education while they were growing up. and just at the time when they're about to enter their most productive years, and can contribute to our economy, we say, there's nowhere for you to go. my own institution of princeton university, five years ago, saller to graduate. the top graduate in greek and latin was a dominican who came here at age 2. and when he graduated as a sal da torian of princeton outed as an illegal migrant and forced, forced, to take a full scholarship at oxford university to study a h ph.d. in classics. we end up deporting one of the top graduates of one of our top universities rather than making yuz of his productive skills we actually paid for. closer to comprehensive immigration reform than people think.

illegal migration actually is zero. it has been for three years. in 2008, the illegal population in the united states peaked. between 2008 and 2009 it actually fell from 12 million to 11 million people. since 2009, it's held steady at 11 -- probably trending downward. on a net basis, illegal mig sgrags now zero or negative. the border is in fact under control. the number of apprehensions -- 22,000 officers and they're having a harder time finding anybody to arrest. apprehensions at the mexico-u.s. border are now lower than at any time since 1972. have 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 anybody really 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 of in history. so one of the reasons that illegal mig sgrags down is because opportunity have opened up in the legal system. now, this is not a very efficient system. it's channeled through all kinds of bureaucracy and simp esimple give a visa and let them come look for a job, connecting supply and demand. rather, we channel it through a

bureaucracy and systems of indentured servitude which basically work to line the pockets of middle-men recruiters who exploit the workers. nonetheless it points the way that when you open up legal opportunities it waffect on opening up undocumented flow. i personally think that the boom in mexican immigration we've seen in the past several years is over. and you all probably think, oh, well, you know, our problem is going to be keeping people out. the problem the united states in the years to come is going to be attracting people in. mexico's fertility rate is about 2.3 children per women. ours, 2.1 to 2.2. mexican children declined. the rate of labor force has fallen. mexico has turn add corner and becoming an aging society.

so the huge supply side demographic push wes saw in the '80s and '90s, that's over. and the way to move forward is to set up attractable systems of legal temporary migration with an expansion of quotas for permanent residency. most people will circulate a few times and retire back, invest in a business in a farm, education for their kids, 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 states, which is locked in a free trade agreement 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 resident than 20,000 visas an accommodate. mexico's 105 million people. closely connected with us. the largest private employer in mexico is not walmart. at the same time, mexican workers have been self-increasing their own quotas. congress in its infinite wisdom began strip ago way rights and privileges of non-citizens in this country. if you're a non-citizen, illegal resident alien you have zero rights in this country. you can be arrested on the authority of a low-level employee, of a police department or homeland security, thrown into the immigration detention system. no trite a lawyer, no right to challenge detention. a couple of weeks ago you might have seen it in the paper. a puerto rican was arrested, thrown in immigration detention

and held for a week. a native-born american citizen. and he could not get out. what is a poor immigrant to do? defensive naturalization. you drive up the costs and risks of not being a citizen. people rationally respond by becoming citizens. if congress' intent was to discourage immigration that backfired, too. because every time you create a citizen, you create new entitlement for illegal immigration in an illegal system. so somebody with a green card has a right to petition for the entry of spouse and minor children, subject to numerical limitation. if they person naturalized and becomes an american citizen, the spoushgs minor children come in outside-of-any numerical limitation and requires the right to bring in his parents outside of any newer miracle limitation. so the number of mexicans coming into the united states per year has been above 150,000 per year with larger and larger share

being relatives of citizens that were people that were pushed towards naturalization by u.s. policy. so, really, we've got a guesswork program. it's not very good, but we got one. quotas for illegal immigration from mexico. mexicans have been self-expanding them for their own actions. the border is effectively under control. had net zero migration, negative migration now for three, four years. the pressure for additional migration from mexico is low, a historic low. the only thing that really remains in the way of comprehensive immigration reform what to do with the 11 million people who are here. well, for the 3 million or so who entered at children who entered at minors, didn't make the decision to migrate here, the only humane and practical solution is to offer them an amnesty. absent any kind of criminal

record. if they undergo a criminal background check and come up clean, let them get on with their lives in the only country they really know. we've paid for them to arrive at the age of 18 and then we say, you can't use this, skills an language abilitieses you've acquired in the united states. you have to work in the black labor market. losing all of our investment, or a such sta substantial chunk of our investment. for those who entered in as authorized adults. there are 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 of 9 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 year, five year, whatever, allow them to prove their worth. start paying taxes.

acquire language abilities, take civics courses, and after the end of the period if they've kept their nose clean and done everything we want them to do, if you really want to punish them for law breaking and erase the slate, fine them. they're happy to pays 3ds,000 to a coyote, they'd be happy to pay $ $3,000 to the u.s. for a green card. so they pay they are debt to society. these are 90% or simply, criminal records a whole other story entirely. you allow them to pay the fine, pay they are debt to society and move forward. that, to me is the only practical solution to the problem we've got. i was testifying before senate judiciary committee some years ago, and the secretary of homeland security testified before me and senator kennedy,

at live at the time, asked him can we really contemplate deporting 11 million people? the secretary of homeland security said, no. it's just not practical. so if the secretary of homeland security in the bush administration says we can't deport 11 million 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're creating 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, full advantage of the kill, motivations, the immigrants bring to us. and now is a good time to do it, because the pressure is off. the border is under control. the demography pushing migrants towards it's united states is waning. and the time has arrived to take the final step towards a comprehensive immigration reform. and that simply legal, creating

a way to legalization for the 11 million people who are here would go a long way to solving our problems. and legalization that is granting permanent resident status, make nos assumption about eventual citizenship. right now, lawyers, you become a permanent resident in the united states and can stay in that status the rest of your life. no gun pointing at your head saying you've got to naturalize. well, congress has actually done that, as a martytter -- in practical terms but that's a decision thaw take. you become eligible an five years of permanent legal residence. you have the option, should you care to, to apply for american citizenship and you wouldn't need to change citizenship law. after five years, you acquire the right to apply for american

citizenship. so we're a lot closer than people think and really the outstanding piece of business at this point is coming to terms with the 11 million people, living here, out of status, who want to live productive law-abiding lives but can find none way forward, unless we reform. >> okay. do we have any questions from the audience? >> i have a comment. foch for dr. massey. because [ inaudible ] well played -- >> not a chance i inhale. >> and then for -- [ laughter ] >> for mr. montgomery. you said with confidence that, you said that, sb1070 in ars sars not racist and said it emphatically. my question is i'm not sure how you can make that statement with

such emphasis given the lack of empirical data on whether it is soar isn't? i haven't found any study in my understanding is that sheriff arpaio is resistant to people coming in and analyzing that point. >> first -- because there's more, what meets the eye of the civil rights division engaged in. election year politics. although there are some very specific incidents that are referenced to witht civil rights division december 15th letter i acknowledged. the individuals involve wd criminally prosecuted. with respect to i believe the 1070 cannen implement pd. it hasn't been because enjoined by federal courts which was the beginning of its path to the u.s. supreme court last week. i can say emphatically because police officers and law enforcement in maricopa county now are enforcing laws in a

non-discriminatory manner positive uphold the constitution and many come from the very ethnic backgrounds that opponents of sb1070 declayed they would have been racially profiled. which i find ludicrous in my ten-year history in working in maricopa county. it doesn't happen systemically the way people claim it will. does it happen on a case-by-case basis? sure, just as it does in other law enforcement agencies across the united states. small town, big cities. in terms, is the sky going to fall, this will result in a systemic racially profile 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 leooks like. so do my over 300 prosecutors. i find it offensive people think we'll turn a blind eye to this one area of the law when we're completely competent to make the

same assessment in every other area of the law that we deal with. >> this question is also for bill montgomery. a couple people have said that sb1070 even though it hasn't been fully implemented is a way to get people to self-deport. that's a common thing that's been said a lot, and do you think that having laws like sb1070 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, but i don't think that -- again, that is-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 arizona's passed over the

last several years and tried to address this issue. and, again i wanted to younter score this. arizona in try to address the impact of illegal immigration been forced in the absence of responsible federal action to take action. but in addition, to 1070, arizona passed an amendment to our conference stugs that denies pail if they commit a serious offense pap human smuggling statute that addresses both the coyote and their client. we have employment-related i. dnkts theft statutes. mind you, it's only within the last couple years arizona fallen out of the number one spot in the nation for identity theft, which was primarily due to employment-related identity theft pap that information can be checked at the federal trade commission's data clearinghouse and then wales have the legal arizona workers act which faced its own court challenge in a claim it was going to end business in arizona and it didn't. all of that together as well as what happened with 1070

contributed to an environment in which our illegal alien population dropped. as rightly noted earlier, that doesn't necessarily mean people returned to their country of origin. they've gone to other states. other states, then have tried o to, in some instances, adopt arizona laws to deal with it. this just continues to underscore the point, and it's good for us to be here in eyesight of the capitol to say ultimately for us to have a reasoned responsible approach to dealing with immigration as a whole and illegal immigration in particular, the federal government la got to do its job. >> this is also for bill. not to pepper you with questions. >> no problem. happens all the time. >> you expressed conflating legal and illegal immigration, but it seems like you conflate

illegal immigration with criminal activity. if sb 1070 was about criminal activity, why does it focus its efforts on criminalizing work, workers and employers and workplace raids rather than on cartel activity? that you sited as the reason for going after illegals in the first place? why waste all that effort? >> to clarify i didn't say that's why we went after illegals in it's first place. i said that's why there's an continuing effort needing to provide operational security for the border in addition to other issues we have with respect to having a system in which we can require people to comply with bureaucratic requirements for immigration and international security concerns. so it's in that context. 1070 itself, it's -- 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 received warnings from arizona every single time the legislature acts and the governor signs. every time that arizona voters have gone to the polls. in fact, 1070 still enjoy as majority support in arizona as well as overwhelming majority support across this nation. every time we do this, it's another clarion call for the federal government to step up and do its job. 1070, is it going to specifically address criminal activity? well, you could say under arizona law, if someone is engaging in employment using someone else's identification, that's criminal. we prosecute that. to the extent that 1070 try to ratchet down on that, yes it is addressing a crim nah activity. the extent sb1070 underscores the ability already law enforcement has to assist and participate in immigration enforcement when they otherwise have a legitimate law enforcement contact. it's going towards addressing criminal activity or ongone

partnership through communities 10shgs 70 acknowledge, an effort to address criminal activity lp be clear. not everyone who comes to this country and in r pursuit of employment and does not break a law in doing by definition a cr. but the impact to arizona and the impact to our nation on a whole continueses to be a significant impact and we do see criminal related activity. we've had shootouts on i-10 between rival human trafficking gangs fighting over their cargo. that is inherently criminal activity. i mentioned the auto theft issues. we also have ongoing issues with cash being smuggled across the border in both directions with drugs being trafficked across our border north to south or south to north. i would respectfully argue that while overall we may have a secure border in terms of looking at national levels of those present and unauthorized, in arizona it's not secure

enough. >> i'm going to ask a question here. and direct it at dr. massey. >> i have a question for dr. mazy. we've been studying the border for a long time. you ask people why they come here and how long they're going to stay and a lot of other erelated questions. with when you hear the arguments such as we've just heard that it's all criminal activity, as you think about the people why they're coming here, do you think if there was a comprehensive immigration solution that would make it easy yr for those people to come here legally, wouldn't that diminish the criminal activity in? >> many my view. the people that come here are

looking to stay out of trouble. specially if they're documented. they don't want to have legal entanglements. if you look at the data around the united states, immigrant neighborhoods have lower crime rates. and immigrants are less prone to crime than american natives. that doesn't mean there aren't criminal conspiracies and gangs. on the whole, ill grants are not elevating our crime rate at all. in fact, they're probably reducing it a bit. the problem is, first that we've criminalized a lot of acts that in the past were not really considered to be criminal acts. so many things that immigrants do to just get by and try to find a job and make their way in the united states have been criminalized we've created a lot of criminality. and by criminalizing illegal

migration, criminalizing labor migration as we have, we've created a lucrative niche for cartels. 30 years ago when i first studying immigration, the arrange coyote was somebody from the migrant's hometown and they were mom and pop operations and the services provided before simply they guided you across from teeian na to san diego and left you at a 7-11 in which you la vista, california. now it requires safe houses. now it requires longer transport. it's much more dangerous and risky and the price has gone up to $3,000. it's created a lucrative market for not mom and pop, but criminal syndicates. i don't see a strong connection between the narcotics trade and human trafficking trade. they dend to run along parallel

tracks. drug traffickers don't load up migrants with a couple pounds of cocaine or marijuana, they run truns through border crossingings. they build tunnels. they have lots of money. they don't get down to that petty level. point of fact is that the basic problem is like immigration it's demand driven. drugs are actually quite popular in the united states. and there's a strong demand for drugs that demand originates in the upper class white population. as long as the demand is there, somebody's going to rise to supply it. it's the less advantaged elements of society on both sides of the border that end up doing the trafficking and getting the intradecision. decades has not worked. they have only produced more plentiful drugs at cheaper

prices. >> first of all it's very difficult to think about a west point grad that led the tank across the sands over in desert storm so bill, let me recognize, i want to make sure that everyone here understands there is one absolute solid con sen us up here, has been all day, we need immigration reform to coming 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. i've been on my knees in sheilah jackson's office, she's my congresswoman. she thought they didn't want it.

i've been in john cornyn's office he wasn't serious he thought the president won't be serious about it. the moment senator cornyn makes a statement to the news media, i'm willing to discuss the studies all get his desk covered up with faxes that come from my good republican friends who act as the puppets. those organizations i named are the puppet ears. in regard to arizona ast's right to pass 1070, i don't argue that right, although i help supported to make us free from the greater houston partnership arguing against it. as far as i'm concerned the states' rights are a big thing, they ought to be able to do whatever they want to do. i think it's a terrible mistake for arizona.

i am thrilled that we took the bill. but the sanctuary city bill was proposed in texas. had four unfunded mandates clearly four unfunded mandates. number one, it increased more man hours on the street for the police officers when every municipality was trying to cut back overtime to balance their budget. number two, it required federal trading and federal law for local law enforcement. number three, it put more nonviolent people in jail in texas at $70 a day. worst of all, number four, it left more immigrant citizen children behind to be taken care of by my taxes. on top of that, my police chiefs and my sheriff's across the state came and testified in droves to our legislature that it would not help, but it would hurt their ability to enforce the law in hispanic neighborhoods where they have

built up a degree of trust. you're an elected official and you're charged with enforcing law, if arizona wants it enforced, you've got to enforce id. i admire you for that. 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. >> another question that i've got. i'll direct this at both. both of you come from pretty diverse angles on this thing. a lot of people would say you're the opposites in terms of political spectrum. >> i don't think so. i don't think so.

i think we have the same ultimate goal. >> that's kind of the point to my question. let me rephrase it. people would perceive you as coming from a law and order perspective. ryeland, think would look at you as coming from the faith and the human rights perspective. but here you are two people with that different viewpoint wind up at a very similar place. given that, i don't know if you guys had ever met before or heard each ere's views before. it's one of those things i hope when i decided to bring you guys the panels, i was hoping i was going to get this different perspective but winding up in the same place. does hearing each other's perspectives encourage you or