Conversation with some of your points and the points on the panel. You touched a little bit with resource scarcity and the economics of that. They seem to suggest that the increase in immigration is essential, particularly for high skilled workers. The Panel Suggests for every high skilled worker job that is added, teed up to three local jobs for American Workers are toed in that area two three local jobs for American Workers are added in that area. It suggests that americans are not taking the jobs anyway, so the only way to combat the lower skilled workers to bring immigrants. Ants onanted to hear your take some of those points and if you feel like your arguments are matching that conversation. Topliness the easiest response to that is that you should not take the argumentation of employers with needing more immigrants or more foreignguest workers as necessarily representing the factual situation because of the fact that they have a vested interest in expanding both temporary guest workers and immigrant workers. Academice been some ofearch done on the issue the visaorker which is for hightech workers and other professional workers, other professional workers coming in under nafta from mexico and canada, and others come in and there areram in which company transfers. You probably get a total of guest workers coming into the country of nearly one Million People a year. Workers can stay for three years, renewable for another three years, and the transfer visa workers can stay up to five years. Say you multiply one million get about 5you million professional workers in the United States at the present time taking jobs and some done,ic studies that are basically pointing out that we have much higher Unemployment Rate among professional workers than we have experienced in the and that wages for those professional workers are basically stagnant over the past about a decade which would not be true if there were a shortage among there were bidding the employers for those high skilled workers. Endwith regard to the lower , farmers willevel tell you that they have crops that are rotting on the vine, and that is true. There have always been crops regardlessthe vine of how many workers were available for harvesting them. That always happens. Reasons sometimes the crop is somewhat damaged. Sometimes it is simply a resource issue that the workers do not get there at the right time. But it is not true that farmers have to have access to the illegal immigrant workers that they are currently hiring to harvest those agricultural crops. Because there is a visa, h2a visa, which allows foreign guest workers to come in for that isural work unlimited, there is no reason that any agricultural employer somebody illegally in the country to harvest of the work, that they cannot turn to a program to bring in foreignguest workers to do that job. But they do not like to do that. They do not like to do that because they have to pay more visahose foreign h2a workers. They have to pay more for those thatrs because, as part of program, there is a requirement that the employee or furnish , thatr to those workers the employer pay for the transportation of those workers , ande worksite and backe that the employer has to make so thate food resources the worker can buy his own food resources rather than having to buy them from the employer which the employer can use to take advantage of those workers. Those provisions were put into law specifically to stop the wages, the real wages earned by agriculture workers in the United States which are today significantly below the wages that were earned in real inflationadjusted terms two or three decades ago. They have decreased the value of the earnings of those workers because of the abundance of supply of illegal workers that are hired by those agricultural employers. The panel you referred to this morning looking at conference of immigration reform, their interests collectively, while different, were using the narrative of it being in the economic self interest of the country to do ofs, the economic interest the country. They talked about individual pieces of legislation that went to some of the sectors of this highion, like the h1b, tech folks, agricultural interests. Refer to legislation, small pieces of legislation that are speaking to these different , as notf the puzzle being adequate. Saying theyas some would support this if you kept the dialogue going. Is there any legislation that you would support, that your organization would support, no noter how an hour of matter how narrow or broad that told allow for some attempts adjust some aspects of the immigration issue as you are defining it or is that too risky in terms of creating the kind of political dynamic that might wind up being a larger piece of legislation . Well, you nailed the answer to that question with the last part of your question. Insider issuean in terms of congressional process. And that is you need to know that if you have a piece of immigration legislation that , that iss in the house sent to the senate for consideration. In a request for a Conference Committee between the senate and the house to look at the issue of merging the Senate Position which clearly 44, thee at 7 comprehensive approach, with the selected piece of legislation that was adopted in the house. Insider assessment on , in is that that would effect, and power interests in empower interest in the leadership that appoints the conferees to the house of representatives to name people that would go along with the senate approach so that a form back to theld go house for a vote and it would as i understand it i am not one of our legislative lawyers, but as i understand it, that would probably mean that it would come to a vote in the house which is exactly what Speaker Pelosi has been trying to achieve because she thinks there would be enough republicans that would go along in addition to virtually the entire democratic , andrship of the house thereby pass the comprehensive approach. So those that are potent those that are opposed to the comprehensive approach recognizing that possibility have taken the position that it would be a mistake to adopt any immigration legislation in the tose, because it would lead that type of scenario. It is a shortterm win for fa that no immigration legislation comes to a vote in the 2014 session as opposed to the board of security act Going Forward . Well, that is a very good question. Traditionallyhave in all of our 35 plus years worked with members of congress to get specific legislation introduced in both the house and the senate. That is imagine that going to change in 2014. That was true in 2013. Basically, i imagine, and on this we do not specifically have a position, but i can imagine that were going to be ouruenced in terms of communications with our members in theirt the country contacts with their representatives by what our friends in the house of representatives that we work with most closely recommend that we do in terms of trying to bring about the legislative outcomes that we would like to see. You talked a lot about short term policy goals. I was wondering what the long term policy goals would be to go focusing on the 11 Million Immigrants that are here that probably will not be going anywhere. What are you looking at policy wise in that area . , and is our assessment think that virtually anybody who issueon the immigration in washington, d. C. , would agree , that the primary magnet that drives people you legally into intoountry illegally the country is the prospect of getting jobs. This was basically the 1965usion of congress in systemey set up the i9 requiring employers to gather on their new hires to try to assure that they were legally in the country. , at was the consensus in least the majority, in congress in 1969 when the immigration authorities were told to set up , to set upy system an effective system for allowing employers to verify the work documents of their employees, and it is our assessment and i think the assessment of most members of congress that if the e verify system were made a national mandatory system the way it has in arizona and a number of other states, that the jobfectively reduce magnet that draws people into the country illegally. I did a study of the effects of the arizona legislation that is on our website that documents a precipitous drop in the estimated illegal immigrant population in arizona after adopting the legislation that they did. Medicaidcant drop of births in the state. A significant drop of students in limited English Proficient education in Public Schools in the state. , a larger drop in the crime rate than was true elsewhere in the country. One of the important aspects of the requirement of you verify which we have pushed for a long time is that it makes employers responsible. What is happening at the present time is employers know that they can look the other way when they are presented fake documents because they are subject to prosecution under the law only if they knowingly hire illegal workers. And that knowingly qualification gets them off the hook if they have been shown fake documents because they are not expected to be able to distinguish between fake documents and legitimate documents. If, however, they are required andse the everify system they receive information that the Social Security number is fake or the immigration document is fake or that the individual has overstayed a visa and they continue to employ that person, then they are knowingly hiring somebody illegally in the country. Under the current law, they can be prosecuted. Some people are prosecuted under the law at the present time ago some people are prosecuted under the law at the present time, but very few. It would double the message that it is difficult to get a job in the United States the incentive of employers taking advantage of the press system to hire illegally because they would be exposed to prosecution. With regard to the issue of border fencing, i think there is a lot of sort of a smoke screen with the issue of border fencing. I think that you can make a very good argument that the Border Patrol resources that are currently available for trying to control the borders would be adequate for handling illegal entry into the country if illegal entry were cut down by a very large magnitude as a result of the knowledge of people that they cannot get jobs if they came into the United States. In other words, remove the job magnet, fewer people will come. To itpeople come up increases the leverage of the Border Patrol to control the border. Annot you experience experience would have to show whether or not that would dramatically increase the number of people illegally coming into the country. That that probably is true is the reduction in illegal immigration that happened at the whenf the last decade there was very high unemployment and a very major reduction in Jobs Available in the services and construction industry. Jobs were down, fewer people came. A reduction in apprehension of Illegal Immigrants which indicated a reduction in attempted illegal entry into the country. I think that you perhaps there is a very good chance that you could control illegal immigration, sneaking into the country, with the existing Border Patrol resources if you simply adopted the everify system. Last question. I understand reducing the magnet for immigration, but what are the policy goals for the current undocumented workers that are here . You said you are against amnesty, so i am guessing you of services. Pport are you looking for more deportations . What is your solution . Basically, we would look at the experience in arizona and the adoption of restrictions on illegal immigration. Having the effect not only of deterring new illegal immigration into the country, but also encouraging those who are illegally in the state to leave the state. That obviously does not work effectively for the nation when it is done on a state i state bystate on a state basis. That is the reason we think we need to have National Legislation with regard to the everify process. As happened in arizona, we believe that if you have the situation where you effectively deny opportunities to new people coming into the country illegally and you increasingly make it impossible to those who are already in the country illegally to get a new job if they are a fire if they are fired or if the company goes out of business, they lose the job, or an escalating process of verification of those who are already on the payroll, you will have people who are working in the country illegally who will recognize the fact that the time has come that they will need to return to their home country. And even though the other side of this argument says that this will lead to separation of that whatwe believe we have seen in other areas around the country is that people who are illegally in the country, when they leave the country, they take their children with them. It is hard to imagine parents deliberately leaving the children behind unless they were planning on coming back in very short order to resume their role as parents. That basically is the answer. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] on the next washington journal, paul brandon looks at president obamas relationship with the press and his administrations goals for 2014. Then Jonathan Bialosky of George WashingtonUniversity Law school discusses how the u. S. Determines its criminal illegal and those apprehended at the border will be removed from the country. After that, Richard Dieter of the Death PenaltyInformation Center on the use of Capital Punishment in 2013. Plus your emails, phone calls, and tweets. Washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. The c. E. O. Of heritage action, the Advocacy Organization linked to the Heritage Foundation is our guest this weekend on newsmakers. Founded in 2010, he talks about his groups roles and issues in topics dividing conserve tiffs in the republican party. Watch newsmakers sunday at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Astern here on cspan. About 10, 15 years ago, we started looking at the Census Department data, and very strange kind of pops out. When you look at where profits are of multinationals, you know, if you look at europe, you see germany, france, ireland, italy. But if you look at the data on where the profits are, france, germany, ireland. Its just this a unusually disproportionate amount of profit information ireland, so that was one indication that something was going on. More with marty sullivan, chief economist for tax analysts, a nonprofit global provider of tax news and analysis, sunday night at 8 00 on cspans q a. The outgoing chair of the Federal Reserve, ben bernanke, delivered a speech friday in philadelphia, called the changing Federal Reserve, past, present, and future. The fed recently announced it will begin slowing its Bond Purchasing Program this month known as quantitative easing. The senate is scheduled to hold a confirmation vote on monday on chairman bernankes successor. Hes joined by economists. They spoke for about an hour and a half. These are the annual meetings of our association, the association of economists, and its attended by 11,000 or 12,000 cardcarrying economists from around the country and indeed around the world. We gather here not here, but in these meetings annually. We debate high theory. We debate policy. We have discussion groups. And this is one of the sessions that were particularly proud of and is one of the highlights of these meetings. We have the pleasure today of hearing the reflections of ben bernanke. Ben earned his ph. D. , earned his ph. D. From m. I. T. In 1979. And since then, hes been a distinguished scholar and public servant. Im not going to give a long introduction, because most of you know him, but ill just give some personal reflections on his career. His scholarly writers have illuminated a wide variety of areas. Some of them very helpful in his later career, including the credit channel in the Great Depression, the potential role f inflation targeting, and the target article of his of my students, which is the global savings glut, which is for all of you who are teachers is a wonderful way to teach open economy Macro Economics. Bernanke, in addition to his other activities, has written about the essence of economists. You might be interested, take notes on this for those of you to explain to your students also, he wrote, he said, actually, in his talk to princeton graduates i think last year, economics is a highly sophisticated field of thought. It is superb at explaining to policy makers exactly why the choices they made in the past were wrong. About the future, it is not so helpful. Most people outside this room know ben from his eight years as captain of the fed. During that period, the country and indeed the Global Economy suffered from a rare confluence of terrible financial and economic shocks, what you might call a category five financial hurricane. This is a category one snowstorm. Fortunately, the captain of the d had historical and analytical knowledge, the creativity and the courage to introduce policies that kept the ship afloat and steered it through the storm. One of the things that i find most impressive as i go back and look at what we thought we is in 2005 or 2006 or 2007 what we might do if we got hit by this kind of storm. Was there just a whole list of things in the closet, on the shelf to pull off, pull out in case of cr