boosted in that regard, then we have a big, big problem. you tie that to the hard, cold fact that since roe v. wade, 39 years. it's a fact. we are pushing 60 million babies, could have been american-born workers we have legally aborted, because it's the law. okay? we're here to talk about immigration, but i tell you, that's part of it. those people are not here. and we have got a real crisis coming in this country if we don't turn our birth rate around. i just -- i think you want some cold, hard facts for convincing people why we need these immigrants? it's right there in just arithmetic. thank you. thanks a lot. and i -- i -- you know, i would just echo what you said. which is that there is an important communication gap that needs to be filled. and we've tried to do that in

some respects by distilling to some kind of basic numbers and it's worked to a certain extend, the 141 million in arizona. in lost conference cancellations, that's become kind of standardized reporting. the $1.5 trillion in cumulative gdp brittany mentioned before, that's from a report we did a year and a half ago, you know. so those numbers, i think, are important to get out there so that it becomes part of the common dialogue and common parlance, but we have more work to do, obviously. or we wouldn't be here today. did you want to add anything, alex? ready to the next question. >> okay. >> this is a question for alex, you talked about the cost of e-verify and how it's an expense for businesses.

can you talk more about the cost to government and businesses? about e-verify. >> yeah. so, it's part of this entire process. a lot of these workplace enforcement laws, eech-verify is continuation of the i-9, which was started in 1986, part of the irca, immigration reform and control act. according to a regulatory review done of the i-9 this year, employers spend nearly 13.5 million hours dealing with the i-9 form. that is the simple one we fill out when we get employed in any kind of firm. i just filled one out not long ago. if you add up that time that private employers spend on that, employees every year, about 13.5 million hours. that's a lot of hours wasted on a government form that doesn't really add much. when it comes to e-verify, some of the main costs are the economic costs, specifically

dealing with problems in the system. so one of the problems the gao discovered when entering names into the system is that the system doesn't like hyphens. so if you have a hyphen in your name, the odds that it will come back, disproportionately it affects people that are hispa c hispanic. there are a number of their names that have hyphens in them. the other problem is that e-verify does not function like a national id system. it's got all the worst aspects and none of the decent ones. i'm not favor of any kind of national i.d. system, i think it's terrible across the board, but if you have a piece of paper that says, oh, my name is alex nowrasteh, this is my car, this has it on there. it's a guy behind a computer screen saying, no. sorry. your information doesn't match. this is no good.

if you are your information doesn't get you get a tentative non-confirmation you have a certain amount of time to prove to the employer that you are legally allowed to work in the united states. the thing is, to correct a lot of the errors in the government systems and databases, the government won't release a lot of that information to you without something call add privacy act request, because that information is personal. it takes a lot of time to get that. the average amount of time is 104 days. you have 120 days maximum to solve a tentative non-confirmation. so that doesn't leave a lot of time or space for somebody running through and e-verify system to solve the problem to make sure they are legal. now, if you're going to look at the bureaucratic steps for solving the e-verify problem. i wish i had brought this up, but the gao documents said in a december 2010 study of e-verify, it fills up a whole page of arrows. diagrams with arrows.

people talking to other bureaucrats, other systems, getting information from here and government and going back to the employer. quite frankly when we have an unemployment rate of between 8% and 9%, the economy is suffering, the last thing we want to do is make the system more complicated than it is to hire somebody. so, there are a lot of states now that make it mandatory to use e-verify to hire. and what we will see is what we've seen in arizona, which is more hires going in the black market and just not being checked through the system. so instead of having more people hired legally, we're going to have a lot of people hired in the black market, in the cash-only economy, which is the exact opposite of the intended effects of the law. >> i had a construction worker come to my house some few months ago, and years ago, and he worked on my house. it was some mill work that i needed. i am preserving the brazilian rain forest by having 6,000

square feet of brazilian mahogany in my house on the floor. he was repairing some of that and he said to me, can you pay me in cash? and i said, why? he says, well i have a day job, and i pay enough in taxes already. now i'm one of the less than half who pays taxes in america today and so that upset me immensely, i gave him a check and i sent him a 1099, because this guy is on the black market wanting cash. i took a cab over here today i want to pay the guy with a credit card he says no we only take cash. i said why? he said it's easier to keep track of. and i think yeah, right. i took a cab ride from dulles here last night, and the guy said, can you pay me in cash? i said, no. i'll give awe credit card. he said well, i have to report it, is what he said. i said, take my credit card.

there's a black market in america. and part of this is, a lot of employers -- and i'm an om employer, i have lots of employees. we hire them, if we have trouble with e-verify we 1099 them. we don't put them on so we walk around this law. and i wonder how many people do that? am i a criminal for that? i just want the worker. then we work to make sure we can verify, we hired one hispanic lady, 18, didn't have papers. she worked at our offices as a receptionist because we need a bilingual person, and she -- i walked in one morning she was crying, got deportation papers. and i -- so i walked by her, talked to my office manager. i hired an immigration attorney on my own dime to solve a problem that was a bureaucratic snafu and got her her papers. so that she was brought over when she was 2 years old by her mother. she was an american as much as

anybody who was here, but she didn't have the papers. her mother had a green card. her paperwork was just snafued and they were going to throw her back to mexico where she never lived. and the expenses of this for our firm were in the thousands and thousands of dollars. and i think it's outrageous what the government is doing to me. >> i want to make a point on this we're referring to the black market, whatever. this is the really big issue with the enforcement-only legislation which is basically tracks with what russell pearce wanted. when we pass enforcement only laws, i would put e-verify under that category, those laws only apply to employers who admit to having employees. and employers that have followed the law by completing that i-9, they're deducting and they're matching taxes.

in most cases they're providing workers' compensation. some cases health insurance, 401(k), et cetera. when we apply e-verify, we have a raid swreshgs a -- an i-9 audit. what happens is that those employees who i-9 records don't match, they don't have -- they have borrowed social security number or have a fake number made up at the flea market or whatever, for whatever reason, they don't leave the country. they move away from the employer who has been deducting and matching taxes and move to what alex is referring to as the black market. basically, they prove to 1099 fraud. they go and work where people will bring them up in a pick up truck, hand them the tool, they are clearly employees by irs rule, but they will be treated and paid with an i-9.

they're not independent contractors, like you were describing an independent contractor remodeling your house, okay. but the typical worker that gets busted off of a job because of enforcement only laws, that is a point i want to make. boom, we shut ourselves in the foot and move them to payrolls where we are no longer collecting payroll taxes.out ou foot and move them to payrolls where we are no longer collecting payroll taxeout ourse foot and move them to payrolls where we are no longer collecting payroll taxet oursel foot and move them to payrolls where we are no longer collecting payroll taxes.ooot oe foot and move them to payrolls where we are no longer collecting payroll taxeooot our the foot and move them to payrolls where we are no longer collecting payroll taxefoot and where we are no longer collecting payroll taxes. from a financial standpoint that immigration reform would be a boom to our payroll tax revenue without any new taxes. sorry for the interruption. >> i think we have time for one really quick last question. >> i wanted to see if any of you can touch about the possible fects sb1070 if upheld by the supreme court will have on arizona's neighboring states such as new mexico. alex, maybe you can touch on the economic effects if you have data on that?

>> new mexico fared better than most other states in the union during the great recession for a number of reasons. i think one of the main reasons you have seen a lot of the people who have left arizona as response to the laws have gone to neighboring states. utah, nevada, new mexico, texas, they have better public policies across the board like lower taxes. no income state text. lower taxes. what you will see is increasing number of consumers, entrepreneurs and workers going to these states. what's interesting is the kaufmann foundation does studies about entrepreneurship. they found immigrants regardless of status are twice as likely to start a business as native born americans. hispanics are more likely to start a business than non-h non-hispanic-americans. what you see in places where the economy is doing better than in 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 increase 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's what you'll end up seeing. as a result of public services and problems like that, texas doesn't have a large welfare state, compared to other states, like california, for instance. and the taxes are lower as a result. so if you see temporary aid to families and in texas it's about fourth amount, that is in california, immigrants aren't going to the welfare states with the high welfare state, they're going to texas, lower welfare states. and they seem to add to that when it happens. 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 alex's work in that brief. so if you get a copy of that brief, it's replete with citations and statistics on that. >> when enforcement through attrition becomes acceptable, where does it stop? hoop the next -- who's 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. >> i just want to say, thank you for the work you're doing and bless new your passion and your ph.d. work. i want to say, i know in the framework of this discussion, we're talking about academic things and demographics 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. students from colorado went down to the migrant trail, which as you probably know, is the trail that migrants move through mexico towards it's u.s. border. they've been walking 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 they 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 -- 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 is what about our heart? and does our heart matter in your formulation as staffers of public policy? thank you. >> thank you. we're going to have to stop there pr thanks to all of the panelists. incoming in is ple ing . newt gingrich is making an announcement at 3:00 eastern in arlington, virginia, he won only two contests in south carolina and in georgia, which he represented in congress for 20 years. his campaign is reported being more than $4 million in debt. while congress is on break this week, c-span 2 and c-span3 are featuring special primetime programming. tonight american history tv primetime looks at two battles of the civil war starting at 8:00 eastern with the battle of fort donaldson and at 9:00, shy

lowe batt shiloh battlefield. c-span2, book tv in primetime, memoirs of american soldiers who served in iraq and afghanistan including the story of an ill didn't fated special forces unit in eastern afghanistan and the autobiography of the most lethal sniper in u.s. military history. it all starts at 8:00 eastern. spent the weekend in oklahoma city with book tv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, check in on literary life with book tv on c-span2 including governor mayor fallon's must-read political books. david boren on his, "a letter to merc america." from the history of science collection at o.u., and oklahoma history on american history tv on c-span3. tour the oklahoma city bombing memorial with coe designer tory

butser. and 1920s oklahoma and native american artartifacts. once a month c-span the vehicles xplo explore across america. this on c-span 2 and c-span3. another panel discussion now from the competitive enterprise institute met yesterday on immigration issues. panelists examined solutions to the nation's immigration problems. we hear remarks now from the phoenix maricopa county attorney, bill montgomery, and as the supreme court reviews the constitutionality of the arizona immigration law. as i said, i'm a policy analyst for competitive institute co-sponsor of today's event. i actually just want to repeat few of the remarks made by eddie. i thought i was going to be original, but he preempted me. much like the constitution

preempts, at least 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%, a historic high, to over 20%. at the same time, america's fer tell they rates have ter tifert. barely around 2% today. all this adds up to fewer work toers pay for more retirees public benefits. workers per social security beneficiary, for example, have fallen from 42 in 1945 to under

3 today. according to the social security and medicare trustees, this has led to unfunded liability in the tens of trillions of dollars. o. to pay these unfunded liabilities we'll need economic growth, but fewer workers also means lower economic growth. because less work is done. less is produced. this means growing social services will rest on a shrinking tax base. we already know this is what the decline looked like. if the united states is to avoid similar demographic doom it's

salvation will come from one source and one source alone. that's immigration. 82% will come from immigrants, their children and their grandchildren. but it won't be enough. the u.s. will need five times that number between the eldly and the working age population. immigrants are good for government budgets. without people there is no budget. so our job should be as policymakers 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 isn't mass deportation, it's the opposite. without new workers ever greater percentages of americans' incomes will be devoted to transfers to the elderly. taxes would need to increase 81% on every taxpayer to maintain current benefits indefinitely. this is, of course, impossible. solution isn't more taxes, it's more taxpayers. i propose congress make what's already happening explicit. that imgrantds are subsidizing america's debt by expanding the tax base. call it the immigration deficit reduction funt. 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 instrumental in addressing population 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 county 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 god's work on the border 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 enforcement 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 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 was 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 himself, but 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 promoted 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 denied bail to those in the country without lawful authority to those who committed serious offenses, any time that i have someone who was a mexican national or even from ca