departures and the net increase total u.s. population was actually quite small. when we militarized the border, we ended up spending $3 billion, $4 billion a year in border enforcement only to double the net rate of undocumented population growth in the united states. simple equation in demography. net migration equals in migration minus out migration. you don't affect in migration, you dramatically reduce out migration, net migration increases. that's the sort of the rapid growth of undocumented migration into the united states. by militarizing the border with our closest trading partner, closest neighbor, with canada in the hemisphere, we didn't solve the problem of illegal migration. we made it worse. we transformed what had been a circular flow of male workers going to three states and turned

it into a settled population of families living in 50 states, and double the net rate of undocumented population growth in the process. so now we have 11 million people living in this country out of status. and these people are a great loss, represent a great loss of human capital to the nation, because there is nowhere for them to go. they cannot use their skills to their 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 this 11 million-person population are the 3 million or so who came here as children. entered often as infants or babies. they've grown up here. they speak english. they graduated from high school. some have struggled to even

graduate from two-year colleges and even four-year colleges. we paid for them. we invested in the health and 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, salutatory graduate. the top graduate in greek and latin was a dominican who came here at age 2. and when he graduated as a salutatorian of princeton outed as an illegal migrant and forced, forced, to take a full scholarship at oxford university to study a ph.d. in classics. we end up deporting one of the top graduates of one of our top universities rather than making use of his productive skills we actually paid for. so where does this leave us now? well, we're actually a lot 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 migration is 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 migration is 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 simpler to 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 affect 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 turned a corner, and

it's becoming an aging societying. 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 the united 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 a person is naturalized and becomes an american citizen, the spouse, 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. give them a temporary visa. allow them to prove their worth,

start paying taxes, acquire language abilities, take civics courses. and after the end of the period if they're kept their nose clean and done everything we want them to do if you really want to punish them, fine them. they have to pay $3,000. so they pay their 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, makes no 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. there's no gun at your head, pointing, saying you've got to nationalize. well, congress has actually done that, as a matter -- in practical terms but that's a decision that you 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 in current resident status, people 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. [ applause ] >> okay. do we have any questions from the audience? >> i have a comment. for dr. massey. [inaudibl [inaudible]. >> not a chance. i inhaled. >> and then for -- mr. bill montgomery. you said with confidence that in your law enforcement in arizona is not racist. you said very emphatically. and 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 found any study in my understanding is that sheriff arpaio is resistant to people coming in and analyzing that very point. >> first i have to comment. there's more than meets the eye of the civil rights division engaged in. election year politics. although there are some very specific incidents that are referenced to with the civil rights division december 15th letter i acknowledged. the individuals involved were criminally prosecuted. with respect to i believe the sb1070 can be implemented. 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 declared 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. sis? it happen on a case-by-case 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 looks 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 underscore 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 constitution that denies bail if they commit a serious offense. a human smuggling statute that addresses both the coyote and their client. we have employment-related i.d. 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 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 has got to do its job. >> this is also for bill. not to pepper you with questions. >> no problem. happens all the time. >> you expressed frustrated at

con flat conflating legal and illegal immigration but it seems like you conflat illegal immigration with it focus on criminalizing workers and employers and workplace raids rather than on cartel activity that you cited 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 over illegals in the first place. that's why a continuing issue to need to provide for operational security of the border because of the transnational current threat in addition to the other issues with respect to to having a system to comply with bureaucratic requirements for immigration and international security concerns. it's that context. 1070 itself is part of what arizona had been doing that it's a piecemeal scheme.

it's continually -- i would liken it to this it. the federal government has 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 enjoys a majority support in arizona as well as overwhelming 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. you could say under arizona law if someone is engaging in employment and using someone else's identification, that's criminal. we prosecute that. to the extent that 1070 tries to ratchet down on there, yes, it is addressing a criminal activity. to the extent athat sb1070 underscores the ability that 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. our ongoing partnership through

287g and secured communities which 1070 acknowledges is an effort to address criminal activity. let me be clear. not everyone that comes to this country and pursues employer and does not break a federal law doing it is by definition a criminal. but the impact to arizona and our nation on the whole is a significant impact. we see criminal-related activity. we've had shoot-outs on i-10 in the phoenix met fro area between rival human trafficking gangs fighting over cargo. that is inherently criminal activity. i mentioned the auto theft issue. we have ongoing issues with cash being smuggled across the border in both directions, with drugs being trafficked across our border primarily south to north. so i would respectfully argue that while overall we may have a secure border looking at national levels of those pr

present and unauthorized, in arizona it's not secure enough. >> i'm going to ask a question here and direct it at drdr. mas dr. massey. >> used to that, too. >> i'll let you. i'll let you. i have a question for dr dr. massey. you've studied the border for an awful long time. i and people why they come here and how long they're going to stay. a lot of other related questions. when you hear the arguments such as what we've just heard from mr. montgomery that it's all criminal activity, as you think about the people and why they're coming here, do you think if there was a comprehensive immigration solution that had make it easy for those people to come here legally, wouldn't that diminish the criminal activity? >> yeah, in my view.

the people that come here are looking to stay out of trouble. especially if they're documented. they don't want to have legal entanglemen entanglements. if you look at the data around the united states, immigration neighborhoods have lower crime rates than native neighborhoods and immigrants are less prone to crime than american natives. it doesn't mean there are criminal conspiracies and criminal gangs and so on, but on the whole immigrants are not elevating our crime rate at all. in fact, they're probably reducing it abat bit. we criminalized a lot of acts that in the past weren't criminal acts. so many things imt grants do to get buy and get a job and make their way in the united states have been criminalized. we've created a lot of

criminality. by increasing labor migration as we have, we've created a lucrative niche for cartels. 30 years ago when i first started studying immigration, the average coyote was somebody from the migrant's hometown, and they're a mom and pop operations and the services provided were simply think guided you across from tijuana to san diego and left you in chula vista, california. now it requires safehouses and requires longer transport. you're in the middle of the sonoran desert. it's much more dangerous and risky and the price went up to $3,000, and it created a lucrative market for criminal syndicates to get involved. i don't see a strong connection between the narcotics trade and 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 kr crossings. they build tunnels. they have lots of money. they don't get down to that kind of petty level. the point of fact is that the basic problem is like immigration is 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 is 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 intry domestic. deck indicates intudiction

produce more drugs at cheaper prices. >> okay. 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 desert storm, so bill, let me recognize, first of all, i want to make sure everyone here understands. there is one absolute, solid, consensus up here and has been all day. we need immigration reform to come out of our u.s. congress. that's the message to take back to representatives and 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 do anything on immigration because she thought the unions didn't want it. i've been on my knees in john

kor corwin's office and he wouldn't step forward because he didn't feel the president was serious about it. the moment that senator corwin makes a statement to the news media i'm willing to discuss immigration reform, centers for immigration 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 puppeteers. bill, in regard to arizona's right to pass sb1070, i don't argue that right, although i help to support it to make it brief from the greater houston partnership arguing against it. as far as i'm concerned, if the state's rights are a big thing, they ought to be able to do whatever they want to do. 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 sb1070 and i kind of wrap it in what we call a sanctuary city bill. i know it's a lot broader than that. the sanctuary city bill proposed in texas had four unfunded mandates, clearly four unfunded mandates. number one, it increased more man hours on street for the police officers when every municipality was trying to cut back overtime to balance the budget. number two, it required federal training and law for local law enforcement. another unfunded mandate. number three, it put more nonviolent people in jail in texas at $70 a day, and worst of all, number four, it left more i will grant citizen children behind to be taken care of by my taxes. on top of that, our police chiefs and sheriffs 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