We all know that states have been busy and it is a trend that starts in colorado and was made notorious in 2007 and in 2011, the Supreme Court upheld the legality. It allowed some or all employers to be involved. Studies done over time have shown the race has steadily gone down. One element which has not actually kept pace. Despite these weaknesses, one has to say it has left the station and those who thought the pilot programs would result in us, i think that speculation is over. We verified the remains as a part of the legal system. The only issue is at what level does it become mandatory and how do we improve that in the system. The Obama Administration works from targeting unauthorized individuals to targeting employers since january of 2009, there are more than 8000 employers. It imposed about 88 million and a very significant departure from the past. There has been an increased effort in the labor enforcement we all know that it is all part of our enforcement system. Therefore the department of labor has gone into more targeted enforcement on the books where there may be the department of labor has been increasing. I think of ice at the 19th 86 time was a philosophical time, i think students 50 years from now would definitely agree that it would be immigration history. It was a before christ and after christ moment. Many know that congress decided to enact authorized immigrants and especially those in history. And it is an extraordinary unprecedented part of the criminal justice system. Clearly unprecedented in history, i would also like to say it is unprecedented in any enforcement regime. I have summarized those that have been led with the trend, which we have also talked about. We used to make civil violations into federal violations. We impose new initiatives and funding and targeted those kinds of prosecution lacks in fact we initiated new programs the federal and state and that includes criminal suspects across the state. And the result is for all to see. We have an unprecedented number for immigration related crimes. They have grown almost sixfold from about 8000 to 19,000 per year. Much more importantly has been it is an overall prosecution and today in 2003, the prosecution for immigration accounted to about 17 and 20 of all federal prosecution. That number had jumped to 50 . 50 are now related to immigration. To put this into context, i will cite three. They were for more than all of the lawenforcement agencies combined. The list goes on. It accounts for 10 and for half of all felony prosecutions in the United States. Now, many people believe that despite federal prosecution as a result of the program, it is a part of the program that started in 2005 that extended to six of all nine districts of the border. The dhs call this the zero tolerance policy. [inaudible] the second phenomenon that has happened in the automatic consequences. Until recently we only used to remove people who committed major crimes. It is by now come to include about 50 separate kinds in 21 different categories. Many are minor crimes and some are misdemeanors. Congress has decided to apply this retroactively. So today is a large number of longstanding immigrants, many who are being removed from the country for crimes they committed many years ago. The definition of a new cooperative agreements and localities were screening and [inaudible] and all of you know that these famous programs are important. The funding for these programs has shocked me. The programs from all four from 23 million to 619 million. That is about 2900 Percentage Points in the program. And obviously the result is here to see. And now puts about half of all the people in the country in this position. The Fugitive Operations Program has grown about 10 times in the last eight years. Today only about 28 persons of people in enforcement are part of this. It scales down by about 57 jurisdictions. Mostly in the southeast section of the country. About half the people do not have the level of the government. In the last program i conclude what is the most recent entry to this cooperative program. Is the community program. It is universal in march of 2013. Initially it was billed as a voluntary program. But that no longer has become a voluntary program in many states opt out of the program in august of 2011. It said that every fingerprint says the spirit and the train has left the station and therefore expected to become a permanent part. Thank you. I would like to have a real conversation with the audience and unappreciated we would be able to take questions. Thank you. Thank you for moving us through the system. I would like to talk about the removal and that attention, which are basically the end of the line for many people who come in contact with the enforcement system. Removal has increased dramatically over the last quarter of a century. There have been more than 4 million and it went from 35,000 year almost 410,000 per year. Removals have the greatest impact on emerging families and communities. One telling statistic is 46,400 noncitizens with u. S. Citizen who have been removed over 2011. Removals have been steady over democratic and republican and they certainly accelerated in recent years and many have questioned why an administration is devoted to comprehending the form and would remove the greatest number of people of any administration of u. S. History. It provides a partial answer at the least. Which is the operational systems, and the Financial Investment since 1986 have made largescale removal as was referenced, the 1996 immigration act was a particular turning point. Its built builds on a trend hearkening back to 1988 and it limited relief from removal. A second finding has to do with the increased informality of the removal process. There is a widespread belief that immigrants have their day in court and a judge determines whether they can or have to stay. This is no longer true for most people who are removed from the country. Increasing numbers of noncitizens are being removed and expedited in so many ways. It now accounts for about 30 and the expedited process is carried out by dhs and was first applied the ports of entry and has since been extended to those arrested and all the lands and coastal borders in the United States. Another third includes those who illegally reentered the country. It is an immigration specific category of crime. If you typical stipulated case agrees that there is no relief available, which they often do to avoid detention. This includes obtaining the order and one that was knowingly and willingly signed. There is also an expedited process which is known as quick court proceedings. The upshot of all this has been a growing gap between removals. Immigration judges issued 400,000 people to be removed. Some had ruled while concerns about the increasing informality of this process. Roughly 20 of criminal alien removals from 2011 were for persons who have committed immigration offenses for which they had been criminally prosecuted. About 20 . We have also seen growing numbers of criminal convictions. Some for serious crimes and others for misdemeanors. Nearly 55 of the persons removed been convicted of the crime. Voluntary departures are really voluntary. Reasons described in the report, it certainly was increased overall. 1. 7 million returns were handled in 2000. 322,000 and 2011 between 1995 in 2011, the average daily immigrant detention population rose from about 7500 to about 33,300. I. C. E. Detains many in any given year. To give you a sense of the size, it holds more prisoners per night and i. C. E. Those immigrants. And holds fewer people over a year. The appearance rates have passed by these programs. The main purpose of detention, which is to ensure removal, includes many in prisons. The budget request is for 2 million and only 112 million and also as 112 million. The reform of the detention system has been of the Obama Administration and the guiding principle has been that nobody is actually serving the prince sentence no matter what the background. The idea is to keep with the authority. The challenges they have faced are within the i. C. E. Detention system. Mostly states localities and forprofit prisons. This includes the interpretation rules. I. C. E. Treats even the most restrictive of its programs with alternatives to detentions and not alternative forms of detentions to mandatory detainees. It includes administering the program of diversity. It revised its standards to make them more performancebased and detailed. Centralized management and took steps to better monitor and enforce compliance and terminated dozens of detention contracts. These have been significant steps. The emerging system will be developed in pretrial custody. Finally, a couple of quick points on the Immigration Court system. It operates out of the dojs operational views. It is slightly less than a the budget of about 300 million per year. Compared to the 18 billion of the i. C. E. Budgets. When due process challenge has been 80 has been unrepresented and it has been show to influence the outcome is as does the particular judge assigned to the case. Most removals occur through less formal means. It is a result of dhs is enforcement. Adjudication resources have not kept pace with these agencies to feed into the system. As a result, court cases that are backlogged have nearly doubled. There were 321,000 pending cases in these cases have been pending on average for 529 days. 777 days for those cases where belief is ultimately granted. There is a very strong consensus with these kinds of delays in including Immigration Enforcement goals. Yet it is not clear how this problem will be fixed. Judges have dockets that are far larger. The cases are also factually complex. There has been a hiring freeze since january of 2011. On the other hand, we are seeing removal cases have decreased over the last year and 25 . The main point i wanted to make is that there is an imbalance of resources and adjudication, although both a part of the same system. Thank you. Thank you very much, donald, for keeping time. Okay. Lets try to put all this together when you look at this picture, when you examine the evidence, what you see is the emergence of a complex and modernized cross Agency System organized around the six pillars, as we call them. Against that backdrop, the 25 plus years the recession came along. It altered the picture. But it is a sound, lasting structure that ranks as the federal government most expensive and costly Law Enforcement effort at the present time. Nonetheless, it is not proving sufficient as we know to answer the broad challenges to both illegal and Legal Immigration polls for the country. We need enforceable laws that address inherent weaknesses in the enforcement system and there is statutory change that could help to improve the lawenforcement system, but we also need enforceable laws that rationalize immigration policy to align with the nations broader growth needs. So what we are seeing here is that a formidable enforcement machinery has been built. Akin serves the National Interest well and it also provides a platform from which to address a broader immigration policy change suited to the larger needs and challenges that immigration represents for the United States in the 21st century. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much doris and thank you to all of our speakers and the authors were this exceptionally comprehensive report. I would like to open the floor to questions. Please identify yourselves, wait for the microphone to get to you and lets start. This gentleman over there. Please identify yourself. Im john graham and a reporter for roll call immigration. My question is given the debate expected here and for me on capitol hill im wondering whether expensive pathways to legal status for those who are hell illegally how would that change the cost estimate Going Forward . Do you expect a growth the growth and cost to continue or are there ways to [inaudible] who wants to take this . I will take it because i think that one of the things that we didnt talk about is the fiscal realities that are very much now part of the enforcement picture. I dont think that theres any question but that the funding of immigration agencies and enforcement functions is going to its probably not going to decrease but its certainly likely to be on a straight line. So straightline funding, it leads to far more focus on efficiency and effective programs. Looking in at outcomes measuring and assessing the evaluation etc. That keeps you within the box of what is presently going on so i think thats going to be happening in any event. Obviously if the congress decides on a much bigger redesign of immigration, there will be very strong cost implications and there will be different ways that this enforcement machinery can be used to enforce the law but also to implement changes and relieve some of the pressure from the enforcement that is presently if i may go back on this question and how its been raised because thats an extremely important question. I think doris you are basically saying the such that we are going to continue with very large numbers, removal of detention etc. Etc. Etc. But if i could ask another variable which is not just the issue of the resources alone but the issue of change in methodologies. As we move to risk management, both in terms of interior enforcement and border enforcement, are we not likely to see perhaps less discriminate detention implications of people and the formula which has already been shifting in favor of the port in rio to continue to go upwards . I think you see that in all of what is that the enforcement agencies are expressing. You certainly see that in with the Border Patrol is talking about for its you know next period. Definitely i. C. E. In its effort to manage its deportation and removal responsibilities has tried very hard to target and determine what are they high priorities. But referring to the question, lets just talk about the elephant in the room here. If congress decides on a legal Status Program of some kind, that removes an enormous number of people from a potentially removable population and underscores much more fully what you are saying demetrios which is the people who cant qualify for that are likely to have a criminal background of some kind and then that becomes very much a more concentrated effort for interior supporters enforcement. Just the perspective over the courses seems to me broad reform could change a lot depending on how its structured of course and what you might see of course is a lot of cases administratively closed in court but i would say in the longterm, then the cases become more complex and may not return to the same level but they may be those tougher cases that doris and demetrios have mentioned. More questions . Im wondering if the these to what extent you found the oversight and calculating mechanism for this important machinery has kept pace with the actual growth of the enforcement machinery . Beyond the judicial review but other oversight accountability methods . [inaudible] thank you. I take it by that you mean Inspector General reports, internal audits efforts etc. You know, its hard to say. In the first place, there have been such high rates of growth, High Percentage rates of growth and when agencies grow as levels of 20, 25, 30 and a budget year, and that has happened in some of these years in the last decade, you cant ever the accountability mechanisms never can keep up with that. So i think that we can probably just inferred that there has not been the kind of oversight. But in addition to that, its also the case that these agencies are not terribly transparent, nor is dhs particularly transparent. So the degree to which there may be oversight taking place or not is not something that is ceased to be determined given the research that is available. There certainly are lots of jail reports, lots of Inspector General reports all detailed in our footnotes and so forth, but there are unquestionably programs and particularly Program Results and use of funds and outcomes research, overall metrics etc. They just havent been developed and need to be developed. Thank you, doors. Muzaffar. I agree with what doris has said. Even if the case had reached these programs especially after 9 11 it would be very difficult for oversight to catch up frankly. But i think despite that comment, actually gives credit to the office of Inspector General that despite a time when congress was giving more money to these agencies for doing even what they ask asked for, that they have actually tried to provide some modicum of oversight. The 2070 program that we talked about obviously did perform as a result of the report. I. C. E. Then did create a more uniform memorandum of understanding which needed a more targeted approach that it did before. I think the office of Inspector General has also similarly Going Forward. These are new programs and the most important ones so we have seen the results of that that we would normally see. I would just say on the detention system that there has been a good faith effort certainly oversight and accountability has been the focus but the system is so broad, immense, diverse, dispersed that you know the word is really out on whether its going to be successful or has been successful and we are in the early stage of reform as well. Would you please raise your hand so i can put you down on my list . Thank you. [inaudible] this question follows on what you were saying. In december i. C. E. Announced their new alternative to detention policies and i know its early to speculate but im wondering if you think what changes that make in the patterns in identifying for families . Well i mean i think people dont understand the immensity of the alternative to detention system. Its now about 18,000 people last we heard and the last statisticstatistic s we had were from 2011. 18,000 people per night in the alternative system. In terms of kind of assuring peoples appearances in court and ensuring removal its been a highly successful system. 94 of appearance rates as past Community Supervision types of programs so these kinds of programs work and i think the funding for them, they are obviously more costeffective and also more humane although very restricted some of