tv [untitled] May 2, 2012 2:00pm-2:30pm EDT
now if that's okay. >> sure. fine. happy to do that. my name's daryl williams. i'm a commercial trial lawyer. i have spent almost 36 years in the courtroom. i like the courtroom. i am one of those trial lawyer whose actually goes to trial, by the way. i think there's a lot of people who say they're trial lawyers, all they do is settle. i've tried hundreds of cases and love it. yesterday i was in trial in court in yuma, arizona. and as i was flying my plane back from yuma to phoenix it occurred to me that, yes, yuma, arizona, they pick 12 million heads of lettuce a day. if you go to your store here buy a head of lettuce, it probably came from yuma. the lettuce is picked by people who come across the boarder from mexico and picked that lettuce for us, because there's -- the population of the united states there won't support that type of industry.
i'm a mormon. proud to be a mormon. and russell pearce was in a heavily mormon district in arizona. and i was offended by his bigotry and his approach to hispanic people. beginningoistic approach. i come from a very right wing republican family. i, myself, have right of ging gas khan. i will tell you that when this immigration became an issue in arizona one of my brothers called me up and said, daryl, let's join the group that goes down with their guns, let get our guns and go down the board somewhere force the border policy.
and i said -- now, my brother is a businessman, and i being a lawyer thought, well, let me think about this a little while. and so i began to study it out and to write an essay which is available, i think on the website. if -- or if you don't have it. if you go to my bio here in the thing, write to daryl williams i'll send awe copy of this essay because i wanted to study out what it was that made people so emotional and exercisorcised ab this and i concluded my study like i was preparing to go to the courtroom that our immigration policy made no sense and, no, i wasn't going to join the minute men and go down there with my guns and try to protect our border, because it made absolutely no sense. now, i have to tell you that a few years ago, 10 years ago, i decided i don't know spanish. so i taught myself spanish and i did that because the mormon church has a very large, over
half the church speaks spanish. i'm devout spanish. in case the church needs to use me somehow. i do lots of work because i speak spanish, a great boom for me and sure enough my church asked me to speak in a spanish -- to work in a spanish-speaking congregation where predominantly nobody there had documents. you know, these were wonderful people and i loved them dearly and i thought, my gosh, they're religious, they're family-oriented. they epitomize what has made our country great. and i agree, we need toes sorhos of people coming here to re-energize us. so when russell pearce gain the what we had done something had to it be done so i went to mesa. i sit on the high church which
doesn't really mean very much, i'll tell you, but i am fairly well known in the valley, in arizona, in phoenix, and so i started giving what's called fire sides. i sat down with people who were mormons, to talk to them about immigration and i will tell you that predominantly the people who came to those meetings came with the attitude that i was crazy. and that i didn't understand the fact that we've got laws and that these people are illegal. don't you know? what part of illegal don't you understand? i can't tell you how many times i've heard that. but if you give me 45 minutes or an hour with any group, whether they're tea party, the strongest proponent, they will either get up and walk out, showing their bigotry, or they will be persuaded that there is something wrong with the likes
of russell pearce and the likes of bills like 1070, and there is a need to change. i was always impressed. i read the biography of adolf hitler a few years ago, i was in germany, so i picked it up. and i did not know that thing that carried hitler on his wave of offense to the jews was sigmund freud, who is an austrian jew. you see, hitler on his wave of offense was informed about freud's comments in his book. saying a group is extraordinary credulous and open to influence, has no critical faculty, does not exist for it, it thinks in images which call one another up by association and whose agreement with reality is never checked by reasonable function. the feelings of group are always
very simple and very exaggerated so that a group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty. it goes directly to extremes. if a suspicion is expressed it's changed into an inkron tra vertable certainty. a trace of antipathy is turned into hatred. anyone who wishes to produce an effect upon it needs no logical adjustment in his argument, he must paint in the most forceful colors, exaggerate and must repeat the same thing again and again. well, boy. if you're speaking to a group even a group like this, if you want to repeat the same thing over and over again, because this group is not going to think critically about it. what you need to do is to have the sort of educational experience that i could have when i met with voters in russell pearce's district and informed them of the reality and the facts.
and once i could educate those people, then i could win. now here's the problem with politicians in washington and why i wouldn't be a politician. my law partner was a house majority leader in arizona for about ten years, and he and i have this regular debate about what you can have happen politically. and i don't care about what can happen politically. i'm looking for what is right and what is wrong. what is good and what is bad, and i don't think that anyone is obligated to succumb to a bad law. i just -- and we all know examples of bad laws. and in our retrospect we have to believe that they were bad, because, well, slavery in america is an example of that. we've got the jews in germany as
an example of that. it's illegal to harbor a jew, and yet now we make heroes of people who ignored those laws. i have hispanic people who work inside my house and in my yard, they don't speak english. i have no idea if they're legal or not. i'm not going to ask them. i don't care. these are good people who work for me. starting the 1920s, we had horrible things begin to happen in the united states. and here is a fact that probably many people don't know. one of the laws that was instituted -- i'm going to read awe quote here by senator david reid. he was a big proponent of these immigration laws in the 1920s. this bill is for those of us who are interested in keeping american stock up to the highest standard. that is people who were born here. there is the old nativist
movement in the 19th century. even benjamin franklin hated immigrants. he hated the germans. he said they come here, don't learn our language. he said we shouldn't have those people here. and we have senator reid in the 1920s, who is a big proponent of immigration laws, and guess who used that and the words of our good senator reid to justify what he did to the jews in europe? i think that the solution to immigration is education. and letting people know what the real facts are. the fact that arizona suffers in the billions of dollars, because of things like sb1070. the fangt that -- the fact that they are not a burden on our society. the fact that how many times have i heard it said in speeches and in the press, well, you
know, they use our emergency care services at the hospitals. i'm going well, yeah, but it's disproportionately used by the indigents who are here legally. and why don't we talk about that? and if you look at the net benefit, the cost of those things nets out positive for states like arizona an for texas. and so i don't understand what is happening here. and just let me -- invite me to speak at a group somewhere. get me your most right wing tea partiers or anybody like that, and give me 45 minutes with them, and they have to change their view or say, regletably like my law partner said to me after i talked to him, and he said, daryl, i just don't want to talk about this anymore. i can't argue with you on the facts and your reasoning but i know what i believe and that is what i believe, by jingle, and i
don't want to change. that is the attitude we need to change. these laws are bad. they have to be fixed. i wish i had an hour to talk to you. >> thank you so much. so we may be inviting you to speak to some peoples. >> have plane, will travel. >> okay. we'll turn now to alex to conclude the remarks and then we'll open it up for q&a. >> thank you. i want to begin by thank azeir, competitive enterprise institute, national immigration reform and texans for ostensible immigration policy. for putting this conference on. let me begin with just some simple facts about arizona. economy of arizona. immigrants are businessmen, employers, consumers, renters, investors, aentrepreneurs and workers. in arizona the sectors are the once most hurt by sb1070 and
similar bills. data from prior to the great recession so i can demonstrate to you just how important immigrants are for economic growth. 44% of workers in agriculture are immigrants. immigration enforcement has destroyed many farms that grow fruits and vegetables in the states, force others to grow more expensive, less profitable crop it's like wheat that can be harvested by machinance and to move a lot of cobbs and activity down south across the border to mexico where labor is plentiful. 23% of workers in arizona are in the construction industry. the construction industry has been decimated generally bite housing collapse but hurt more in arizona because of laws like sb1070. in the peak of housing prices in phoenix in june, 2006, through to the trough in september of 2011, they declined a whopping 55.9% in price. it was the second worst decline of any american major city in the united states. immigration policy does not deserve all or maybe even most of the blame for that decline in price, but one major reason why
it was so great in phoenix is that the state drove out 100,000 people with sb1070 and an additional 100,000 people with the other previous law, the employer sanctions law. 100,000 unauthorized immigrants mostly in maricopa county, would have rented or bought quite a few houses or rentered them and slowed down the housing price collapse. but they couldn't because they weren't there. 20% of workers in manufacturing are immigrants. fabricated metal and machinery was hurt tremendously by the recession, but having the workforce diminished by these restrictive laws added to the loss and increased the magnitude of it. leisure, hospitality service, wholesale trade, numerous other industries have an immigrant workforce larger than the percentage of arizona's foreign-born population, and they have all suffered more than other industries in the state. arizona's unemployment rate, has been at our
above the national average since mid-2008. not long after the employer sanctions law went in effect. sb1070, just like employer sanctions, is mostly about punishing businesses for hiring the labor they want. for those of you who think highly of free enterprise and the government should be smaller and less intrusive, sb1070 combines the terrible work place american left wing social law with american civil liberties violations, all into one compact bill. sb1070 amends sections of the state's mandatory e-verify profession. e-verify is an electronic employment verification system run by the federal government. it links all data from federal agencies like the fbi, the immigration service, the department of homeland security, social security administration and other agencies to verify that a worker is eligible for legal employment in the united states. e-verify is being combined with
state-level dmv records with the so-called ride initiative which will then begin to link up our photographs with e-verify results. now what businessmen are supposed to do is take the identity information of new hires and check it against this database. most of the time the system works all right. but too often workers are not approved. if you cannot prove that he is really authorized to work in a timely manner, the worker is not legally allowed to be employed. we have laws in this country that mandates that workers ask permission from the federal government to get a job. that is not a free market economy if i've of heard of one. most of the time e-verify works fine but in 4% of the time, e-verify produces an inaccurate result. 54% of unauthorized workers who are fed into the system were not caught by e-verify. and worse, 1% of legal american workers were wrongly flagged and unauthorized sending them off into a long bureaucratic odyssey to try to fix the records which
sometimes requires something called a privacy act request from the federal government which takes on average 104 days to acquire. when intel corporation in arizona submitted numerous e-verify queries in 2008, 12% of its workers were not confirmed. now, these workers were all eventually cleared as authorized to work, but intel said it was "only after significant investment of time and money, lost productivity and for our affected foreign national staff, many hours of confusion, worry and upset." another arizona firm, mcl enterprises, which owns dozens of burger king restaurants in the state, reported that over 14% of its e-verify queries were not confirmed. worse, the non-confirmation rate for legal foreign born workers was 75%. that is because of the holes in federal databases that haven't been filled. now, these examples and reasons
are why since 2008, when e-verify was mandated in arizona, 30% of new hires in the state are not checked through the program. that number has been remarkably steady since 2008. arizona is forcing good workers and good businesses into the black market, but at least it's better than dealing with e-verify -- at least from the businesses perspective. e-verify makes hiring employees more expensive. a point about basic economics, when making something -- when you make it more expensive to hire people, that means you will get less hiring, and force more of them into the black market. now if you don't want that result, i suggest that you encourage people, or not about proponent of e-verify. in conclusion, sb1070 harms specific sectors of arizona's economy. e-verify makes it more costly to hire the workers that businesses demand, and fewer immigrants mean fewer entrepreneurs and consumers that consume the
american goods services and real estate produced in the state. arizona has been especially hard hit by the housing collapse and subsequent great recession, partly because of its immigration enforcement policies. but arizona cannot pass such policies if the terrible federal immigration laws were not on the books. for the vast majority of unauthorized and potential immigrants, there are no visas available. that's a simple fact. federal immigration reform should diminish the role of government in employment decisions and allow employers and employees to make their own arrangements without government intervention, even if they happen to be from different countries. thank you. >> thanks very much, alex. so we've heard a panoply of reasons for why we need federal immigration reform. we've heard about the demographic shifts that are taking place. we've heard about the moral imperative of what it
means in communities to have the broken laws. we've heard about the legally shaky foundations for our current policies and of course not least the economic implications of broken immigration laws. now, i want to open it up to all of you for any questions that you may have, but as you guys are thinking about your questions or -- okay. we'll start right off with you. i thought i might have to go first. >> okay. my name is kimberly. i'm a ph.d. candidate at george mason university and my specialization is immigration and human trafficking. i've worked hard on this the past six years. i wanted to touch on the point the trial lawyer i'm sorry forgot your name. >> daryl williams. with regards to education as the solution. i agree with you, but my question is for all the panelists, i guess, is there enough evidence to conclusively
educate? and the reason why i ask that is because my dissertation when i'm finishing up asking the question does 287-g disproportionately affect the number of latino youth brought in the criminal justice system? to my experience, there is not enough evidence or data sets available to even answer that question on a generalizable level. before you can offer solutions and present possible policies that might actually work, you need to have the evidence as confidently as possible say what's going on, how we can make thinks better, and for that i think we need congress and other organizations to fund more rigorous research, because there is a famous mark twain saying, there is lies, damn lies and statistics. you don't want, either side of the debate you can present sometimes shoddy evidence to
support your position. so i just would say, you know, do you think that evidence exists? >> okay. let me respond to your question here. i, like you, am skeptical when it comes to evidence. i spend my life in a courtroom cross-examining people because i have an expert who says something that is so and my job is to destroy that person and more often than not, i can. because i can show other statistics that counter balance that. the education i'm talking about is not statistics. i think that is misdirection. i think the education i'm talking about is, what is this country about? let's start with fundamental principles. what is it that makes the free market work? what type of morality undergirds this issue? what is the warpth that holds this community together? now, i never get to talk about that in the courtroom, because it is the cold sort of
facts about what you were talking. and who is right and wrong, and in my view is that none one is right in wrong in the courtroom it's win and lose. on a major issue like this what you need to do is educate people about the underlying principles of humanity and goodness, the good reverend here talked about that. and i think that's the important issue, and that what's what i talk about when i talk about our immigration laws with people. i start with the initial naturalization acts in the 18th century, the early 19th century. the chinese exclusion act signed by chester arranger in 1882, and you know -- we just have a history of what really is bigotry in this country. those that are here want to erect a wall.
there is a 1928 political cartoon that says "keep out" and there is a wall at the border with a gate in it and uncle sam on one side that says, no way, and the people on the other side are irish immigrants. and so the refrain has remained the same, it's just the focus has changed over the years. the nativist movement of the 19th century was shocking, is shocking to most people when they hear about that. so the education i'm talking about is the history of this issue in the united states, and then have these people confront what they think ought to be the principles that are guiding a free country like america. that's what i'm talking about. i'm not talking about crime statistics. i know lots of those. i file add brief in the united states supreme court on this immigration issue just a little while ago. go read it. amicus curiae brief for 5000
businessmen in arizona. replete with kind of statistics that affect the commerce clause, but that is not the education. the education isn't what you're talking about. the education is, who are we, and what should we be? >> i'll give you a chance to follow-up real quick. i think daryl -- >> my mother's fault, i'm sorry. >> apologies. >> it's darling daryl. >> okay. makes an excellent point about there is a values conversation that is happening here and actually goes back to some degree to what you were quoting from freud. that there are conversations about facts and statistics and convincing people on that basis. that's been an up-hill challenge, although i do think there are loads and loads
of statistics not necessarily on something as focused on 287-g, and that's in part because of bureaucratic problems with the agency, and we do need more data, i think, to really arrive at sound analyses and strong policies, but i do think at the economics level, that there is ample evidence that what we're doing at the state level is deeply counterproductive, and that if we were to rationalize our national immigration policies that we would see substantial increases in cumulative gdp. that contrary to that is a huge hole in the economy and this just goes to the question of, i think that eddie was talking about. that, you know, you lose population, you lose 11 million people and their family members, and you're talking about 16 million people all of a sudden. that's a huge hole in the economy. and we've spun that out and looked at what that would be
over a ten-year period, and it's actually very similar to what the kacato institute center for american progress left leaning, cato institute came did their own independent analysis and came to the same conclusion, which is that, you know, you remove these people. you have a huge hole to the economy, you legalize them, give them the opportunities to compete on an even playing field and the increases across the board are significant. >> thank you for both of your responses, and i think that, you know, one thing that is similarly important to me if there is evidence, amp evidence of the economics of immigration, what it means to the country, i think it's extremely important to disseminate that information to be easily accessible to the average joe. if i read studies, if the average joe doesn't understand it, it's meaningless and won't
make the effect and educate the way we want. just my response to daryl -- >> daryl. d. >> i completely agree that that type of education is necessary, but i think that also the statistics that i'm talking about are also very valuable. because, you know, if we are seeing a constitutional issue with violations of the 14th amendment i know that's not what this conference is about, i think that has to be brought to light. they're not reporting ethnicity to test this. so -- >> let me respond to that, too. you've got to remember, most of the groups i'm talking to are the electorate. i'm talking to the regular guy who goes into the voting booth, and i will tell you that the average american is not real good on standard deviations. they're not real good on confidence factors. they're not real good on reading the scholarly, analyses reports.
they are not good at parsing if this is a good report or truly an objective and academic report. they're not good at that. that's why the people in this room are important, because i expect my representatives and their staff to be good at that sort of stuff. and that's where it's available. there's lots of it out there. the statistics on arizona are on what has happened because of the economy, are just drn-are stark because these bills have hurt us. not only that, what happens is, people flee arizona, and then they go to another state. so it's a dormant clause, issue constitutionally what that is. i'll tell you, if i start talking about the commerce clause and the constitutional interpretation with people, they're eyes glaze over, because the average person
who votes doesn't think at that level. very superficial. >> i'm going to jump in here real quick. you're looking for just hard, statistical facts to support the fact that we need sensible immigration reform. i'm going to add what eddie all dreet said, a aldrete said. talk about abortion. go to the cato institute, an absolute fact, not debatable, more american workers are retiring every year that are entering the workforce, especially in the unskilled level. that is a fact. number two is eddie aldrete pointed out to us, our current birth rate is fairly at the level that it takes to -- for a society to exist, and if they stop coming from south of the border, because it so happens that hispanics are the ones