Fundamentally added a story of growth. Growth in funding, in personnel, in technology. Particularly in the decade since 9 11. So what we see from that story of growth are some rather dramatic, what we think of as top line findings. First is that spending for the Immigration Enforcement agencies today, adjusted for inflation, is 15 times what it was for i. N. S. In 1986 when we believe the current era of Immigration Enforcement began. That is a conservative estimate, and if anybody wants to parse with that later, wed tell you how we came to that estimate. That is a conservative estimate. Most likely the spending is almost possibly considerably more than what it is we estimated. In relative terms, what this means is that the United States government now spends more on Immigration Enforcement than on all other principal Law Enforcement agencies combined. We are spending as of fiscal year 2011, which is the most recent year for the data that were using that was available, thats the price tag of 18 billion. That is 24 greater than the 14. 4 billion that funds the f. B. I. , the d. E. A. , the secret service, the a. T. F. And the u. S. Marshal service. This is a historic reversal, because in 1986 when this all began, i. N. S. Comprised 28 of the spending of all of the other Law Enforcement agencies. And if you look at page 22 of your engineering manual, you will see a graph that very clearly shows this and what a historic change has taken place over this period of time. Border enforcement by far is the largest share of this spending. Its the largest spending for everything in the immigration system, all of the other immigration functions, and among other things its made possible the doubling of the Border Patrol in just the last eight years from 10,819 to where it stands today which is in the neighborhood of 21,370. But even though c. V. P. And its growth is enormous, the growth of i. C. E. Is also very substantial. That growth has been 87 since 2005, from a number of 3. 1 billion to today about 5. 9 billion. So those are the big framing points that i hope paints a picture of what it is that were doing in this report. Let me now go to a couple pillars that im going to say some things about and then turn it over to my colleagues. The first of the pillars that we discussed is as you would manage, border enforcement, and that of course is the most longstanding of the elements of the Immigration Enforcement system and of course the most visible and wellknown. But in addition to the resource story, which is the fundamental story about border enforcement and also the emphasis on National Security, which is now so prominent in border enforcement functions and in thinking, there are two other Key Developments that i want to pull out of this report to just highlight for a moment. One is that the Border Patrol announced a new Strategic Plan last spring which did not get very much attention at all, but it is a Strategic Plan which is a fouryear plan. Its established for 2012 through 2016, and it is quite remarkable in that compared with anything that weve seen in the past as Strategic Plans for the Border Patrols, it calls for riskbased enforcement and says that its Resource Base has been built. Therefore, the Resource Base that is in place allows for responses to be targeted based on information and integration of efforts in rapid response. It is not projecting a need for additional resources. It depicts a steady state of refining its programs and remarkably talks a great deal about cooperation with other countries particularly across border cooperation with mexico. So thats quite a notable change from what we have seen in the past. The other thing about the border enforcement pillar that is very significant to understand in terms of the regs rest of what it is to be talked about is something called the consequence delivery system. The consequence delivery system, as we are calling it consequence enforcement as a shorthand, is based on the fact that the sustained level of resource infusions that have taken place for border enforcement have allowed for significant changes in enforcement practices. Instead of the revolving door, which is of course the enduring image of southwest land border enforcement, what is happening now is that the Border Patrol is employing enforcement tactics that imposes consequences beyond simple voluntary return on almost everyone that is arrested at the southwest border. The purpose, they say, is to break smuggling cycles and to disrupt the networks that sustain ilLegal Immigration and the effort is to separate the illegal migrant from the smuggler and thereby raise the cost. Examples of consequence enforcement are lateral repatriation. You get arrested in one place, you get put in a place far away. Expedited removal, which is in wide scale spread use now at the southwest border. Operation streamline which is something that many of you have heard about. But the result is that whereas in the past we basically had a set of practices at the southwest border where 90 of the people arrested were voluntarily returned and therefore this revolving door pattern of behavior. That is now entirely flipped. Voluntary return is the exception. It is being used only by in large in humanitarian cases under special circumstances. It is the exception, not the rule. So there are consequences much greater for people who do attempt to cross and that is having significant downstream effects again as is evident in the rest of the report and probably will be touched on by my colleagues. Significant effects both on the mige rants themselves migrants themselves and the system itself and other agencies. So among the findings where border enforcement is concerned, our historic highs in staffing, technology, infrastructure, as against 40year now lows in apprehensions. Apprehensions just since 2008 have fallen 53 . At the same time, the enforcement has been significantly strengthened between ports of entry, ports of entry themselves have lagged behind and could very well become a weak link of southwest border enforcement. They may already be. The needs with land border port enforcement particularly rests on infrastructure where the infrastructure is simply not able to deal with the Technology Advances that indeed have been made to deal with more effective crossings. But as the southwest land border enforcement does improve, what we are going to see is an increasing share of the unauthorized population in the United States to the extent that it continues to exist be made up of visa overstayers rather than of people crossing the border without documents. And that would also change the ethnic and nationality makeup of the unauthorized population because it will be far less, people coming from mexico and Central America than from other countries around the world. Now, the second pillar that we talk about is travel. Im actually really almost finished. So the next one that we talk about is travel and visa screening and that is a subset of border enforcement. It has become very successful as well, but it is heavily dependent on data issue improvements, and im going to skip the travel screen, therefore, and go to the data issue improvements, because that is a third pillar that is a relatively new dimension of enforcement as we see it. The information and data interoperability changes that have taken place really rise to the level of being a pillar because they are so significant. Its hard to overstate the importance of the database changes and Immigration Enforcement. Major investments have been made in building and linking databases across Law Enforcement intelligence agencies and the access to this information enables searches of terrorist connections, criminal background and immigration history at every step in the admissions and immigration processes. The heart of this is the biometric fingerprint system. Thats the key database. Although it dates back into the 1990s, it really has had enormous investment and expansion since 9 11. It now stores over 148 million records. They grow at a rate of 10 million a year. It is the largest Law Enforcement biometric database in the world. Its enabled advances in every other pillars, protocols that rely on comprehensive it is now embedded in all criminal in all critical immigration processes and practices. Today noncitizens are screened at more times against more databases which contain more detailed data than ever before. So the significance of these new capabilities becomes very clear in discussing the other pillars, which my colleagues will take up in order, beginning with dr. Chisti. Thank you, doris. Thank you so much and good morning and happy new year to all of you. Ill go as quickly as i can, talk as fast as my natural tendencies. Doris, ill deal with the two pillars. The workplace enforcement and the intersection of criminal Justice System and Immigration Enforcement. On the work force enforcement, doris, as you just heard, refers to 1986 as the dawn of the current era on immigration. For those of us who cut our teeth in the 1986 law and almost all of these members of the panel who is too young, im not sure it feels as a compliment. But i think it reminded us that when we do these exercises in legislation making that each sentiment is based on something else. And the whole machinery that we have built today is essentially built on milestones, some of them major and some of them minor. 1986 was a major milestone in americas commitment to Immigration Enforcement. I think students of immigration History Today will not recognize how important philosophically that shift was. Before 1986, the states will say that employers in the country taught the ability to hire unauthorized workers was as sacrosanct as the second amendment. That it was gods right to hire anyone that they wanted. And understanding fundamentally altered in 1986. It was so controversial that in the whole spectrum from the chamber of commerce to the aclu opposed employer sanctions and despite opposition, congress enacted the employer sanctions laws in 1986. As all of you know, it ushered in the sanctions employers were hiring unauthorized workers. But it was soon clear that this was not a very effective new Law Enforcement tool for two reasons. Employers figured there was compliance with the law from the Law Enforcement agencies, and, two, they found it easy to comply with the law by just using a large number of documents that could meet the requirement of the law, many of them could be fraudulently obtained. Therefore since then, government has been trying to see whether there could be a more automaticed electronic verification system to get around proliferation of the documents that we use to meet the compliance of employer sanctions law. And beginning in 1986, we started testing various programs to do this thing in an electronic automatic way. In 1996, congress authorized the basic pilot which by now in 2007 is now called the everify program and this was a voluntary program in which people, employers give the information about the identity and the authorization to work of a job applicants which is screened against s. S. A. s and d. H. S. s database to determine the eligibility to work. Now, this the basic pilot program, as i said, is a voluntary program, but it has grown exponentially while we have been testing it as a voluntary program. In just put it in context, in 2006, there are only 10,000 employers who enrolled in the everify program. Currently there are 350,000 employers enrolled in the everify program. Last year we checked 17 million squaries a year are sent to the everify program. And this also that may represent a lot to me but it only represents 10 of the u. S. Business establishments. While the everify has gone on at the federal level, we all know that states have been business in enacting their own everify law. It was a trend that was made notorious by arizonas law in 2007 which went all the way up to the Supreme Court and in 2011, july, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the state everify laws. With the result of today there are 19 states in the country which allow some or all employers to be enrolled in everify. Now, everify, many of you know suffered from a lot of criticism. That it generates false positives. That it generates false negatives. But studies over time have also shown that these error rates have steadily gone down. In fact the Government Accountability office most recent report found the error rate is now pretty close to about 2. 6 . So therefore while this has grown, it has also improved, but there is one element in the everify which has not actually kept pace with the demand which is the ability to identify the applicants whose data is actually presented. We dont have a very good matching ability the person whose information being sent is actually the person who is being hired. But despite these weaknesses, everify, one has to say, has left the station. It is not any more a phenomenon. Those pilot programs that resulted in the termination of everify, i think that speculation is over. Everify will remain a permanent part of our immigration legal system. The only issue is at what pace and in what level will it become mandatory, and how do we determine the deficiencies that are currently in the system. There are two other developments which i will quickly touch on in the work force enforcement system. One i think many of you know that the bauks fundamentally shifted its poll di Obama Administration fundamentally shifted its policy by moving away from targeting unauthorized immigrants through highprofile rates to targeting actually employers who hire unauthorized workers. Since june since january of 2009, i. C. E. Has audited more than 8,000 employers. It has debarred 726 companies and imposed about 88 million in criminal monetary fines on employers. A very significant and the last thing on the work force that i will touch on is there has been an increased effort on the labor standards enforcement in our country. We all know that labor standards enforcements always takes less priority in our overall enforcement system. There are only 1,100 inspectors in the division to monitor about more than 7. 5 million u. S. Business establishments. That obviously is not going to do the job as efficiently as one would like to. Therefore, the department of labor has more recently gone into more smarter, more targeted enforcement of those employers who habitually violate the laws on the books on labor standards. And in industries where there are major dominant employers who may be outsourcing, who may be franchising or who may be the top level of the supply chain, the department of labor is increasingly going after the big dominant employers for the violation of the lower chain supply. Let me shift quickly to the immigration criminal the intersection of the criminal Justice System. I think if i said the 1986 was a philosophical departure, i think students of immigration history 50 years from now will definitely agree that in the Immigration Enforcement history, 1996 will go down as before christ and after christ moment in our enforcement statute. It was for the first time many of us who were involved in the in that exercise from outside and inside the government know that Congress Took heap intact the Legal Immigration system decided to enact measures which essentially squashed the policy to unauthorized immigrants and especially immigrants of criminal history. And it unleashed in the process extraordinary unprecedented intersection between our criminal Justice System and Immigration Enforcement. Clearly unprecedented immigration history, i would like to say its also unprecedented in almost any enforcement history. And it did by developments which many of you are familiar. I summarize them as five developments which have led to the trend which has produced the number of of the country today which don will talk about. The first is we made more immigration violations that used to be civil violations into federal crimes. We impose new initiatives and funding target and target those kinds for prosecution which were now made crimes. And we increased the number of federal and state crimes which have the automatic consequence of removal from the country. Fourth is that we moved the discretion of Immigration Judges to consider positive equities that can be taken into account as someone could be removed from the country. And last is that we initiated new programs, mostly cooperative federal and state and local programs where we funnel criminal suspects and criminal convicts into the machinery. And the results of all these five developments are starkly for all to see. First, there has been an unprecedented number increased in the number of criminal prosecutions for immigration related violations. From 2001 to 2009, the criminal prosecution for immigration related crimes rose sixfold from about 16,000 to 92,000 a year. To me much more importantly has been the ratio of immigration related crimets as a percentage crimes as the percentage of prosecution of all time. Today, immigration in 2003 if you looked at the record, the prosecution for immigrationrelated crimes accounted for about 17 to 0 of all federal prosecution 20 of all federal prosecution of crimes. In 2008 that number jumped to 50 . 50 of all federal prosecution crimes are now related to immigration. To put this in context, ill cite only three find