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 little section. >> i appreciate that, but your answer is yes. >> yes. >> ok. in trying to promote self- deportation, do you make distinctions if the person has been in america for 20 years, has u.s. citizen children, or is brought here as a minor? >> federal law does not make any distinction. that is a relative of -- regulatory function. >> do you believe that many national political leaders agree with the policy of self- deportation, or do you have a minority the of -- review? >> i have a majority 73% supported sb-1070. it is still, by far, the majority in favor. 34 states have had contact with have indicated their desire to test. >> you believe it is the mature -- majority opinion of your party and the country. >> by far, my party, but the majority opinion of america, from coast-to-coast. >> i want to talk about racial profiling. many critics say is unconstitutional. i want to try to break down the law step-by-step with you, to understand your thought process. you are the author. nobody knows this better than you. first, to be clear, as you said, to sever all its, "you know why sb-10 was britain, there is nobody better -- was written, there is nobody better to explain this." is that accurate? >> yes. >> let me go to the section sb- 3. i want to show you a blowup of the training factor. i will highlight the view. -- a few. it says dress, demeanor. >> the one that raises my curiosity, is dressed. what does an illegal immigrant dress like? >> they worked in cooperation with ice to develop a profile. >> explain to me, do you think dress is appropriate? >> this is training material, not part of the bill. >> from the arizona police. >> right, not a part of the bill. >> do you think dressed is an appropriate measure? it is not inappropriate, what does any legal immigrant dress like? >> mr. chairman, when you train a police officer, i have been in this business for a long time. it is a constellation of issues that raise the level to suspicion of probable cause. it is not any one thing. this is a list of things that lead you to ask questions. i know questions are a dangerous thing. >> sometimes questions are a dangerous thing because they lead to profiling. in your experience, you have lived in arizona your whole life, i believe? >> yes, sir. >> due to legal immigrants dress differently? >> i do not want to be confrontational, but i want to tell you this is a list of things to look for. they are trained by ice. this was ice training. if i am responding to a bank robbery, and i have a description biradial of all white male, average height, white t-shirt, dark pants, and i see a white male, dark pants, i stop them, and i have a pretty good reason to rescue questions. when i find out he is not the guy, he gets released. you have to respond to reasonable suspicion to do your job, mr. chairman. this is just a list look for. >> i do not believe ice sanctioned the word dress. let me ask you this question, instead of going through these criteria, and other criteria, why did you just not say, and again, this is the arizona police, not your criteria, but why did you not just say that everyone who was stopped by police has to be checked for in legal immigration status? why you require the police to have opinions about whether the person is an illegal immigrant first? doesn't the way you wrote the law either require were certainly and dave towards racial profiling? -- invade towards racial profiling? >> under the u.s. constitution, we have the equal protection clause. i knew those issues would be raised by open-border folks that are against any enforcement. we have been sued and everything we've done to of voter fraud, to go after a legal employers. no matter what we do, we are attacked for simply enforcing the law and trying to protect american citizens and jobs for americans. we knew these questions would be asked. we simply wrote the bill to preempt those arguments in trying to protect their rights. as a civil libertarian, i'm a believer that you have to do a reason to do something. that is why the bill was written >> let me ask you again, why would it not have done just what you say, rules of law, and not discriminate, why would it not be better to say that everyone stopped by the police should be checked in? you have seen in the regulations that it is problematic. >> we made the proper exceptions. if you have an arizona driver's license, the requires proof of citizenship, you are automatically exempt. all we wanted to do in the bill is common sense. we teach officers to have common sense, respond to reasonable suspicion. i do not want to hold a family up while i'm asking silly questions if there is no reason. this was based on reasonableness, mr. chairman. >> i guess many would disagree with that, including some of the panel. let me ask you something about miners. what documentation is a minor supposed to show the police officer to prove he or she is a u.s. citizen? >> it is different for minors. if you are an adult, you are required to have your identification with you at all times. again, reasonable -- if there is not a reason to s, officers are not going to test. >> there is a car driving, a minor is in the back seat. the law of lyle is it allows the children to be checked, right? >> -- the law allows children to be checked, right? >> at a certain age. >> there is no age. if all children should be checked, what are the children supposed to show? >> if they do not have identification, did not have to show anything. andre not required to show identification. >> you think under this law children, to prevent themselves from being sent to a detention center or whatever would have to have some type of id. >> mr. chairman, that is not accurate. you're taking the extreme, and i understand tried to make the point, but it is just not so. >> does the loss they children do not have to be checked? i understand the law says -- does a loss as the -- does block say the children do not have to be checked? >> it is based on circumstances at the time. i think it is demeaning to law- enforcement to assume they do not know how to do their job in a respectful, proper way. >> by want to go to demeaning to law enforcement. i am just going to submit the statute, and it does not list any exceptions. it is not -- >> it is modeled after federal law. >> there are no exceptions here. i did not believe this is consistent with federal law. >> it is consistent with federal law, mr. chairman pierre >> let's go to demeaning police. -- mr. chairman. >> let's go to demeaning police -- does your log not permit any citizen of arizona to sue error ag any police officer who -- and a police officer who refuses to act for identification? >> it does not allow them to sue any individual law enforcement water -- officer. the discretion has allowed the officer of -- >> there is a right. >> law enforcement has qualified immunity under the bill because we knew they would be sued when they do or they do not. in the founding document, we still believe in we, the people. we gave them the ability sued their agency, if they fail, have a policy that limits, or restrict the enforcement of the laws. yes, we do give citizens the right. >> here, it says any person that is a legal resident may bring a judicial action in superior court to challenge any official or agency, not just the agency, but any official, of this state, or county, were city, or town, or any other political subdivision that adopts or implements a policy that limits -- limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration law. john smith has -- could decide that officer jones has adopted a policy of not stopping the right people, and sue. that would be inequitable case. i just want to guess you this, is there any other statute in arizona that you are aware of that allows citizens to sue for not enforcing a law? >> i have not come across any. i would state for the record i have not seen any. i will ask you this and then let you respond, why was this law single out to allow the section? is that not demeaning to police officers beck's -- officers? one other question -- will that not push them to do things to protect themselves from losses that they believe they should not do? >> law enforcement set down with me to write that section, mr. chairman. the official was interpreted as a monday meeting in a capacity to set policy. that is why it has qualified immunity. law enforcement and attorneys said down as we decided and mauled over the language. that was put in by them, but comfortable language they felt gave the officers the protection they need to have discretion, and language that was more compelling to the city. stationary posses are illegal. it is illegal to have a policy that limits or restrictions the enforcement of these laws. not only our states not pre- empted, they are pre-empted from having a policy that pre-empts them under federal law. that is what this is about. making sure they do their jobs. taking the handcuffs off of them. we gave them qualified immunity. it gives the citizens to receive the right to hold -- to hold them accountable. >> the average citizen with no experience as they are not enforcing the law -- that is a contradiction. i'm curious as to why on this particular law, you wrote in that provision when it does not exist, i do not think, in any other eras of the statutes, certainly not in the vast majority of law enforcement statutes. as someone who has been a pro- police person, the last thing they like is to be sued by citizens supplementing their own government. >> they helped to write it. that was the language they were comfortable with. we sat down with attorneys and associations and wrote language to make them comfortable. mr. chairman, this whole thing, when you talk about no other bill, i do not know of any other arizona state law that requires me to defend the rule of law. i have not been here to defend tough dui laws or the human smuggling laws. we had to be very careful we knew we would be challenged for simply trying to enforce our laws to protect citizens and jobs for americans. >> thank you. i do not see how would protect police or protect you from being criticized if it allows citizens to sue the police because in their judgment to did not and force it. >> -- enforce it. >> mr. chairman, only four sections have been joined. we have not had -- one lawsuit. it has not happened carob -- happened. the policies have been eliminated. >> if it goes back into effect, you will see citizens still. >> that is not correct. the first section says he will not have the law the inhibits these laws to the slightest degree. there must be some compliance pierre >> let me go to one final area of questions -- compliance. >> let me go to one final area of questions. there's another chart i want to put up behind me. do you know how many forms of identification exist today that can be shown to crew lawful status in the united states by federal law? >> i do not know the exact number. >> i did not either, so do not feel bad about that, but there are 53. the answer is there are at least 53 documents that the department of homeland security says will prove lawful status. again, i will show you -- i will not have to be the mall. there is a lot of them. now, i will show you the training manuals. it says the only documents are much more limited. >> so, there are just eight documents. now, according to law, and immigrant shows any of these other 45 other valid documents, they have to be taken to a ice facility to have their immigration status determined by an official, or wait on the side of the road before they can be released. is that correct? >> it is not quite correct. there is a 24/7, bettis set up. it is usually a five-minute phone call to a ice agent. it is a five-minute conversation usually on the telephone. >> i just want to submit for the record a statute of the police training manual. it reasonable suspicion exists and is practical, call ictv or an officer to determine the immigration status. you rae not -- are not helping federal law enforcement. if you are doing what you say you are doing, you would say the police officer if they sell any one of these documents should be able to say that is a good idea and go on your way. what arizona does is to restrict the federal law and substitute its own judgment. isn't that correct? >> that is not correct. they have a hot line. these are guidelines. as you notice, this is a 24/7 line. >> why can they have some and not some others? isn't helping the federal government? quite 6 simply gives them guidelines that are acceptable. any other questions you call the officer again. i will repeat myself. it is a five minute conversation. it happens every day of the week. >> they have to be brought to detain its appearance on mss to look at it. >> that is at officer discretion. >> thanks. >> i have a few more questions for the other witnesses. >> let me start if i might. it is an agency in chicago called los mujere latinos en action. it is established in the hispanic neighborhood of chicago as a domestic violence shelter primarily for new immigrants and for the undocumented. if women and children were the victims of violence, they have a safe place to go. someone who would listen to them, counsel them, and refer them to law enforcement. perhaps a has been has been abusive to the mother. i supported them. i don't think anyone wants to see that happen. we talk about the impact of this law. it is on people living in arizona. could you tell me your opinion as to whether or not this law makes easier or harder for an undocumented mother to come forward to and to report to law enforcement domestic violence or the abuse of her children? >> yes. the bill has that even been fully enforced. there are still portions that have not been acted on. the portion dealing with local law enforcement forcing them to do immigration law, and a quick comment, first lawsuit filed against the bill was a phoenix police officer. thee talking an officer on street to came forward to file a lawsuit against the bill. the law that is placed between law enforcement and the latino community is there. it has not even gone into effect. you have a situation who are in the situation who are too fearful to go into law enforcement. we are already feeling the consequences. there are reports after reports of situations who are in a relationship. they are for the most part held hostage by their own home. there are the seeing this barrier. did you have any law enforcement officer, and they will tell you the number way for them to solve a crime is working work closely with the community. they are reporting these kinds of crimes. they put this between law enforcement and the latino community. they're too fearful to go to police to ask for help because the fear of one being deported. this is their big concern. >> there is a reasonable suspicion that they are on undocumented status. here is a mother, perhaps with a child as a victim of child abuse or worse, who is fearful to come to the law to protect yourself or her child because of this. >> this is exactly why the governor denied it. they cannot just denied the very bill. this is a very polarizing since. there are victims of crime that is really hurting these victims. it is unfortunate particularly in the case of domestic violence for you have women who are just held hostage. did they are in terrifying situations. now have a bill that has not been fully enacted. it is already crating this huge thing. >> you publish something in may did they are in terrifying situations. now have a bill that has not been fully enacted. it is already crating this huge thing. >> you publish something in may 24 if. it was entitled warning the nightmarish dream act was backed. it was on the letterhead. it was a link the peace. this was the title of it. you suggest that they talk about those who would be eligible as on shouldn't and so forth. he went on to say they never showed the tens of thousands of criminal drug dealers and traffickers and gangsters who were caught in some back over the border each year only to return time and time again. help me stop the green act. have you read it? >> which version? >> it has changed. there has been one consistent theme throughout. people with a serious criminal record will never be eligible. there's never been a version of the bill that would allow anyone guilty of being criminal human trafficker or gangster be allowed into the united states. do you disagree with that? >> i do. >> not all those our convictions. arizona has voted 75% to not allow it. >> i am asking you whether a person who has been convicted of drug dealing is eligible? >> they probably would not be eligible for the dream act. i do oppose the dream act. these are always difficult issues. all of us have a horse and have compassion. >> if you were speeding down the highway and had your infant in a car seat, you were pulled over, should that hit the ticket, it to? analogy't follow that at all. >> it does not happen. >> it happens when an infant is brought to the united states and the parents still filed the papers. the infant did nothing wrong. and they now want a chance to reach legal status. you're saying because the parents did not file the papers not a child suffers? >> you need to blame those responsible and not us for having to do the laws. i have met with a bunch of them. i do not know how you carve this out. it is a blanket amnesty for those folks. these ought to be carefully executed exceptions. >> the dream act is not a blanket amnesty. you have to earn your way into status. let me introduce you to another one and your neighbors. a light to get to know him a little bit. his name is oscar vasquez. he grew up in your home state. he spent his high school years in junior rotc. he entered a competition sponsored by nasa and was competing against tenants from mit. 2009, he graduated from arizona state university in engineering. he was one of the top three students in his class. let me tell you what happened after he graduated and realized it could not be licensed as an engineer. he is undocumented. he has no legal status in this country. he went back to mexico. while he was in mexico, at the obama administration granted him to enter the united sta