[applause] >> i am dennis frank sharry with american voice. stuart has done a capable and admirable job laying out the facts on this the date. he is one of the top thinkers and researchers and policymakers, complex area for many years and i have to say it is nice to be working with the cato institute. it is nice to see dan griswald who works on trade and immigration studies and has done some brilliant writing and research on this. back in the day comprehensive immigration reform with a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006 when the so called mccain kennedy bill got 23 republican senators to vote for it. just to give you a slight contrast in december of last year when a small measure called the dream act was presented only three republican senators voted for it. there has been a real shift. i am more firmly planted on the left because of you who don't know who are trying to place me, to come clean. i sometimes thanks i didn't leave bipartisanship, it left me. i would like to get back to a place where we are trying to figure out because ul

i'm frank sharry, a group with america's voice. stuart has done a very capable and admirable job of laying autothe facts of the debate. he's been one the top thinkers and researchers and policymakers on this controversial and complex area for many years, and i have to say it's really nice to be back working with the cato institute, and it's great to see dan griswald who's done research on this. back in the day, immigration reform was more of a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006 when the so-called mccain-kennedy bill got 23 republican senators to vote for it. just to give you a slight contrast in december of last year, when a much smaller measure called the dream act was presented, only three republican senators voted for it. there's been a real shift. i sometimes wonder, i now am much more firmly planted on the left. for those of you who don't know and are placing me. i'll come clean. i sometimes think that i didn't leave bipartisanship, it left me. i'd like to get back to a place where we're trying to figure out because u

we are very pleased to have frank sharry with us. art is an adjunct scholar at the cato institute'. he served as executive associate commissioner in council at the immigration and naturalization service. prior to heading america's voice, frank served as executive director of the national immigration forum, a national organization, for 17 years. he worked with the late senator kennedy and has appeared on a host of tv networks and is a regular contributor at the huffington post. >> thank you very much and thank you to the cato institute for publishing the paper. i am just going to briefly go over some of the highlights of the paper and talk about some of the implications as we move forward in this congress. essentially the point -- is essentially the point of the paper was to see were not be possible to bridge some of the division on immigration in the country by looking at five of the main arguments used against having some type of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. i am going to get right into what some of those arguments a

my name is frank sharry. stuart has been one of the top researchers and policymakers on this controversial and complex area for many years. and i have to say it's really nice to be back working with the cato institute. it's great to see dan griswold who leads this effort for cato on trade and immigration studies and has also done some brilliant writing and research on this. you know, back in the day, comprehensive immigration reform was much more of a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006 when the so-called mccain-kennedy bill got 27 republican senators to vote for it. just to give you a slight contrast in december of last year, when a much smaller measure called the dream act was presented only 3 republican senators voted for it. there's been a real shift. i sometimes wonder -- i now am much more firmly planted on the left for who he is of you who don't know and trying to place me and let me come clean but i sometimes i don't think i left bipartisanship. it left me so i would like to get back to a plac

my name is dennis frank sharry with a group called america's voice.s done a very capable and admirable job of laying out the facts of this debate. he has been one of the top thinkers and researchers and policymakers on this controversial and complex area for many years. i have to say, it's really nice to be back working with the cato institute. it's great to see dan griswaled who leads this effort and has done some brilliant write and research on this. back in the day comprehensive moreration reform was much of a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006, when the so-called mccain-kennedy bill got 23 republican senators to vote for it. just to give you a slight contrast in december of last year when a much smaller measure called the dream act was presented, only three republican senators voted for it. so there's been a real shift. i sometimes wonder -- i now am much more firmly planted on the left. for those of you who are trying to place me, let me come clean. but i sometimes think that i didn't leave bipartisan, it left me. like to get back to a p

frank sharry is executive director of america's voice which he began in early 2008 to communicate with the media a renewed effort to comprehensive immigration reform. prior to heading america's boys he was executive director of the national immigration forum, one of the leading immigration policy organizations. his work on immigration reform legislation is featured in a 12 part hbo documentary and he has been on a host of tv networks and their regular contributor sauternes the podium over to stuart anderson. >> thank you very much, thank you to the cato institute for publishing the paper. i will go through some of the highlights of the paper and talk about some of the implications as we move forward in this congress. the point was to bridge the division on immigration in the country by looking at five of the main arguments against having a comprehensive immigration reform legislation. so i will get right into what those arguments are and what the responses are. first, that immigration reform will harm taxpayers. the argument is essentially that by letting in people or allowing to stay