places like arizona where it's doing worse, you see more business creation. you see more job creation from new businesses. and immigrants are a driving force in job creation, both by themselves starting businesses and providing a lot of the other support that businesses need to be able to get started. so i think you'll see an kres in economic growth in states that receive more immigrants as a result of them going there, and because of states already did better than arizona so that is what you will end up seeing as a result of public services and problems like that, texas doesn't have a large welfare state, compared to california for instance. and the taxes are lower as a result. so if you see temporary aid to families in texas is fourth of the amount that it is in california, immigrants aren't going to the welfare states with the high welfare state, they're going to texas, loel welfare

state states. the amicus brief i filed on the issue deals with that precise issue and there is lots of statistics and citation to even some of al lex's work in that brief so if you get a copy of the brief, it's replete with citations and statistics on that. >> when enforcement through attrition becomes acceptable, where does it stop? who is the next group? when senator pearce was building his coalition for sb1070, he granted to what to me, what i call anti-women anti-gay legislators proposing their legislation, which is now coming up, that if they signed on with sb1070 he would allow that kind of legislation to come through in the next session. of course he was voted out of office, but not just the economic issues. the morale issues we can

anticipate anti-gay and anti-muslim legislation coming down the road. >> thank you for bringing it back to the moral issue. can i say one more thing? >> of course. >> thank you for the work you're doing and bless you in your passion and your pph.d. work. i know in the framework of this discussion we're talking about academics and the birther issue is of concern. i just want to say at the heart of this to me, one very brief story, a group of students ph.d. candidates from colorado, went down to the migrant trail which as you know is the trail that migrants moved through mexico toward the u.s. border, they had been walking from a long time. might have come from guatemala, from central mexico, they have been walking a long time. the students went out because

people go and they assist them, people haven't eaten, don't have water, decent clothes. people on the mexican side of the border go to the migrant trail and offer support. this particular group didn't speak spanish very well, it saw a group of migrants moving through the desert and called out medicina, aqua, the group, seeing a group of white people, yelling at them, not hearing them very well, went running away. so the students said comeda, medicina, aqua, the group stopped. the group of migrants came back to the white group of students in the desert and they said we're sorry, we don't have much water, we don't have much clothing, we don't have much food, we don't have much medicine, but what we have we'll share with you. and then the other side of the border it is illegal to offer

care? beyond these questions of demographics and birthers, what about our heart? and does our heart matter in your formulation as staffers of public policy? thank you. >> thank you, we'll have to stop there, thanks to all the pan panelis panelists. i guess we'll stop for lunch now? >> very quickly there are lunches in the back, feel free to grab one, sodas or waters, get back to your seat and we'll get started with the next panel, because we will finish on time. we will continue our live

cover rage of the competitive enterprise forum after a brief break for lunch. in 15 minutes. a look at solutions to immigration issues from the perspective of people who live near the borders. that will be live from the rayburn house office building on capitol build at 11: 45 eastern. here is a look at some of the programming on the c-span networks. live at 2:00 with general dempsey talking about security challenges. on c-span at 2:00 eastern. c-span 2, a day look at the u.s. economy. focusing on government spend, housing market, federal banks, tax rates and other topics, live on c-span 2. tonight here on c-span 3, american history tv prime time all this week, while congress is on break. tonight historians talk about the fight against slavery. that begins at 8:00 eastern. join american history tv and book tv this weekend as we

feature the history and literary culture of oklahoma city's capital. on american history tv, visit the site of the oklahoma city bombing and land runs and native american tribes of the area. that is this weekend here on c-span 3. between 1971 and 1973, president richard nixon secretly recorded nearly 4,000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on the little things. and then you hold on the big one. hell i've done this so often in conversations with people, we'll concede that, make them feel good, don't give them the big one. >> every saturday this morning on c-span radio hear more of the nixon tapes including discussions with future presidents. key white house advisors, intelligence agency heads saturday. hear gerald ford, ronald reagan and george hw bush. 90.1 fm on xm 119,

cspanradio.org. more live coverage of the discussion on immigration and border issues coming up in 15 minutes. they're taking a lunch break. back now and listen to some of the opening statements for this forum. good morning. appreciate everyone being here. officially presented by arizona employers for immigration reform, competitive enterprise institute, national immigration forum and texans for sensible immigration policy. we are going to have an immigration summit right here in washington, d.c. where we hope the benefit of which will be to offer some solutions and move some of our members of congress to get on with immigration reform. i'm norman adams, texan, a

cofounder of texans for sensible immigration policy. and just as a setting or an opening i like to point out the fact i don't need to tell any of you that immigration debate is an emotional debate but that is nothing new. prior to 1923, if you arrived on the shores as most of our ancestors did, if you came in first class, you went straight to your hotel room. if you came over what was known as steerage, you had to walk past somebody looked at you to see if you looked sick, and then you might have to go to the quarantine station for a while but we had no quotas. we had no quotas prior to 1923. yet even then and still today, you see little italy, little germany, france, segments of the restaurants, you havesettled wi

kind. everyone remembers the sign in the window, no irishmen or dogs allowed in here. i'm old enough to remember when a polack-czech wedding was an interracial marriage. the emotion of immigration is nothing new. and a very quick rundown, i hear so often, look, what is it you don't understand about the rule of law? well, folks, that's the whole problem is that our immigration laws are broken. 1986, we've got i-9 law created by our labor department, that says if the identification looks to be legitimate, they otherwkw you have to hire them. the eeoc says if you don't hire them that is discrimination. social security administration saying with a no match letter this name doesn't match this number, but do not fire this

worker, your response built, mr. employer, to notify the worker to contact us do not fire them. if you fire them, again you have the eeoc. that is discrimination. now, our great organized government in its wisdom has come along, homeland security has come along in 2010, and decided that if you have a no match letter, that is going to be constructive knowledge. yet the eeoc is still standing this to come after you for discrimination. so, we have god only knows in legally hired illegal immigrants since 1986 under the current system. and the current system is basically its bad law, and in my opinion, again i am a right wing republican, in my opinion, roe v. wade is bad law. obamacare is bad law.

at one time in this country, it was legal to buy, sell and own black people as slaves. germany it was legal to in corresponds rate the jews. those were bad laws. our immigration laws are bad. and hopefully we'll hear a lot of good reasons for reforming them today. todd, are you ready to go? i want to introduce todd landfried. i have a personal interest in introducing this man. i am from texas, as i said. todd is the head of the arizona azeir i call it, employers for immigration reform. but todd was a lone ranger on a white horse in texas. todd came down and testified to the texas legislature in this last session. and let me tell you, we had 108 arizona-style bills proposed in the texas legislature that is

two-thirds republican dominated. two-thirds republican, republican governor, 108 arizona-style bills, or you ka call them russ sell pearce bills were up. with todd's help we motivated the legislature to listen and think and enter meaningful dialogue, we brought in businessmen and todd, of course, displayed arizona as a test tube and showed us why the laws don't work. and so in texas, we are very -- we have a great deal of -- we give the credit, i'll tell you to todd landfried and the state of arizona, god bless you todd for coming, i feel like you helped texas dodge the bullet. todd landfried. >> thanks, norm. i guess have to give you another $5 now, right?

good morning, on behalf of arizona employer force immigration reform i want to welcome to you today's congressional immigration solutions conference. this is the sixth in a series of conferences that are intend to educate the public about the impact state level immigration laws have and are having on those places that passed them and suggest altal tiff solutions that could better address the real problems without the damaging consequences. today you'll hear from people who have dealt with this issue not just from a daily basis, not just think tanks from organizations, with axes to grind but organizations that want to solve the problem in a responsible, effective and cost effective manner. yes, those solutions actually exist, you haven't had an opportunity to hear about them, you will hear about them today. i want to thank the soer sponsors. the competitive enterprise institute, national immigration forum for their support of the

event, last but not least we want to extend thanks to arizona congressman ed pastor for assisting us in reserving the room for today's event. we appreciate his willingness to sponsor the event, the broad spectrum of views will be presented to day. this isn't a partisan, this isn't a conservative or liberal, this is a conference where people from different views will come and explain how we can help solve the problem. finally, as you can see today's program is being aired nationally on cspan-3, we want to thank them for sharing our conference with the american people. here is how today will work, we have two panels, the first one addressed what we learned from the past several years at local

attempts at immigration laws. examine the impacts on business, social, faith communities. we won't talk about the confusionality. the second panel provides solutions from the perspective of people who lived on the were deer, served in law enforcement capacities or stayed at the border for many years. each speaker will have eight to ten minutes followed by q and a, we would encourage you to ask many questions. hi. at 11:15, break for 15 minutes to grab lunch and we'll come back and launch in the second panel. so we understand that immigration is a controversial issue. and we know some people in the room may have strong views one way or the other. some of the information you will hear today will challenge the conventional views, and that is part of our purpose. but just as the information we

provide today will be presented in an informative and respectful manner, we hope that everyone here attendance will be respective of those views as well. with that let me turn it back over to norm adams who will introduce the first panel. >> opening statements from earlier today we're going back live to capitol hill to the competitive enterprise group to possible solutions to the immigration problems. >> policy analyst at competitive enterprise institute. you can continue eating. if you would return your focus to the front, thank you. i'm policy analyst for competitive enterprise institute, the co-sponsor of the event. i just want to repeat a few of the remarks made by ed dee, i thought i was original but he preempted me. much like the constitution

preempts some of the sb1070 laws. america does face a demographic problem for which immigration is the only possible solution. during the 20th century, america's over 65 demographic grew at 3.5 times the rate of the general population. by 2050, this demographic will have grown from 13% historic high, to over 20%. at the same time, america's fertility rates have plunged. from 3.7 births per woman in 1960 to barely replacement levels at 2 today. all this adds up to fewer workers to pay more retirees public benefits. workers per social secure beneficiary for example have fallen from 42 in 19 45, to under 3 today.

according to the social security and medicare trustees, this has led to unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars. to pay these unfunded liability tees we will need economic growth. but fewer workers also means lower economic growth. because unleless work is done, is produced. this slow down of economic activity means that growing social services will rest on a shrinking tax base. we already know that this is what demographic doom looks like. greece and italy's declining populations exploded public pension costs and shrank economic growth. if the united states is to avoid similar demographic doom, its salvation will come from one source and one source alone. thattism i grags.

according to the pugh research center 82% of america's population increase will come from immigrants, their children and grandchildren. but it won't be enough. the un estimates that the u.s. will need five times that number of new foreign workers to maintain the year 2000's ratio between the elderly and working population. immigrants are good for government budgets. without people, there is no budget. so our job should be as policy makers to bring people here, who want to work. shutting our borders and deporting the millions of immigrants already here won't create fiscal health. the cure for too few workers isn't mass deportation, it is the opposite.

without new workers ever greater percentages of americans incomes will be devoted to transfers to the elderly. according to the social security and medicare trustee reports, increase 81% on every single american taxpayer to maintain current benefits indefinitely. this is, of course, impossible, but the solution isn't more taxes. it's more taxpayers. i propose that congress make what's already happening explicit. that immigrants are subsidizing america's debt by expanding the tax base. call it the immigration deficit reduction fund. by making this link explicit in people's minds, americans would begin to associate immigration with fiscal help rather than

immigrant welfare. immigration can solve america's fiscal difficulties and can do it at almost no cost to taxpayers. of course, these programs need to be reformed or abolished, but as the u.n. concluded for europe, only, "only international migration could be instrument's in addressing pop ligs decline and population aging in the short to medium term." only international migration. in other words, not only is immigration not bankrupting the united states, it is the only thing that can save us. thank you. and now to some solutions. todd. >> thanks, david. this is, really, i think, one of the -- the -- the key

discussions that we need to be having on this immigration issue, and that is, what are the solutions? what are other solutions? as we've heard this morning, if you look at the number of state-level immigration laws and even immigration laws that have been passed at the city, county or state levels over the last several years, as you've heard this morning, the economic outcomes in a lot of the social outcomes are not very good. so we can either continue down a path of following some ideas that we know don't work, or we can begin starting to explore some ones that have a better shot of working. the three presenters that you're going to hear now come at this from quite different perspectives. we have county attorney bill montgomery. who is the attorney for maricopa county, arizona which is sort of, i guess a lot of people call ground zero of the immigration

debate in arizona and certainly in the country. we have reverend robin hoover, who was the founder of humane borders, who was criticized and has been criticized very heavily for just trying to, as he puts it, do gotd's work on the borde and protect people who are just coming trying to better their lives, and we also have dr. doug massey, who's been studying mexican migration across the border for 30 years, at least? at least. if there's anybody that understands the issue of why people come here and how long they plan to stay and what they do while they're here, it's dr. massey. so i will sit down and i will turn the podium over to bill montgomery who will lead off this discussion. bill? >> well, thank you very much,

todd. appreciate the invitation to be here today, and i want to start off with establishing what my role is as i see it within the context of our immigration system within our country, share with you, then, some initial observations both from this morning and overall, and then my view towards what i think we need to be doing within the context of addressing immigration in the united states towards what i propose is a sane approach, s-a-n-e, to dealing with immigration. first, my role within maricopa county i am the chief law enfornesment officer representing 4 million people's in what is now the nation's fourth most populist county. i lead an office that has over 300 prosecutors, over 40 civil attorneys over 900 folks working there which makes us the fourth such largest prosecution agency in the country. and we are ground zero for illegal immigration, as long as

our southern border remains operationally unsecure, our interstate highway system in arizona, our proximity to the border, the that can't that as recently as the beginning of this year customs and border protection confirmed that half of all human beings in drugs smuggled into the united states comes through arizona, we deal with it in maricopa county. now, some initial observations from this morning and something that frustrates me to no end is the conflating of the need to address illegal immigration with immigration, and i need to address a couple of things head-on. number one, arizona is not a racist state. maricopa is out in a racist county. we have a strong hispanic influence in our state by virtue of not just our jeer graphic proximity to mexico but also our history in going back centuries and just the general nature of

immigration and the movement of populations. and having grown up just south of south central los angeles in a predominantly spanish neighborhood, being roman catholic where my faith is heavily influenced in nigh practice by the hispanic culture, i reject any attempts by anyone to associate racism with arizona's motivation in trying to do what the federal government has refused to do, and two other quick points as well. russell pierce is not a bigot nor a racist. i know him. he ras thrust into a position he willingly accepted and is unapologetic for his vociferous defense of laws he has authored and i won't defend or apologies for him, he's more than capable of doing it him, but e stepping into an area where the frost goal refused to lead we have what we have. i must also touch on one last thing, too. the insinuation immigration policy in arizona was being

promote ed in return for policy that was "anti-women or anti-gay," that's not just irresponsible, it's false and lose chris. now, my view on immigration in the united states and illegal immigration is formed from several different areas of experience. first it had to do with my role as a staff officer with the 3rd army calvary stationed in texas and active duty soldiers to assist on a reservation which straddles arizona and mexico to help interdict the smuggling of drugs and informed by my role as a line prosecutor in prosecuting felony duis in maricopa county until the passage of a constitutional amendment specifically denying bail to those in the country without lawful authority who committed serious offenses any time that i had someone who was a mexican national or even from canada, the accused of a felony dui that would be admitted to bail and

fail to show up for subsequent prosecution. then in supervising auto theft prosecution for maricopa county i dealt firsthand with 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, drive it south where it would then reconfigured for other human or drug smuggling, sometimes both and driven across the open desert untilbroke down. prevalent was this practice i would see cases for ought etheft, initially about one every other week or so, and then towards the end of 2009, mid-2010, drop down to once a bho or once every other month. a couple of years ago the arizona auto theft task force recovered over 3,000 vehicles rov nerd the arizona desert used just for that purpose.

from my view i work with 26 different 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 the civil rights of all in respect of our constitution. and when 1070 is upheld, we'll be able to enforce that in a constitutional way that respects the civil rights of everyone within my jurisdiction. and that 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