Some of them i really like, but who cares . I was talking to one of the candidates, talking about corporate inversions and they did not even know what i was talking about. Its not their thing. All the things with other countries and make great trade deals we are getting eaten alive. When you look at the phony numbers, we have wondered Million People in our workforce not working. I real Unemployment Rate is really 30 . Politicians, for 5. 3 . You look for a job, if that young guy comes out and looks if he goes into the workforce and he looks for a job and he goes to college and does well in canada and job, when he yous up, they consider employed. They cannot find jobs. They want to work. They cant print it is not reflected in the real numbers because the politicians want to look at. We take some questions come i will talk about something ive never really talked about on stage. T is called super pacs one of the greatest scams of all time. [applause] so we sent out, think i had and people set them up. Donald trump maybe they are my benefit. Up for nine or five or 11, we dont even know. Theyre all over the place. They have all these packs and the money comes in. What do they do with the money . I dont know and we are supposed to call them. So we wrote a legal letter either nine or 11 last week saying we dont want the money. Send it back because again what do they do with it . If some guys having a hard time all of a sudden is 2 million in the super pac you think hes going to say yes to trump . Its a scam, super pacs. Its a disgrace that we have. A disgrace. [applause] i will tell you i read a number is an example. Dan is paying 70 to almost 80 cents on the dollar to raise money. Hes paying a lot of money and thats not reflected. When you hear they raised 20 million think of it. Who pays . The number actually heard was 79 but these guys will check it. You all know what the lie. I think they said 79 cents on the dollar. To raise the money they take 79 cents. Somebodys make you a fortune. I know one of romneys campaign a couple of guys walk away with millions and millions of dollars and they became rich raising money. Its better than being a real estate broker. Real estate brokers take these massive percentages of the money they raised. Its a scam. Its a scam. In bens case is super pac is running iowa. And let me tell you the people that are running that super pac even in the small donations, those are the bosses. In the case of jeb bush you are not supposed to deal with the super pacs. It was in the wall street journal the other day, he had a super pac fundraiser and a hotel. Right next to it he had his campaign. Did you read back . By coincidence of course. They are not supposed to be coordination. They are right next to each other. And thats nothing compared to what some of them are doing. Its a scam and should be stopped. Its unfair to somebody like me that is spending my own money. [applause] and what happens, and i havent talked about this before but im seeing whats going on. Horrible whats going on. What happened last time when they had the super pac i think there was a wall. They call it the wall. Wont be as good as the wall im going to build bots it was awol. Even though bush has a friend of his from the super pac they never talk. What do you think the chances are that they taught . 100 or 99 . I would say 100. Only a foolish person would say 99 but whatever. Thats impossible that they put a friend in there and they put other people in there and put whoever and thats the way it works. In some cases i hear in bens case and other cases, had walker done as an alternate if he had money and is super pac but had no money in his campaign. Thats why he is out of the race. The whole pacs is a ole thing was super pacs is a horrible, horrible scam. So i sent letters last week to as many as we could find. We want you to close the super pac and we want nothing to do with it. We dont want you to advertise and we dont want any of the money. Go home and ideally give the money back. They dont even have to give the money back from what i understand. They get to keep it. If they raise money for me they will say what a horrible thing you just said. I think we are going to support somebody else. They can do that. But the super pacs have total control over the people running for office, total. Nothing over me. [applause] i feel its very unfair. If they want they could have full disclosure and that the candidates get anything but what are they doing with this whole thing . I think it makes dishonest people out of people that might be on this. The super pacs are controlling your candidates. Some more than others. Some are unbelievable. Take a look at how much money is left. When you read an event raised 1 dollar how much is left after they pay all the consultants and all these people . How much is left to spend on the campaign . You would be amazed. Its so little. Bush, the same thing. I know everyone of them. Its a horrible thing thats taking place and again last cycle at least they went through the motions. Now they are not even going through the motions. And just remember when i had to negotiate with companies to keep them in this country so they build jobs here and they build their plants here and there factories here and they do all of the things here, you know john deere tens of millions of dollars that you can even check. I said to john deere i guarantee no other person gave john deere ipod more than 10 million worth of john deere. You know what iowa, iowa. [applause] i love it. I love it. And by the way its a great company. I buy a lot of stuff from john deere. A lot of developments that require john deere. There is no better i can write that will not be insulting to those people. Dear miss so and so, i dont need your money, thanks a lot. If where got that back i would say who the hell does he think he is . We take that and it is important. I preface by saying i dont consider that funding. I am selffunding my campaign and i am getting ready to put up millions. Millions. [applause] something i am very proud of, that i think it is great, it has been really great, but i have spent less money than any other candidate by far. I think. I dont know. Probably a couple guys have nothing so they go around but i was told i spent less. I had the best result because in most polls i am number one. Until iowa came along, i was like, what the hell are you people doing to me . They said why dont you skip iowa. He said would you think of skipping ohio and going to New Hampshire and then South Carolina where i am leading. You ought to see the rallies there. You do the nevada but i cannot do that because i have an unbelievable relationship with the people from iowa and i believe we will win. I believe it. I think i am going to do great with the evangelicals because i am the real deal. I am the real deal. [applause] so, i told these political pros, i hate to say it, but the last number of republican elections, the person who won iowa did not get the nomination. I want to take away the muster. Let me win iowa and then i am going to win i am telling you. We will win New Hampshire. And we will win South Carolina, great poll just came out on North Carolina just a little bit ago. A ppp poll that was great. Some of you saw it. But we will win. One of the pundants because you smart and dumb ones but one of the smart ones said if trump wins iowa it is interesting because it will go right through because everywhere else is great. Will you please do me favor and work with my people and go out on february 1st and vote and give us a victory. [applause] if i win iowa we are going to run the whole table and we will make such great deals and make a great military and take care of the Health Care Without the crazy obamacare that is a nightmare. I want to win iowa and i think we will. It is time for that person to win iowa and have a total victory. I love you, all. We are having fun. When i heard the polls today they said what are you going to do . I said i am not leaving iowa. I am going to work harder. If i lose iowa i will never speak to you people again. Okay. Lets do a couple questions. Where is that mike . Nice questions. Vicious. You can ask me anything you want. You any tana . You got a good one for him . Go ahead. How are you . Good. Thank you. I want you to know i am married, eight children, stay at home wife and average income. I want to know with the war on poverty we spent 20 trillion, yet the poverty lines are the same. I made good choices, a lot of people do, we pay for people to make bad choices, what are you going to do cut some of that out . We have now and the numbers came out we have 50 Million People in poverty in this country. You look like you are doing well in fairness. We have 50 million. 46 Million People getting food stamps. We talk about how well we are doing. Almost 50 million between poverty and food stamps. It has to end. One of the problems is we dont have enough jobs in this country. It is so simple. Our jobs have been taken away. Middle income folks their salary hasnt gone up in years. People are making less wages than they were 12 years ago. One of the reason they say i am doing well is i let people know we will bring jobs and industry back. And nobody else can say that. We will bring it back because a lot of the folks in this room are doing worse than they did 12 years ago. And the other thing is a you have a lot of parttime jobs. I know people who have done well and have a job in the same place. They are working parttime because of obamacare. They love the owner and stores and things. They think the owner is great. But the owner is forced to work parttime jobs. They have a Wonderful Company they are working with and then cut to marttime jobs because of the rulings of obamacare. They end up being parttime workers and they dont want to be. They dont like the psychology of being called a parttime worker. We will not have that stuff anymore. We will have real jobs as the numbers go up believe me. The numbers are right now worse than 12 years ago and that is a shame. Mr. Trump, you will love meeting todd. He is a Wounded Warrior and i told him how much you love the vets. Hi, todd. These are the greatest people; the Wounded Warriors. The best. Is that your wife . Beautiful. Daughter . Beautiful. I have to say hi to todd. Didnt i tell you how much he loves the vets . That is a perfect family. Beautiful family. Go ahead. I just wanted to ask one of the real struggles after 21 years of active army service especially with hundred first air born that deployed constantly with the Current Administration warrior care is lacking to say the least and especially after postservice. My wife, april, is my fulltime caregiver. I dont work anymore since told i was leaving the army. What else will the Trump Administration do better than the Obama Administration . Is the va not doing their job . My wife can help you. He needs more treatment. I am being told from the va you have to go through this new choice program. We cannot get the appointment. He is not all of the time in the wheelchair write out a card and i will put pressure on the va like you will not believe. Look how beautiful okay. We will have, you know, as president , i can guarantee it. As trump, i can say i will probably be able to pull it off anyway because they know it will not stop. It will be easier to take todd and say look, we are going to work with you. Will you get me that number and we will make sure and somebody else who else . You had problems with the va also . Terrible. I just hear terrible. We will solve that problem. You know, it can be solved because the wait now for the va are longer than they have ever been. It is nice to see you people back there. It is about time. What am i doing there . The waits now are worse than ever. Thousands of people dying. You find the same thing. You say you have to leave your own because they will not do anything. We will take care of the vets and va. One of the things we will release soon. We have a a lot of hospitals not doing business and doctors who could do private business. We are loosing doctors because of obamacare. A friend said i have more nurses working than every before but more accountants. Hold on one second. We cannot wait until class is put back into the first lady. And we cannot wait to see class again. What is your question . My question is you talk oil. We have refineries that havent been built. Keystone xl pipeline what will you do with that . Approve it because it is thousands of jobs. And hillary should have approved it. She wanted to approve it. But she has been dragged so far left she is forget it. I would approve it. With that being said, i may want to make a better deal. Because you know what we are bringing oil from canada. They may say i want 10 . The truth is that the Keystone Pipeline was better a while ago than it is now. We have great stuff. Higher than canada. They have the tar sands which is a problem for them. Expensive to get it out. We have great stuff. I would approve it because i love the job of building it. But i may say maybe we should get 1020 percent as the oil flows through our land. Maybe we should do that. I am going to look into that. But when i approve it, i tell you what, it will be a great deal for the United States. Right now, what we are doing is approving it. They are putting it underground. Look how handsome he is. One with the question. Who has the mike . I am a physician and when is someone going to realize you can put the Insurance Company out of business by lowering the age for medicare . We would have one system. Why doesnt anyone have enough guts to talk about it. Ben carson, in fairness, said he wants to abolish medicare and you know what a disaster that is. I am sure at some point he will take it back. What is your plan for the budget and how do you plan to Fund Immigration reform . It is costing us 200 billion a year. And eisenhower is going to say he moved a Million People out in the 1930s. Eisenhower moved a million and a people out of the United States. They moved them all the way south and they didnt come back. We got bad ones. Remember the heat . Rush limbaugh received more income than any other being. He doubled down. He is good. Really good. But i took a lot of heat and then you had kate in San Francisco shot and killed in the back. People started looking. Let me tell you. We have wonderful people over here illegally but they are wonderful people. We will try to get them back soon and through a legal process. But we have bad gang members. Some of the gangs in los angeles are made up of illegal immigrants. We have Unbelievable Police forces that dont get the respect they should get. They dont get it. They cant talk. Let me tell you something. You will always have bad apples. I dont know who they are. But the police do an unbelievable job. They know the gangs. You go to la and see the cops and chicago and the cops com comcombo would be amazing people if they could do their job but they are not allowed to do their job. I dont want to put them in our jails. I dont want to subsidize them. We have hundreds of thousands in our jails. I dont want them in our jails. I heard a couple of the candidates saying they dont know. They are such babies. But you know what . They are talking about putting them in jail. I dont want it. Our jails are overbrimming. I want to use our jails for people that are supposed to be there. Okay . And i dont want to put these really bad dudes, i mean they are bad, i dont want to have to pay for them for the next 45 years. Okay . And we will deal humanely with the good people. They are mostly good people. But we have bad ones. Your head will spin. Someone said what is the first thing you will do . Well, we will work immediately on repealing obamacare. The one good thing about executive orders. The one good thing, obama signed an ex executive order, we have great Border Patrol people. I got to know them when i went to texas and the border. They are great people. They are not allowed to do their job. They stand there and watch people walk in front of them and smile. They want to do their job. They are not allowed to. The executive order president obama signed, the one good thing, in the first minute in office, i will counter sign and revoke those executive orders. The only good thing is actually that a new president can do a new signature and that is the end. We will cleanup the border, proud to be a country and a lot is going to happen. One or two more. Another one on the bleachers. Going to Foreign Affairs what is your stance on israel and supporting them . We will support israel one thousand percent. Israel is so left alone. I know a lot of my fiends are from israel and they feel so left out. I have so many jewish friends who say why did i support obama . I think the worst thing that happened to israel and we will support israel beyond anything they had. That is the easiest question of the night. We have a young adult here. Okay. Hi, my question goes back to Immigration Reform. Why is your answer then not to strengthen regulations on Drug Trafficking and sex trafficking . That will be part of it. I think other issue with the big problems, the big issues on capitol hill are comprehensive. It is more than building a wall. But the wall is a big factor. The drugs are a great question. We will stop drugs. Look, i told you before, mexico, 4550 billion not including the drugs. The drugs coming across the border are beyond believe. Did you see the picture last week with a little wall . They built a ramp for trucks to go over with drugs. They think we are playing games. Mexico is not helping us. Mexico is not helping. If you want to become a citizen of mexico, i love the mexican people. In nevada i am rated number one with the hispanics in the polls. Everyone is shocked. The hispanics here legally they know i will bring jobs and dont want people pouring in. But mexico has got to help us. If you want to become a citizen of mexico, if todd wants to become a citizen, if me, if i want to be a citizen of mexico, me i know they will not take, but do you know it is one of the hardest countries in the world to become a citizen in . But people pour right through in the us. They call us the dumb americans. That is what they call us because of your leaders. If you want to become a citizen of mexico you could take the best person in this room, the most qualified, you will not do it. They dont do that. If you are there illegally and overstay your bounds, you will not be there. If you have a pass for two weeks and overstay they have cops and police waiting for you. They have police saying you have one day left. I hear it is unbelievable. I am impressed. If you want to become a citizen of mexico it is impossible. They dont have anchor babies in mexico. You are born as a baby in mexico it is like byebyebybyebyeby. Here is it like you are born and we will take care of you for 85 years. Not going to happen. This is important. The 14th amendment says right there, everybody said you have to go through a whole process, and it will take many years and you have to go through every state and amendment. The 14th amendment covers it. Trump is right according to some of the best legal minds. The fact is, somebody comes in illegally, and they have a baby, we are not responsible. We may have a court case, and we will win it, but a simple act of Congress Gets rid of it. A lot of people didnt know that. And the reason i said it cant be possible is because nobody could be foolish enough to allow a thing like that. We are one of the only countries where it takes place. I use mexico as an example because they are tough. If that happens in mexico they dont know what you are talking about. With us no good. Not going to happen. Lets do one more question. Make it vicious, violent and creative. We have it back in the bleachers. Actually make it nice. If i dont like it we will do another one. Did you ever see like elton . He does a final and the song is great and everyone is going crazy and they are screaming more and more and elton comes back and does three more and the last song is a bum. And you walk out like this you like to leave on a high so if it is bad question we will do another one. I used to live down the street from harry truman in the late 60s and want to leave you with a trumanism give them hell, donald. What will you do about the money the politician government calls Social Security . Say it again. What will you do about the money the politicians government owes Social Security . The amazing thing is the politicians in this country live by a whole different standard when it comes to health care and everything they have including what you just said in terms of Social Security. And i think that should not happen. Some of them tried to do it. You know the story in obamacare. They dont have to take it. They live by it a different standard. And that is not going to happen. Everybody is going to live by the same standard. They will have to same standard as the poorest person in this room. That is how it is going to be. Do one more question. One more . Okay. Go ahead. I cannot get over there. I am here with the mike. Sean johnson is great. I was just wondering who you are considering to be your running mate or Vice President . It is good question. But if i answered that question we would have a big story. You know that right . I know a lot of good people. A couple people on the stage i respect. But the truth is too early. We have to close the deal. There are a lot of good people. We have to close the deal. We have to get it done. Thank you. We will be back. I love iowa. Thank you, everybody. [playing were not gonna take sister] sted byying rock n roll train ac dc] a member of the ways and Means Committee talks about his interest in replacing paul ryan as chair of the committee. The budget deal and the congressional agenda. Newsmakers, sunday at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. It is a very touchy business. You would not wish this light on most people, really. A collection of very interesting stories. There are also points about p and daughter ship, politics and democracy. Sunday night on q a, j on his book children of monsters. The lives of the children of 20 dictators. I was able to talk to some knowledgeable people. I could not talk to any family members, which was usually the case. There are only so many around to talk to pick up only so many willing to say what they know or diebolds their feelings or experiences at all. I was digging around for any tidbit i possibly could. These sons and daughters, most of them some of them become the dictator. And of them are footnotes asides and you have to dig to find out about them. Sunday night on cspan q a. Look at the a impact of the 1965 immigration act and the current immigration policy landscape. Posted by the American Constitution Society and Economic Policy institute. This is about an hour and 30 minutes. Hello, everybody. Good afternoon. Welcome to our program today. Equality gained, quality lost. The 1965 immigration act and its aftermath. Im the president of the American Constitution Society. For those of you who may not , acs was founded in 2001. We are a National Network of lawyers, law students, judges and policymakers who believe the law should be enforced to improve the lives of all people. We work for positive change by shaping debate on vitally important legal and constitutional issues such as the ones we are going to hear discussed today. I want to thank the Economic Policy institute for cohosting this event today. Thank you for posting todays event it is not the first time we have partnered with programs of mutual interest and i know if it is not though last part of the past couple of years we have marked the anniversary is of several important civilrights laws the act of 64, Voting Rights act of 65 but we wanted to make sure we didnt forget the immigration act of 1965 that was part of the effort to make the laws is more fair and respectful of the quality. It to radically change to a limit National Origins that flavor favored the immigration system to other parts of the world. Yet despite the laudable goal than the content they ended for in the lead toward discrimination in those divisive policies we see today. A of the politics. So to lead us through discussion with our distinguished panel we have a real expert the senior cabinet adviser the nations largest hispanic civilrights advocacy organizations preparing the network for the implementation of executive action on immigration. He is author and coauthor to supervise the Research Reports coordinated pro bono litigation and as a parttime resident there working on a book of the reform act of 86. [applause] so thanks to the panel and also to this espn2 audience. Each of the panelist will have their opening remarks to have a few minutes of discussion in an open to audience q a. Two o bed with a discussion of bed 1965 act and then we will discuss the subsequent developments how that affects workers rights. We will not go into detail on each bio that is all available to the audience. But before beginning to the act we might want to start with a brief recap so thanks to my colleague who did a similar introduction of a big go what we give you the history of the immigration policy and it is not that hard. Because we had no immigration policy. The getting the late 1800s not just to limit the number said people with the kind of people there were exclusions for certain kinds of diseases or prostitutes and so forth Congress Passed the chinese exclusion act the title should be selfexplanatory to bar most agents reentering the country and in the early twenties the u. S. Pass the First Comprehensive law of National Origin quota laws. They created in immigration quota for each foreign country based on 2 of the percentage of that population that was that nationality. Said to be hypothetically 1 Million People was a quota of 2 percent for perot congress was to make sure for those that are already here. A 1952 s second major Immigration Reform the immigration and nationality act and for the first time priorys for the employment jesus. With the immigration selection system that remains one form or another to this day. As we consider that fact was that todays panel will answer what happens and why. A second set of questions how did that shape the migration flows and policies . What lessons can redraw that todays policy makers cameron from as we face the 21st century to begin our discussion we turn to rose. I am pleased to be here today. It is helpful to specify bed immigration act. Congress provided there shall be no discrimination place of birth or place of residence so for the First Time Congress provided grace chao no longer be a factor as reconsider the historical implications and the Lessons Learned in to be published but the buoyancy that we examine to think about with the immigration act if we could consider that as a civil rights law. With the civil rights legislation to think about that question to examine the intent so i a read that statute is that consistent of what day insisted . They have argued with pieces of civil rights of legislation. Then 1964 civilrights act ben followed by the 65 Voting Rights act many of these are instrumental but theyre not perfect laws but by contrast to argue the 1965 pact should be considered to be the most effective of all civil rights laws of the past. And only did it abolish race and National Origin but it did open the borders by allowing millions so from that perspective we can save the 65 backed is an important piece of civil rights legislation. But that idea was not shared by all and we examine the critical perspective of the act arguing for the first time it imposed limitations on countries from the western hemisphere making the emigrations of the mexicans. Withy undocumented population in the 1965 act with the immigration of people from the western hemisphere. There are critics to argue that it did nothing for the immigration of people in africa. For those of african descent that the diversity lottery programs that was put in place in 1980. They have argued in fact, the 1965 act has those quotas by limiting the Refugee Program from those coming from communist dominated countries with bad National Origin from that perspective. And to put in place that ongoing dissemination. The other they might apply to highlight so it is part of the immigration is system so what was put in stone under that at to allow for unlimited immigration and then to sponsor the children married and unmarried so as to promote those losses upon close examination from that system that is set in place to provide for a limited quotas to note who counts as family all of these different factors that lead to significant delays to promote family unification and how we think those with the perspective. Before you start but the opponents of the law of the critics to anchor age that is well lead to the chain migration end of the historical point about that the with the mitt the immigration to the family members. The intent of that was to restrict immigration into those who already had family members in the United States. Just a little point. 8q for the invitation to be here. Pointing to that central tension but it creates the problem of the legalities as we know it today by creating essentially a disconnect on the one hand it of the other the political restrictions to curtail immigration from certain countries with high emigration like mexico and the since it has opened from all over the world that is juxtaposed against the background of geographic historical relationship so mexico for purposes of immigration is like mozambique but that to me and is very different. So we get is if it is a problematic act in immediately it starts at the state and the federal level in the United States and that is what i want to focus on. So the act then creates that cascade of problems of political and legal developments that grapple with it without addressing that fundamental disconnect so you see a series of enactments that we could say are on the edges of the problem but not to the root of it is self. So very soon thereafter we see the effects of the state level to pass the employer sanction laws so it can connect the idea of who should be working to the concept of illegality california is in the recession this stopped employers in california from hiring unauthorized workers. This goes before the Supreme Court a event in that case it has to grapple with the idea of the states reentering immigration regulations and the end of way there was significant state regulations and through 1880 that we may substitute but from 1875 lot is the federal government dominant the post 65 with the concept of illegality the states start to reenter the and the sanctions law goes before the Supreme Court to say the power to regulate is unquestionably a power but they have held it is a regulation of the immigration so the Court Upholds this law so that triggers postdate and federal action later 11 actually to waned which alternately in 1986 with immigration control act is preempted by federal law. By you conceded government attempting to do with the problems created in 65 by spreading a mass Legalization Program. Said to have a significant portion at that time to legalize. But its it becomes very clear so the federal government attempts the more punitive response for the federal and axmans that forces the United States out of this problem with dave harsh deportation standard to create a larger class of people subject to deportation so the legality created by the lot so where does something there is extremely interesting to allow for state level enactments to control for immigration. Many of those provisions although enacted in 1996 lie fallow the next several years. As we argue in our new book book, what and said happening for the state involvement is activated through political mechanisms is you start to see in the last 10 years with a significant stake a. M. Local enactment. 12 trend toward the attempt withy illegality but the current landscape goes to the theme of the discussion with the 1965 act that we currently have a patchwork in the United States where the prospects whether documented in the United States and also with different prospects is a former of structural a quality we might want to think about moving forward that in many ways the lawn that impacts the lives of immigrants on a daily basis. The internal question of equality how we should think about integration of laws like california the later the way they treat generally and specifically in cities like new york or at the city level vs. A restriction this law of alabama or arizona should be think of these to different types of laws as similar for purposes of understanding human discourse if we only need one and immigration what to allow these various efforts . Finally thinking how the landscape has developed with a federal law to create a condition we have significant state and local response is to which extent do we allow these to be a forerunner of defacto policies . That states and local efforts affect national law making it becomes difficult for congress from those jurisdictions to vote in ways to override those so john mccain, in the early 2000 immigration policy is described as a moderate in did promote certain acts as a comprehensive package including a Legalization Program but after the proposition 200 he no longer can hold those positions to the moderate immigration in positions end is forced to take a more extreme position it you see that middle disappear. So one of the of legacies is the creation of the legality because they have not dealt with that fundamental problem with those that are attempting to do chip away at the problem now that leads to a situation that the prospects for significant comprehensive reform. The queue to monitor it to host this event i will build upon the fellow panelist remarks to save not meant to be a revolutionary bill. That is often tossed around when we looked at how the law has transformed the u. S. Labor market in to partner with some negative ways. The 1965 law is credited for creating a sizable and documented position of today so keep in mind today there were no quotas from latin america and of course, for centuries between the territory of mexico and the United States the with that position of 120,000 pieces from the western hemisphere initially only 40,000 and by 1977 it was cut down at 20,000 to be around for mall a quality vs. Equity. With a companion civil rights legislation certainly it did create formal inequality but in fact, did it have the equity there were looking for . Some was it hasnt. So looking at the foreignborn workers so the United States and mexico headed into a bilateral treaty to allow Foreign Workers to work temporarily this is known as a program that allowed 5 million workers but the program with fuelled the Agricultural Sector in the Industrial Work as well. You played a significant role in the u. S. Labor market so given the supply of shortage of workers coming from the u. S. Economy. Is enacted but hundreds of thousands of mexican workers participating in the program with no real pathway so contributing to the growth and that this same time we have employers that will rely arm that labor supply. There is some historical literature with the exclusion of mexican workers. There is a significant lobby pushing for the exclusion of latin American Workers with the concern there may overtake u. S. Population others note of mechanization and that they would not need as many people. So the end of the program is a Significant Impact that was there a cap on the mexican nationals but we also see a shift in the temporary worker program. It was relatively small in scale and continues to be. But prior to 65 showing the burden that shifted to the employer so this meant there was more of an active role the government played to determine which foreignborn workers could come to the United States. This gave the government more control for other latin American Workers. Also during this time those that take the position of undocumented workers should not be in the Agricultural Sector between undocumented workers in the labor market for many years that follow. What is the of larger consequence today . I argue there is a few. But not creating a permanent pathway, it is labeled of mexican workforce with a permanent transience they cannot be permanently integrated into the u. S. Labor market and some scholars have argued in some respects to replace the asian immigrants with the latinos year 1965 and that was even a jaded but said the facto exclusion to create to this permanent outsider demonized and exploited. So that a significant interdependency this stage of a labor certification process in the inevitable result with the undocumented population in the United States. What is the impact . Both documented and undocumented. And other forms of Workplace Discrimination of their disproportionate to the representation and the the list goes on. That has been fuelled by the undocumented population. There has been gloom and doom but charles mentioned the entire peace allocation 74 only 20 percent went to Employment Base 20 in 1965. Those with exceptional ability for another 10 percent went to perform skills. Some may say as the overall allocation that is relatively low. There is a larger critique that if we do what we need to do to attract the best talent in the United States. But we did see this and many of these are making a Significant Impact on the economy. So was it the right allocation . Also note said beecher to self employment how that affects the u. S. Business market or how this has caused economic difficulties but that is another aspect to look at. Two more points the impact of the law and africanamericans that gets relatively little attention but deserves more. In they often talk about latinos it reflects what it means for africanamericans there is a very vigorous debate is positive for harmful to say there is a positive impact and they tend to be more positive in terms of the Economic Impact overall. There are other general studies that have done some wage impact to get the same time to look to the industries where employers have intentionally chosen to replace traditionally vulnerable groups as a longstanding Latino Community and that is purposely with a guest workers are more exploitable and former paul. Formidable. But think of it as civil rights and equity. The of the ways in which the undocumented population has affected the latino communities with racial profiling and discrimination we have to ask ourselves what is the impact on communities of color . Antiminority attitudes another way to look at it that has spurred the growth including the Immigration Reform act. It pushes some employers to move away from undocumented workers to rely on guest workers or prison labor for other types of workers may be lawfully working. With that series of defense to impact that experience and of course, we know there is a Significant Growth of the population but the interplay when you have people come in his family based immigrants coming in under the Employment Based theme. It is difficult to cavan is in the isolated way so they still continue to of a significant deficit for temporary migration there were attempts to remedy that. It strikes me that in addition to books the equity verses quality of also has to do with supply and demand many people point to where that explanation to be partially true but it strikes me how much demand was there in Eastern Europe that was behind the iron curtain that did not permit emigration or is it a question of what happened at this point for what the catalyst may have talked about disrespect. One of the things we have yet to mention with that overall population and where we may be as predicted by demographers. So it will no longer be a majority white population but the offices of that. There might not be a single race to dominate the u. S. Population instead to reemerge as one of those in the United States we can trace back to because of the immigration of immigrants of color from mexico and china india and the philippines was the top spending countries over the last several years to think of it as the prospective if congress has never opposed any kind of immigration would we be in a different place today and what would that look like . One argument is the act could be thought of as erasing intentional or the effect of the racial barriers to emigration law. From affirmative action and a series of ways to address the ongoing impacts of discrimination. From one perspective we can think of it as a positive perspective because it promotes the view of discrimination. Others may say it is a negative perspective but it is one thing to think about going everyone to have equal access in the United States but it is another to have Immigration Law as a means to diversify that stream. The one to put that in there as a way to consider the role in our current population. First the point about taking his back to the program but we are reemphasize st. Only because directly preceding 65 you had that set for most cyclical migration retrieved the United States there are a significant concerns with a lot of ways that choice and agency may have been coerced but it was a way to promote cyclical and seasonal forms of migration. I wonder, and this is an open question, to what extent does significant federal Immigration Reform or rethinking ideas of illegality, even as those demographic changes happen, our concept of illegality necessarily changes. By the late 18 hundreds illegality essentially, as charles pointed out, mint, meant asian, this nefarious group of people from asia and were coming to take jobs, plan opium in the United States and generally the boschdebauched the morals of the United States through asian prostitution, for example like the 1875. The page act is directed toward this part of chinese prostitution coming into the United States and the blushing them also places like San Francisco and the surrounding areas. But i wonder even has now, we dont necessarily, although you think about the Campaign Rhetoric of jeb bush, when i was thinking about 1st tourism i was not talking about latinos. I was talking about asians. Somehow that made it better in his mind. Obviously as aa general matter we have replaced that group for which we have this animus with regard to immigration and the way in which we now think about the latino population in some sense and immigration question even though it does not actually track the tracked the demographics on the population. Significant numbers of citizens with long histories , but we label them as illegal, illegal operating as a very thin veneer for race and racial restriction. An open question as to even as a fee changes, to what extent does our concept of illegality change without significant changes at the federal level . That last. Is a verya very that last point is a very interesting question. When we think about the demographic diversification of the us, and i think of that as a positive, but the particular pathways in which asian immigrants have come to the United States post 1965 have created some complication in terms of how the groups are racialized and positioned in terms of the class positioning within the United States. I think this is something, my father was a beneficiary of the 1965 Immigration Law. As a consequence, many asianamericans are then positioned as affluent, successful, high achieving, etc. And, etc. And while that is certainly true for some portion of the population, i think it has been created a lack of a complex understanding of the real diversity, economic and otherwise, within the Asian American community. I think the same might be said about latinos. And also, i think african immigration is such a fascinating phenomenon. There was some reference to this, and it did not come about so much for some of the subsequent enactment, and the same might be said and i am no expert but have done some thinking about the interrelation relationship what that means, right, how we define africanamerican in an era of growing african immigration to the United States and the interrelationship between historically present African Community and african immigrants in terms of access to different kinds of opportunities. A fascinating question that we can think about. And the comments and others emphasize the political complexity both the federal and state level in the different types of coalitions and interest at play and Immigration Reform. Now it sometimes feels helpless to see all these different strands trying to be aligned, but the kind of work emphasizes that the historical record shows us that it has always been this complicated. There is lot of interest at play in terms of crafting immigration policy, certainly with respect to workplace issues, and there has been a particular uncertainty about how to deal with immigration from the western hemisphere. I was talking about and what others are talking about, the. It was not a done deal. It was just the result of intense negotiations in the months and years preceding. Thatthat is where the negotiations landed. But still, if you read the law, in addition to putting in a they called for the creation of a select commission on west western hemisphere immigration which are still think we need today, but just a deep uncertainty, i think and parkfield biracial concerns, economicconcerns, economic concerns, what to make of this longstanding historic relationship between the us and the rest of the hemisphere, and i think that has always been politicized and still is extremely politicized but remains our greatest challenge. Lessons mainly retrospective is appropriately looking back and commemorating the 50th anniversary of a major reform law, are there lessons that we should take . Might apply them today, if we could maybe identify one thing that we think is most meaningful from the history that is applicable to the current contemporary debates. Well, i would like to focus on family, count as family for purposes of Immigration Law. There are differentthere are different ways of thinking about how we might restructure the family based immigration programs that we have. In fact, the bill that passed the senate, the one that almost many had hoped to become law and different ways of thinking of family base. They would have cut off the ability the bill would have cut off the ability of us citizens to petition for their parents, to petition some of their older children who are married if they reach 31 years old they will no longer be eligible for immigration into the United States. On the other hand, the bill would have also allowed for lots of permanent residence to bring in their spouses and children. So in terms of lessons and have a 1965 act building upon the 1952 act redefined the meaning of families, itfamilies, it is important for us to think about whether you we might want to expand our understanding of the family, other countries that allow for parents to emigrate, other close family members to integrate. One way would be to think of a broadening the meeting of family or we might consider narrowing the meaning of family. Just limited to spouses and children to liangyoung children defined by the statute as 21 years and below. So because the way our Family Based Program is structured, that leads to on the one hand, increased family unification but on the other hand extremely long delays and separation, theres something wrong with the system. It is important to rethink how we define family. I think, one way of thinking about that question is the best immigration policy for the next 50 years or if we were doing this in 2065 what they say . I think one of the things that if we are going to do that we must ask what exactly is the goal, what are we trying to accomplish with any form of Immigration Reform. You might ask the question from the liberal perspective is our goal is to maximize the economic output of the United States and function at an efficient level. Perhaps that is one goal he might pursue a consist and portions of the constituency are doing that, there is also a portion committed to the goal, the purpose of Immigration Law should be to not have illegal immigration. That is a more difficult and complex question to address because one way of addressing that would be to say, okay, if the law does not create illegality you wont have illegal or unauthorized immigration. Its possible, not clear which of two paths you can say. Simply match our immigration in the United States. As likely to get down to a manageable number of unauthorized migrants. But if what you take from the last 50 years is that we should have greater enforcement in the way of reducing that 11 million number, your immigration policy will look significantly different than it yesterday and will require an enforcement apparatus that is exponentially bigger than the apparatus we have today. One of the lessons perhaps we might take is that, you know, regularized or cyclical mass legalizations are likely not going to be the way of reducing the unlawful population to zero the ratcheting up with an enforcement mechanism is also not going to reduce that number 20 which leaves the last choice of really thinking heart of how demand matches availability. One of the root concerns of the 1965 act. And so these are some questions we might want to think about including, the including, the goal, what are we trying to accomplish Going Forward . I willi will be brief and mentioned this earlier and im looking at these questions from a labor or economic angle. The historical record in my view is very clear. Historically theyre simply have not been enough pathways julio immigration into the us people interested in coming for economic purposes. Whether that is coming for unskilled work, semiskilled work by skilled work, or small level often ownership. There just simply are not enough visas available you are talking about temporary or permanent. And i think that is a fundamental flaw in the system and one that has created aa range of pathologies related to immigration enforcement, economic problems locally and otherwise, and i think that is something that needs attention. Attention. Excuse me. The 2013 bill in the senate went a significant ways toward remedying that that would allow larger numbers of Foreign Workers to come to the United States to temporarily. Those workers were not have to be beholden to a specific employer. There was some degree of visa portability which is another feature that is to be introduced into the Employment Based immigration system. I think thati think that is the tension that needs to be worked out. It is complicated because there are different imperatives when we talk about foreignborn workers, attracting talent, boosting the economy, but also about protecting us workers and often these are at odds with one another, to be candid. Not always, but there are ways to reconcile these different interests, but interests, that is the larger project that must be undertaken. Thank you. Unless you all have anything add, now is the time for audience q a. We have a microphone. Please pray for it to get to you and then identify yourself before asking your question. Yes. Thanks. I know i am kind of jumping out of my seat here. I am a Congressional Correspondent for the hispanic outlook and have been covering immigration for the last ten years. I wrote a book called, a lot of the change the face of the american command i am pleased with this panel because you talk a lot about stuff i have struggled with. I am glad that you were corrected and that even though there was not national law for 86 there was, of course,was, of course, states and localities. If you are jewish, forget going to boston. There was a way cities and states regulated immigration and im glad that you were corrected that mexicans were not included. And i am glad you are talking about family unification. I think when you have spoken about are the drivers of immigration and how they change and how they change the demand. For instance, technology, with skype do you really need family unification . The kentucky mrn line every day if you want. Does especially things like the nationality. This is the thing. He did not talk about the 7 percent rule. The thing was that in 1965, the 1964 law prohibited National Origins as one of the civil rights. You cannot discriminate. Every nationality had to be treated equally, and discrimination also means preference, not just discriminate against the preference for. Now were not going to have preference for northern europeans. I mean, how do you do that . Every nationality is treated equally. They put a 7 percent law, no nation could have more than 7 7 percent of all the green cards given out. That still exists today. Mexico does not get any more than 7 . If iceland does not get more than 7 percent that number goes into the amount. Nowadays in terms of globalization, this is something i have been struggling with, does it really matter anymore that they give a preference or not . Globalization, we are seeing how high tech workers, a lot of them are from single countries, china, india. Are we really going to say we will do the 7 percent rule on that . If we legalize the dreamers, the vast majority are mexican. Come and it legally and then get amnesty. That is kind of preferring mexicans. Is that civil rights . The executive order to make they are going to go against the simple white . Is that even important anymore, that part . And the last thing i have been struggling with command you guys, this is the question you can answer, immigration is not a civil right, but i think that the 1965 act and all the fervor immigration, and i used to see can be pounding the table and say immigration is the next civil rights in our nation, and it is. So i love you to just that. I mean, therei mean, there is a lot in that. Honestly, your question boils down to immigration, go. Now. A few thoughts. So, the questions of how we should think about things like dreamers, the questions it also suggests in your question suggests once you have something we edisons report a particular population for legal transgressions of entering unlawfully having been unlawfully present and to what extent that fits into civil rights narrative. Except to say your perspective on that depends upon how you view the law and illegality. If you think about illegality as something preordained, there is this concept of illegality and oncewas you cross the threshold there is no way of rectifying it except to violations of what we might fundamentally think of as rule of law, priorities and any quality norms, i am not sure there is a lot that i am going to say. But if you think, i think, the creation of those populations, for example, there were population as a result of a functional, this is so functionally on the ground when you have significantly harsher congressional penalties against the historical backdrop that was laid out for us is suggests that initial transgression, what we might think of is that transgression really is the ending. Of the discussion. The discussion is how we should think about that population and direct enforcement efforts. And how does it make sense to enforce law against that population, and that is a very different orientation toward the rights of those sorts of groups. I think one important lesson climb back to the question charles asked was that the 1965 immigration act occurred