Transcripts For CSPAN2 Yea Nay 20150207

Borders open immigration yea or nay . You will get a copy of this on leaving. I will let introduce the panelists. That would be superfluous. I want to point out is not true as some people have suggested that we hired barack obama to the advance publicity person for this conference. That is not true. He did it on his own initiative but we are delighted that he was able to bring such focus to this important issue. I think it is an important debate and there are no easy answers i think. Alex nowesteh will start things off with a crisis of his broadside and Mark Krikorian will follow. The other panelists will comment on it and we will allow alex and mark to respond and open up to the audience so perhaps you will have something you would like to say as well. Thank you for that introduction. Thank you to hudson for putting together this great event for publishing the book, for the center of the Immigration Studies, for cosponsoring it and for all of you being here today. I believe american in classically liberal notions of liberty demand a presumption in favor of the right to voluntarily migrate across borders. The burden is upon those who oppose the right to show why it to be restricted just as we would demand very good reasons to support taking away the individual rights of life, liberty and prior property in other situations. It is illegal for all but a small number of people who want to come here to come here unlawfully to the United States. The tradition of relatively free emigration we have in americas past close a long time ago and replaced by a highly complicated bureaucratic system centrally managed on political prerogatives. As the law is written the burden is on the immigrant to prove you should be able to emigrant which is backward from our western notions of guilty until innocent until proven otherwise. The verdict should be on the government to demonstrate why an individual immigration not be able to come and the reason should be pretty good. The Current System is the equivalent of presenting every immigrant is guilty, forcing them to prove their innocence. Adr ethnic traditions rightly have more. I will go through three basic reasons why i think the United States should have a much more open it emigration policy that karen does. One the consequences of immigration to the United States is positive especially from the economic perspective. 2, ethical reasons, i think our ethical western traditions of ethics support this from every prospective and 3, our principles of the individual liberty, american traditions and western civilization, tied the ethics and principal part together and very difficult to separate them. Consequences, economic. There is a lot of popular disagreement over the net effect of immigration and the u. S. Economy but very little disagreement among economists. Economists agree on basically three big things. One, price controls are bad two, freetrade is good and three, immigration is good for the economy. How good is it and exactly who is it best for . That is the big disagreement. Economists on the right side of the spectrum and on the left side of the spectrum talk about this. If you think about it, the number one issue people think about when they think about immigration and the economy is the impact on american wages. If you remember your very simple supply and demand model, big increase in supply of workers should lower wages right . That is your number one understanding of the basics of economic solidify increase the number of apples by quite a bit in the economy we expect the number of apples to fall, the price of apples to fall. Something different happens with labor because apples dont buy other apples. They dont buy the services of other apples but immigrants who are people by the services of other people in the economy increasing demand for labor. Most economic studies find the wage affect of immigration on americans are very small a lot of them actually find it is positive as well. Why is that . Because the economy is dynamic. Economy is not static. If you were to increase supply of anything in a static economy and nothing else changes we would expect the price to fall but the rest of the economy, what we see is the amount of Capital Investment increase due to population overtime, most immigrants and most americans have different skills, not directly competing with each other so there is very little competition. Because of that we have complementarity is which economists differentiate from being substitutes. If you are a substitute for somebody, you compete in the labour market, more of you would likely lower the wage but if youre complement in the labour market, you have different skills that can Work Together and increased demand for both of your jobs. One of the best examples of this is lowskilled immigration in the restaurant industry. What we see is lower skilled immigrants who on paper have similar skills to most americans, specialize in jobs that require physical labor over Communications Skills because one of the big advantages of being an american is being able to speak english because americans dont learn other languagess. I dont learn another language and have no intention of doing so and everybody in europe speaks a set of languages. Fortunately they all speak english which is the only language i speak too. What you see is a division of labor where low skilled immigrants work in professions that require manual labor and lowskilled americans get bumped up into professions that require communication skills. In a restaurant the less skilled immigrants work as busboys, dishwashers jobs the dont require much communication with customers who speak english. Lower skilled americans in restaurants, there is a waiter, waitress, hoses jobs that require communication that are more highly compensated. Of course the number one issue is demand. Immigrants buy things, they buy goods and services from other people and people produce these goods and services so immigrants increase the demand for labor in the u. S. Economy. One of the most interesting thing is wages are determined by productivity of the worker in the u. S. Economy. How much productivity do they add to the firm as they go forward . Say worker produces 20 of value for his firm that is a maximum wage he could possibly obtain, 20 because he produces that amount. The basic notion of economics if wages were to increase because of a decrease in supply of labor, that means the price of the products they produce must go up. That is the actual result of its. If it is a claim that a decrease in the supply of workers decrease wages that will be offset by a large part by an increase in the price of goods that they built. As we know, the wealth in the economy is not necessarily the dollar amount on your paycheck or bank account but what you can buy with those goods and services. Immigration is a voluntarily mutually beneficial wealth creating exchange with the cost of immigration are not fully internalized through all the people involved in that transaction but neither are all the benefits in that transaction. If we have a standard of that, immigration should only be allowed so all the costs and benefits are internalize to people involved in the transaction and white out any sort of economic transaction going on. Furthermore our presumption in favor of free markets shows us that we should pay relatively free Labor Migration Labor Compensation is equal to 60 gdp in the United States largest portion of gdp. If you like free markets, if you like free trade, if you like competition you should be willing to open up this part of the United States, more competition and more free trade. If you think the increases in the supply of labour decrees wages of people in the United States i want you to ask yourself a question. While wages so much lower in the middle of wyoming where there are very few people and so much higher in places like manhattan where there are so many more people. There are a lot more things going on. What about welfare . I work at the Cato Institute and i am concerned about the welfare state and the size of it but all of the arguments against immigration because of welfare are arguments against the existence of the welfare state to begin with. It is a better argument go on and say we should build a wall around welfare state rather than chopping off immigration because there exists a welfare state. You can make a similar argument that there should be mandatory dietary restrictions because government has socialized parts of the Health Care Industry in the United States. I think as freemarket years, libertarian or conservatives would accept that argument as ludicrous. The problem is socialized medicine in the system not necessarily the fact the we each too much. One bad government regulation in one area like the welfare state does not justify another Government Intervention in the market economy in another area. Whether it is dietary restrictions or the Free Movement of people. In bergen, slightly to consume than for americans are and reduce the dollar value is smaller. If for americans in medicaid at the same rate poor immigrants do and the dollar value was the same, would be 42 smaller. The entitlement programs as currently stand immigrants tend to subsidize, massively overblown bankrupt programs. Nothing we can do to save these programs, like medicare and social theory. They are going bankrupt as they stand but immigrants have a positive cash flow so hopefully if and when congress decides to fix these programs will be easier to do. There are hundreds of studies about the fiscal impact of immigration. How does it affect taxpayers in the United States . I wish i could give a more interesting answer to that but all the effects are clustered around the euro. Immigrants almost entirely mostly pay for the Government Services that they consume. These are Dynamic Models down across the world and the United States. What about the political externalities . Will immigrants flood into the country . The radical Leftwing Party destroy capitalism, destroy our institution, overrun these things . As far as we can see we dont find that affect the the many United States or internationally. What is interesting to point out is if you look at the percapita expenditure of the federal government and United States by far the period of time with the most rapid increase from 1930 to 1970. Federal government expenditures for Capital Increase 17 fold during the time period. In the time since 1970 when immigration is liberalize you see a doubling percapita expenditures per person but also increase in emigration. Prior to 1930, 30 years from 19001930 you saw doubling but interestingly enough, the immigration was closed off when you saw the largest increase in size of the federal government. I am not claiming immigration is the reason why the federal government slowed post opening of the border but if you make the claim that immigrants increased the size of government you have a lot of historical explaining to do. Vernon briggs jr. An adjunct scholar at the center for Immigration Studies and labor economist support broadly immigration restrictions because it makes possible these broad increases in federal government and broad increases in social safety net. What do we do when we look at the Economic Freedom scorecard across the world and the United States . It is true of course the Economic Freedom creates more prosperity in countries and more prosperity attracts democrats so when we do with resource papers is to see if there is any effect of immigrants in 1970 and how affect Economic Freedom in every decade after that or period of years after is that in each country around the world, see if theres some kind of affect, slowing in liberalization of economy is around the world and we find a positive effect. We find a positive affect that immigrants over time are correlated with increases in Economic Freedom over time as well even on the National Level in the United States. We find different results in the state level in the United States but still if you make the claim that immigration is going to destroy free markets, move the political spectrum against free markets you still have a lot of explaining to do because the correlation does not support that explanation. Look at size and means tested Welfare Benefits over time in the United States, across states. States have very different sizes of the immigrant population, different demographics that were influenced by immigration and a lot of control over a lot of means tested Welfare Benefits. Five there is no correlation from 1970 to 2010 between the size, intensity of flows of immigrants, size of the minority populations that have been increased by population on the size of means tested worker benefits. You see no impact over time. And a similar story about support for banning handguns in the United States based on a gallup poll corporate banning handguns, this is important to me, as a gun hobbyists and enthusiast, theres a document out there that immigrants are very opposed to guns and bear going to vote for gun restrictions. Interestingly enough support for banning handguns peaked in the 1950s at period when lawful immigration to the United States was as low as ever and we are seen a decrease in support for banning handguns to the low to mid 20 , as a percentage of the population is increasing so again i am not saying immigration has caused these popular opinions or effect i am describing just like you are going to claim the opposite you have a lot of explaining to do because data does not support you. What about ethical arguments . What about the arguments from our traditions of what is right and wrong and how to treat people . Where does that impact perspectives on immigration or what immigration policy should be. We need to apply the same ethical standards to immigrants we apply to other people and people have equal moral worth. We favor same people over others. I fave for my wife for instance. I will do more to help her, more of an obligation to help her that i have to help any of the rest of you. You are all fine people but that is the moral obligation, to help my family and probably an obligation to help people who are other americans more than i do other people. Theres a hierarchy of these obligations but just because i have an obligation to help somebody doesnt mean i can do Everything Possible to help from. What matters is how i can help them. If my wife is applying for jobs i can help her write a resume, i can prove read her letter of introduction, i can do research i can help her pay for education and get her better skills. What i cannot do is, the other job applicants, to prevent them from also applying for the same job. I cant block other people using coercion to do that. We need to apply the same standards to immigrants. There just isnt much competition between americans and immigrants in the job market because the schools are different but even if there was a lot of competition between immigrants and americans such intense competition that would lower american wages, that is not an argument to oppose immigration primarily because of english commonlaw traditions. Another immigrant import by the way. Economic arms that arise through Market Competition or through competition are not a sufficient reason for protectionism. If i am not baker on one street and you open a bakery on the other street and you put me out of business because you sell a better of loaf of bread i cant sue you. Because i participated in a market economy i took those risks. In terms of the same thing goes for immigration. Freedom of contract in our system even with immigrants is more important than supporting notions of economic protectionism that build barriers of Big Government to protect certain people from competition with other immigrants. What about natural rights tradition . Individual rights, life liberty and private property precede the creation of the state, and classically liberal tradition and all these different writers receive the creation of the state and people of equal ethical and moral worth. The declaration of independence listed restrictions on immigration and naturalization as one of many reasons for seeking their independence. The classical notion of laizzezfaire has to do with free market economy. An old french phrase was a pattern and times with and often phrased with the other phrase that means let them pass, that people pass and move to economic institutions, freedom is to move is a prerequisite for a lot of other freedoms we enjoy as well as the freedom in and of itself. By immigration restrictions cumin created laws that have no basis in human rights no basis in natural rights. You cannot find a justification in natural rights theory which is the foundation for our system of government that supports immigration restriction for any of these reasons. What about utilitarianism . Another proud weston philosophical tradition . The economic argument, voluntarily mutually beneficial exchanges and the relatively free market are wealth producing and should be allowed. They produce more wealth and they destroy another aries in the same way capitalism in other areas. Under each of these ethical systems, ways of judging it, all western in origin and tradition borders are ethnically irrelevant. A matter for other reasons but in terms of this their ethnically irrelevant. What about the rule of law . An important argument. Supposedly cant legalize large numbers of unlawful immigrants or change our Immigration Law substantially because that would violate the will of law. It is an important tradition in the United States, one that has helped us prosper in the United States but laws must be based on an accurate accounting of human nature and respect for human liberty. They cannot be based on the whims of legislators or social engineers who have decided the u. S. Population must be based on some sort of arbitrary standard of who we expect like immigration restrictions are. Will what does not mean all laws are enforced or enforce evenly, think a lot of flaws in American History that heinous, that were glad they were not in force to the full health. The main three portions of the rule of law i that they should generally be applied equally, they should be relatively predictable outcomes and consistent with our traditions. All three of those are required, Immigration Laws failed in each and every one of those. They are inconsistent with traditions to the United States list and 901785 we had open borders and only gradually after that point were more restrictions placed until the 1920s when it was almost totally closed off to the rest of the world. Equally applied but not equally applied laws they treat people differently based on skill, country of origin, Family Status things that would be unacceptable in other areas and their not predictable. Any people who have the same characteristics they apply for the same immigrant visa and radically different outcomes. If you want people to respect Immigration Laws the laws must be respectable. I currently think they are not respectable. Wayne buckley jr. Said laws attempting to stop unauthorized immigration were in the same category of king canute standing on the beach and ordering the tied not to come in. As a fundamental misunderstanding of reality, how the world works, to think you can manually control and stop all immigration at least the vast majority of it. Whether there whenever theres a disconnect between the law and reality reality finds a way of making the law is irrelevant. In conclusion i will state that relatively free emigration or open emigration is the opposite of a Big Government policy because it would mean removing the most economically destructive laws that are on the books today. If free trade results in more Japanese Cars being imported we dont think the government forced Japanese Cars through a Big Government program. We say america allowed american to import cars from japan. If we were to radically liberalize american Immigration Laws the same thing would take effect. It would allow more immigrants to come lawfully to be employed by americans and engage in voluntary market interactions. The total value, the present value of all american human capital, the skill and the productivity of other values of american productivity is worth 750 trillion compared to the value of our physical factories, plants and computers that produce things which is only 45 trillion. If we believe in free markets, if we believe that free trade and Free Exchange and capitalism are the right economic systems we should expose as rather large for the u. S. Economy that is currently protected International Competition and cooperation. There are massive economic deans to liberalizing immigration consistent with american traditions consistent with exceptional ability to assimilate people over time which has not changed by the way according to all the measures done by jacob has measured fists and everyone Free Movement so in conclusion all the western Ethical Principles that i have talked about on traditions of american liberty and traditions of free emigration in the past, support for the rule of law and positive economic developments the United States should support an open immigration policy that allows peaceful and Healthy People from around world to come and work and hopefully eventually naturalized and become americans so thank you very much. Look forward to what everyone else has to say. [applause] everything alex said was wrong. I will spend the next 25 minutes telling you why. The first question of immigration policy is whether the American People have a right to limit immigration. Alex argues no. Frankly making the rest of the presentation irrelevant. If freedom of movement into someone elses country is a natural right as alex claims then it doesnt really matter what the economic or fiscal or political consequences are. It is a moral question, not a contingent empirical question. This first question is one of values and can be entered in one of two ways. Either we the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and so on have the exclusive right to decide who moves into our National Home and who does not or foreigners have the exclusive right to decide for themselves whether they want to move to the United States or not and we dont get a vote. If the American People have a right to selfdetermination a right to decide who is permitted to enter our National Territory and who is not bent debate is possible over of a practical effects of one set of policies or another. This doesnt imply any specific policy but that is the starting point of a debate over policy. If the American People as alex claimed is morally prohibited from limiting immigration to the United States then debate is irrelevant, it essentially a question of choosing which moral value matters to view. Alex claims that there is a natural right to Free Movement and i disagree. I hold that the American People have the right through laws duly enacted by their elected representatives to set the terms of admission into their National Home. In other words immigration is a privilege that we grant to people not a right that people are able to claim against us. This entails no policy in particular. From that starting point you could argue for high immigration or lower immigration, an emphasis on skills or an emphasis on family relationships or something else. You could argue for a more simplified streamline system of managing immigration or very complicated and bureaucratic one. It is we collectively as a people through the arrangements we have established in our constitution to get to decide who comes here and who does not not the outsiders. Given that what should we do . In my after of the book what i offer of a unified field theory of immigration policy based on blood from this that Mass Immigration is incompatible with the goals and characteristics of a modern society. These are broadly shared goals in modern america that even though people with different opinions will differ as to the means, the ends themselves are not disputed by mainstream people. For instance physical security, strong sense of shared National Identity a responsible system of social provision for the poor, Mass Immigration undermines all of these goals. This is a change from the past and the change is not the change in the immigrants. Todays immigrants are not that different from immigrants of the past they are from Different Countries and all, read the same kinds of people coming from this part of their society. What is different is what they meet when come to the United States. Immigration a century ago was a tumultuous unsettling process, something we tend to forget in our sentimental recollections of the past but under the social and Economic Conditions of the past we were able to make it work cant make it quite successful as an important tool of nationbuilding, it wasnt the only one. We are not just a nation of immigrants the we are among other things a nation of immigrants but that is no longer the case ended is time to move on. To borrow from st. Paul the road to the christians in corinth when i was a child i spoke as a child, understood as a child i thought as a child but when i became a man i put away childish things. Mass immigration is one of those childish things that a grown up america has to put aside. Let me touch briefly on the more important areas of conflict between Mass Immigration in modern society. The first assimilation. The most important factor in immigration. That is to say successful in making newcomers and their posterity in to patriotic, and the american past and their past. And americas pass as their own even if it was not that of their biological and sisters. A different scriptural quote is relevant in describing what real assimilation looks like a foreigner says her is really motherinlaw where you go i will go anywhere you lodge i will lodge. Your people shall be my people and my god my god. Will you die i will die and there will i be buried. That is assimilation and that has to be the chief consideration, among the chief considerations in making immigration policy. Two changes in us not the immigrants, matter here and make assimilation much more complicated problem, much more likely phenomenon, much less complete and that is the revolution in transportation and Communications Technology that has shrunk the world and the loss of commitment to the goal of patriotic assimilation in america. Just briefly the technological changes are obvious to everybody. Communication is free at this point with skype to call anywhere in the world, transportation travel is dramatically less expensive than it was in the past. What this does this has many positive influences, positive facts but in the immigration context it eliminates the need the pressure forcing immigrants to reorient their emotional and psychological attachment from the old country to the new country. This is not something people would naturally do. People are going to maintain the kind of connection and feeling about the place they came from. If you dont have that theres probably something wrong with you. At the end of fiddler on the roof when all of the people have been chased out by the cossacks and at the crossroads, the last musical number, the name of the village, kind of a bittersweet song where this place was terrible. In a sense they are lucky to be rid of it. On the other hand it was theirs, it was where they came from. They loved it. That is a natural Human Emotion but it is necessary to get beyond that, to have the kind of deep psychological assimilations that is necessary and modern Technology Makes that more difficult. In the past you didnt hop on a plane and go to your aunts funeral in palermo for a long weekend or even call. Now you can. There is nothing wrong with doing this. This is a natural human thing but it means the process of approving and rerouting doesnt happen in the same way. There are swedish immigrants. It is a four book series their version of routes, the final edition in the book is the last letter home because the immigrant family moved to minnesota, wisconsin and the kids are grown up and got married and they got the last letter from home. There is no last letter from home anymore and there doesnt have to be and that changes the calculus of assimilation. The second factor in assimilation and a less desirable change from the past is our in thes, government, business, philanthropy, media, religion all of our in leads to put it charitably ambivalent about american patriotism. To give you one illustration of this, in the 30s and 40s, her parents brought her to school in the unspoken compact was the school was going to teach her reading writing and arithmetic but also what it is to be an american. They did know, they just got here. Immigrant parents make the same essentials compact. My mother met memorize the gettysburg address, learned George Washington was the father of the country and saying hail columbia. Anybody think theyre doing that in the Unified School District today or the new york schools or chicago or miami or any of the places immigrants are living . No. Is not the immigrants who are doing it. Immigrants are not coming saying i demand multiculturalism. It is oures that are not only permitting this but encouraging it. Secondly secondary of this conflict between Mass Immigration and modern society is security. Again the same revolution in communications and Transportation Technology created a very different security environment where the home front isnt just a metaphor. It is the actual front. The one that really matters. Alamosa immediate enemies are not foreign armies that shadowy terrorist groups transnational criminal organizations. As the 9 11 Commission Staff report on immigration noted, quote makes it is obvious to state the terrorists cannot plan or carry out attacks in United States if theyre unable to enter the country. You could blow up something and kill people and that happened in the past. The kind of threats we are now facing a qualitatively different and Mass Immigration confounds our efforts at maintaining people and security and there are two ways it does this. One it overwhelms our administrative capacity to screen out bad guys and number 2, it creates and constantly refresh is the insular immigrant communities that unwittingly serve as covering incubators for bad guys. The bureaucratic overload is pretty clear. The need for bureaucratic screening, security related screening of immigrants is obvious. Most Foreign Terrorists have been Immigration Law violators. We documented this at great blank and they could have been stopped through routine consistent Immigration Enforcement, something that is within our capacity to do if we wanted to do it. The 9 11 hijackers not a single one should have been granted a visa to the United States. Not because somebody magically knew what was in their minds but because none of them met the basic criteria in Immigration Law having to demonstrate that you have equities back home that will lead you to return and not stay illegally. The fort dix plotters who were stopped before they were able to carry out air attacks were illegal border crossers. The one who plotted to blow up the capital that was stopped and foiled in 2012 was like many of his the visa over stare and without a visa tracking station we have no idea which people overstayed their visass and which have not. This is such that all three layers of our immigration security these offices abroad Border Patrol agents and border inspectors at the borders and our officers inside the country are overwhelmed and respond in the way you would expect an overwhelming bureaucracy to respond. They a rubberstamp and wave people through as a kind of act demoralize act of despair because there is no other alternative for them. The other immigration security when they did issue is safe haven essentially. That Mass Immigration creates in still other immigrant communities and this essentially is you can understand by thinking about the aphorism that people are the sea and the army is the fish for a swim in the sea. In the same sense the insular immigrant communities, smalles in minneapolis, salvador and washington constantly reinforce through new immigration reinforces that separateness and provide the kind of haven similar to the way italian immigrant communities provided a kind of haven and breeding ground for the mafia and when immigration was stopped those communities assimilated. The americanborn young people have a real buy in they no longer were suffused in a sicilian old world view of the outsider being the enemy and the threat receded. If you drained the see it makes it harder for the malefactors to find cover, raise money, and force a discipline, recruit sympathizers. One authors observation is relevant. He was writing about chinese criminal organizations and it applies more generally. He wrote if the Mass Immigration of chinese should come to a halt the chinese gangster may disappear in a blaze of assimilation. Economics. Mass immigration, legal as well as illegal flood the lowSkilled Labor market and this matters because we are a very different kind of economy today. We are no longer selling virgin lands as jack kennedy pointed out in a nation of immigrants which was not intended to increase immigration at all and yet was used for those purposes we are not undergoing the process of industrialization and yet we are importing 19 century labor into a 21st century economy. This isnt to say that alex is wrong in saying immigration creates a net economic benefit. It does. George warehouse recently calculated the size of this and said the users of immigrant labor, either their income has increased forprofit increased 447 billion. That is the cheaper restaurants. And the income or profits of nativeborn americans from immigration. Those americans who compete with immigrants, they are competitors, 402 billion reduction in their incomes. Americans were least able to avoid this sort of thing so when you do the math, a 45 billion net economic benefit for nativeborn americans, this is the same calculation george bushs council publicized during the debate on his immigration bill. 35 billion is trivial given the size of the economy. The benefit comes from impoverishing the people who can least afford to have their incomes go down. It is a Redistribution Program and the entire set of economic benefits is wiped out by increased social service costs. That is the fourth issue i will touch on with the conflict between Mass Immigration and modern society. A century ago Government Spending wasnt all that much. It was more than you tend to think, Something Like 100 years ago, all levels of government, federal state and local combined consumed 8 of gdp. Today it is more than quadruples that share of the economy. It has to support a dramatically greater government sector. Robert rector of the Heritage Foundation described this as saying transfer or redistribution our pervasive if not predominant government activity in modern societies. We can say like many libertarians, that is right. So lets get rid of the welfare states instead of reducing immigration. My answer is not yourself out. Call me when you get rid of the welfare state and then we will have a debate on immigration. It is not going to happen. A large government sector which i think should be made smaller, tighter, more responsibly run. I am a conservative but it is not going away and it is a kind of if you will can opener economics. To think immigration would be great if we got rid of the welfare state the can opener joke is a chemist, physicist and economists are isolated on a desert island, one can of beans, how do you open it to give the physicists as heated up, it will. The engineer says take a rocket hit it. The Economist Says just assume a can opener. The fact is beach family headed by a High School Dropout in the United States receive Something Like 38,000 more from taxpayers at all government levels, 38,000 a year more than youd pay in taxes. Essentially that is the cost of a mercedes 300 sedan every year from taxpayers. What that means is every immigrant family headed by someone who does not have high school education, that admission is obligating the american taxpayer to by him on mercedes every year. The problem is not that immigrants are coming to rip us off, it is not mismatch between their levels of skill than education and post industrial Knowledge Based economy that creates this reality. The idea that we can wall of the immigrants from the welfare state is the fantasy. If there was less gravity i could run faster but on this planet there isnt any less gravity and on this planet we have done an experiment that attempts to wall immigrants off in the welfare state. That was part of the 1996 welfare reform. Those costs the taxpayers are inevitable and unavoidable. Cant complain about them because you have created the situation were these people people we will be using benefits. It is not because they are lazy. The work and welfare go together now. The overwhelming majority of immigrant households that collect welfare have a worker in the because welfare is basically designed to subsidize people who work, families with Young Children who work and thats a good proxy for immigrants. So what so what do we do . Let me just spent a couple minutes Legal Immigration policy. All immigration have three components. Family immigration should be limited to husbands, wives, and little and little kids of us citizens. My starting. In talking about what immigration policy should be is that we dont need any immigration. That doesnt mean zero. Mean zerobased budgeting. You started zero and see which groups of people have a compelling case to be admitted. Number one is husbands, wives, and the kids. Second, genuine einsteins people have this idea that our immigration policy has this sort of einstein element. We are letting in some lots of ordinary people. Thirdly humanitarian immigration this is a kind of almost government run charity program. I am uncomfortable with anything like that but if we do it it should be limited. Congress thought it was voting for 50,000 refugees he year. It has never been ll. They should be combined. You end up with half or less of the current immigration flow. Maybe 400000 or so immigrants a year. Still more immigrants for permanent settlement in the United States than all the other countries in the world but together anyway. Its just a lot less than we have now and reduces the Impacts Companies counter modern impacts. Let me just say a couple sentences finally. How we get theyre. Part of the context is what is going on in the actual policy debate. I laid this out in the article in National Review earlier this year. The way it is usually approached them out of a deal with this illegal population, what do we do with Legal Immigration constantly repeating the deal that we did in 1986. Legalize all the Illegal Immigrants upfront and then promised to enforce the law. Thats essentially what the Congress Passed last year. Year. With the addition of doubling future immigration into that market instead those pieces need to be rearranged. Enforcement has to come 1st not promised in the future judicial challenge. Attracting visitors. Once that is in place it doesnt solve everything the amendment only enforce the law. And we have a different. Legalization amnesty camorra significant share. In in exchange for deep permanent cuts ilLegal Immigration. [applause] i have to begin by apologizing to roger and my fellow panelists sent to you Family Health problems. Must be studying some kind of record for cognitive dissonance. Are talking about it just now. The Senate Immigration bill much discussed and really seem. There it is. Right now for example what the hourly wage of an immigrant and sore and 26 teach the go 9. 84 in case youre wondering which is 0. 20 more than the hourly wage of an immigrant nursery worker in 2016. Did you no that nevada is a border state . You laugh. He thinking what chico marx said in that movie. You can believe me or your eyes. The southern tip of her a lot as 164 miles north of the border. It does not it does not matter. Another 20 billion in Border Security working here the majority leader of the senate wanted the nevada to have its share. This is what you do when you do comprehensive legislation. Were just giving you a taste of it. This is the homestead act of 1862 which in some ways was our 1st Immigration Law and certainly is one of the halfdozen or so most important pieces of legislation. The archives 1193 pages shorter than this. This was our 1st Immigration Law. We have naturalization laws. But the. Of the homestead act is to attract immigrants to settle that portion of the United States. That is all the area west of the mississippi, the Great American desert. It was short because they essentially came here and work the land for five years and it was still in effect and still doing things until about 1970. This is how you dont legislate we should learn with regard to immigration compromise of 1850. And so he put together a package texas new mexico border, california statehood in three or four other things. When it failed he took his tuberculosis off to rhode island to take and sea breezes. Chop this up into three or four different pieces of legislation. 60 senders when he he started, 62 when he finished. All pieces of the compromise passed separately command only for senators voted for all the pieces. Surely pieces. Surely we can do the same thing with immigration. Understanding there are two basic questions before us. One is Border Security and the other is the needs of the American Workforce in the 3rd is what to do with the 12 million illegals were hear. I simply know the border spending quadrupled in the 90s, tripled in the next decade and all the stuff in nevada it seems to me we are unlikely to have the surgeon immigration and we have had in recent decades net immigration from mexico negative for four or five years. On the border we have a problem. The southern border of mexico which is poorest of people making the arduous trip from particularly disorderly societies. With regard to the needs of the American Workforce which i am well aware that Milton Friedman you really cannot have very liberalized immigration policy in a welfare state because people we will come to get on welfare. Maybe. There is precious little empirical evidence that substantial numbers of immigrants are coming here for the purpose of getting on welfare. Immigration is an inherently entrepreneurial act uprooting oneself and often ones family taking substantial risks and hardship for the purpose of getting here so they can go to work which is why the Work Force Participation rate of Illegal Immigrants in the United States is higher than that of the American Population as a whole. Furthermore with regard to our needs the welfare state exists to transfer wealth from the working and middle age. That is fine. When ida mae filler came in 1940, 1940, the 1st american to receive regular monthly Social Security check she prefaced her problem because she had paid a grand total of 22 in Social Security taxes and then turned on her country and live to be a hundred collecting in the process 24,000 in Social Security benefits which did not matter at that time because theyre were 40 workers per retiree. Today there are three for every retiree. When the baby boomers are retired and the average age of the population coasttocoast is higher than it yesterday in florida , at that time theyre we will be two workers for every retiree. A long story short, we we need in fact immigration to replenish our workforce particularly given that we have now had six consecutive years of declining birthrate and given the fact that theyre were fewer births in 2010 in the United States than theyre were in 2,000 although theyre were 25 million more. This is a grinding arithmetic that we are going to have to deal with. It is the case of course, the declaration of independence upgraded george the 3rd for interfering with the naturalization of immigrants and refusing laws to encourage their migrations but it seems to me among the things we passively chop up the immigration bill the socalled stem the particularly talented. Is absurd that we have the worlds greatest Research Universities filled with graduate students who are trained to add extraordinary value to economies. The 3rd what do we do with illegals . Start by facing what is not going to happen. They are not going. I did the arithmetic once. In order to the port 11 Million People we will would require line of buses bumpertobumper extending from san diego to alaska. Furthermore, the American People in theyre native decency would not support police measures required to make that happen particularly given the fact that the substantial number of immigrants ive been hear five and even ten years and a substantial number, that is millions, have have had children here. The children are american citizens. On the port american citizens or theyre parents. Where does this leave us . The 11point whatever many million Illegal Immigrants are 5. 2 percent of the American Workforce. We are not to deport 5. 2 percent of the American Workforce. We we have had this long meandering serpentine path to our current discontent and they have really began in 1882 with the chinese exclusion act passed in part in response to nativists and nationalists and labor unions and particularly progressives who would want to control the population, the composition of the population and, and, of course, at that time theyre were a great many eugenicists among the progressives. They thought that they knew just to ought to be and who should not be americans for eugenic reasons. I tend to come down closer to alex and mark noting, for example, 40 of the corporations in the fortune 500 list were list were found by immigrants were the children of immigrants, including at t goldman sachs, procter and gamble, gamble craft, google, ebay, intel, pfizer, cigna. It seems to me one does not want to exaggerate the einstein component or the component of founders of fortune 500 companies, but they are fact. It also is the fact particularly interesting as struck me for the problem immigration. When vietnam 1975 laughter that we took in 1 million vietnamese. 175,000 and a very few weeks. Another surge in 1978 when the boat people began to arrive. The boat people arrive here in the middle of the carter era one of the worst periods of Economic Opportunity in American History, 1982, four years later the employment rate for these vietnamese people was higher than the employment rate for the American Population as a whole. The problem with immigration and assimilation are real and he is completely right that the problem is not immigrants it is the elites that have low confidence and and no affection for the United States to which we want these people to assimilate. And. It also is the case that i believe this is Victor Davis Hansons the Atlantic Ocean was for earlier immigrants and psychological guillotine that severed them from europe from particularly in the days before boeing and airbus democratized air travel. The Rio Grande River does not provide such a such a psychological guillotine. On the other hand, assimilation is accomplished by american Popular Culture and that thing that the average immigrant parent probably dreads most of all, the American High School. There theres nothing like sex, drugs, and rock n roll i have a feeling that is working. I would close by quoting Ronald Reagan for his address to the nation. Frequently quoted what he says the city on a hill has walls but the wall so doors. The walls of doors and the doors were very open to anyone with the will and the hard to get hear. That is how i saw it and see it still. That is made someone want in alexs denmarks but deeply conflicted. [applause] i think i will talk from here. In the encounter broadside we have two diametrically opposed views of immigration but both arguments come from the centerright. One is conservative. Immigration cannot be examined menorahs assembly about economic policy. Twentyfirst Century America is in the middle of a regime contour. The issue is do we submit, do retransmit to future generations the american regime, limited constitutional government, free market economy individual as opposed to group rights Cyber Civil Society and the judeochristian and enlightenment cultural heritage. Do that do that are fundamentally transform america into a europeanstyle social democracy. This issue goes way beyond the question of who wins the president ial election. The future of the american regime. It is in this context. Alex and mark basically agree on the big issue they would both like to transmit Americas Limited government regime to the future generations. On how to get theyre they cant both be right and are speaking totally different languages. Alex, libertarian, views immigration from the vantage. Of the world economy, specifically as an economic citizen of the world, an individual global consumer. In this view the market drops. Mark, the conservative the conservative party is immigration from the vantage. Of national. The enlightenment of natural life and freedom of movement is indispensable. Move the United States infringing upon his natural rights and the natural rights of america. Tells us this was part of the view of the american founding Administration Restrictions cannot be based on either economic protectionism and interestingly what he calls cultural projections. With the exception Global Freedom of movement. His question was answered directly by governor morris the author of the preamble of the constitution according to madisons notes on the constitution, governor morris said every society from a great nation down to a club has the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted. The founders believed they were republican small arms enlightenment liberals. At the heart of republican selfgovernment is 1st and foremost the right of a free a free people to govern themselves. Government by consent of the government. That is the main problem. A selfgoverning free people that obviously has the right to determine their immigration or other policy and the right to decide theyre condition. It also means they are free to perpetuate. Hes basically arguing that we the people of the United States we produce ourselves or to rule ourselves. The american founders an interesting letter from pres. George president George Washington to Vice President john adams november the 15th 1794, washington wrote for my opinion with respect to immigration is except for useful mechanics in some particular professions there is no need of encouragement. The policy of selling them may be questioned or by doing so may retain the language habits, and principles for good or bad. A mixture with our people they and their descendents get assimilated and our customs, measures, and laws. The following year 1795 Congress Passed the naturalization act in which it said that immigrants should openly repudiate. I absolutely renounce my allegiance to king george the 3rd and so on. Also said that immigrants were to go before a court of admission and show that they were attached to the principles of prostitution and good moral character. Well, washingtons reference to language, habits, customs the congress is act in 1795 that does not sound very libertarian to me in fact endorsing cultural protectionism language principal, customs. He is endorsing cultural projections. The protections. The founders were not simply enlightenment liberals. But as leo strauss famously argued there were two important pre enlightenment, pre liberal, premodern residues, one was classical republicanism and the other was religion. Athens and jerusalem is and was also part of the. Well, what about assimilation today . Civic and cultural measures of assimilation are proceeding successfully. Someone naturalized and became a citizen, okay. These are made in measures measures of civic assimilation but not measures a patriotic assimilation and tell us nothing about the deeper feelings. I can think of one political activist who would be successfully cynically assimilated. His name is gustavo tori. He is a citizen. He spent a good part of the cold war in nicaragua. An admirer of castros communist regime. In 2,007 he spoke at a conference on revolution. Casa was funded partly by the venezuelan government. I would suggest that he is not patriotically assimilated, but in a sense they are assimilated in todays multicultural framework. The did receive funds from the venezuelan government and more funds from the us government, the state of maryland the Transition Team responding from the ford foundation, the open society institute. If the senate gang of eight bill had passed he would have received money to help immigrant to help integrate immigrants. He is right at the table. The new americas program. I agree with mark and george. Lets look at some survey data. Over 20 survey questions issues a patriotic attachment that reveal a large gap between nativeborn and naturalized citizens. Ill give you a few examples. The question was asked by do you consider yourself primarily an american citizen or a citizen of the world . He was at 30point on on this question. 84 percent of nativeborn said american citizen. 54 percent of naturalized taking the oath of allegiance and 54 said american citizens as opposed to global citizens. A 30point gap. If theres a conflict between the Us Constitution and International Law what should be the highest Legal Authority for americans . Is a 30point gap. The constitution should take priority over International Law. Among newly naturalized citizen 37 said the constitution should take constitution should take precedence over natural law. A 30 percent on that. A question on education. Should our schools focus on the right to responsibilities of citizenship and being part of america as opposed to each students ethnic identity and their pride in their own ethnic group . There was a 31 percent on this. 81 of nativeborn americans said they should focus more on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Only 92549 percent of new citizens. Now as our other speakers have said we should not blind immigrants with his big patriotic gap but for american elites and government, universities schools, and certainly corporations. Sending newcomers the wrong message. Not into american civic patriotism. Mentioned American High Schools on one survey and showed that there was a survey done when kids entered in the 9th grade and then when they left all and they when they graduated after four years of American High School were less likely to consider themselves an american. The percentage of people that identify considerably as americans dropped by 20 points after. It has antiamerican effect. So the past i mentioned the the past. Lets go back to it for moment 1915 philadelphia, and americanization. Not a fan of anybody probably at this table are very few people in this room, lets room lets listen to the words of president Woodrow Wilson. He speaking to knew citizens. They had just just taken the oath and become americans. He says to them, you cannot dedicate yourself to america unless you recount in every respect with every purpose of your will thoroughly american. You cannot become americans if you think of yourself and groups. America does not consist of National Groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular a particular National Group in america has not yet become an american. And the and the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son of the stars stripes. Who would that be . Well, Woodrow Wilson sounds quite a bit like George Washington the discussion of patriotic assimilation. Two cheers. [applause] that was deliberately provocative. Of course unlike a Woodrow Wilsons day todays progressive issue of Americas Group based. It was a nationalist progression. They seek to eliminate underrepresentation of socalled marginalized groups. TwentyFirst Century progressivism. The conservative vision is an anecdote for the progressive project. I see the libertarian vision as the unwitting handmaiden of the progressive immigration project. Forthcoming research from the Cato Institute research coming on ideological opinions which shows a rapid assimilation. I assume that means more libertarian leanings. However, if perpetual Mass Immigration continues this thirdgeneration libertarian gains would be wiped out. We look forward to the cato research, but in the meantime lets look at some other Current Research on ideological opinion. The following question was asked would you rather have a bigger government and higher taxes and more services for a smaller a Smaller Government with fewer taxes and fewer services . Among the general public the result was 48 percent Smaller Government 41 percent larger government among immigrant latinos number was 81 percent bigger government controlled percent Smaller Government. Among all latinos in the 75 percent larger government among asians 55 percent. Among muslims, 68 percent bigger government on social issues immigrants in the general public of the same. You support abortion for anyone who wants it, the general public is 31 31 percent commemorative 28 percent per within the margin of error. It does not appear. Professor James Campbell of the university of maryland found a knew survey that in all countries on all counts excuse me all counties in the United States for the immigrant share of the vote has increased including taxes in Florida Republican percentage of the president ial vote has decreased. The argument is made that these voting patterns will eventually change and of course they will. Todays will. Todays latino immigrants are much like yesterdays italian immigrants, conservative values of family and hard work and so on. One of these panels about five or six years ago he said Something Like about 70 years. Well, do you want to wait that long. He can direct me. Fifty years. Six years ago. In the future as immigrants succeed they will join the middle class and be opened out his argument but the problem today is the continuing influx of low skilled immigrants. His overall his overall increase we will keep the conservative libertarian percentage down. California was once a conservative state. In the days of governor Ronald Reagan remember him if we continue perpetual Mass Immigration policies contemporary california will be the political future of the United States. According to a liberal democratic journalist california today is a neo Feudal Society run by a small oligarchic class in the Silicon Valley in hollywood. These few lists of oligarchs are the ideologically defended by a knew crazy consisting of academics government academics government officials and progressive intellectuals and then you have the vast majority. And the oligarchs are served by a large number of low skilled people who were not led into the valley and they include nativeborn and immigrants and have little chance of upward mobility if the prevailing oligarchical institutions of california remain in effect. That is the future. So why did immigration succeed . Americanization by elites was part of it but not the big reason. The big reason is exceeded was the passage of immigration restriction legislation in 1924 signed and supported by president Calvin Coolidge who very much believe the natural rights. Supporting cut supporting cut Mass Immigration, and perpetual emigration and clearly facilitated the assimilation process. This is almost never discussed for obvious reasons. Some reasons. Some of the supporters of the restrictions advance arguments, Northern European racial superiority Eastern Europeans, asians, and, and others, all range of baggage this was not the argument that coolidge used as president. He opposed the japanese exclusion. He did favor limiting overall Legal Immigration. Coolidge addressed the Congress December 6, 1923 and said american institutions rest solely on good citizenship. New arrivals should be limited to absorb them. Coolidge them. Coolidge is echoing the views expressed by the american founders, adams progressive Woodrow Wilson. They are all of one on this. I suggest you pick up a book by tom west palm indicating the founders. As founders. As a whole chapter on immigration. Very much disagree. Though as a west coast. Well, he found the immigration restriction legislation. He believed more time was needed. Coolidge cutting label immigration would facilitate the goal of americanization in the goal of the actuation of americans Constitutional Limited Government regime be ultimately sound. The current solution solution i agree and support something along the lines. He outlined a little bit in his book and the little bit hear today. [applause] the legislation i find myself in disagreement. Which one of these things . Why do we have to microphones . I can speak out of both sides of my mouth. I guess i find myself in at least some disagreement with each of the preceding speakers. I am a west alien. I think that the westphalian state Henry Kissinger makes reference to i think has every right to exclude everybody. We dont have to allow immigrants. We dont have a moral responsibility even to allow visitors. Provincially we tend to do so or have done so over our history and i think wisely so, but but i dont see that we have a moral obligation to people to let anybody in that wants to get a. I find myself in disagreement with mark and george mills. I think they overestimate the degree of it which immigrants in the 19th and 1st half of the 20th century in touch with their countries of origin. No, they did not have skype but in fact at least the research i have done suggests that letters did pass back and forth and post offices operate more efficiently. Foreignlanguage newspapers people in touch with movements. There was a lot among some immigrant groups. Worked on a job. In the 19, you know, by the 1950s and 60s the primary economic sustenance of many communities in southern italy and were Social Security checks, the entitlement to examine picked up in diners in new jersey or some such occupation over the years. People went back and forth. Some at the groups it not. Fiddler on the roof which mark referenced is a version inspired by the jewish experience. Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe almost never went back except those who wanted to build communism in the soviet union. They were liquidated. So that was not a recurrent problem, but the jews never really wanted to go back to Eastern Europe and so forth. Much of the vivid history of immigration of that time is written by writers like oscar hanlon for who the jewish experience was the paradigmatic experience. It was one not the only experience. I disagree on that. My fellow sicilian american i remind him that he wants to remember how good it feels to walk down the street when your kneecaps or the right way. I disagree about whether or not the pause caused by the immigration act of 1924 or as alex might call it it, the totalitarian imposition of state force against the free will of the individuals vastly promoted assimilation i i think to indulge in a little counterfactual history if we had not had that immigration act of 1924 new line get the numbers it definitely reduced immigration over the calendar years 1925 through 1930. I think when even those very limited country quotas were often not met theyre just wasnt we would not have had much immigration between 1930 in 1945. A series of events the most people do not anticipate. We we would have had some immigration and the immediate postworld war ii years but i think that actually it did not reduce numbers. The reason we had assimilation working i agree with john here, relatively better than it has worked and is working at the present time was that we had institutions that believed in americanization and even professors turned president as an example of Woodrow Wilson shows tended to believe in that. We had not been so lucky in our and our adjunct professor turned president more recently. So i do have disagreements. I i try to see this issue to something other than historical lens because i think i think that is a better way to understand it and because i want to plug my 2,013 book shaping our nation. In that book we look at both the internal migration and international immigration. And i thought they had some things in common because what you see through the course of American History but vast surges of migration, very large numbers of people moving unexpectedly and without predictions by experts from one place, whether place whether its a broad or a region within the country to another place in very large numbers. They start off unexpectedly, move one or two generations. The passage of legislation or the onset of work, sometimes just because they just stop. And i think that the reasons that propel so many to migrate suddenly become inoperative and they cease coming. We often analyze immigration migration is an economic phenomenon and you can certainly see to some extent it is responsive to the Business Cycle as i i suggested in my comments about 1930s, but i think there is something else. Immigration is an unnatural act as george suggested. Uprooting yourself, going somewhere else is something that random numbers of individuals do at any given time. Mass movements that inspire a lot of people who did not just in economics. You dont have huge masses of people moving because they increase the minimum wage by dollar 25 an hour people move for reasons that are spiritual, cultural they migrate people are moving in order to pursue dreams or escape nightmares. When they cease to be enchanting Mass Immigration can stop just as suddenly as it began. We can analyze dreams or nightmares trying to understand what goes on. And in shaping our nation i looked at some of the historic migrations, the use migration style and in other parts of the British Isles they goes on. You had huge numbers as a proportion of preexisting population in the 12 years between 1763, the end of the war while warning that after his losers. Never thought of that before, but its true. The outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775. They went down they go down a great wagon road. They did not want these ruffians fighting peoples. And they go down through the air, settle the carolinas, kentucky, kerosene and go on to acquire florida, texas, a writ of the indians in the southeastern United States. And eventually the start the mexican war which gives us regrettably california. And so forth. That is with the work. It does not really resume. Quoting the founders. We dont get a lot of immigration in the early years of the republic partly because europe was a war and commerce was kind of risky. And then we get this big surge starting in the 1840s of Irish Catholics and germans. The irish come hear to escape a nightmare a famine in ireland. There are not many other parts of the world that are as deeply populated by famine cataclysm and Mass Immigration is ireland has. And so forth we have the germans the irish settled primarily in cities, the 1st mass migration. The germans some of them are attracted by the homestead act that we have the resettlement of sweden and norway in minnesota and wisconsin. When somebody says socialism will work your because it works in sweden, my responses yeah but it will work here if we had 318 million swedes. In fact it may work in minnesota but the other 49 states are problematic. But. But those, we had significant problems assimilating the irish particularly. A little more comfortable saying that with irishamerican ancestors. Irish ancestors and high rates of crime violence, Substance Abuse and so forth we get the nativist politics in the 1850s the American Party suddenly comes up and shoves aside by the Republican Party which had in my view the political good sense to find an anti anti immigrant to nominate in 1860, an 1860 and illinois lawyer named abraham lincoln. Immigrants give him his margin of those that he needs to carry those northern states and is elected president. That irish and german immigration went on. The search continued for about a half century. And it sort of peters out in the 1880s. Ireland ceases to be as much of a nightmare. Germany is growing. Politically unified. And we get suddenly just about the time the ellis island immigration station opens in 1992 make sure they are healthy, do not have contagious diseases diseases, and are selfsupporting. We get immigration suddenly from different sources of multiethnic nations of eastern and southern europe. You get them interesting the 2nd systems. Slovenes from the austrohungarian empire, southern empire, southern italians in the northern kingdom of italy. And to some extent they were pursuing a dream of a sort of equality, the years of nationalist discontent in europe, people who were in minorities, like jews, being treated negatively and seeking different treatment. America was held out not only as a place of Economic Opportunity where the unskilled could move up more rapidly, but a nation that you could have firstclass equal citizenship. That ideal continued. The ellis island immigration which ends abruptly in 1914 resumes for a few years after the war ended settle down. Its like the irish and german immigration of the mid19th century unlike the scots irish immigration of the dozen years before the American Revolution, it is larger in magnitude as a percentage of preexisting population than any of the immigration that we have seen from the last 30 years, two to three times as large. The problems of assimilation, the challenges of assimilation are not unfamiliar. They seem daunting to any americans from the case of the ellis islanders. Assimilate these northwestern europeans because they basically come from our culture but these other peoples will never really be americans. I think that the country generally handle that successfully. As i have mentioned, i i dont think that the passage of the 1924 act which said country quotas on Different Countries proportionate to that countrys contribution of the American Population of 1890 in 1890, in other words ellis islanders need not apply. I dont think it was critical may have been some marginal assistance for reasons stated. I do think that our problems with immigration today are in many ways offspring of the 1924 act and subsequent acts of congress that ive had other results. Continue to occur internal migration. Immigrant migration. The 1924 i 1924 i gave us family reunification provisions. Why was that true . Constituents that were ellis islanders. My constituents may want collateral relatives to come in. And then when we passed the 1965 immigration act sponsored on the senate floor by senator Edward Kennedy that was granted to him by the voters of massachusetts in theyre wisdom, measuring at the 65 act we will repeal the 24 act. The sponsors in the house 1965, thats not what we get in immigration. We will have substantial latin or asian immigration to immigrants come from europe. Thats where they we will come from in the future. Instead the family reunification provisions carrying over and adapted from the 1924 act heat of the law. The 65 act imposes quotas on latin immigration. My recollection is the country quota for mexico is 60,000 year. We were getting about ten times that many mexicans in the years between 1982 and 2007, legal and illegal through family reunification and so forth. And i think that was the and that and so he ended up having this unanticipated surge of migration coming from a place where it had not come before. The the rio grande has never been a really wide river. People did not come across it and remain in the United States and large numbers in those years. And we you know, did not have border control. The texas senator and treasury secretary the early 1920s who bought a planned. What was border enforcement like in the 1920s . Border enforcement . What . You just go across the bridge. Whatever. We did not get streams of mexicans. The dreams it not been created. The dreams had not been contemplated which happened now. Mark mentioned some of the 1986 bill and the fact that subsequent legislative proposals have had basically a similar formula. Legalization, employer sanctions and so forth. We have seen these bills 2006, the socalled, the socalled comprehensive things, the 2,007, the incoming and now a a fast Outgoing Senate majority leader harry reid screwed up the bill a similar legislation passed in 2,013. All this legislation was concocted in response to situations that occurred at that time. I time. I tended to support those bills, i tend not to support the now, and i think i have changed my views. Lord keynes once said when accused of changing his views, when the facts change i change my mind. What do what do you do sir . I change my views. Abbreviated purposes comprehensive bills the assumption was the search was going to continue. Nothing was going to stop it and their would be continued demand for need for market for low Skilled Labor in the United States mexicans people from mexican origin immigrants from mexican origin, both legal and illegal tend to have the lowest skill levels on average, lowest average, lowest levels of education and so forth of any group significantly lower than other sources of immigration the proximity of the border is one factor. And in that background i thought that as george said we are going to deport 12 Million People. The ilLegal Immigration peaked at about 12 million in 2007. And so was not saw was not worried about incentivizing further ilLegal Immigration. It seems to me now than when you got for me can buy a 50,000 car with your credit card command that system works. Is it possible it possible the government to create Electronic System that works, there has been some evidence to the contrary in recent years. But douglas would never have favored prohibition after he passed those five different bills went on a three day vendor. [laughter] bender. But i think it is time to disaggregate and things have changed. Fax unchanged. We have seen Central Americans at the border this summer that in the Current Situation the search is over. A net migration between 2007 and 2012 was zero. It ended as suddenly of internal migration of southern blacks to the urban north and ended suddenly when the north did not seem like a dream with the riots and then it stops being a nightmare when those things change the surge suddenly stopped. Hasbeens some resumption of migration will now get more asian than hispanic migrant since the legislation was put together. I agree we should move from lowskilled to the high skilled meg a regression we have gone too far that has created legislation with unintended consequences i believe we should adopt something and the nature of these canadian or australian systems that is not alexs favorite at all. Better than what we have now. I do also and we went to m. I. T. Recipients to stay in this country or go back somewhere else . I think it is a good idea to read mitt them. I have talked to diplomats from canada about this. They said please, please do not adopt our immigration system. We want these people in vancouver and calgary. Not in the United States. I think that is a pretty good argument for us. And it seems to me a situation no short and immediate term the need for low skilled immigrants the argument is much weaker than it was and has continued to be even in a period of economic growth. Think we want to move to high skilled immigration. The h1b visa keeps the person at a certain employment. That is servitude. Why dont they take thered chances with the American Free enterprise system . We always need more high skilled people. And of high skilled wages are going down to bring in more high skilled people that i think they can grin and bear it. With legalization we have seen president obama is Legalization Campaign in 2012 most americans favor it i dont think it will be reversed that is similar to the more recent and less popular by and influenced where he makes the point of law of Illegal Immigrants want legal status but not necessarily citizenship. Only about half of those eligible naturalized to become american citizens despite the Clinton Administration to get them to register democratic. Many illegals and the eagles hardy equivalent to go back to honduras when the crime rate goes down. And finally i would say in support of my proposition to go to the canadian and australian system, currently they have higher percentages of immigrants of their population than we do. They admit more of a preexisting population may also have more economic growth, higher scores on tests and to for those conservatives and republicans that are worried both those trying canada currently have conservative governments. We should break up the lobby to disaggregate the legislation and try to adapt to the Current Situation in that the surge of lan migration that we saw in one generation 8232007 then lets shape immigration in the way it will shape our nation better. [applause] thanks for inviting me here. There has been so much said and written to agree with and admire. I think the feeling that way is a function of cognitive dissidence but it knows more to the notion that my perspective is the perspective of the law and lawenforcement. In most problems dont get assault because theyre too dynamic because normally i am on the other side of that argument. This is my torture week. [laughter] but often with National Security that could be an existential threat in to be focused on the folly of the criminal Justice System at the point of counterterrorism when theyre not designed to deal with a threat like that. In this instance, want to shout out three cheers for mitt romney. Natalie s. And adviser but the candidate a raw deal on this particular issue that is the only sensible and humane immigration policy and he should refer to it as voluntary deportation. By labeling it that way when he simply meant is we have a finite amount of Law Enforcement resources in bin classical prosecutorial discretion the way that obama over the last six years to a license to mutilate the law it is a resource doctrine to criminal Law Enforcement and that we have a finite number of resources to have crime and criminals to target the resources to the worst of the problems to get a bang for the buck. In mitt romneys position on this i think was your resources to the problem on the one hand and to widely violates the criminal law. We dont need to have the criminals of the rest of the world the magna for ilLegal Immigration is the hiring of illegals that we will have a National Position that you have to enforce that against the businesses to suppress the incentive is there for you dont have to worry about the fact of open immigration million illegal aliens and if the conditions of finding viable employment are not fruitful then they will leave on their own voluntarily. They will depart then we will reduce that to something more manageable to have a more sensible conversation about amnesty not giving in only 12 Million People but there is no intention to enforce the border lattices currently manageable. The core of the argument is there is an obligation on our part to do something to relieve the condition of Illegal Immigrants. And frankly i dont understand that. As the panel has pointed out , it is a voluntary act there are categories of people that say it isnt there fault but a person who comes here illegally choosing to live in the al law status has the situation on his own and i dont understand we have an obligation to fix that. And go after those who really violate the laws. To reduce the population to give the incentive to leave. But it is unfortunate that mitt romney got routed on that issue it was bad labeling more than anything else. But i will make a pitch for the states rights 70. Larry the immigration problem goes off the rails is the notion that it is that issue primarily that one of the litigations been arizonas exercise to regulate the power to regulate is a federal power it may unquestionably be a federal power but for the First Century of constitutional governments it was exclusively a state problem. The constitution gives the power to set the terms of naturalization. And we did not even have a Justice Department almost the first third of the century. In the egress of people was an issue for the states that the policing of matters and that included how hospitable to those who were not americans citizens. And in 1837 which involve the state of new york to expel illegal alien aliens that the state had the power to prevent citizens from being oppressed by the support of multitudes who come here without the means of supporting themselves. And goes on that there cannot be a more appropriate exercise for police power. We operated under the into standing this was the states rights issue but to rationalize the federal regulatory role that it is implicit in parts of the constitution to control borders that is a core ingredient of sovereignty. But this i think i would argue it has gone awry particularly in the last century it is one thing to have a federal role in another that it vanquishes with every other in the system. The Supreme Court justice they identify a federal role for those that contravene with federal statutes and the arizona case. So what mattered was the policy of Immigration Laws. In state laws that were passed to bolster congressional statutes in the Justice Department says to the states no, no no you dont have to comply with federal law you have to comply with federal policy. Going with the state supreme on Immigration Enforcement to the federal role becoming supreme leges i am going down like a bomb as policies. Now president says i dont need to enforce because of prosecutorial discretion you cannot do anything to defend yourself from what you get from ilLegal Immigration even if it is consistent. Ended the most recent edition draft gave the constitution the framers had power to establish limitations upon immigration to be enforced only to the extent in the course would have happened is no constitution or no United States or adoption of foundational law. So to the extent of the immigration problem was something we have fabricated into a crisis but would prefer to manage by federalism but to the extent you call this a big problem or a crisis it is through the federalization of enforcement in the folly to oppose one policy on 50 states with the infinite of the market on the federal side i would have a humanitarian of prosecutorial discretion targeted again the real lawbreakers to make it clear the government is responsible for Border Security. In the federal government ought to be deferential in terms of granting legal status or not to people who were in the territory that whether people really want citizenship as opposed to legal status. But i think we should be differential with their Decision Making provided theyre not permitted to socialize the cost if they want to have a lavish welfare state or benefits for aliens that may have a depressing effect i think they can have it. And they should so if we insist on having this said crazy Central Planning to my go back to voluntary deportation as the model for crimes supported by the Milton Friedman argument the respectfully disagree with george that the welfare state is not necessarily that motivates the at what motivates is relevant when they get their behalf to bear the cost. So that is not what i uninterested in. I agree the modern welfare state, made slow wage work were not in the work or welfare framework so if this remains a federal issue of with the ftc the welfare state reformed and if i had to make a choice of a free and open emigration with a limited welfare state with the conditions that people live in. We will not do any real reform of the welfare state and it appears were stuck with the federal supremacy of Immigration Enforcement. As it has more than free and open emigration. Thank you very much. [applause] first i will give alex and market chance to respond and then we have a few questions. I will just start at the end and work back towards me. Freeing of quite a bit you cannot have open borders and the welfare state with the second part is that is why he supports ilLegal Immigration. He supports ilLegal Immigration because if you can get welfare you could still in its economic benefits also with the restrictions that part of the is after words. When it comes to governments to have a right to impose restrictions governments dont have rights. No government has rights they have power. That is how we a understand the system Going Forward. So they do have the right by definition they have the power to do so. We heard about the emigrations attitudes but that is a separate issues perfectly compatible for somebody to say we should have free and open emigration letting it should be another issue like that. Is important to distinguish between anchorage and that is a subsidy and free and open that is not. And do not think it should favor to give a cash payment once they come here are other preferential treatment but to make decisions based of what the market have made here. Also to agree with andrew with 50 different immigration policies that would go further to save 300 million individual immigration policies in the United States to figure out which toothpaste to buy or to voluntarily in gauge in commerce. Fundamentally i do not have the confidence government can choose which is good for us and which is not. The government and Society Experts in the people whod preceded us were not able to project the start then needs of the economy live alone in the future so i dont know why were all skeptical of the other portions of the economy that we should assume they have the power to make the right choices Going Forward into the future. Guided by market principles and supply and demand to think what it is in the future. This goes to another that i and the big fan of with his quotations of economics but he wrote a book in the 30s about his grandchildren and assumed everything would be so mechanized and automated nobody would have to work that the grandchildren would read poetry so was somebody is a great grandchild that is not the case yet. Maybe they will supplant the need for lowskilled migrants but we shall let the economy make that decision. Has been bandied about the surprisingly little evidence and the pace of assimilation that they all report this stuff. They did not have those in to have a large portions of the movement we have all whole chapter of immigrants that are turned off by a the angry nationalist telling them they need to be more american. And polish immigrants who came here with a militaristic society so we could make an argument in some individual cases it could have slowed down of patriotic assimilation banalities americans are silly you cannot compare the immigrants themselves the jeff to compare over time and the cohorts. You cannot compare todays emigrants to sixth generation americans to those from 100 years ago. We see different in terms of assimilation. We heard disturbing Poll Research from the system 100 years ago. But i dont think the quote by Woodrow Wilson would work very much. And to measure the piece of assimilation overtime i think my opponents exaggerate the effect on the United States. The bad thing is they teach our kids nonsense but the good thing is our kids arent learning anything. It is also true if you do a law of these polls howre you doing your how are you assimilating . Generally they do not capture the number people who were the defendants of immigrants but to nonself identify. With you ask me if i have middle eastern grandparents i would never self identify as that in a poll or otherwise by definition you pull those that are the least assimilated least identified hispanic or intermarried and do not identify as hispanic. Theres also some fuzzy stuff looking at the support for limited government with republicans lets not make that mistake Going Forward but you want to take a look at the policy and what happens over time can you even draw a correlation to the adl that they support bigger welfare or policy . And no. You can. It is the opposite effect and continuing so you have a law to explain if your goal is that. As a californian who escaped serfdom to make it out to virginia look at the political history it was never conservative. They have always had a large welfare state in zero ways gun restrictions that had more than almost anyone in the United States thinks to governor Ronald Reagan but in registration regina there is no registration for me such a thing it was it suddenly due to immigration is not true but that it was by the g. O. P. Committee in political suicide by blaming immigrants for all the problems which was not true if you look at the data but it has a wonderfully fact to turn people off of the Political Party it is very difficult for Political Party to gain broad longterm support but it seems very easy for them to hurt themselves to be very opposed to immigration and i think i saw that in california to you jumpstart assimilation and there is no evidence of that. Said is the equivalent of conservative political correctness. And i guess i will end on current immigrants right now they are far less than the average american about the skill that as 1965 they are not illiterate the chances of them not having a High School Degree is similar in 1965 which is not all that bad in terms of that level. The notion the government should plan which workers come here when the economy demands is absurd it worked well in the past and is working well right now and i will mark tell me why he thinks i am wrong. Good. I will. But i will touch on a few points i want to underline in a critique of georges idea to support all 12 million we will never have a line. That is silly rhetorical devices. But what we can do what you do when your bathtub overflow is . You turn off the tap before you mop up the floor. The first thing we need to put in place enforcement systems that our necessary to limit future ilLegal Immigration so if you hire someone you filled up the paper work that you verify if theyre not lying to you. We put in place of peace the system we have a pretty good checkin system but not a very good checkout system not even very good at the land border. But how feasible is that technological in your view . At airports it is easy. At the land border it is the easier to do facial recognition it is in the moonshot were not doing it tomorrow to do entry exit tracking but my point is you turn off the tap. And the rest of Illegal Immigrants to get arrested because we have a system called secure communities some people thought we always had this but it was only fully implemented last year when you are arrested your fingerprints are scanned and go to the fbi. If there is a warrant out in mid different state only last year did the fully implement this system where they also go to a Homeland Security to see if you have been deported before. That is what president obama announced pulling the plug on what i would describe as one of the most elementary enforcement measures it will lead to significant attrition maybe 3 million fewer and once it is working and in place and overcomes the court room g tod launched against it by the axis of chamber of commerce and aclu and aflcio then i am in favor of amnesty for those who were still here. But i thought michaels in sight that the flow would start and stop in in predictable ways is the important insight. Requires humility to think about this and the idea of Central Planning to plan that is absurd we cannot gain those immigration flows effectively talk about that a gang of eight bill that sets out over several years it is just ridiculous. This is why we need simple neutral yardsticks like the husband or wife or a minor child you can come in if not you dont. Know Central Planning no bureaucrats gaining anything. But even with regard to the skilled Employment Base i think it should not exist but the skill base is different that you set a bar somehow i with said it much higher may be the and others to let everybody in they make their own way. If you let in somebody with 140 i. Q. Score and he ends up making guitars that is the way it is. You lead in the smart people then they do what they are going to do but where do you set the bar . And then the other point on relating to michaels point i would disagree to some degree the 1920s cut off signal because what you do see from blacks and whites from the south moving to industrial cities of the north gore moving to california from the south or moving into the United States is that they can become a herd mentality mentality, hysteria is not the word but the changes in the law can interrupt social process in a way that changing the law would not have. It could have any effect on 90 admitted the unpredictable flows that we cannot predict where the next one will come from that we can be pretty sure given the 5 billion people in the world who are poorer than the average mexican they will come from somewhere. I dont know what the next large scale flow will come from haiti or condo or albania or self india but i can be pretty sure it will come from somewhere this is why we have to continue to have in place a tight immigration system. I rhodopes recently entitled its immigration is and all its cracked up to be. Arguing for skilled immigration is easier to assimilate and it is true to a degree but there is a new once on the economic part no question if you let in College Graduates there is a less likely to be on welfare although they are more so than american College Graduates but has a similar effect looking at this issue was estimated taking in 1 million College Graduates per year to be completely made up of College Graduates would reduce the wages of a decade and a half and in the long run by reducing the returns until a 3940 drop. But that will not all people majoring because those that they talked about taking in is where a significant reduction of atrophy to create the homegrown talent in a technical or scientific field is a problem. Something that was implicit before but alex made it explicit now was with unlimited immigration it is numerically unlimited and it is okay to have that sinn combination with a tough and demanding means to become a citizen you let in a law of people that very few can become americans and i would submit that kind of a saudi arabia immigration policy is fundamentally contrary to republican government with the goal everyone who lose your to live among us permanently after a certain time of preparation is intending to become one of us. That they will marry americans in not just jack up. Batf to replicate with the United Arab Emirates and saudi arabia have which is a small population of citizens drooling over the Large Population of foreigners is fundamentally contrary to the american idea. We dont have a huge amount of time left but id like to see if anyone else on the panel would like to say a few words then we will have questions. Let of the things i am looking at first of all i would like to say that part of my family comes from the 1840s irish escape of the famine but we are still here. [laughter] and everybody joins us. I guess we won. The question that i have dealing with the world it is fundamentally different that support the retiree. And the question is how with a small government going to be possible with the type of restricted emigration that were looking at . Because other demographers tell us that taxes are going to go up in the law of the solutions is the power of the police state. How is this going to lead to a more stable country . Just for the long term . I always thought it was interesting supporters of limited government that would beef up the size of the states we need to stop them and hurt ourselves in the process with a national id card or everify. The entitlement systems are bankrupt by any normal accounting standards the cash flows are so negative is terrifying what will happen and but when will they get reformed and how catastrophic will the bankruptcy and how can we recover . Every studies is an increase of immigration puts off the day of reckoning of little bit also with medicare. Part a will go bankrupt 2024 which is optimistic so probably sooner than that. Said in a grand currently pay more that is not a fix but a way to hold off the day of reckoning. For future population growth alibi to know the economic model that fewer workers is good for the economy and good. If we do have policies we will see a shrinking u. S. Population in the future in manila that is not good for it. We have no idea of the population the future because projections beyond 20 or 30 years are meaningless if immigration was zero tomorrow i dont think anybody is gore that the population will continue to grow. Soviet idea were in the same position as russia or italy or south korea is incorrect nativeborn americans have higher fertility is slightly below replacement we dont know what will happen. But the point is every country in the world is going through a demographic transition iran total fertility rate the number of babies that fictional number in iran is lower than the United States, china, indonesia all well work in the United States except yemen and chad and see dramatic drops. So the idea fix this by importing people from other countries where fertility is dropping is missing the point was the with the fundamental aspects of Human Development is part of our evolution. But there are countries in europe we bounding. Of course,. Yes. We dont know they would not respond to those policies that he talks about those have happened to the baby boom of the 40s. I think it delayed rather than increased. But the overall point but seven children per woman comes down at two children per woman to be reversed will never happen. Peacemaking in argument for immigration performance. [laughter] let me finish my point. The premise is americans are defective or broken we need to import better people who were less effective because we dont have the right number of kids . American moms and dads should be deciding there will be if we do have tax policies that discourage people from having the number of kids they want then we should get rid of those but the way be fix america by importing people who were better than us because they make better decisions . That is offensive. But they are younger. If you talk about younger women theyre more likely to have a baby. That is not the point it is not young immigrants but importing those of higher fertility than americans. Americans can now whenever fertility they want they dont decide it isnt high enough so we will change policy to increase. But then to be involved with those across borders just because there should be free trade in oil i dont think it is defective but doesnt mean the people here are defective some of the best institutions flourishing with human freedom but with demographics there is a wellknown curve it is not the destiny and people start to have kids with that income the fact rather than the substitution effect of monks to the natives not the immigrants as income reaches us certain point. Is complicated federal think we should trust Central Planning. Of romney could not get away with voluntary deportation. [laughter]. I think obviously it is the case a law of people may want to move into a country and at the same time im struck of the metaphor from mark they want people to very rather than shackup. Of a bike to hear about those differences between wearying a woman and shacking up with her zero or burying a country or shacking up with her. What are those consequences . Yes. This is where i talk about assimilation plays a role. With a hypothetical koreanamerican student in the seventh grade when she studies American History she thinks it is my history does she think of those Founding Fathers as my ancestors . No. I came from korea i have adopted them i adopted the story of america of the good and the bad the civil war and world war ii i have adopted that as my story so not to have any data we dont the we have plenty of anecdotal evidence every family has the story of that is the data shows assimilation is not occurring today. Because that is our american schools are teaching theyre not teaching the girl in the eighth grade just like mine coming from italy. So that is the patriotic assimilation rate should be promoting. And not troubled by people not becoming citizens under prevailing interpretations with the 14th amendment entitled twos citizenship of board in the United States then if assimilation comes in canada to go back to George Washingtons idea that people come here to comport under our laws and we will welcome them as equals. But i dont think there is an implication to take out citizenship. You have to behave like a good president at least. But we dont necessarily want them if you have a dual loyalties maybe you dont want them to take up citizenship. Have a right to thank the Hudson Institute for this stimulating morning. I hope youll all stick around to continue its. [inaudible conversations]. And how the countrys Islamization Campaign of the 1980s impaired womens rights and affected her family. Secondly there is an audience tonight. [inaudible] come to her audience microphone and that way though cspan and politics and prose will get your question and then lastly if you would do a huge favor and fold up your chair it will help us for the book signing and help us get back to book signing. Thank you for being here and well at welcome to politics and prose. I run our instore events and we are we are so pleased to have with us Rafia Zakaria with her book the upstairs wife her Family History and experience and she begins with this typical moment in december of 2007. Benazir bhutto was assassinated and decided to take a a second wife and its this unique look at culture and politics end sheet has a lot about the country for her on story. Her work has appeared in your probably seen it in Aljazeera America as well as other publications and she is also a human rights activist and served on the board for international usa. Tonight she is joining the conversation by a producer and reporter for nprs all things considered. So please join me in welcoming both of them to politics and prose. [applause] its a great pleasure to have the first discussion for the book so thank you for this amazing book. I wanted to start with sub for the columnist and in it didnt and to the introduction me. She writes in that leading english newspaper there and her work with the question of human rights and womens rights and discrimination in all kinds of issues and im curious when you have written something as personal as this book is which is part memoir and part history of pakistan what was the origin and deciding to take the writing you do every week and Say Something in a way that you have done here