today's "washington journal." migration. we want to learn about what this program is about. we wanted to hear first from the president at the state of the union tuesday. he talked about chain migration. final protectsnd the nuclear family by ending chain migration. under the current row can system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. plan, we focused on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. this vital reform is necessary not just for our economy but for our security and the future of america. in recent weeks, to terrorist attacks in new york made possible by the visa lottery and chain migration. in the age of terrorism, these programs present risks. we can no longer afford it. it's time to reform. these outdated immigration rules and finally bring it our immigration system and to the 21st century. this term chain migration, what does it mean and where does it come from? it refers to american citizens or residents of the united states been able to sponsor family members to come lawfully on green cards and live permanently. the term chain migration goes back 70 years. it's been used by social scientists to describe the phenomenon through our history. openwhen the u.s. and borders in the 19th century, a wage earner would, and then get a house and a job and send for his family to come. the first person to go through ellis island was a young minor child who was meeting up with their family here in the united states. legally, family sponsorship or unification wasn't part of a immigration law until 1921 when congress put very high quotas on immigrants outside northwestern europe but made an exception for immediate relatives. it, it was changed in 1965 and expanded. family sponsorship has been a major portion of the immigration system. -- there have been unintended consequences. you have basically two big portions of family sponsorship. one is the immediate relatives, spouses, parents, children. that's 48% of immigrants in the united states. ofhave another portion family sponsored preferences. they are 20%. they add up to 68%. it started in 1965, people wanted to keep american immigration coming from europe. most immigrants were from europe. the idea was only their families would be able to come. that became a way for a lot of latin american, asian, african immigrants come in substantial numbers. 9/10 of all immigrants are from places other than europe. numbers.have the phone we have a line for republicans (202) 784-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. .ndependents (202) 748-8002 have a line for legal immigrants. we want to hear from you. senator chris murphy from connecticut says chain migration is a made up term by anti- immigrants. the purpose is to dehumanize immigrants. review, to keep using the term chain migration. familyw the left reunification. we will do a grave disservice. a little bit more on the terminology. guest: i think both of those people are wrong. it's been used by social scientists since the 1940's. it was not made up by anti-immigration people. the national review writer is also incorrect. preferences,red that's the name for another portion of the family sponsored immigration. if you want to be legalistic and accurate, family sponsor is fine and appropriate. chain migration is also appropriate. host: here's what the president said about making changes, what do you see him putting out there? guest: we have the bullet points of a plan. if you look at that, it would cut out green cards for the that's of u.s. citizens, 170,000 people year. there would be a phaseout of the rest of the family sponsored green card program, which includes sons and daughters of older,tizens who are theul permanent residents, children and daughters, married sons and daughters of u.s. citizens, a lot of them would be eliminated from the program. it would be a general phaseout. in many of these categories, there are people from mexico, , theirlippines, china elong backlogs to get these green cards. it would take 25 years to clear them. host: what do you expect the reception to be in congress? guest: there he negative. there is zero appetite among democrats and republicans. host: good morning. all, i agree of with you wholeheartedly. migration,chain those are all made up words from illegal to candy coat immigrants. besides that, the biggest problem is the majority of people are on board with daca on a pathway to citizenship. beyond that. the democrats want to reveal the real numbers. you are going from 800,000 too close to 10 million people. that's the biggest concern. the democrats are being less than genuine's when they don't reveal real numbers. guest: thanks for the question. what we are talking about, family sponsored green cards, these are for illegal immigrants. not illegal immigrants. to your point about whether wouldzing the dreamers lead to an increase in change migration -- chain migration, most would not be allowed to sponsor their parents or other family members to come over as a compromise. even if they were allowed to, research from the 1990's shows each immigrant brings over three and 3.5 immigrants. let's say they legalized 800,000 240,000 -- 2.4s or 2.9 million people in addition to that. host: good morning to you. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. 1960erved something in four. -- 1964. children,passed the workers were busted. wondering what the impact of that was on immigration. they left the workforce because of that situation. guest: there's a lot of academic research on the effects of welfare on labor force petition patient rates varied. when you don't pay people for working, they don't work as much. there is a lot of evidence of immigrants who have come to the united states since then have filled a lot of jobs on the low-end and the high-end of the american labor market. they work at higher rates than americans. be thethe reasons might green card don't have access to welfare for the first five years they are here. host: good morning. caller: how are you doing? . wanted your thoughts guest: on homework? caller: they have declared a war on homework. they're not going to do that. about you are talking chain migration? are you connecting it in any way? let's just move on. i thought he was going somewhere else. let's stick to the topic of hand. good morning. caller: this is my biggest problem with your guest. he wants to define them as chain migrator's. i have a problem with that. be labeled the way they want to be labeled. you wouldn't say that to a person from these countries. a long time ago, black people did not like that. people like to keep saying things like that that the human eyes as a person. you can hide behind discrimination with little tricks. we know the term chain migration is a derogatory term. say what it is for what it is. it's for family reunification. host: let's get a response. guest: i think both terms are entirely legitimate. i use all of them to talk about it. if you follow our work at the cato institute, we are against cutting immigration. we want to make it easier for people to read night with their family members in the united states. thet of this focuses on term gets away from that core issue. host: by the numbers, it's the most common form of legal immigration in the u.s. 238,000 immigrants were categorized as a family sponsored preference. also, 560,000 people came to the u.s. as immediate relatives. these are spouses, kids. anything more about those numbers? upst: they are divided clearly. the most is immediate relatives. spouses, minor children, parents. it's important that americans, even in the 1920's when they wanted to create immigration laws based on racial origin or ethnicity or discredited , they stillories respected family migration. host: the present refers to unlimited numbers. are there rules or limits? guest: for the immediate relatives category, there is no numerical limit. you have to go through the system and make sure you are not a criminal and that you can support yourself. you are not a national security threat. system,amily sponsored there are numerical caps. unmarried daughters and sons of u.s. citizens 21 or over, that is 22,400 year. andthe category of spouses minor children, that's cap at 88,000 the year. the unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residence, that's cap that 26,000 per year. for the brothers and sisters of adult u.s. citizens, that's 55,000 year. capsned with per country results in very long wait times for brothers and sisters. a lot of people who are getting their green card now from the philippines have been in line for over 20 years. host: sharon is in fort worth, texas. caller: i would just like to say that the chain migration and reform is an antiquated thought. it went south. at the time, we need people to come here to work and help build our economy. now, the economy is not in such shape and we need to look at the americans here as far as trying to build the economy. in the past, when the immigrants would it come here and be hired, they would have more jobs. the american people here may not have the education or the technical skill, unable to get those jobs. accountablelding the workers hiring these people illegally. workersthey should hold and employers accountable as far as hiring. it was a good thought, but it went south. we need to look at change and we need to look at the americans first. host: thank you. guest: the chain migrants who come in, if they are coming legally on green cards, they are legally allowed to work and employers are legally allowed to hire them. there is economic research on the effects of immigrants on wages and employment. there's almost no job displacement discovered and the most negative finding in the peer-reviewed literature is from harvard university. 2010rants in 1990 to lowered the wages of american 1.7%school dropouts by relative to other workers. every other category, there were wage increases. 90% of americans saw wage increases due to immigration. host: wyoming, good morning. immigrants weny have in this country illegally? the ones that are legal? are thate estimates there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the united states currently and there are about 32 million legal immigrants in the united states. caller: i thank you very much. is off thet number grid. wyoming, it is just unreal how many illegals we have. i don't know how many. , they are allound working. i would say they are a very workable bunch of people and a lot of them are wonderful people. they just, for the system. i do appreciate your time. thank you for c-span. host: thank you for calling. how do screening work? how long does it take? guest: it depends on where they are coming from. the united states government has checks on a criminal records. the government has access to numerous databases around the world about national security threats. hadast check, they suspected terrorists. if the government is suspecting par, theyn't up to have the discretion to cut back. host: we talked about numbers earlier. this is their version of the numbers. they write on this chart that every hour the u.s. settles enough migrants on the basis of family ties to fill a small auditorium. guest: immigration to the united around it's somewhere 800,000 per year coming in through family unification categories. what we need to realize is historically as a percentage of the population, they are pretty small. if you look at all green cards, the's about point 3% of u.s. population. you see immigrants was about the same number with a smaller u.s. population. host: let's hear from billy in boston. caller: i just have a question about the president's proposal to reduce legal immigration and what his thoughts are on that. and others are gung ho on reducing legal immigration. themselves?arate we just have to shore up the southern border and keep illegals out. it's possible to make the case to reduce legal immigration at the same time issuing this rhetoric. i think we need to have a water wall. i disagree with create it for the wrong reasons. host: thanks for calling. guest: thanks for calling. guest: i think it is sen. cochran: not senator cornyn, it led the charge on cutting legal immigration. i believe that would be bad for the u.s. economy and the growth of this country going forward. comment on the intentions of people who want to build a border wall, but that is intended to try to cut illegal immigration across the southwest border, the chain migration portion, they want to cut the legal system, that's entirely separate from the border wall. host: let's go a julia in nolensville, maryland. question had a quick daca,izenship, the specifically females, when they have children that are born in this country themselves, what is the citizenship status of the mother and i would certainly assume that the citizenship status of the baby would be of this country. when their parents have brought them over and they themselves have children, i was wondering what the status was? host: you are correct -- guest: you are correct, anyone born on u.s. soil except for the children of diplomats are automatically u.s. citizens, but that does not change the immigration status of the parents. under u.s. law, the folks who have children are not able to adjust their status to a green card, except under very few and small circumstances that are very rarely used, so the notion that having a child here can somehow lead to a green card for you in the future if you are still in the u.s. unlawfully does not hold true. memphis, you are on the line. caller: where i live, a lot of people's big the rhetoric about round them up and ship them out. i'm wondering how likely it is the we would set up college, you could fill a whole stadium. how likely is it that we start deporting people en masse? is that something you think we should do as americans? round them up and put them in facilities or camp situation and then import them if they don't have legal papers? guest: absolutely not. i think the u.s. immigration enforcement should focus 100% on people who are actual criminals, people who commit violent and property offenses, national security threats, and those who have communicable diseases, and that's it. put enforcement should be for people whose only violation is breaking immigration laws. whether it's possible or not, think it would be very difficult and expensive and would destroy a lot of american civil liberties, not to mention the civil liberties of immigrants and their families to do something like that, trying to deport 11 million to 12 million people. the biggest deportation rates we saw were in the first term of the obama administration, which decreased substantially in the second term and i think it's going to be nearly impossible for this administration to even reach obama first term numbers for deportations. host: our guest is alex and russia -- >> this afternoon the white house has declassified in the atelligence has released republican memo on the russian investigation and allegations against the fbi on surveillance. the ap writes the move came over the fears objections of the fbi. the senate armed services committee john mccain tweeting the latest attacks on the fbi and justice served no american interests. a congressman from new york says without the dossier, there would have been no fisa warrant, was admitted under oath by mccab e. the fbi already knew the source was unreliable and should not have been used. fired until after to steele. we will keep you posted on any further developments in that story. forhouse in this afternoon a brief pro forma session at 4:30 eastern. also from the labor department, the monthly report on the jobs figures. january, the country adding 200,000 jobs, with the rate remaining at 4.1%. we may hear more about those numbers later when the chairman of the council of economic advisers speaks at a georgetown law conference. he is expected to talk about the u.s. corporate tax rate changed under the new tax law, and our live coverage getting underway just under 20 minutes, 12:45 eastern. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, university of professor ona 20th-century century fundamentalism and the growth of pentecostalism. >> unlit mentalists -- fundamentalist are conservative protestants who militantly oppose, militantly oppose -- militants is important -- new science,ut the bible, and society. >> at 10:00 p.m. eastern on real america, the 1989 documentary "island of tears." >> over 12 million men, women, and children, passed to these core doors -- core doors -- corridors. their -- treated traded their money for dollars. a saying their first american songs, experience the first american christmas and hanukkah. permission tor pass over to the new land. >> sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, an interview

Related Keywords

Arizona , United States , Texas , Minnesota , Maryland , New York , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Wyoming , Washington , Mexico , South Korea , Americans , American , America , Byron York , Chris Murphy , John Mccain , Thomas Shannon , Sen Cochran , Dave Barry , Karl Rove , Catherine Westmoreland ,