skilled jobs is for short-term seasonal work in agriculture or resorts and go for summer and back. for people who are looking -- to have what they considered dire economic situations and employers don't want to hire them. there is no legal way to do that under the current system. the best they could hope for is that they have relatives here and sponsor them in five or six or ten years depending on the category they might coming to the country legally but for all practical purposes there is not a line for people to get into. there hasn't been some past kato research on this issue and i won't get into all the economic analysis but essentially the previous research showed that if you were able to have a system

where people came in legally, versus the regime we have to they or a tighter regime of tighter border enforcement, the net wealth benefit for u.s. households would be a $260 billion difference each year. when you say it will be easier and more likely for people to earn higher wages and have more tax payment combined with the idea that you will have people who come in legally versus enforcement and having greater net wealth for benefit for the united states, you see the arguments that harming taxpayers is not a real realistic argument in this case. related to this, this touches on taxes and a moral argument, the

new legalized immigrants will burden the welfare rolls. the second argument that is addressed in the paper. we don't really see this is the problem people think it is. it is very difficult when you come into the country legally, we make exception for refugees, if you are 5 years in the country before you are eligible to have access to several tested -- what we would call welfare programs. to the extent that it was an issue before 1996, we saw -- statistics show a bit of a decrease in welfare use after 96. today when for u.s. citizens, for the main cash program, for u.s. citizens it is essentially

1% individuals that use taniff which is the cash welfare program. it is the same for non citizens as well. food stamps, very similar, 7.7% for natives and 6.2% for non-citizens and 3.9% for naturalized citizens and this is from the house ways and means committee. it is possible some states have more generous policies although the date on migration does not show that immigrants are more likely to fall into those states and it is also possible for a family with an immigrant in the household to have a native born child who would be eligible for benefits. that would complete the picture that it is possible for other

people to get benefits through the youth was -- u.s.-born travel. the u. s native born child is hard to have a calculation that is fair if you will only count the cost of a child when the child is young but not count their tax contributions when they grow up and start being contributors. i don't know about you but i think most of us were trained by our parents when we were young. when you do a calculation that only looks at kids as cost, not count them as contributors to society when they are adults, that will be misleading as well. that gets into the issue where our social security system is structured, that new workers are hugely important to helping fund our social security system. the third argument is amnesty

will be get more amnesty. by allowing people to gain legal status, that will encourage us endless flow of illegal immigration. the 1986 act, what happened was eventually illegal immigration came back relatively quickly. there are two issues with that. there has been some research that looked at this issue, economists looked at this, did not see a discernible difference in illegal entry before and after the 1986 act. main issue is the failure of the 1986 act wasn't offered amnesty. the reason illegal immigration increased was there was no legal way put in place for people to

come in and work particularly at lower skilled jobs. what you end up doing was put in harsher enforcement penalties and started some of the increases, but you didn't allow a more marked earning intelligent way of dealing with illegal entry which was to have ways for people to work legally. related to this argument is the question of what would constitute amnesty. amnesty would be you don't have any obligations. ways to structure legislation to put obligations on people, legislation of agricultural workers requires a certain amount of work in a quasi temporary status for a number of years. in addition, other legislations

require fines that would have to be paid. it goes beyond difficult when there are such things as tax amnesty and other things generally speaking, you do not necessarily have fines. people may want to say that no matter what they are going to accept the fact the someone should be allowed once illegal status should be allowed legal status but that is not -- that is not necessarily the way we work in the united states then there is no way for people to have some type of correction. it would really benefit the country, particularly a system where you allow a lot more people to come in and work legally which would have a lot of benefit in terms of decreasing illegal immigration and helping security because you

are able to focus more on actual threats at the border. another argument that is made is legalizing or in many more workers will undermine your culture and the english language. the basic response is we really don't see when you look at the children of immigrants that they are not learning english. by the third generation you're looking at 97% of hispanic immigrants who speak well or pretty well. there have been surveys done of hispanic immigrants, important to learn english in order to get along in the united states. it is well over 90% say that it is more important to learn english than to be retaining your spanish language. other research has showed one of the potential problems happening

with how strong an american influence our culture has is by third-generation, who would actually benefit from retaining their native language? they end up losing it and are not able to speak it. it would be beneficial given that they would be able to retain that language given the global nature of our economy. the final argument more than 100 years argument that when he let more people in that will mean more unemployment for native-born people. we haven't seen that. at the state level, it shows there is no correlation between increased emigration at the state level and unemployment rates overall. same at the federal level. we just don't see it.

the reason is there's not a fixed number of jobs. someone is a new entry to the labor force, or high school or college graduate, they are going to become employed, spend money from their salary, there is entrepreneurship where immigrants are likely to create new businesses and that creates other jobs as well and other pitches in the economy which is likely to increase productivity which is something the of bonnie perry and others see in productivity from immigration. we don't see that by letting

more people in legally or having some political compromise where people are already here that that would be an increase in unemployment. a short physics quiz since we have leading experts on government sitting in the audience here. i will ask a quick multiple choice questions together here for people. if a government program is ineffective and unsuccessful, what normally happens to that program? is the answer a, funding is decrease for that program. believes answer be, the program is eliminated, or is the answer see, the program in thaw

increased dramatically? it is answer see. there are several border patrol agents. 1994 there are 4,000 border patrol agents. by 2,000 there are 9,000 border patrol agents. anyone know the figures today? 20,000 border patrol agents. funding and immigration enforcement essentially doubled since 2004. what we see is for current policy has not been effective. what we see again is the answer has not been to try something different which is to have a legal evolve for people to work legally. just keep spending more and more money on the same thing.

i hope some of the facts presented in the paper help us continue on a path where we can think about no longer having a policy where we just keep spending more money on the same policy. thank you. [applause] >> i am dennis frank sharry with american voice. stuart has done a capable and admirable job laying out the facts on this the date. he is one of the top thinkers and researchers and policymakers, complex area for many years and i have to say it is nice to be working with the cato institute. it is nice to see dan griswald

who works on trade and immigration studies and has done some brilliant writing and research on this. back in the day comprehensive immigration reform with a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006 when the so called mccain kennedy bill got 23 republican senators to vote for it. just to give you a slight contrast in december of last year when a small measure called the dream act was presented only three republican senators voted for it. there has been a real shift. i am more firmly planted on the left because of you who don't know who are trying to place me, to come clean. i sometimes thanks i didn't leave bipartisanship, it left me. i would like to get back to a place where we are trying to figure out because ultimately the populists on the right and left are not a majority and

there is a sensible compromise approach that could solve the problem and end illegal immigration. one of the reasons the facts don't always penetrate this debate is there is a different fundamental diagnosis of the problem. many of us who support immigration reform see immigrants as decent people who are trying to make better lives for their families and add value and growth to america and others see immigrants the original particularly those who enter the united states or and the the united states illegally as bad people. right from the start, good people suggesting to a bad system or is it basically bad people subjected to sacred law? i am big on the rule of law. don't get me wrong. i am so big on the will of the law that i am glad our founding fathers created legislature to change laws. when they are no longer working.

that is what those of us who support comprehensive immigration reform want to see happen. congress will fill constitutional responsibility to modernize our immigration system so that it works better in our national self-interest. we have a different diagnosis. bad people, sacred law crowd, says what we need to do is build more fences, put more government resources into enforcement. the idea is to the eleven million unauthorized immigrants in the united states, the only solution can be that they go home. get picked up and deported or self deport. the name given to this strategy is called patrician to enforcement. the head of the house judiciary committee says he is for that. we will see a big debate in this

congress over mandatory e verify which is a technical term for firing as many unauthorized workers as possible and hope they pick up and go home. we will see more strategy being debated in this congress. there are others who view it differently. i may be of the left but i am a free-market democrat. i believe in free markets. i see the labor migration from south of the border to the united states for the last hundred years and did has picked up with intensity. i am a realist about this. hundred years ago, it was a migration from the rural south to the industrializing north. that was one of the great labor migrations of the last couple hundred years. the same phenomenon has been happening in the last 25 years. the recession has slowed down but it will pick up again when growth picks up and people from the rural south of the border coming to immigrant states in the south and mountain west in

particular as well as the traditional gateway cities looking for better opportunities. mecklenburg county where charlotte, north carolina is. their unemployment rate was 3%. nine of ten new workers in north carolina where mexican. do you know how many of them came legally? very few. do you know how many could have come legally? very few. there was no line to get into. there were jobs for planning in charlotte during the construction boom. the chamber of commerce didn't include this dirty little secret. the fact is that everyone in town knew what was happening. that is called supply and demand. the only sucking sound we have heard in the last 25 years has bringing workers to jobs in the united states because they were available and obviously that has changed with the great recession.

this is a temporary bump in a 100 years story of people moving to opportunity. the question is for us not how do we stop a process which leads to more workers, more consumers, higher wages, how do we regulate that? this is where my democratic instincts kicked in. how the regulate it in a way that it is controlled and orderly and you take off the rough edges of the. i am not for open borders. i am for controlled orderly emigration that serves the national interest. here is the show is policymakers have given the reality and the fact we have eleven million unauthorized immigrants in the united states, given the fact that 70% of them live in families and 66% have been here for more than a decade. this is not a bunch of folks who showed up last week hanging out on street corners although there are those folks. this is mostly a family based

hard-working community. now what? now what? if the goal we can all agree on is to end illegal immigration than what is the best solution? the attrition to enforcement folks say if we just ramp up enforcement as we have for the last 20 years, another ten or 20 years we will rid ourselves of these people. we will pick up and go home if we don't deport them. others say we have a different approach. why don't we use enforcement that the border, use enforcement against illegal hiring and open hire legal channels for workers who want to come on a temporary or permanent basis and deal realistically and humanely with noncriminal unauthorized immigrants who are rooted in american society. that is comprehensive immigration reform. it is both. it is enforcement and legal

channels so that we create a legal system and end the black market of migration. it serves only the smugglers and bad actor employers and folks who break the law and bring it under a regulatory regime and make sure there is a line people coming to with the same labor rights as any other worker undercut by unscrupulous subcontractors and add to the taxpayers. a legal system that grows the economy that is fair and creates greater growth. people say you guys are open borders, wait a minute. you think the other guys who think we will drive eleven million hard-working people who have been here for most of them longer than a decade, you think that is realistic? you think that will end illegal immigration will drive people further underground? proponents of the arizona lost a people left arizona. do you know where where they

went? you talutah! is not a free pass. they have to pass a background check but they can work here illegally because they are valuable contributors. that is what we are against. it is a highly charged issue as you know but i think inevitably comprehensive immigration reform will become the law of the land at some time. i wanted to happen in 2003-2007 when george w. bush that what political capital he had left on his last great fight. are still think he is a hero for doing it even though he is not my kind of president but he had the guts to do it.

it will take what it takes but i am convinced the forces that are driving this phenomenon are going to lead to reform. demographic, economic and political forces will lead to reform. we have an aging society because immigrants want to come here. we have a population that is sustained. in china, italy, germany they're having debate. young couple are not having babies. what do we do? in china they want to have babies. they are just told not to. so demographically, emigration is a lifeblood to america and one of our competitive assets going forward. economically, i know people love to think about the stack high. but as stuart points out so brilliantly we live in a dynamic economy. there is a reason why we attract

indian high tech workers and mexican low-skilled workers. they complement rather than substitute for american workers. they add to the dynamism and creativity and growth of american society. think of all the people in my generation. a married couple with postgraduate degrees who have an army of immigrants making their two income lifestyle possible. that is -- an example of the complementarity we see in so many ways. finally politically. i used to get criticized on the left a lot thaw for being supportive of a policy that might make john mccain the next president and george bush a hero for latinos for a generation. i wish i was still getting criticized on the left for being

willing to do that because it is just the other way. the republican party is committing slow-motion political suicide by alienating the fastest growing group of new voters. latinos are we often talk about but it is them and south asian and caribbean and african and folks in the middle east. republican party under george w. bush was fabulously competitive with those ethnic and immigrant communities and now it is not. now it is not. not the democrats' current the vote by any stretch. don't get me started on that. but republicans keep pushing them away. the democrats job is very easy. i think the republican party will come back to the free market principles, will realize immigration properly regulated serves our interests economically and politically it is smarter to reach out and compete for both rather than make those people know you'd

want to send their love one's home. that is my hope. if you are with me on this let's try to make it happen in a matter of years, not decades. [applause] >> thank you so much. we have time for questions from the audience if you have questions. ahead. >> mr. sharry vigorously mentioned high tech workers. any foreign actor and assets in the united states that never done anything illegally? >> yes. >> you worked in the field and on the streets with many illegal

immigrants, some people from other countries and keep hearing that you can find when it comes to low-level loves you talked about, educated people in this country to work for him. you look at the cultural issues involved with the mexican and latinos working on farms. there is a cultural issue in this country for the black community to do the work that low-level work won't do because it is slavery. i learned that from people worked with. my question is -- i have a feeling about this because the lot of those they do get some

welfare. they have their kids and work hard. they're not legal. their kids getting food stamps, medicaid, that is part of the equation. i think that the law of regulation or whatever you want to call it, bill gates says i can't find people who work for me. he gets them over with a green card. it is lower level folks who come here and we sent back to the border and they are hard working. what would you do. you mentioned utah of a dish to make this happen? >> something we didn't get into

the 4, we talked about how illegal emigration policies -- we have seen the number of illegal immigrants increase from four million more than a decade ago to 10 or eleven million. we have seen a drop in the recent recession, recent numbers from q stabilized. what happened is when we increase the border patrol and other assets it hasn't been totally ineffective. that would be misleading. there has been effect but it has raised the cost entry and by raising the cost entry once people make it across the border they make a calculation about do i want to go back and forth like they used to years before, work for a while, and some money and go home, or am i going to stay here and try because i am more

likely to get caught for their 300 deaths a year crossing the united states, so what we really did with our policies inadvertently is create much more of a temporary or circular file and make a more permanent group of people which is why use on numbers go from four million to ten million. some of the things you are talking about, lee's future people would be much more interested in a legal way to work for period of time and go back. you wouldn't see any benefits attached to this temporary work. there would be some way to get permanent status. to sponsor them in some way.

a lot of the issues this sort of circular -- it is a sort of left/right compromise where democrats are more interested in dealing with people already here and some republicans in the past, particularly have been more interested in preventing future illegal immigration have some kind of to buri visa regime. it hasn't progressed past that. [talking over each other] >> utah has passed this. is a way for the obama

administration -- a wide scale deferred action in which they say we won't prosecute people -- [inaudible] >> no question. stewart does groundbreaking research on largely discredited program. the program worked to have a legal and orderly flow. the workers keep coming. the origins in our generation, illegal immigration, academic

sojourners. some of the sojourners become settlers. just different people at different stages. start a business back home, might be married or have a kid and start to settle. and we do so in a way that would be regulated but at the same time. we are going to have a debate on this progress. they rehire all the time. 90% of the work force in the perishable industry are

unauthorized workers. the fact is heverify, it will end up importing food and jobs. not just the jobs that are filled currently. of the three and four jobs related and filled by native-born workers or illegal immigrant workers, regions of the country being threatened by a house republican initiative based on the ideology we can force these people out of the country because anything left in that is branded the a word. that is very unfortunate. i hope this debate coming up will lift up the -- my friends in united farmworkers union started a project -- i am filibustering but i am worked up about this.

they started a program -- they were tired of hearing these immigrants are taking our jobs so a couple farmworker union members said in spanish at one of their meetings why don't we invite any american who wants to take our job to come take it and we will train them. they started a campaign called take our jobs. they had thousands of inquiries, so it got wide play. all the people who contacted them, seven native-born workers are doing those jobs. this is tough work and skilled work. i'm not saying americans can't do it but they don't want to. not so much a status thing as a paid thing. it is $16 an hour. living conditions are tough. we just have to get realistic

about the reality. we can drive agriculture out of business and out of the country but i don't know that is such -- if that is in our economic self-interest or security interest. >> there was a member of congress that used to work different job, maybe that program could be expanded for members of congress. [talking over each other] >> thanks for the presentation. there is solid base research and economics showing immigration is a benefit. a long series of benefits, it is cultural. and people are concerned

regardless if it is economically beneficial or not but there is concern among the american public which is reflected in the republican party and major concern about people from another place crossing and uncontrolled in ways people don't feel ready. i wonder what you thought about that and how you would address that? >> that is true. obviously for long period there are cultural issues one of the big dividing lines is legal versus illegal. i don't think people would have the same -- i don't think they do have the same possibility to have a system where people come in illegally versus what they see as people coming in illegally, and that is where a

lot of the possibilities are created. i don't think it is purely that they don't like the look of people. i think there -- i have seen some polling data, illegal immigration and 2-1 and the impact of legal immigrants on the state and california. it has happened more recently, maybe there's a culture element tied in to that. >> i used to think that but i am starting to worry how much culture is influencing and driving this debate. i am not talking about people who write those awful comments in newspaper articles, it is

more of a discomfort, i have been working this area for a long time. >> california had an interruption in the 1990s. it was just before the tipping point. now that it is past the chipping point, when you ask are you in favor of giving the path to citizenship is 90% over. it doesn't surprise me that we're getting close to that demographic tipping point. in the new immigrant states of the south, they're starting to have -- i do think -- i don't want to be that critical. there is a real fear that

something is being lost. you don't have kids growing up in america in immigrant households even if they don't speak a word of english saying anything but i am so embarrassed by my parents. they want to lose their spanish and if they keep it there lucky because they can talk to their mom and dad but outside with their friends and siblings they speak english. how could you not be? the reality is not one of cultural separatism, demands for bilingualism, ethnic separatist movement of any kind. quite the contrary. assimilation is alive and well but the fear is real. i am not sure how we address that.

the good news is that polling shows when immigrants first moved into an area of the negativity goes up and over time it goes down which suggests familiarity breeds community rather than contempt. i think affect immigration is a 50 state phenomenon rather than ten city phenomenon as it was a generation ago suggests we may go through tough times. this cultural aeneas --unease will lead to a sense of community that is not always easy but is often dynamic. >> along the same lines, a cultural thing from what i looked into it seems problems with illegal immigrants are the opposite problems that

immigrants themselves face. there are a lot of problems with high crime rates among illegal immigrants not among the immigrants themselves. it is investigated more and difficult to investigate but what exactly are they doing and how immigration reform impacts the way they grow up and live. i don't know if you have any comments on how immigration reform would change or just? >> that parents are more able to participate in society and earn higher wages will benefit the kids. >> there have been a significant number of crime studies showing

they are higher among immigrants for kids. there is a socioeconomic lack factor among latino immigrants in particular and the question is whether it taliban that the turn-of-the-century get resolved in three generations rather than one generation as it is for some other groups for not. gregory rodriguez shows through intermarriage and homeownership-we are optimistic based on the evidence but we see a fair number of folks in 1.5 generations and we see how they

turn out. >> you talked about utah-what about and crude -- and scribbles his businesses taking find and taxes? some people aren't even paid. >> let me answer your second question first. most employers are decent in america but there are bottom feeders who take advantage of workers and deliberately seek out immigrants without papers and pay off the books. they don't pay taxes and they undercut their decent competitors. two contractors bidding for a piece of work and one pays decent wages and benefits and the other doesn't and they can

underbid the other contractor in a way that is terribly unfair. we are for going after bad actor employers. in the context of reform we not only talk about bad actor employers but we want to reduce illegal hiring through employment verification but if you do that which is what the debate is going to be about, without legalizing the work force these people don't go home. they go underground. it makes all the situation is worse. less taxes. more unfair competition. more people on street corners and more unscrupulous contractors. lower wages. it makes a bad situation worse. go after bad employers, mandate employer and verification in the context of comprehensive reform and make sure the work force is legal and there's a legal challenge in the future. that is the fix that will put

immigration on a legal footing. we have been positive about it. if congress is going to be paralyzed i might just say i agree with president obama on this. we don't want a patchwork of different policies. if we have the status quo or worse in the next 20 years i might change my mind on that. you need authorizing legislation kind of welfare reform model if states have the authority. i don't see that happening and any attempt by states will get gummed up in the courts whether it is enforcement's or the legal chattel oriented work but i would like to see a ruby red states say we are going to do something different. we are going to helped with enforcement and legal channels in the future and keep families together and value our workers.

it is a state version of what we want from the federal version. at the very least it was a very strong message to both parties that your inaction in washington will lead to more of this unless you get off of your -- you know. >> one thing that would address what you are talking about in terms of exploitation is not in this paper but i have a book on immigration where i talk about a solution to possibly have a you as whipple as what -- you as/mexico bilateral agreement, mexico giving help bond enforcement at the border. the u.s. would set up a system of work permits with an annual total and those would be fully portable. someone had a work permit that allowed them to work any type of job. they have similar labor rights

to the rest of us and that is one of the best guardians of adopting -- if you don't like where you are working you can work somewhere else. >> i am from the state of arizona but i go to school in utah. you talked about going forward with immigration reform. but those that supported immigration reform, what do you think arizona should do now as a state rather than wait for the national status quo? >> i will let you take that. >> happy to tell arizona what to do. i have been telling them where to go for the last few years. i thought it was very interesting that the hard-liners in the state led by the head of the state senate, russell pearce, came up with the new

package of tough anti-immigration laws. what happened was the business community stood up and said are you crazy? 60 cbos wrote to every state republican legislator and said haven't we done enough to hurt our state? please cease and desist and they did. it was a remarkable turnabout because the economic impact has been quite severe. the loss of tourism and convention dollars has been estimated at $140 million in the past year. arizona was helped by controversial and unpopular. helped by the judicial decisions stopping most of them from going into effect. had it gone into effect the impact on arizona's reputation would have been worse. i do think at some point it would be wonderful if arizona would repeal it slaw but i don't expect that to happen. i think the courts will continue to stop most of the arizona law

from going into effect and other states who are looking at cost caps like georgia has. i sure wish that the state level would somehow urge members of congress to get in the game. in utah they have two senators, mike we and orrin hatch. or in hatch used to be one of our heroes. he was co-author of the dream act and voted against it last year because he is scared that he has a tough primary season coming up. he saw what happened to his colleague bob bennett. the mormon church is advocating strongly for said italy to get in the game. and he said no.

i think they say this is who we are the party and we do this. it is thaw populous tail wagging the free market dog and it is unfortunate. >> one of the arguments you mention is about why we need to have this reform because the work that americans are just not willing to do. are there any economic studies out there that show -- [inaudible] -- how much would restaurant have to charge because you don't have busboys and waiters -- [inaudible] -- look at all these sectors?

maybe that will actually show what contribution they are making. >> i don't know there have been studies of exactly that. there are so many factors. one thing people need to keep in mind. i often hear someone say why don't they just pay higher wages and attract more workers? what the british if you are an employer you can't just wave -- raise wages through the roof. you can only pay people when it is still profitable. if you raise your prices at a restaurant people not only -- you are not only competing for customers with other restaurants but the idea of staying home and not going to a restaurant at all. in agriculture one of the things we have seen it is some growers have been leasing land in mexico. there is a way to outsource even

agriculture production. we shouldn't be surprised when in this case it is getting around government policies or regulation, that people who feel it is in their livelihood, in a legal way try to find a way to operate their business. it won't be the way that is most economically beneficial to the united states but it will be a way for people to continue their business. [inaudible] >> because you are paying -- if you hire legal american workers instead they don't realize how much drive -- >> we don't know how much the difference -- a lot of times there have been these raids and

we have been surprised to see that people considered illegal immigrants were making pretty good wages in some cases. we still see it is not economically beneficial to the united states to have people with a certain amount of education or training take jobs just so a foreign national doesn't work in those jobs. people should work in the job based on their skills. it is not efficient for the economy to have people with a master's degree working in a lawn service just because we don't want other people working in lawn service. that would be a silly way to run the economy. the best way is for people to work at the skill level that is most beneficial for them and if other people can fill in the

niches that other jobs that is beneficial too. >> one last question. >> a question. [talking over each other] >> you have written about the program mentioned earlier. talk about your finding about what happened to illegal immigration when we expand opportunities for legal immigration. we had a case earlier this week of the truck entering mexico when we expand opportunities for legal immigration?

>> great question. frank alluded to it but what the research really showed is early in the 1950s there was legal entry in the united states going on. they decided to have a crackdown. there was a time when general swing went to the growers and expand opportunities for people to come and legally through a way for mexican workers to come in agriculture. what happened was we saw a social science experiments the results of which you almost never see. the illegal entry as measured by the border, from 1953 to 1959 by

95%, use of a number on a chart goes like this. the illegal entry going down, is getting to a level of apprehension that if we had that today it leaves us under 100,000. and a form on this topic because it would be considered a non issue. what that really showed -- it doesn't mean we would not operate it. the basic concept is the chair's a legal way for people to come in and work they will avail themselves of that opportunity rather than enter illegally. there are concerns about union complaints, regulation getting tight in 1960 and the program was eliminated altogether by

1964. you saw illegal entry as measured by apprehension, increased 1,000% over the next decade. we got to be point closer to the levels we had five or six years ago. they have gone down in terms of illegal entry level. the bottom line is the people who were trying to come in illegally are trying to come in to work and they are rational and there is a legal way to do it and they will avail themselves of that opportunity. if we don't have a legal way to do it, what we have seen from many years of experience as they try to come in illegally and the u.s. sends a lot of money and resources and manpower trying to get in the middle of what our

labor market transactions -- >> you can read the most recent paper on [speaking in native tongue] node.org. i think our speakers for coming time. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]