>> in stepping into an area where the federal government has refused to leave, we have what we have. and i must also touch on one last thing, too. the insinuation that some of immigration policy in arizona was being promoted in return for policy that was quote anti-women or anti-gay, that's not just a

responsible, that's false and ludicrous. now, my view on immigration in the united states and illegal immigration is formed from several different areas of experience. first had to do with my role as a staff officer for the third armored cavalry regiment, and providing active duty soldiers to assist with joint operations on a reservation which straddles arizona and mexico to help interdict the smuggling of drugs. it's also informed by my role as a life prosecutor prosecuting albany duis in maricopa county with the passage of an amendment to specifically deny bail to those in the country without lawful authority who committed serious offenses. anytime that i have someone who is a mexican national or even from canada, the accused of a felony dui, they would be admitted to bail in which they would feel to show for subsequent prosecution.

then in supervising prosecutions are maricopa county, i dealt first in what circumstances in which drug cartels in mexico would order cars from street gangs in phoenix. which would then be picked up by someone who crossed the border, ostensibly as a one day tourist, and then be brought up to phoenix, take the vehicle, driving south it was been reconfigured for other human, drug or both smuggling. so prevalent was a practice that i was the case is come across my desk for auto theft the initially about one every other week or so, and then towards the end of 2009, may 2010, drop down to once a month or once every other month. a couple years ago the arizona auto theft task force recovered over 300 vehicles in the arizona desert that were being used just for that purpose. then finally from a u.s. the county attorney for maricopa county, where everyday i work with 26 different local law

enforcement agencies and another 11 federal and other type of law enforcement agencies just to enforce our laws which can and are enforced in a constitutional manner. mindful of civil rights of all and respectful of our constitution. when 1070 is upheld we will be able to enforce that in a constitutional way that respects the civil rights of everyone within my jurisdiction. and it is mindful of everyone and their participation in our community. and i've been part of an ongoing outreach effort to every segment of our population within the community to avoid segmentation. we can address these issues in a way that is respectful of everyone, and that focuses on the need to uphold the rule of law and that still takes into account some much-needed aspects of enforcing law as well as the economic reality of the situation we face. let me also touch quickly on what the economic realities are,

too. unemployment has fallen in arizona .3% from december to january this year. if the 1.2% from january of 2011 to january of issue. our budget is not balanced. the 140 million an estimated cost pales in comparison to the 1 billion in estimated costs for incarceration, for medical care and for education that was estimated back in 2006. and since efforts at immigration enforcement laws addressing illegal immigration in arizona, the estimated population of those unlawfully present has dropped from 200 to 300,000 in the last three years alone. there's also been a result of 20% drop in arizona's prison population for those incarcerated with an isa detainee. there's are some of the realities. so attrition through enforcement actually works for arizona, but it doesn't work for the united

states. observations that the fibrillation in arizona's and the god of the states is actually. so arizona has tried to do, while an effort at the state level to address the impact of illegal immigration, it's not a sound policy in the framework of what we need to do as a nation. those hyperbolic claims of racism really reflects a racist construct of how our community works together. it's just as destructive as those were motivated to demand a purge of all non-native born from basis of a racist ideology. and i, for one, say enough. we need a sane approach. secure our sovereign borders, account for all those are nation without lawful authority, engaging necessary bureaucratic reform, and teach all of government for ongoing internal enforcement. and let me elaborate a little bit on that because i think that's really what todd wanted to hear from me. secure our sovereign borders. our border must be operation secure for several important

reasons. number one, there is an international security component to that. in the last five years we've had people detained at our border, just detained, from everything the country that is on our terror watch list of every single country that is our state sponsor of terror list. we also now have the problem of transnational criminal organizations. we have cartel activity in maricopa county. last year the general in charge of southern command identified that well over 250 u.s. cities there's currently a cartel present. we had beheadings in arizona. we have had local on forcing officers ambushed by those engaged in cartel sponsored smuggling. we've had officers executed using cartel related tactics. this is going on in arizona right now. so securing our sovereign border is important for all of those reasons, as well as if there is always an easy way to avoid a bureaucratic requirement, people are going to seek that route.

water flowing downhill will seek the easiest route. i would submit that a definition of operational security includes stating that we're able to detect and interdict those entering our country in an area other than authorized point of entry within five miles of the border. where sensible -- defense doesn't work ever. you can have a eyes on if you can't get to that this. it is a speedball. it's not an obstacle worth spending money on. the use of both passive and active sensors, the use of unmanned remote vehicles, all of this can be done in a layered approach. we can do it. with secure the border in other sectors. now it's time to do it in arizona. account for all in a country without lawful authority. the effort that mass deportation will not be undertaken. we would result, i believe, with the civilian population of those who are citizens, who are

children of the population and they just don't want to live in a country where something like that would occur. at the same time providing a path for citizenship of everyone who entered the country unlawfully is not the answer either. that violates the fundamental principle our nation in the rule of law. so what do we do? i would suggest through a hiatus against individuals and employers during which time individuals would be able to come forward to declare whether working, where their skill set is, might make some people joke but i think it could work. had people come forward and declare where they are working with their skill set is, and then over that three-year timeframe, they go through a background check. if they have committed a felony their subject to deportation. and over that timeframe lawyers also they must pay back taxes for those individuals. at the end of the for your time for them if they pass the background check, then we will be permitted to apply for permanent legal residency but if they want to become a citizen they'll have to go home to the

country of origin and come back in the legal way, the only way to attain u.s. citizenship. now, during that same three-year timeframe, necessary bureaucratic reform must occur. those who are pending naturalization of otherwise everything we've asked them to do to become a citizen should be naturalized. then go sure -- there's a legitimate expectation that if you follow the rules you can attain your immigration objective. additionally taking the objective data we now have from those who came forward to apply for temporary legal residency, we can then develop an immigration visa system based on objective data. we can get rid of the old xenophobic requirements and quotas that were used in the past and look at what our labor

need is first and foremost. and invasive immigration system on that. we'll also know which industries are in need of what skilled labor it might need. >> in with respect to engaging government at all levels, we are going to have an ongoing need for enforcement of immigration laws andwiimmigration laws and it will require a partnership between local, state and federal government. a program worked. i seem to work within my own county. so we will need to continue to do that because we're not going to happen ice age and on every corner. will not have a border for coal agent driving the industry. ever those who come into contact with a criminal justice system in the future at this time from which they otherwise could come for to obtain legal residency, they get from some of the purpose. we need to know. and will also be important for us to demonstrate our resolve in that regard so that this

immigration system as we reform it, as we bring into the 21st century and based on objective data can continue to be implemented in a way that is respectful of our historic reliance and the reality of the lifeblood that immigration has been for our nation, while upholding the rule of law and securing our dignity for everybody. thank you. [applause] >> i invite robin to come on up. >> hi. i'm robin hoover. the last 31 is a been a pastor of the christian church, i'm found of humane borders for folks to put water stations out in the desert of arizona. i want to talk about some of the

goals. i lecture around the united states. and when they do most everywhere i go, people, i'll ask them to raise his, i do these informal poll to come in and you that immigration is involved in national security. the hands go up and rational people can argue but how we're going to fix some of that stuff. how many of you want to flexible working conditions by national or multinational, and hands go up there coming at you want to expand human rights. some hands go up. ours is a nation built on liberty, not on human rights. but some of the things are similar but how many of the want of a reduction reduction in the noise along the border. all the hands go up. i will make one clarification point here. i think i'm it's my expense that the border communities do so for very significant financial cost and criminal justice law enforcement health care education its efforts. the as hell benefits the benefits the nominally, dramatically from migration but

the cost in joys of migration are not evenly distributed. how many of you want to see a reduction in the political violence, and the cartel stopped activity in mexico and all the hands go up but we don't know quite how to do with it. we are not willing to face cartel participation and migration today. none of us would want to do with the drug wars. how do you want to raise more law-enforcement along the border? every hand goes a. some of that stuff is nice. these are goals. all of the positions that i will defer to our doctoral candidate back here, we do need to be talking to nobody positions are really of some of the data. current migration control policies make it difficult to enter into united states. physical barriers, the kind of things make it expensive to enter the united states, make it difficult for employers to

navigate the system, result in an incredible systematic human rights abuses, resulting family separations, as brittany was talking about, and the thing that has bothered me the most last 12 years is that results in hundreds of migrant deaths every year. and so if we had a set of goals and we have a certain kind of come we see some of the strategies that we look at, we should evaluate some of the outcomes. there's never really been sound evaluation of current policies and programs, in my estimation. and that is a job for the academy to undertake. if you want to make it visibly difficult to enter in the united states you build fences, do all this other stuff. as norman pointed out to me yesterday, there's a new build to get 100 air miles, a waiver of environmental laws and so forth for department of homeland security. that's going around right now.

it destroys the border environment. it does all kinds of things. there's enormous costs associated with this migration and with the kind of enforcement activities that we are trying to do. we created the human smuggler system by creating the need for it by pushing the migration out into arizona, and what we've done is we've and up the cost in the last 12 years from $400 to $2400 to get to phoenix, arizona. what we're doing, what the consequences that we never if i were is that we are systematically handing billions of dollars to the cartel. we see radically rising migrant death rates because of the effects of pushing the migrants deeper into the desert, farther away from the safe passages, et cetera your employers are becoming increasingly

frustrated, and i celebrate those in arizona and other places, starting to step up and talk about this more forcefully. we make families face very difficult situations, taking their us-born citizen children and making, encouraging them to leave this country. they are protections and everything else so that the family can be reunited somewhere else. and again, i'll point out about human rights abuses. so we are here industry because we believe the system could be changed and has to do with two groups, those that are here and those that didn't want to come. that sounds, that's pretty simple approach. that's our target. we can learn from previous legalization programs. there's a lot to be done there. governments seem to have a stunning lack of imagination. when bush decided to put the national guard down on the border of a few years ago, started in '06, i could take the

same number of human work hours and created a legalization program during that period of time and had it cleaned up between may and december, and i would know who those 12 million immigrants were at that point in time. and it would've cost a lot less money. we actually put up the national guard in tucson in five star resorts. i know i know the owner of one of them. incredible. we need to use a lot of good -- huge numbers of persons have come to the united states to join our labor force one way or the other, do not ever wish to become citizens. huge numbers of folks self deport every 10 years or so, huge population, large numbers. we can learn, study this program a lot better. we can use market-oriented incentives. we can achieve huge results are

manipulate only a few small variables. so we need to make this as parsimonious as possible and not create permanent guaranteed employment for immigration attorneys for the next half century. we need to start with the two largest groups, the undocumented and when workers that are seeking willing employers. for those who are undocumented we need to sit down and have interviews and learn what we did in 86. we need to issue visas from two to 12 years with whoever is the hearing officer, interviewer is. a certain amount of discretion to find out are you retarded or going back home? would you go home to build a home for mom equipped what is your life experience? where are the kids in school? what's going on? we will hand you a visa and it's good for x number of years but i'll let other folks figure out how long will do that. and in order to maintain that status we need to require you to help share some of the joys and

costs can get your drivers license, provider insurance and do that sort of stuff. if you want to become a citizen, go get in a separate line. those lines need to be uncoupled. two different things to a lot of people who don't want to be citizens. no use to force them through that. don't put them on the path they don't want to be on. don't make them choose between citizenship in the united states and their families. that's just not right. sorry. they can begin the naturalization if desired, and if they want to complete the term of their visa, then actually go home, they can still stay in line in absentia the way many millions of people do already. you can allow the visa holders to travel by cars, start businesses, pull out the court of million dollars wells fargo in phoenix by four close out or whatever it is you want to do, and the airlines would love to sell a lot of tickets to go home.

for those that want to come here and work, they need of some very realistic nonpartisan quota set for folks for to you visas to want to come from mexico, honduras, guatemala, el salvador. extending countries can screen applicants for skills, knowledge ability, life experience and all the kinds of things that make them very employable. the migrant opens a 2500, $3000 security account with internal revenue service, the old mantra used to be employers are more afraid of the irs than the art of the ins. now at dhs, but it is truth. the irs, one thing they can do really well is open an account, assign a name and a devotee credits. almost all of our large employers at least use a completely computerized payroll services, someone should come inside on on as an employee, you are bound to do xyz face a

program and 10% of your growth will continue to be deposited into the account. at the end of the 24 months or 30 months or whatever we're going to come up with, you transfer that money home, it goes into the lowest in of the economy in the country. no government officials are involved. you can do whatever you did as you want to. you go home. if you don't, the money is forfeited to law enforcement, literally a bounty on your head instead of us paying for all the border patrol activities and the migrant is paying for noncompliance. so this creates the first ever economic incentive comply with the terms of the visa. i think if there's something to be pursued along that way. employers would have a stable and predictable system, and they could work with labor organizations on both sides of the border and prep people before they came. so the one thing that employers like to see is a stable system,

one they can count on. the department of homeland security personnel would be freed up to look for terrorists. i've given customer to various committees across the last decade, and until we document, inspect them with the migration back to the ports of entry, in an orderly fashion, dhs has a job that they cannot do actually. so we actually need them to be looking for other people. when the visa expires, the migrant since the money home, i was reading the slides at a time, sorry about that. what would all this accomplished? we would finally have some sense of increase national security as one of our goals are the employment flexibility, the security would be established. basic rights would be extended since people have to have, have the right to be present until they can go and complain to authorities or law enforcement or initiate suits or whatever they need to do. migrants would share more of the

costs participating in our system, and that's there. the way citizens do. the cargo revenues would drop dramatically. that's a very significant concern were i hang out. i go places where even the human rights folks in mexico won't go in northern mexico and talk to some of these cartels. i'm telling you, we need to even change the language. they don't use the word cartel. they use the word mafia. and watch tv and they understand the work. the new policy result that i want to see migrants be using public transportation, into the ports of entry that our revenues for the cartel are the mafia we decline. migrant deaths would diminish. families would be intact. employers would advocate the system. human rights could be expanded, and i had to throw in one shot here, sorry to offend you, this

is pasha i found his 18 year old beauty queen and guatemala in the desert. shipping cookie out there for 42 days. that's an open rib cage are looking at. the pants are still expanded because in the heat, the legs are mummified. the carnivores can't get through the bluejeans. so we use this photo with permission from her family and her fiancé that she was coming to hook up with in oakland, because they say we want to encourage people to quit doing this, okay? this stuff does matter. and i simply want to say what, after is the subhead on that thing, death is now a permanent part of the united states public-policy in migration. i've had the argument all the way to the commissioner's office and to the secretary of dhs, oh, no, no. we are not using that. you can tell me that in 95. you could tell me that in 98.

you tell me that maybe in 2000, but when you have the exact same result year after year after year, and used the unknown the resources to reduce the number of migrant deaths, it is now part of the public-policy. and when you damn the organizations that are out there working to reduce the numbers of deaths, and you have said death is acceptable. death is now a permanent part of the public policies of the united states government to deter migration. that state has got to be made and understood. and that, my friends, is immoral. it should not happen. let me just point out that there's been more than 2250 documented, measured, located, every one of those death of thought in arizona sense, that's november of 9 99 ugly, or octobr of 99 to some of those dots are

on top of dots your humane borders, has become the authority for locating where these deaths occurred. home if you provide certain amount of information to about 27% of the deaths over the last decade or so were found by other law enforcement officials or the general public. and so humane borders collected and created these deaths maps and so forth. i'll conclude by saying the following, the law enforcement only approach builds stunning lack of imagination. do this in a very different way. we've got to do this primarily through politics first. policy changes first. there's no such thing as achieving operational control of the border. that's illusory. it doesn't exist the old a critically focus bipartisan political solution will address

these issues. as far as i'm concerned is the stand i take. thank you. [applause] >> and the final speaker is dr. doug massey from princeton university. [inaudible] >> i could have had pictures but i don't. if you wanted to be signed a dysfunctional immigration policy, you couldn't do better than what we had over the past several decades. undocumented migration, illegal migration, whatever you want to call it is not a global phenomenon. it's a regional phenomenon. 50% of all illegal migrants in the united states are mexican, another 20% are central to american. big countries like india or china are under 1%. it's a regional phenomenon of this hemisphere.

it's a failure to deal with original reality we face. in 1993, we signed a treaty with mexico and canada to great integrated north american economy, free movement of goods, free movement of capital, free movement of information. we make no provision for the movement of people within this new integrated economy. it's already, substantial into existence. in fact, rather than make, make a place for movement of people within north america, we militarize the border with our second largest trading partner. and in doing so we made the problem worse. first of all, we militarize el paso in 1993, and in the san diego center 1994. the effect of this was not to stop illegal migration, simply redirected it.

until 1994, arizona was a backwater. nobody crossed there. and arizona wasn't even anywhere near the top 10 of illegal populations of the united states. but when you build three steel walls from the pacific ocean out to the sierra and eustachian a chevy blazer with two border patrol officers staring at the wall complete with football detectors, infrared sensors, drones, everything, people avoid that sector. they started migrating to the sonoran desert into arizona. 20,000 people arriving every day in tijuana and crossing illegally into san diego, you know, really don't make a big impression. tijuana, too many people, san diego is forming people. lots of mexicans on both sides of the border. 20,000 they were going from one urban area to another urban area, it's not very dangerous, and doesn't make a big

impression. 20,000 people arriving in douglas arizona and crossing through open ranchland or open desert stake out. they become apparent. this attracted the media. it was a new invasion. but, in fact, nothing changed except the border crossing at the bonds hadn't changed at all. in fact, the militarization of the border, the expansion of the border patrol from about 3000 officers the 20,000 officers today didn't have the effect of deterring people from coming. it paradoxically have the effect of deterring them from going home once they were here. simple arithmetic. is used to cost 400 bucks a pop to get into the united states, now cause, my data shows it's closer to 3000. you have got to work that much longer, say that much longer to make the strip problem. that will increase trip lengths

just bites a. and what happened was people paid the costs and expenses these rising risk, rising rates of death, once they run the gauntlet at the border, they hunkered down tuesday, rather than returning home to face again. and this space of 10 years, we dramatically reduce the rate of return migration back to countries of origin. the average mexican migrant coming to the united states does not need to move your eminently. seeks to work your for several seasons to earn money to solve and economic problems at home, invest that money at home, and in return. when there was recently free circulation of a document my grants between 1965-1985, 85% of entries were offset by departures, internet increased to increased u.s. population was quite small. when we militarize the border,

we ended up spending three, $4 billion a year of border enforcement only to double the net rate of undocumented population growth in the united states. simple equation and demography the net migration equals in migration minus outmigration. you don't effect in migration, you dramatically decreased outmigration, net migration increases. that's the source of rapid growth in a document population in the united states. but militarizing the border with our closest trading partner, our closest neighbor with can't imagine mr., we didn't solve the problem of a legal migration. we made it worse. we transform what had been a circular flow of mail workers going to three states and turn it into the federal population of families living in 50 states. and doubled the net rate of undocumented population growth in the process. so now have 11 many people

living in this country out of status. and these people are great loss to represent a great loss of human capital to the nation because there's nowhere for them to go. they cannot use their skills to the utmost productivity. they cannot use their education. they are confined to a black market, informal sector in the united states, and the most tragic portion of his 11 person population are the 3 million or so who came here as children, entered often as infants and babies. they have grown up here. they speak english. they graduate from high school. some have struggled and even graduated from two-year colleges and even four year colleges. we paid for them. we invested in the health and education while they're going. and just at a time when about to enter their most productive

years and can contribute to this economy, we say there's nowhere for you to go. my own institution at princeton university, five years ago, the top graduate in greek and latin was a dominican who came here at hq. -- at age of two. when you graduate at princeton he was outed as an l.a. to migrant. he was forced, forced to take a full scholarship at oxford university to study a ph.d in classics. so we end up deporting one of the top graduate of one of our top universities, rather than making use of his productive skills that we actually paid for. so where does this leave us now? well, we are actually a lot closer to comprehensive immigration reform than people think. illegal migration actually is

zero. and has been for three years. in 2008, the illegal population in the united states peaked at between 2008 half in 2000 it fell. since 2009 it help steady at 11 that is probably drinking downwards on a net basis, illegal migration is now zero or negative. the border is, in fact, under control. the number of apprehensions, where 22000 officers and they're having harder and harder time finding anyone to arrest. apprehension at the mexico u.s. border are now lower than at any time they've been since 1972. and more and more officers chasing fewer and fewer people. part of this is the collapse in labor demand, particularly in residential home construction after the great recession of 2008, but it's also been because

the united states is quietly without anyone noticing dramatically expanded temporary legal migration. given the choice of course migrants would much rather come here with legal documents. and in 2010, there were 517,000, 537,000 entries of mexicans into the united states with temporary work visas. the largest number ever in history. so one of the reasons that a legal migration was down because opportunities have opened up in the legal system. this is not a very efficient system to its channel to all kinds of bureaucracy. it was much simpler simply to give a visa to workers for three years, let them come and look for a job. let maybe -- let labor markets do their job.

nonetheless, it points the way that when you open up legal opportunities it has a big effect in reducing the undocumented flow. now, i personally think that the boom in mexican immigration that we've seen over the past several years is over. and you all probably think oh, well, our problem will be keeping people out. the problem and the united states and years to come will be attracting people in. mexico's fertility rate is about to put three children per woman. ours is about 2.1, 2.2. mexican fertility has declined since the mid 1970s to the rate of labor force has fallen. it is becoming an aging society. so the huge supply-side demographic pushes that we saw

in the '80s and '90s, that's over. and the way to move forward is to set up a tractable system of legal temporary migration with an expansion of quotas for permanent residency so. most people will circulate a few times and retire back, invest the money in a business come in a form, education for the kids come in whatever project they have. some will acquire contacts, connections to people in the united states that will provide a legitimate reason for settlement. and for them you need a pathway into permanent legal resident status. it's crazy that the united states, which has locked into that room with canada and mexico, gives canada and mexico the same 20,000 visas per year that we give botswana or nepal. integration in north america

generates more legitimate demands for permanent residence than 20,000 visas can accommodate. mexico is 105 million people. closely connected with the to the largest private employer in mexico is now wal-mart. mexican workers have been self increasing their own quotas. congress in its infinite wisdom begins stripping the ways rights include use of non-citizen in this country. even if your legal resident aging you have zero rights in this country. you can be arrested on a story of a low-level employee of a displacement department or homeland security, thrown into the system, the right to a lawyer, no right to challenge the system the a puerto rican was arrested, thrown in immigration detention and held for a week. is a nativeborn american citizen, and he could not get

out. what's a poor immigrant to do? defense of naturalization. you drive up the cost and risk of not being a citizen, respond by become citizen. if congress intent was to discourage immigration, that backfired, too. new entitlements. so that somebody with agreeing card has the right to petition for the entry of a spouse and minor children subject to limitation. but if that person naturalized and becomes an american citizen, spouse and children coming and it also requires the right to bring in his parents outside of any american limitations it's a number of mexicans coming in the united states per year has been about 150,000 per year with a larger and share being relative of citizens, people that were pushed towards naturalization by

u.s. policy. really with -- we've got good, mexicans have been self expanding them through their own actions. the border is effectively under control, and net zero migration, negative migration now for three, four years. the pressure for additional migration from mexico is low, at historic low. the only thing that really remains in the way of comprehensive immigration reform is what to do with the 11 million people who are here. well, the 3 million or so, who entered as many, who entered as minor, who didn't make the decision to migrate to, the only humane and practical solution is to offer them an amnesty, absent any kind of criminal record. f. and grow a criminal background check and make him a clean, let them get on with their lives in the only country

they really know. we have paid for them to arrive at the age of 18, and then we say you can't use this good skills, language abilities you acquired in the united states. you have to work in a black labor market. we are losing all of our investment, or potential chunk of our investment. for those who enter into an authorized as aston villa, there's lots of ways of having this happen to you without willingly crossing the border, for those who became undocumented as adults, i would advocate a variation of many other proposals that you all have already heard today. give them a temporary visa, bring them above board, allow them to, for a period of three years, five years, whatever, allow them to prove their worth, start paying taxes, acquire language abilities, take a

civics courses. and after the end of the. if they've kept their nose clean and then everything that we want them to do, if you really want to punish them for their lawbreaking, the race this late, find them to be happy to pay 3000 bucks a coyote, they'll be happy to pay 3000 bucks to the u.s. government for agreeing card. so they paid their debt to society. these are, 90% are simply civil infractions, not criminal infraction. if they have a criminal record that's a whole nother story. you allowed them to pay the fine, pay their debt to society and move forward. that to me is the only practical solution to the problem we have got. i was testifying before senate judiciary committee some years ago, and sectors homeland security testified before me and said, senator kennedy was alive at the time, and asked him, and

we contemplated deporting 11 when people click the secretary of homeland security says no, it's just not practical. so secretary pomata security in the bush administration says we can't deport 11 when people. we've got to go to plan b. the longer we put this off, the worse it's going to be for all concerned because we are creating and in the process of creating a black economy and an underclass in this country. and we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not taking advantage, for the finish of the skills, the motivations, the immigrants bring to us. and now is a good time to do because the pressure is off. the border is under control. and the time has arrived to take the final step towards a comprehensive immigration reform. and that simple legal, creating a program, a way to legalization

for the 11 people who are here would go a long way to solving our problems. and legalization that is granting permanent resident status, makes no assumption about eventual citizenship. right now the law is you become a permanent resident of the united states and you can stay in the status for the rest of your life. there's no gun at your head saying you've got to naturalized. congress is actually done that as a matter of practical terms. but that's a decision that you take. you become eligible after five years of legal permanent residents, you have the option, should you care to, to apply for u.s. citizenship. and you would need new change the citizenship law. so after five years in permanent residence status, people require the right to apply for american citizenship. so we're a lot closer than people think. and really the snp's e-business at this point is coming to terms

with the 11 people, living your out of staters who want to live productive law-abiding lives that can find no way forward unless we reform. [applause] >> okay, do we have any questions from the audience? [inaudible] >> not a chance. i in hailed. [laughter] [inaudible] you said s.b. 1070 and your lawn for a in arizona is passion he said emphatically that my question is, i'm just not sure how you can make that statement with such emphasis, given the lack of empirical data on whether it is or it isn't.

i haven't done any study and my understand is that sheriff arpaio is resistant to external people come into actually analyze that very point. >> first -- [inaudible] because there's more than meets the eye there. the civil rights division is engaged in politics, although there are some very specific incidents that are referenced within the civil rights division, in a letter which i've acknowledged. the individuals involved in these incidents were criminally prosecuted. with respect to, i believe that 1070 can implement the right now it hasn't been because it's been enjoined by federal courts which was the beginning of its path to the u.s. supreme court last week. i can say it emphatically because police officers and law enforcement in maricopa county right now are enforcing laws and a nondiscriminatory manner to make it consistent with their oath to uphold the constitution competitive consistent with the fact that many of them come from the very ethnic backgrounds that

opponents of s.b. 1070 have declared they would been racially profiled, which i find to be ludicrous. in my tenure prosecutors are working with law enforcement in maricopa county doesn't happen systemically the way people claim it will. doesn't happen on a case-by-case is? sure, just as does another long for the agencies across the united states, small towns, big cities. that in terms of the sky is going to fall, that this would result in a systemic racially profiled approach, no. and it's my job as chief prosecutor to ensure that when we charge cases and prosecute them, that it's done with constitutionally admissible evidence. i know what that looks like. and so do my over 300 prosecutors. so i find it offensive people think that somehow we're going to turn a blind eye to this one area of the law when we are completely confident to make the same assessment in every other area of the law that we do.

[inaudible] >> there's been a couple of people that have said that s.b. 1070, even though it hasn't been fully implemented, is a way to get people to self-support. that's a common criticize -- you think that having laws like s.b. 1070 is a way to solve the issue of having illegal immigrants here in the u.s.? do you think this is a way to have them self deport? >> as i mentioned in my remarks at the outset, i think it has been an effective strategy for arizona in the short term. by don't think that, again, that it is an approach that would work nationally because of all the other issues that have to be addressed, that i mentioned. but 1070 is not the only law that verizon has passed over the last several years in an effort to try to address this issue. i want to underscore this.

arizona come in trying to address the impact of illegal immigration, has been fourth in the absence of responsible federal action to take action to but in addition to 1070, arizona passed an amendment to our state dosage that denies bail to those in the country without authorization the commit serious offense but we have a human smuggling statute that addresses both the coyote and the client. we have employment related id theft statutes. and mind you, it's over the last couple years that arizona has fallen out of the number one spot in the nation for identity theft, which was primarily due to employment related identity theft. and that information can be checked at the federal trade commission's data clearinghouse. and don't also had been legal arizona workers act which face its own court challenge in a claim is going to end business in arizona, and it didn't get all of that together, as well as what happened with 1070 has contributed and if i'm and which are illegal immigration policy has been dropped it but as

writing a earlier that didn't necessarily mean that in people return to the country of origin. they have gone to other states. and other states didn't have tried to come in some instances, a top arizona lost to deal with it. this just continue to underscore the point, and it's good for us to be your, in eyesight of the capital to say that ultimately for us to have a recent responsible approach to dealing with immigration as a whole, and illegal immigration in particular, the federal government has got to do its job. >> this is also for you, bill. >> happens all the time. >> you expressed frustration in explaining legal and illegal immigration, but it seems like you conflate illegal immigration with criminal activity.

if s.b. 1070 was about criminal activity, why is the focus its efforts on criminalizing work, workers, employers and workplace raids rather than on cartel activity that you cited as the reason for going after italy was in the first place? >> to clarify, i did say that's why we went after illegals in the first place. i said that's why there's a continuing issue with needing to provide operator security of the board because of the transnational criminal threat in addition to the other issue that we have with respect to have a system in which we can require people to comply with the bureaucratic requirements for immigration, and international security concerns. so it's in that context. 1070 itself, it's part of what arizona has been doing that admittedly, it's a piecemeal scheme. it's continually, i would liken it to this. the federal government has received warnings from arizona every single time the

legislature acts and the governor suspect every time that arizona voters have gone to the polls. in fact, 1070 still enjoys a majority support in arizona as well as overwhelming majority support across this nation. every time we do this is another call for the federal government to step up and do its job. is 1070 going to address criminal activity? u.s.a. under arizona law if someone is engaging in employment and using someone else's identification, that's going. would prosecute that. to the extend 1070 try to ratchet down on that, it is addressing a group activity. to the extent that s.b. 1070 underscores to build the already long for the has, to assist and participate in immigration enforcement when they otherwise have a legitimate law enforcement contact, it's going towards addressing criminal activity. our ongoing partnership, which can seven acknowledged, is an effort to address criminal activity. let me be clear.

not everyone who comes to this country in pursuit of employment and doesn't break a federal law and doing it is by definition a criminal. but, in fact, as of an impact to our nation on the health industry a significant impact and we do see criminal related activity. we've had shootouts on i.t. in the phoenix metro area between rival human trafficking gangs fighting over the cargo. that is inherent criminal activity. you, i mentioned the auto theft issues. we also the ongoing issues with caching small across the border in both directions with drugs and traffic across our border primarily north to south, or south to north. so i would, i would respectfully argued that while overall we may have a secure border in terms of looking at national levels of those present unauthorized in arizona it is not secure enough. >> i'm going to ask a question here, and i'm going to direct it at dr. massey.

[inaudible] [laughter] >> i will let you. i have a question for dr. massey. you have been studying the board for an awful long time. you ask people why they come you. you asked him how long they're going to stay. a lot of other related questions. when you hear the arguments such as what we just heard from county attorney montgomery, that it's all criminal activity, as you think about the people, why they are coming here, do you think that if there was a comprehensive immigration solution that would make it easier for the people to come here legally, wouldn't that diminish criminal activity? >> yeah, in my view. the people that come here are looking to stay out of trouble, especially if they are documented. they don't want to legal

entanglements. if you look at the data around the united states, immigrant neighborhoods have lower crime rates than native neighborhoods. and immigrants are less prone to crime than an american native. that doesn't mean there aren't criminal conspiracies and criminal gangs and so on, but on the whole immigrants are not relegating our primary at all. they are, in fact, reducing of it. the problem is, first that we criminalize a lot of ask that in the past were not really considered to be criminal acts. so many things that immigrants do to just kind of get by and try to find a job, have been criminalized, we have created a lot of criminality. and by criminalizing illegal migration, by criminalizing labor migration as we have, we have created a lucrative niche

for cartels. 30 years ago when i first started studying immigration, the average coyote was somebody from the migrants own town, and they were mom and pop operations and and the services provided were simply with a guided you across a tijuana to san diego, and let you at a 7-11 in chula vista, california. but now it requires safe house of the ever requires longer transport figure out in the middle of the sonoran desert. it's much more dangerous, much more risky, and the price is gone way up to 3000 bucks at its greater a lucrative market for not mom-and-pop operations, but criminal syndicates to get involved. and a really don't see a strong connection between the narcotics trade and the human trafficking trade. they tend to run along parallel tracks. drug traffickers are not likely to load up, they don't load up migrants with a couple pounds of cocaine or marijuana. they run trucks through border

crossings but they build tunnels. they have lots of money. they don't get down to the petty level. you know, point of fact is that basic problem is, like immigration, it is a demand driven. drugs are actually quite popular in the united states, and there's a strong demand for drugs and that demand originates from the asset class white population. and as long as demand is there, somebody is going to rise to supply it. and it's the less advantaged element of society on both sides of the border that end up in the trafficking, and getting the interdiction. but decades of interdiction has not worked. decades of interdiction has only produced more plentiful drugs at cheaper prices. [inaudible] >> first of all, it's very

difficult to even think about debating a west point grad that led the tank brigade across the sands over in the desert storm and bill, let me recognize or so i want to make sure everyone here understands, there is one absolute solid consensus up here, has been all day. we need immigration reform to come out of our u.s. congress. that's the message we need taken back to our representatives and our senators. they need to stand up and address the issue, and not avoid it. i've been on my knees in sheila jackson lee's office. she's my congresswoman, and she wouldn't come she wouldn't do anything on immigration because she thought the unions didn't want it. i've been on my knees and john conyers office, and he wouldn't step for because he felt the president was a series about it, and it would just be a political football. at the moment that senator

cornyn makes a statement to the news media, i'm going to discuss immigration reform, fair u.s., numbers u.s.a., centers for immigration studies all get his desk covered up with facts is that come from my good republican friends who act as the puppets, those organizations are named are the puppeteers. anyway, look, bill, in regard to arizona's right to pass s.b. 1070, and i don't argue that right, although i help support an amicus brief from the greater houston partnership argument against it got as far as i am concerned, states' rights are a big thing. they ought to be able to do whatever they want to do but i think it was a terrible mistake for arizona. i am so thrilled that we defeated similar bills in texas, and just very simply, and i take s.b. 1070 and i kind of rapid up in what we call sanctuary city

bill. i know it's a lot broader than that, but sanctuary city bill that was proposed in texas had for unfunded mandates. number one, it increased more man hours on the street by the police officers when every municipality was trying to cut back over time to balance their budget. .. >> where they had built up a degree of trust. now, you're an elected official there, and you're charged with enforcing your law. and if arizona wants it

enforced, you've got to enforce it, and i admire you for that. i'm with you. the only reason arizona passed these laws is because the federal government has not done its job. i hope everybody here understands we are all in agreement on that issue. thank you. >> one of the -- another question that i've got, and i guess i'll -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i'll direct this at both bill and robin. both of you come from pretty diverse angles on this thing, you know? i guess a lot of people would say you're kind of the opposites in terms of political spectrum. >> i don't think so. i want you to finish your question, but i don't think so because i think we have the same ultimate goal. >> well, that's kind of the point to my question. you know, let me, let me

rephrase it, bill. people would perceive you as coming from a law and order perspective, okay? robin, they would look at you as coming from, you know, the faith and the human rights perspective. but here you are, two people that, you know, with that different viewpoint wind up at a very similar place. um, given that, and i don't know if you guys had ever met before or had ever heard each other's views before. it's one of the things i kind of hope because when i decided to bring you guys to the panel, i was hoping i was going to get this different perspective winding up at the same place. does hearing each other's perspectives encourage you or give you a little, maybe for a lack of a better word, hope there are practical solutions that people on both sides of the

political spectrum could bring together and solve this rather than just having this persistent, continuing argument are you for or against 1070? you know, must we secure the border first? >> well, i think that by having this conversation in this forum that regardless of where you're at on the issue of illegal immigration, you can hear that there is a law enforcement perspective that recognizes the fact that with our current enforcement mechanism, with the current policies of the federal government that, you know, in the last few years we've averaged 300 depths in the desert in arizona. i've asked robin for a copy of his presentation because the fact is that all those red dots, every single one of them represents a human being, and it is an absolute travesty that we have a system set up where that occurs, where there is a draw for people to risk their very

lives that doesn't provide for a systematic, lawful opportunity to be accounted for. because without accounting for who's here, we can't allocate necessary resources. and that there is a recognition of the human side of all of this even in the same sense of wanting to see that the law's enforced and that there is, there is a large area of convergence for us to get to to be able to drive for a solution here. and i think that's what people need to hear, is that regardless of how you come at it, we get to the same place, and there's a recognition that the federal government has failed all of us regardless of what the rationale would be. you've heard a variety of different reasons and problem definitions all of those concluding with the fact -- and concluding in agreement -- that our current immigration system is broken. so i think the problem definition in that regard we're

all in agreement on. we have at least in that regard a shared interest to move forward from. and, yeah, hearing some of robin's ideas, i took notes. i think they're really good. [laughter] >> that's great. for the 25 years that i've been working in migration-related issues, central america refugees, all kinds of things we all agree, anyone that has a vested interest in this, is that we have to work toward the actual legal, political machinery to effect change in order to achieve the normative goals that we want to see. so in that sense we're all in the same boat, period. what i do always argue with, and it's my job, is social emphasis, political philosopher to question assumptions of others. and, you know, i'll question -- it's not, i'm not calling

anybody a racist, but i will just boldly say if there were 250, 300 swedish hookers tying in the arizona -- dying in the arizona desert, we would have already have done something about this. so race is involved, no ands, ifs and buts about it. if you look at the population, we're targeting the brown population. 43% of the undocumented population in the united states or overstayers of visa of one kind or another, you know? that includes the little white irish nurse from the health care system in st. louis and, oh, she just has a technical violation with immigration. well, that's all any of 'em are. and so, you know, interior enforcement does not come anywhere near rivaling the frontier and border enforce bement. enforcement. so brown is involved in this equation, i'm sorry. and there are other ways of --

so my job is to question some of the assumptions. and some of the assumptions are that we can prosecute this out of existence, that's your job. when janet napolitano was governor, when she was an attorney, same thing. he wanted to do that. that's not going to get it. my critique in my statement was enforcement only is not going to get it. there is an appropriate place for enforcement, prosecution for all of that, for the distribution of the costs, etc. am i hopeful? i'm in the hope business. [laughter] be -- am i optimistic? i'm not anywhere near as optimistic as doug is. we've got some really entrenched, anti-forces to deal with out here, and the power politics and group politics that are a raid against the rational reform right now are significant. i just want to say that. so i'm here. i'll go anywhere.

somebody give me a plane ticket, i'll make my case. or read my stuff. so, you know, i'm in it for the long haul, and i think we all should be. >> talk one last point just to clarify, you know, when we're having these conversations, the racist approach towards wanting to have our laws enforced is one extreme as well as the get rid of all borders and apologists for whatever infraction there may be or an extreme on the other end. my goal is to find the overwhelming majority of americans who, again, consistent with our traditions and what it is to be an american in the first place and how our nation was founded and how we've developed to not ignore the role that immigration has played in our nation and the fact that this is a problem that we have to address collectively at the right level of government to get this solution that we need.

>> okay. i have one last question, i'll just ask this for the whole panel. one of the things we hear all the time is this argument that, you know, the federal government's not doing their job. and the federal government is often defined as either the president or the congress. in arizona we have a congressional delegation, in texas they have a congressional delegation. in new jersey they have a congressional delegation. why haven't they done anything? you know, are we, are they using bills like s.b. 1070 and other immigration laws to say, well, you know, we're going to just kick the can down the road because, you know, we don't have to do anything as long as states might do their own deal? >> i'd like to start on that one. the federal government makes out like a bandit. i'm going to say this again. on increased gdp, on taxes

collected, on all kinds of things. the states that border mexico suffer dramatically, particularly the counties that border mexico. and so there are a different set of incentives. we just have to deal with that kind of reality. so every once in a while -- i'll take one, i'll take health care costs as one of the examples. when you get a humanitarian waiver at the point of entry to get in, you get a chip permission from the federal government that says you can go anywhere and achieve, and get your unreimbursed health care. you know, no hospital, doesn't matter if it's city, county, state, federal, don't matter what it is, it's unreimbursed. so the counties end up bearing all of these costs. and that's simply not right. if -- so every once in a while senator kyl or somebody will introduce a bill and say we want reimbursements. just write down bad debts.

what should happen is we need to be much more imaginative and say, okay, this is the federal government granting this benefit, therefore, every time that waiver is written, then the bill gets sent to the federal government. i mean, just share the joys and costs of human migration. you don't have to change all of the things that we want to see here today. but you could change a whole bunch of things to quieten the political noise associated with migration. that's just one example. but the incentives are very, very different. so all the other senators will say, well, that's real nice, jon kyl, but there's 49 of us, and there's one of you, and we're not going to vote for that this year. there ought to be some fundamental questions of fairness and equity that should be addressed. these are normative, value-driven questions. what kind of people are we going to be, how are we going to seek order, how are we going to share joys and costs? and there are ways to do it. >> i think to dovetail off some of that, todd, policy purchases

so far haven't addressed in a way that effectively communicates the problems that have been identified and the solutions to be applied. and up until now the rhetoric has crowded out real approaches that are going to result in real solutions. and i think we've -- we as a nation whenever we're dealing with major issues such as this, we're still talking about social security and medicare, health care, it takes a while for it to sink in and resonate at a level that the american people start demanding the appropriate level of government that something happens, and i think we're getting there. >> well, i think we're starting to realize political potential here. before the mid 1990s immigration went to a handful of states. and those governors could go and congressional delegations could go to washington and say, you know, all the benefits accrue to the nation as a whole, but we're paying all the costs here locally, we need some revenue sharing formula to take account

of the fact that we're educating and integrating all these immigrants and their kids. and they wouldn't find them any partners. but now immigration is a 50-state phenomenon, and lots of places that never had immigrants before have large immigrant populations and are facing these same costs. so there's a lot more potential for coalition building now than there was in the past. and the problem is that politicians have tended to take the cheap and easy way out which is to demonize the immigrants and not deal with the structural problem which is everyone agrees the costs are paid locally. you've got a huge transfer problem. they don't want to face the transfer problem because it's more politically beneficial to stir up people's feelings about immigrants and illegals. >> okay. and we will let that be the last world. i want to thank all of you for attending. yes, you can i -- you can applaud. [applause]

and, david, we have their e-mail addresses? so we will make the presentations available to all of you, and we also post them on the arizona employers for emigration reform, azeir.org, web site. so thank you for your attendance, and we have some extra lunches and soda, please, feel free to take them with you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments, the held of the white house council of

economic advisers, alan krueger, on the world economy. and in about a half hour, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. several live events to tell you about this morning. the brookings institution hosts a discussion on u.s. tax policy. panelists include former treasury secretary robert rubin and alice rivlin, the founding director of the congressional budget office and the former head of the office of management and budget. that's here on c-span2 at 9:30 eastern. and on our companion network, c-span, the heritage foundation hosts a discussion of how to help veterans and their families. the forum includes service groups outlining their programs for veterans. that's at 10 a.m. eastern. bin laden was a strategically-relevant communicator with various and disparate outfits, and to a

certain extent i have to upon cs i had insider knowledge. while still in uniform, i worked in afghanistan, and i worked on the problem of iraq. and we knew bin laden personally was involved in communications to try to corral and bring under control zawahiri, we knew he was making outreach early on to al-shabaab in somalia, we knew he was working through mediums and other individuals, but he knew he was there and doing that, and as a consequence -- and no surprise when you're talking about a global ideology -- bin laden was relevant. >> how has counterterrorism and national security change inside the year since the death of osama bin laden? intelligence community members continue to weigh in. see what they have to say online at the c-span video library, all archived and searchable. >> the head of the white house council of economic advisers, alan krueger, says the european debt crisis could pose some risk to the u.s. he spoke at a bloomberg summit on the economy.

this is a little less than a half hour. >> thank you very much. i probably don't have to introduce alan krueger, but i will. he is, as many of you know, probably one of the handful of most distinguished labor economists in america, taught at -- was in the clinton administration, taught at princeton. came back to washington and then came back to washington again. that's one of his claims to fame. a second claim to fame is that he is a fabulous tennis player. when he left the treasury, they had the alan krueger open invite i, when he joined the cea, they had the alan krueger open invite ii. even more than that, he's really smart. because he has played tennis for years with larry summers. and, frankly, he's much more

athletic than dr. summers, and a much better tennis player, and i can tell you he never, never defeated larry summers in tennis which just shows you how smart dr. krueger is. >> i need to correct you. [laughter] >> when i was a student, i never lost to larry. >> but as a peer -- [laughter] alan, let's start off talking about the economy. are we going through, as some fear, a prague spring where things were good and we go back down, or is this just a temporary lull after the first quarter from warm weather? >> well, the first quarter was very strong. >> right. >> and we don't have much data for the second quarter. there's a tendency, i think, to overreact to the latest number. if you do what professional economists tend to do which is sift through all of the data coming in, i think the signs are still good for the economy. we're certainly on a much better

trajectory than we were on when i first came to the obama administration and when i left the first time even, i would say the economy's looking a lot better. the first quarter job growth was well over 600,000. the numbers, as you know, are very volatile. we're going to have some ups and downs, that's the nature of economic recoveries. but i think we are on a stronger path. >> and we can, therefore, pretty much rule out a double-dip recession? >> i think the odds of a double-dip are significantly lower than they were when i first joined the administration or when i came back. there are lots of signs that the private sector is healing from a very deep recession. and construction last quarter grew about 19%, residential construction. that's four quarters in a row that we had residential construction increasing. that's the first time we've had

four quarters in a row since 2005. so we have a lot of damage that was caused by the financial crisis, a lot of overbuilding took place, a lot of adjustment needed to take place. a lot of it was painful. we're headed in the right direction, that's an important sector that's headed in the right direction. there's a lot more that needs to be done, but i think we can feel more confident going forward that we're on a much better path. >> then the housing market has hit bottom and is slowly on the way up? >> i think we should look at the housing market regionally. it's going to be different in different parts of the country. i think there are signs that nationwide we're stabilizing. the fha price index was positive for the first time in several years. so there are signs that we're stabilizing, some parts of the country, i think, are going to see a stronger rebound in housing than others. we had a lot of excess building. we at the council of economic advisers in the mid '90s did a forecast of what housing demand

would be based on demographics and income growth, and you plot that against what was actually built, and you see there was an enormous amount of extra building in the boom years, and we've been working our way through that. that process should be coming to an end and in many some parts of the country i think you'll see housing coming back more strongly. >> you spent a great deal of your life looking at the labor market and manufacturing jobs which has been a source of some controversy here. the president keep talking about manufacturing job gains as companies bring back work from overseas, and yet most of what i read it tends to be anecdotal. do you have any data beyond the anecdotes about manufacturing jobs actually returning? >> well, a couple points. first, when you just step back, manufacturing went through a set of problems in the 2000s which were really unique. and we had been losing manufacturing jobs in this country as a share of the

economy or as a share of overall labor force for 50 years. >> right. >> but we always stayed between 16 and 20 million jobs. and what that meant was we would have a recession, manufacturing would come back to about where it was, and outside of manufacturing we'd have job growth. beginning in the early 2000s, we fell out of that 16-20 million range, and manufacturing just plummeted. we lost three and a half million jobs in manufacturing before the recession began. from 2000 to 2007, we lost three and a half million manufacturing jobs, then another two million in the recession. so manufacturing was under kind of stresses it had not been previously in our history even though the rest of the economy was growing more strongly in terms of job creation. what we've seen now, so one important sign is over the last 25 months we've added 470,000 manufacturing jobs. autos have been particularly strong. about 30% of the increase in industrial production has been driven by autos.

but it's broader than just autos, and i think that's a good sign. and then when we look at costs of producing in the u.s. versus elsewhere, i think a lot of companies are going to take a second look and say maybe it's better off if we do reshore some of the jobs that were sent overseas. >> you mentioned autos. obviously, the picture is a lot brighter than people thought it might be a couple years ago, but are you bullish about the auto industry prospects over the long run? with can we really compete? >> oh, i think we are competing. numbers are coming out today for auto sales which look as strong as last month so far, from what i've been able to look at, what came out today. the auto industry, you know, when you step back and look, and i have to say i was involved in the process when i was at the treasury department, autos is really key to cyclical rebound. the fact that the president did make the decision to rescue the

auto companies from collapse, and equally importantly, to send out a lifeline to the suppliers. i think one thing which people don't often appreciate is the auto parts suppliers were failing at an alarming rate in 2008-2009, and there was a very clever structure that was set up where the auto companies were given funds to give a lifeline to give advances to the parts manufacturers to choose the key ones. they got to decide who their key suppliers were. and had that not been done, we would not be anywhere close to where we are now in autos. think back last summer when we had the tsunami and earthquake in japan which disrupted auto supplies, the supply chains. that put stress on the rebound in the auto industry. had the american suppliers not been given this lifeline, the industry wouldn't be where it is today, and the economy wouldn't be where it is today. you know, one striking

statistic, autos contributed half of gdp growth last quarter. gdp growth was 2.2%. if you add up the contribution of auto output, it was 1.1%. so autos is certainly helping in our recovery, and that's helping the economy overall. >> is it realistic to look for or to at least anticipate that manufacturing job levels could return even to the '0e 6 or '07 levels, much less the '01 or '02 levels? >> i think, and i don't want to put a particular quantity on it -- >> you pointed out they lost three million before the recession even began, so i wonder if they can rush -- return to that pre-recession level. >> right. i think they can make a significant contribution.

and i think if we look at the manufacturing sector and the deep hole that we're in, i call it the middle class jobs deficit -- >> with right. >> the big jobs deficit that we have, the decline in manufacturing was a big contributor. so we know that parts of the economy outside of manufacturing also have to grow more quickly to fill that deficit. but manufacturing can be a significant contributor. >> you know, i traveled a bit with barack obama in 2008, and i heard him frequently say that the middle class was getting the shaft under the bush economic policies, that they were the ones that the wages were stagnant, that income was actually down. yet bloomberg had a piece this morning which says that under barack obama, under the last two and a half years, that real median income for people under 65, mainly the middle class, is down on an annual basis around $4,000. and for the wealthiest 1%,

supposedly those republicans, real income was up in 2010105,000. -- 2010 105,000. it's the polar opposite of the way the debate's going, but it tells me middle class has not done very well in the last couple years, and the rich have done quite well. under obama. >> well, the middle class hasn't done well for the last 10, 20 years. and if you look at the stress the middle class has been under, um, that started long before the recession. the recession made it much worse. first and foremost to help the middle class, we needed to end the recession. the most important thing for strengthening the middle class was to get the recovery going. we saw in the 1990s, the only time when all parts of the american income distribution grew together was in the late 1990s when the economy was strong. so certainly economic growth is necessary.

it's not, not sufficient. so turning around the economy from this, you know, deep slide that it was in in 2008, beginning in 2009, prerequisite for helping the middle class. but there's a normal cyclical pattern when it comes to earnings, and earnings growth tends to lag or real earnings tend to decline when the economy is weak and start to improve with a lit of a lag after the economy is improving. so i think it's a bit premature to judge how the middle class has been, has been doing. they're certainly doing quite a bit better because the economy has turned around. and i think it's going to take a while to get past a lot of the problems that had built up over years that effected the middle class, even before the recession. you know, if we think about how we upside invested in education in the u.s., how our educational attainment stopped growing like the rest of the world. i think that's one of the

reasons why the middle class has been under stress. that's not going to turn around overnight, but i think we can see a path forward where that will improve. >> and why, why has the 1% done so well? >> i don't know the figures that you looked at. there are lots of numbers on income. the official data come out with quite a lag. but one of the reasons why people of means have been doing better is because the financial sector's doing much better, and that helps people who have financial wealth. it also helps middle class families in their pensions and so on, but we've seen a big rebound in equity markets, and that's contributing to some of the statistics that you're citing. >> well, one of the things i'm trying to lead up to is something you have written and talked about a great deal more in recent years which is income and equality. apart from the dynamics dynamice effects it has socially and

politically, does it matter economically if we have a growing, robust society? >> oh, absolutely. >> economy, rather? why? >> well, the arrows point in both directions. a growing, robust economy helps the middle class and reduce -- >> so if we've had a decent economy prior to the recession, that income gap widened a little bit? >> well, it didn't grow as well as it did in the '90s. >> uh-huh. >> and other factors have been, you know, causing inequality to rise. but when the arrows go in both directions, one of the points we tried to stress in the economic report of the president this year is the fact that so much of our national income has shift today the very top. they tend to have a lower marginal propensity to consume. now, in the long run people tend to spend, spend their wealth, but it takes a while for the long run to arrive. and on top of that when you got the estate tax, when you cut

estate taxes, then people at the top have a stronger incentive to save their income, not spend their income for several generations down the line. and one of the problems the economy has been facing is weak aggregate demand, and i think the fact that the middle class has not kept up has led to some of our macroeconomic problems. i think that led to excess borrowing in many cases. so i think that our country does much better when the middle class is doing well. >> well, if you had that proverbial wand as an economist and you could do two or three things that would begin to address, alleviate, mitigate income inequality, what would they be? >> first and foremost, i think we need to do a better job with education in the u.s., starting with k-12 where secretary duncan has, i think, done a number of innovative things to lead to a race to the top. but also in post-high school

education, particularly community colleges. community colleges are a kind of secret weapon in the u.s -- >> for immigrants and for lots of people. >> for a number of people. >> yeah. >> and community colleges are focused on the economy, you know, their role is to help students get into jobs. so they have a better finger on the pulse of the economy, i could tell you, than most ivy league schools where you're training students who will go on to graduate school or not so focused on getting into a career right away. so that's one area where the president has put a lot of emphasis in trying to help make a transition for students to go from high school to community college, to have community colleges partner with businesses in their local areas to tailor their curriculum to the types of jobs that are growing in the those areas. >> i should point out that dr. krueger has two harvard degrees, two, which is something he shares in common with mitt romney and president obama who

only has one said that means that they're both snobs. but anyway, i would -- >> i couldn't get a ph.d. without getting a master's degree first, so i -- >> so you really don't count -- >> i didn't want go to two separate schools at harvard. >> that was a joke. he told it much better than i did, too, by the way. what effect do federal tax rates have on job creation? >> well, a very broad question. um, depends, of course, what the taxes are, how high they are, how they're structured. but bruce bartlett actually had a very nice piece today -- >> former reagan economist -- >> former treasury economist during the reagan administration, you know, pointing out that our taxes are low compared to the rest of the world, and if you look at countries that have higher tax rates, you don't see lower employment rates in those countries. when we had moderately higher

rates in the 1990s on top income earners, we had much faster job growth. so i think it's much more important for the economy, for job growth to get the conditions right for businesses to prosper, for workers to be well trained to provide the kinds of services and produce the kinds of products that the economy demands than a level of taxes. >> well, then if you look at the late '90s as the salad years, good period, why not -- and you have a chronic deficit problem -- why not for the sake of the economy get rid of all the bush tax cuts, go back to, you know, address the deficit problem, and we did well under those rates in the '90s, why wouldn't we do well in those rates over the next five years and not just end the tax cuts for the wealthy? >> the president has made clear that given the stress the middle class has been under, he wants to maintain the middle class tax

cuts that have been put in place. he proposed a balanced approach in his budget which would raise the top two rates just on the top 1 or 2% of income earners in america. make smart cuts in the budget be, preserve the important investments like in community colleges, and that's a way to have a stronger economy. >> well, let me ask you a question about the corporate tax rate which we talked a lot about corporate tax reform, the administration certainly is interested in it. how, how much lower could you make the corporate tax rate, the maximum tax rate, and to do that what would be the two or three, four, whatever major preferences, writeoffs that you would address so it's revenue neutral? >> well, i've learned having worked at treasury not to step too much on the assistant secretary for tax policy's job. but, you know, there's obviously a trade-off between which

preferences you eliminate and how you lower the overall rate. i think one thing that would be very helpful is to take the production tax credit which has morphed into a much broader credit and focusing it much more on manufacturing, particularly advanced manufacturing. that's what the president proposed, to lower the rate for manufacturers down to 25% and lower it further for advanced manufacturing. that's one, i think, easy thing to do because if you look at the types of companies that are getting the production credit, you kind of scratch your head and say this doesn't make that much sense. they're not facing intense international competition, they're not the types of -- many of them are not the types of industries where they could easily move offshore to tax havens. so concentrating more of the tax relief on manufacturers who are more geographically mobile, more sensitive to the tax rates, i think, makes sense. >> and let me ask you a final question before peter comes up.

you were here in the clinton administration in the '90s, the labor department. how is washington, if it is, different today than it was 15 years ago? i'm talking about the climate, the politics, the environment? >> right. it's a really good question. i'll answer it in two ways. in a way it feels very similar to when i was in the labor department when you look at the economy. when you look at the job market. so i was in the clinton administration in 1994-1995. and you remember, we had a jobless recovery at the beginning of the '90s, and it took longer, actually, before job growth started to consistently back in 1993 than it has in the current recovery. and yet people were worried about diminished expectations for the future, and when you -- look at the numbers, you saw we had ups and downs, but we were on a better path. i make a chart every month comparing private sector job growth because that gives you, i think, a better feel for how the economy is healing in this

recovery and in the past two recoveries. and we're hugging very closely to the line from the early 1990s. and if you look at -- and we're doing a lot better than in the recovery from the recession in the early 2000s. so to me, it's particularly important that we stay on that higher curve. and i remember the angst at that time. and that feels similar. and i guess it's even magnified because of the changes in your industry, because of new media outlets. one of the industries where we've seen job losses is newspapers. we had a kind of like the economic report of the president, every chapter had at least one box on data. and in one chapter we got some information from linkedin about what are the hottest fields and which are the fields that are least hot. newspapers was least hot. so i think that the media's changing -- even then it felt intense, but now it's around the

clock. and i think it's a little bit of a problem for the public because as i said earlier, the data are volatile. you know, the nature of the u.s. economy is a very diverse economy. there's no one sector which tells you the whole story for the economy. the measures that we have even though we have very large samples for, say, the unemployment rate or the establishment survey, they have sampling variability. they, there's a margin of error to those surveys. and i think it's important to kind of sift through the data, not overreact to the latest number, paint a picture of how the economy's doing. yet the reporting is just very focused on kind of hyping up the last, the last piece of information that comes out no matter how, um, informative it might be. >> we have some questions for you from our audience here. let me ask you this first one, why was the president so negative on simpson-bowles?

if reelected, what is his way forward? i don't think the word should be off our fiscal cliff, but dealing with the fiscal cliff? is. >> i don't think the president was so negative on simpson-bowles. in fact, if you look at simpson-bowles, they followed a balanced approach which is exactly what the president's trying to do, balance between revenues and spending reduction. they also wanted a broader base for tacks. that's exactly -- for taxings. that's exactly where the president is. and, in fact, if you look at the military cuts in simpson-bowles compare today what the president agreed to, simpson-bowles goes even further when people are complaining about those cuts. so i think the president has certainly been influenced by the bowles and simpson commission, and i think the president's approach is balanced just like bowles and simpson, and you compare that to the alternatives, i think it, um, a

lot to be said for the president's approach. even with bowles and simpson in the background. >> one more question, then i'll let al wrap up. what advice have you given the president, what warnings have you given the president about the situation in europe and the risk that poses currently to the u.s. economy? >> well, any good adviser will tell you don't repeat the advice you give to your boss, so i won't say specifically what advice i've given the president. but clearly, the developments in europe pose some risks to the u.s. and to the world economy. the situation had improved, and over the last few weeks we've seen rise in some interest rates in some countries. that still looks a lot better than it did, say, last summer. and it remains to be the case that the countries in europe have the capacity to address

their problems. and i think it's very important that they act as swiftly as they can to address them. the problems are only going to be worse the longer they delay implementing solutions. >> you have been terrific and patient and very forthcoming, so let's close with a really easy one. what will the unemployment rate be in, say, october? [laughter] >> it's an easy one because i can tell you what our process is for making forecasts. we -- >> we'd really prefer a number. [laughter] >> thought you might. we, together with the treasury department, office of management and budge, we make forecasts twice a year of the unemployment rate and all the other key variables that go into the budget. we will have a new forecast this summer. the last forecast we made for the fourth quarter, we don't do it month by month, for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 8.9%.

we made that forecast in november of 2011 when the unemployment rate at that time was about 9.1. we might have been 8.8, actually, now that i think about it. we were in the high 8s at that time. when we released the forecast in january, early february, the unemployment rate had come down to 8.5 at that point, and we acknowledged that our forecast was stale and no longer relevant. what i would recommend doing is looking at the consensus of private sector forecasters or what the fed has been forecasting. in general, it's the case that if you look at the median forecaster, they're better than any particular forecaster. i always try to inform my forecasts by looking at how the median forecaster is viewing the economy. but you'll have to wait until the summer for our next official forecast. >> or we can get a sneak preview. dr. krueger, thank you very much. >> several live events to tell you about this morning. the brookings institution hosts

a discussion on u.s. tax policy. panelists include form beer treasury secretary robert rubin and alice rivlin, the founding director of the congressional budget office and the former head of the office of management and budget. that's here on c-span2 at 9:30 eastern. and on our companion network, c-span, the heritage foundation hosts a discussion of how to help veterans and their families. the forum includes service groups outlining their programs for veterans. that's at 10 a.m. eastern. sunday on q&a -- >> i don't regard this as just the biography of lyndon johnson. i want each book to examine a kind of political power in america. i'm saying this is a kind of political power. seeing what a president can do in a moment of great, a time of great crisis, great crisis, how he gathers all around, what does he do to get legislation moving,

to take command in washington, that's a way of examining power in a time of crisis. i said i want to do this in full. i suppose it takes 300 pages in there. so i couldn't, that's why i just said let's examine this. >> robert care row on the passage of power, volume four in the years of lyndon johnson, his multi-volume biography of the 36th president. this sunday at 8 on c-span's q&a. and look for our second hour of conversation with rocket caro -- robert caro sunday, may 20th. >> now, joint chiefs of staff chairman general martin dempsey, he spoke at the carnegie endowment for international peace. we'll show you as much of this as we can until our live coverage at 9:30 eastern. [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon to all of you and to all of those in the overflow rooms downstairs. i'm jessica matthews, president of the carnegie endowment for international peace, and i want to thank you for joining us for this very special event with america's top military officer, general martin dempsey. general dempsey took up his position as chairman of the joint chiefs in october succeeding admiral mike mullen whom we were very fortunate to host as a speaker in the his last week of his tenure. so it gives me special pleasure to welcome general dempsey near the beginning of his term of office and to offer him a chance to sum up when he's finished here in this same chair. every chairman faces a daunting array of challenges, but general dempsey, i think, has inherited tougher than most. there are the crises, iran,

syria, sudan, but there are always crises. i'm thinking more of systemic challenges. under his watch a decade of war in iran, in iraq and afghanistan are drawing to an uncertain close, and there is the challenge of constructing an outcome there not that looks like conventional victory, but that looks as acceptable and positive as we can make it. second, the asia pacific region with its growing wealth and military power is taking on a new significance and has recently prompted a major shift in america strategy, the so-called asia pivot. there are no prior examples in history of a world order that has been able to peacefully accommodate a new, great power. it was this uncomfortable fact that lay behind china's

now-abandoned slogan of peaceful rise. so this, this challenge has to rate at the very top. and third is the coming wave of budget cuts and the challenge of matching those cuts to creating and sustaining a force that will be flexible and effective and able to safeguard national interests in a rapidly-changing security environment for which the crystal ball is still pretty cloudy. as the president's principle military adviser and the leader of 2.2 million men and women in uniform, there are no easy decisions that reach the chairman's desk, and that is certainly true for this chairman. given his enormous responsibilities, the country is very fortunate to have in general dempsey a man of great experience and quiet wisdom.

he has served in uniform for 38 years moving 22 times and live anything all corners of the -- living in all corners of the world. as he rose through the ranks, he taught english at west point, he served as an adviser to one of his predecessors as chairman, and he assumed an impressive array of increasingly weighty commands. during his, during the early days of the war in iraq, he distinguished himself commanding the first armored division in baghdad. he later commanded centcom and the army's training and doctrine command becoming army chief of staff last april. less than eight week into that job, president obama tapped him as chairman, and the pinnacle of a long and distinguished military career. since taking office he has passionately dedicated himself to rebuilding the joint force, preparing it to meet future

threats and keeping faith with our troops and with their families. secretary gates has praised him for his intellectual heft, moral courage and strategic vision. not a bad recommendation. secretary -- president obama has called him one of the nation's most respected and combat-tested generals. we at carnegie are deeply honored to have him here with us today. ladies and gentlemen, please, join me in welcoming general martin dempsey. [applause] >> well, thank you, jessica, for that very kind introduction, and thanks all of you for your presence here today. i didn't know there was an overflow room. i haven't had this kind of crowd since the last time i sang karaoke at a local -- [laughter] no, actually, that's not true. [laughter] but i am encouraged, actually, to see such a large crowd because it tells me that you've

got the right things on your mind in terms of what's important for our nation as we go forward with a certain number of challenges that you actually laid out quite articulately. i will say that on occasion some of my peers, the chiefs of defense in other countries, will kind of almost express a certain amount of sympathy for my plight as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for the united states of america. i say, are you kidding me? i'm senior military officer for the finest military force the world has ever seen, and i also came in the service 38 years ago with the idea that i might actually try to make a difference, and those two things have converged for me in a rather incredible way, and i consider it a blessing every day i put on the uniform, to serve this great country and the men and women who choose to serve as well. i was out in colorado springs just yesterday where we are

conducting the wounded warrior games, kind of a paraolympics, actually. each service field is a team of about 50. wounds, illnesses, things that have changed their lives. and their motto is ability over disability. it's a fantastic thing to see. i mention it just to keep it all in context, you know? right now in afghanistan it's been nearing that time of the day when we do most of our military operations, and so i think that the challenges you outhined for us -- outlined for us, we will figure it out, and we'll figure it out because that's what we do, and we'll figure it out because we've got a nation and its sons and daughters counting on us to do that. so i want to say a few words, and i think then we'll have the chance to have that conversation that's advertised up there. the subtext, i think, that i would like to suggest is making

strategy work. you know that over the past months we've formulated what i guess is now being called a new defense strategy. it's built on a foundation of the qdr, of course, but it is new in several popt ways. and -- important ways. and i'll mention three of them. one of the ways in which it's new is this rebalancing, if you will, to the pacific. not that bev ever left -- we've ever left the pacific, but rather a rebalancing to the pacific. and i would suggest to you because i'm asked, i was at nato last week, and they were asking me with great interest, you know, what does it mean that you're rebalancing into the pacific, and i suggested, i suggested to them that it's a process, not, you know, a light switch that we'll work our way into it. it starts with intellectual bandwidth more than anything else which is why i'm happy to be with you here today. one of the centers of gravity of

thinking about national security matters in our country. and we have to shift some of our intellectual bandwidth and start to understand how to, how to rebalance ourselves. so it's not just about resources or equipment or basing, it's about thinking. and we are beginning that process. now, the second thing is building partners. there are one of the cornerstones of our new strategy is building partners. and this is not of necessity because we'll be doing less, it's because the world that we have seen evolve around us over the last let's say 20 years in general but ten years in particular is a world in which i've described it as a security paradox where we're at an evolutionary low in violence in the world right now. but it doesn't feel like that really does it?

a proliferation of capabilities, technologies to middleweight actors, non-state actors that actually makes the world feel and potentially be more dangerous than anytime i remember in uniform and now recall that i came in the army in 1974. and this isn't by way -- i'm not saying this by way of establishing my credentials so that when budget reductions come our way, we can throw up the shield of the security paradox. it's because it generally is a paradox. and it's not a paradox that necessarily has to be met with bigger military forces. i think it's a paradox that has to be met with different military forces, and among the things that will make that work are our ability to build on existing partnerships around the globe, notably the north atlantic alliance, others as well. but, and then emerging partners around the globe. because what we've seen our adversaries do is kind of

decentralize. they really mass against -- they rarely mass against us any longer. they decentralize, they network and they syndicate. they network using 21st century technologies, and then they syndicate together groups of state actors, non-state actors, criminal actors. and they come together, and they pull apart based on moments in time when they want to find common purpose against us. so in that world we, the probably quintessential hierarchical institution on the face of the planet -- and i would, if anybody want to lay claim to that title during the q&a, i'd be happy to find out who you are -- [laughter] because i do think we have the market cornered on hierarchy, but we have to find ways to be a network ourselves. and that means a network of interagency partners internal to our government. we have to be a lot more joint. we keep saying that, but we actually at this point in time, we better pull it off. and we have to partner with and

network with other countries who are like-minded with us because it makes that network stronger. it's not just about outsourcing particular responsibilities or capabilities, it's about building a stronger network to defeat the networks that confront us. and i've, recently if you're interested, i was in nato, i was in colombia, i was in jordan, and i think that that narrative that i just described to you on the importance of partners was reinforced for me in those travels, and i'd be happy to talk with you. now, look, building partnerships is not an easy endeavor. in fact, in nato the 28 of us, me and my 27 closest north atlantic partners, were sitting around a room for what seemed to be nearly interminable briefings and so forth, and so somebody said to me how would you, you know, how would you describe, you know, our relationship as

chiefs of defense, all of us? i said, you know, it kind of reminds me of a letter that my wife wrote me when i was in operation desert storm. this is when we still wrote letters. mind you, today we text. in fact, some of you are probably texting right here in this room. [laughter] and certainly, if you have children, you know that the last time they answered their phone was quite a while ago, but they'll answer your texts almost immediately. in any case, it reminds me of a letter that my wife wrote me back in desert storm, and she said, you know, i'm just so miserable without you, it's almost as though you were right here with me. [laughter] now, i think, i confronted her afterwards on whether that was some kind of freudian slip or something, and she assured me it was a slip. she didn't intentionally put that particular phraseology in the letter, but it did remind me how it is being a member of big alliances where, you know, you're miserable without them,

but it's pretty miserable being with them, too, you know, to try to gain the consensus and the common interest that you need. okay. but, so there's a couple of things in that area of building partners, though, that i think we need to take on if we consider it to be among the three pillars of our new strategy. and some of those are issues of intelligence-sharing, technology transfer, foreign military sales. you know, we have to reform some of our processes that actually tend in some cases, maybe even in many cases, to somewhat hinder our ability to build partners. so building partners is the second. the first was rebalancing to the pacific, the second one is building partners. the third, the third aspect of this new strategy is the integration of capabilities that we didn't have ten years ago. and, of course, most of them are probably fairly obvious to you. if we were having this conversation ten years ago, we --