Transcripts For CSPAN2 Yea Nay 20150111

That as we can see about the dollar signs there is less certain amount of disdain for monday and people and their concerns and it would have left them completely cold beyond his understanding and then to have various little sympathy because he would measure by a committee of other things with a personal morality of standing up to evil or awkward people of what she was placate quite capable of doing as america triumphed in that war and of which i am grateful although minor understanding may be better if i spoke german. [laughter] last question . [applause] the sphinx is on sale now. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] skip haddock good morning and i am president and ceo of Hudson Institute welcome to a the stern Conference Center and also booktv those panelists who have already arrived and those that will arrive in a couple of minutes hopes last International Policy Research Organization based on the strategic and engaged International Leadership in partnership with our allies i am delighted to host the event with the center for Immigration Reform and the counter books on the occasion of the publication publication the debate over immigration and that when introduced shortly there is not much of a debate with dash debate over the executive order over immigration which is overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars view as unconstitutional with different positions that are held deeply passionately and reflect differences and tensions of americas founding principles hearing from conservatives whose views differ on the subject. Before we get under way were delighted to partner with the trend of the publishing world with the questions under the of leadership with the new criterion in the culture and arts the former New York Times arts editor and rogers books and articles have appeared in very serious publication of consequence of the english language ended is known for his sensibility and his willingness to do challenge in the names of western tradition and dedication to a debate on critical questions. So i will turn it over to roger. I am delighted to be here to welcome you all and we will have to gore who are delayed in traffic. This is a critical debate. With you the real hand out copies of this important broadside c will get a copy of this upon leaving i will not introduced the panel but it is not true as some people have suggested that we hired barack obama to be the advance publicity . Though we are defeated delighted he could bring such focus to this issue. Is an important debate and there are no easy answers and to start things off with his broadside and then the other panelist will comment. And then we will open it up to the audience. Thank you very much for that introduction and a to hudson to put together this event for the center of the Immigration Studies for cosponsoring and to be here today. To be Classical Liberal notions presumptions with there right to voluntarily migrate across the border. To show why it should be restricted to demand very good reasons to take away the individual liberties right now it is illegal for all but a small number of people who want to come here to, lawfully. The tradition of free immigration from a long time ago replaced by a highly complicated bureaucratic system centrally managed based on product is rather than other issues. To prove you can immigrate it is entirely backwards from the western notion of innocents until proven otherwise. The burden should be on the government to do demonstrate why the at the Current System is presuming that the immigrant is guilty. So ill go through three basic reasons why the United States should have a much more open immigration policy and the consequences of immigration to the United States especially from the Economic Perspective and ethical reasons for every single perspective and our principles of western civilization because it is difficult to separate them. There is a lot of popular urd disagreement on the u. S. Economy there is very little disagreement among economists. With basically three things free trade is good and immigration is good for the economy. How good is that . So if you think about it the number one issue thinking about immigration and the economy is the impasse of american wages if you remember your supply and demand model to lower wages that is the number one understanding of basic economics. But apple still by other apples but immigrants who are people by those services with the increase of labor. So a lot of them find it positive as well. Because the economy is dynamic. Not static if nothing else changes and we would expect a price not to fall but what we see over time with a Capital Investment with increases over time most immigrants have different skills better not directly competing with each other. Were economist differentiate from substitutes for somebody. But to lower the wage but if youre confident in the labor market than we have different skills to work together. I think one of the best examples is the Restaurant Industry those on paper who have similar skills that require physical labor over communication skills. With the biggest advantage chooses is to speak english. And fortunately they all speak english. With low skilled immigrants that require brawn and manual labor. And then they are bumped up with communication skills. And restaurants there the busboys and dishwashers that dont require much communication and. In the jobs that require communications. And to buy goods and services for the u. S. Economy. And with productivity how much would add to the firm as they go forward. With 20 that is the maximum wage he could have because it is that amount. It we have such a standard that immigration should only be allowed so that all of the costs and benefits are internalized to the people involved in this transaction that would basically wipe out any other economic transaction thats going on. Furthermore our presumption in favor of free markets shows us that we should favor a relatively free labor migration. Vapor compensation is related to 2 gdp United States. If you like free markets be like free trade if you like competition you should be willing to open up this part of United States to more competition and free trade especially in this area. If you think that the increases in the supply of labor going to drastically decrease the wages of people in the United States i wanted to ask yourself the question. Why are we just so much lower the middle of wyoming where there were fewer people and higher in places like manhattan where there are so many more people . Theyre a lot more things going on there. What about welfare . Im at the Cato Institute and im concerned about the welfare state and the size of it but all of the arguments here against immigration because the welfare of early arguments against the existence of the welfare state to begin with. Its a much better argument to go on and say we should put a wall around the 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. Now i think his free marketeers libertarians and conservatives would accept that argument is ludicrous. The problem is socialized medicine in the system not necessarily the fact that we e too much i dont think when that government regulation in one area like the welfare state justifies another Government Intervention in the market economy and another area. Whats more is poor immigrants are less likely to consume welfare than poor americans are in and when they do so the dollar value is smaller. If poor americans consume medicaid at the same rate poor immigrants do in the dollar value is the same the program would be 42 smaller. In terms of the entitlement programs as it currently stands immigrants tend to subsidize these massively overblown and bankrupt programs. Theres really nothing we can do to save these programs right now as they exist like medicare and Social Security. They are going bankrupt as they stand that immigrants increase the positive cash flow so hopefully if and when congress decides to fix these programs it will be easier to do. There have been hundreds of studies about the fiscal impact of immigration and how does it affect taxpayers in the United States. I wish i could give a more adjusting answer to that but all the facts tend to be clustered around zero it turns out immigrants and their descendents almost entirely mostly pay for the Government Services that they consume. These are Dynamic Models done across the world and about the United States. What about the political externalities . Will immigrants flood into the country vote for radical leftwing parties destroy capitalism and destroyer institutions overrun these things . As far as we can see we dont find that affect either the United States or internationally. What is interesting to point out is to be take a look at the percapita expenditures of the federal government in the United States by far the period of time there was most rapid increases between 1930 in 1970 when it was virtually impossible to immigrate to this country lawfully unless you are from northern europe. The federal government expenditures percapita increased 17 full during that time and in the period of time since 1970 when immigration is to liberalize you have seen a doubling in expenditures per person but youve also seen an increase in immigration. Prior to 1930 from 1900 to 1930 asaad doubling but interestingly enough the period of time in immigration was closed off we saw the largest increase in the size of the federal government. Im not claiming immigration is the reason why federal government growth slowed post the opening of the border but im saying if youre going to make a claim immigrants are going to increase the size of government you have a lot of historical explaining to do. Vernon briggs junior who is an adjunct scholar at the center for Immigration Studies and a labor economist supports immigration restrictions because it makes possible these broad increases in federal government and brought increases in the social safety net. Now what do we do only take a look at the economics of Freedom Score across the United States . United states . Its true of course Economic Freedom creates more prosperity and countries and more prosperity attracts immigrants so what we have tried to do their Research Paper to see if theres any effective immigrants say in 1970 and how it affects Economic Freedom in every decade after that in each country around the world to see if theyre some kind of effect, to see if theres a slowing liberalization of economies around the world and we find a positive effect. We find a positive effect that immigrants are correlated with increases in Economic Freedom over time as well even on the National Level in nine states. We find different results in the state level in nine still if youre going to make the claim immigration is going to destroy free markets or force people or move the political spectrum against free markets you have a lot of explaining to do because the correlation does not explain that correlation. Take a look in size and means tested benefits across days. Fortunately states have very different sizes of an immigrant population in very different democratic demographics and a lot of control over their means tested welfare benefits. Will he finds theres no correlation from 1,972,000 between the size the intensity of flows of immigrants the size of the minority population the minority populations that have been increased because of immigration on the size of the means tested welfare benefits. We have seen no impact over time that we can tell a similar story about guns or support for banning handguns based on the gallup poll. This is important to me as a gun hobbyist and the busiest. There is an argument out there that immigrants are very opposed to guns and interestingly enough support for banning handguns peaked in the 1950s or the period of time when lawful immigration to the United States was at its lowest ebb and now we have seen a decrease in support for banning handguns into the low to mid20 as a percentage of the population of foreignborn is increased. Again im not saying immigration has caused these popular opinions or effects im describing but if youre going to claim the opposite you have a lot of explaining to do because the data does not support you. What about the arguments from our traditions about what is right or wrong in how to treat people . Word is that impact our perspective on immigration and what immigration policy should be . I think we need to buy the same standards to immigrants we apply to other people and people have equal or more worth. Of course we favor certain people over others. I say for my wife francis i will do more to help her. I do more of an obligation to help her than any of the rest of you. You are all fine people but thats the moral obligation to help my family and probably an obligation to help people who are other americans more than i do other people. They are certainly a hierarchy of these obligations but just because i have an obligation to help somebody doesnt mean i can do Everything Possible to help them. What matters is how i can help them. If my wife is applying for a job i can help her write your resume. I can proofread her letter of introduction. I can do research. I can help her pay for her education to get her better skills. What i cannot do is tie the other job applicants who are competing for that job to prevent them from applying for the same job. I cant block other people using coercion to do that and i think we need to apply the same standards to immigrants. There isnt much competition between americans and immigrants in the job market because the skills are different but i think even if there was a lot of competition between immigrants and americans such intense competition that lowered american wages its still not an argument to oppose immigration primarily because of our English Common law traditions. Another immigrant import by the way. Economic harms that arise through Market Competition worth your competition are not a sufficient reason for protectionism. If i am a baker on one street and you open up a bakery on the other stricken you put me out of business because you sell a better loaf of bread i cant sue you. Because i participate in the market economy i took those risks. In terms of the same thing goes for immigration freedom of contract even with immigrants is more important than supporting notions of economic protectionism that build barriers that Big Government to protect certain people from competition with other immigrants. What about our National Rights . Individual rights to life liberty and private property perceived the state and liberal tradition of the word. Locke and all these different writers and people have equal and ethical moral worth. The declaration of independence listed restrictions on immigration and naturalization says one of the many reasons for seeking independence. The classical notion of laws they fear which has to do with freemarket economies and old french phrase was patterned and timed with and often phrased with the other phrase laws they pass there which means let them pass. Let people pass and move to economic institutions to other jobs of freedom. Freedom to move as a prerequisite for the other freedoms we enjoy as well as the enjoy as well as the freedom in another cell. Immigration restrictions are 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 her government that supports immigration restrictions for these reasons. What about utilitarianism another proud western philosophical tradition . The economic argument above. Voluntarily mutually beneficial exchanges and a relative freemarket or wealth producing and should be allowed. They produce more wealth than they destroyed a very specific capitalism and other areas are good. Under each of these ethical systems under each of these ways of judging at all western origin traditions borders are ethically irrelevant. They matter for other reasons but in terms of this they are ethically irrelevant. What about the rule of law important argument. We supposedly cant legalize large numbers of unlawful immigrants or change or Immigration Laws substantially because that would violate the rule of law. The rule of law is an important tradition in the United States. Its one that has helped us prosper in the United States that but laws must be based on an accurate accounting of human nature and respect for human liberty. They cant be based on the whims of social engineers who have decided the u. S. Population must be based on some sort of arbitrary set like immigration restrictions are. Rule of law does not mean all laws are enforced are enforced equally pretty can think of lots of laws in American History that were heinous that words are enforced to the full felt as well as other countries. The main three portions of the rule are they should be generally applied equally they should be ex ante predictable outcomes and consistent with our traditions. All three of those are required Immigration Laws fail on each and every one of those. Theyre inconsistent with our traditions of welcoming immigration to the United States from 17921875 we had open borders in the country and grassley after that point we are him more and more restrictions until the 1920s when it was almost totally closed after there is the world. They are certainly not equally applied laws. They treat people differently based on skills country of origin Family Status things that would be acceptable in other areas of the law and theyre certainly not ex ante. He talked to people who have the same characteristics they apply for the same immigrant visa and you have radical outcomes. If you want people to respect our Immigration Laws and i believe the laws must be respectable i believe they are currently not respectable. William f. Buckley junior said the laws attempting to stop unauthorized immigration in the same category as king canute standing on the beach and ordering the tide not to come in. Isaiah shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of how the world works that you can minutely control immigration are a vast majority of it. Whether theres a disconnect whatever theres disconnect between law and reality reality finds a way of making a lot of relevant. In conclusion i will say relatively for immigration or else an immigration is the exact opposite of the government policy because it would mean removing some of the most economically destructive laws currently on the books today. Free trade results in more jobs being imported we dont see the government forcing Japanese Cars into the luster of the government program. The market allowed imported cars from japan. If we are to radically Immigration Laws that would allow more immigrants to come here lawfully to be employed by americans to engage and voluntary market interactions with the total value in net present value, the present value of all american Human Capital the skills productivity of other values of american productivity is worth about 750 trillion. Thats compared to the value of all of our physical factories plans computers which is only 45 trillion. If you believe in free markets, if you believe that free trade and Free Exchange and capitalism are the right economic systems you should definitely exposes large part of the u. S. Economy that is currently protected to International Competition and cooperation. Their massive economic gains to liberalizing immigration consistent with american traditions. Its consistent with their exceptional ability to assimilate people over time which is not changed by the way according to the measures done by jake and big dork who has measured this. Everyone so Free Movement in collusion basically on although western Ethical Principles that ive talked about on the traditions of american liberty and free immigration the past is important for the rule of law and the positive economic benefits i think the United States should support a rather open immigration policy that allows these will help the people from around the world to come here and work and hopefully eventually naturalize and become americans. So thank you very much and i look forward to what everyone else has to say. [applause] everything alex said was wrong. No one else than 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 whole rest of the presentation kind of irrelevant. Freedom of movement into someone elses country is a natural right as alex claims and 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 answered in one of two ways. Either we the people of the United States in order to form a more Perfect Union to 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 then debate as possible over the practical effects of one set of policies or another. Now this doesnt imply any specific policy but that is the starting point of the debate over policies. If on the other hand the American People as alex has claimed is morally prohibitive prohibitive prohibited from limiting immigration to the United States then debate is irrelevant. Essentially its a question of choosing which moral value matters to you. Alex claims 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 a starting point you could argue for high immigration or low immigration. You could argue for an emphasis on skills or family relationships are Something Else. You could argue for a more simplified streamlined system of managing immigration or complicated and bureaucratic one but it is way collectively as the 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 half of the book that i offer a kind of unified field theory of immigration policy based on the premise that Mass Immigration is incompatible with the goals and characteristics of the modern society. These are broadly shared goals in modern america that even though people with different political opinions will differ as to the means, the ends themselves are not disputed by mainstream people. For instance, physical security a strong sense of shared National Identity and 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 immigrants. Todays immigrants arent all that different from immigrants in the past. They are from Different Countries but ultimately they are the same kinds of people coming from the same parts of their own society. What is different is what they need when they come to United States. Immigration a scent draco still was a tumultuous unsettling process, something that 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 and make a quite successful. It was an important tool of nationbuilding. It wasnt a only one. We are not just a nation of immigrants but we are among other things a nation of immigrants. Thats no longer the case and its time to move on. To borrow from st. Paul who wrote to the christians when i was a child i was spake as a child i understood as a child and understood as a child but when i became a man i put away childish things. Thats immigration is one of those childish things that ive grown up america has to put aside. Now let me touch briefly on the more important areas of conflict between Mass Immigration in modern society and then briefly sketch how we might get there from here. First assimilation. This is probably the most important factor in immigration and that is to say successfully making the newcomers and their their posterity and to patriotic americans, identifying with the American People and the american past is their past adopting in a sense americas past as their own even if it wasnt part of their biological a difference crucial quote is relevant that describes what real assimilation looks like. When she says to her israelite motherinlaw naomi without goest i will go and where thou watch as i will lodge. My people shall be by people and my god my god. Where they will die i will die. Thats assimilation and that has to be the chief consideration among the chief considerations in making immigration policy. To changes in us, not in the immigrants matter here and make assimilation much more complicated problem and much more lengthy phenomenon and much more complete and its workings. That is one the revolution of transportation and Communications Technology that shrunk the world and two the elites loss of commitment to the goal of patriotic assimilation in america. Just briefly the technological changes are obvious to everybody everybody. Communications frankly 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 and what this does, its obviously has many positive effects but in the immigration context it eliminates the need, this sort of pressure forcing immigrants to reorient their emotional and psychological attachments from the old country to the new country. This is not something people would naturally do. The older going to maintain a kind of connection and feeling about the place they came from. If you dont have that then theres probably something wrong with you. At the end of fiddler on the roof where all of the people have been chased out by the cossacks at the crossroads, the last musical number at the name of the village and its kind of bittersweet song where this place was horrible. 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 and thats a natural human emotion. But it is necessary to get beyond that to have the kind of real deep psychological assimilation is necessary in modern Technology Makes that more difficult. In the past he didnt hop on a plane and go to your aunts funeral in palermo for a long weekend or even call. Now you can and theres nothing wrong with doing this. This is a natural human thing but it means the process of uprooting and rerouting doesnt happen in the same way. There is a series on swedish immigrants. There was a movie made called the immigrants and its a four book series, sort of their version of roots. The final edition of the book is called the last letter home because the immigrant family moved to minnesota or wisconsin over the years the kids have 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. That fundamentally changes the calculus of assimilation. The second factor of assimilation and this is it less desirable change from the past is our elites government business philanthropy, media religion all of our elites are to put it charitably ambivalent about american patriotism. Just to give you one illustration of this my mother was the daughter of immigrants. She went to Public School in medford massachusetts and her parents brought her to school in the unspoken compact was the school is going to teach her reading and writing and arithmetic but also what it is to be an american. They didnt know. They just got immigrant parents making the same tacit compact. My mother and memories the gettysburg address where George Washington was the father of our country and saying hail columbia. Do you think theyre doing that in the unified school duscher today were the new york or chicago or miami or in miami or any of the places that immigrants are living . It is not the immigrants who are doing it. The immigrants arent saying hey i demand multiculturalism. It is our elites that are not only permitting this but encouraging it. Secondly the secondary at this conflict between Mass Immigration in modern society is security. Again the same revolution in communications and Transportation Technology create a different security environment one where the homefront isnt just a metaphor. Its the actual front the one that really matters. Our most immediate enemies are not foreign armies but rather shadowy terrorist groups transnational criminal organizations. As the 9 11 Commission Staff report on immigration noted quote it is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. There are equivalents of al qaeda sort of in the past but what could you do 100 years ago with a horsedrawn buggy and some dynamite in the back . You could blow up something. You could kill some people in that happened in the past but the kind of threat that represented to us in the kinds of threats that we now are facing are qualitatively different and Mass Immigration compounds or efforts at maintaining our people security. There are two main ways it does this. Want it overwhelms her administrative capacity to screen out bad guys and number two it creates and constantly refreshes the insular immigrant communities that unwittingly serve as the cover in incubators for bad guys. The bureaucratic overload is pretty clear. The need for bureaucratic screening security related screening of immigrants is obvious. Most foreign terrorist have been Immigration Law violators. We have documented this at great length. And they couldve been stopped through routine consistent Immigration Enforcement something which is in our capacity if we wanted to do it. The 9 11 hijackers not a single one shouldve been granted a visa to that states. Not because somebody magically knew was on their minds but because none of them met the basic criteria in our Immigration Law of having to demonstrate that you have equities back home that will lead you to return or not stay illegally. The fort dix plotters who were stopped before they were able to carry out their attacks were either legal border crossers. Amin alkhalifa who plotted to blow up the capital that was foiled in 2012 was like so many others of visa overstay and without a visa tracking system we have no idea which people have overstayed their visas and which have not. This is such that all three layers of our immigration security that these offices abroad are Border Patrol agents and border inspectors at the borders in their i. C. E. Officers inside the country are overwhelmed and respond in the way you would expect an an in overwhelmed bureaucracy to respond. They represent in way people through as a kind of active demoralized despair because there is no other alternative. The other immigration security related issue is safety essentially. Mass immigration creates insular immigrant communities and thats essentially is understood and about mouse the people are the sea and the army or the fish fish. In the same since these insular immigrant communities whether somalis in minneapolis salvadorans in washington constantly reinforce through immigration reinforces that separateness and provides similar to the way italian immigrant communities provide the breeding ground for the mafia and when immigration was stopped those communities assimilated. The americanborn young people had a real by and. They were americanized. They no longer were suffused in a sicilian old worldview of the outsider being the enemy and the kind of threat proceeding means if you train to see it makes it harder for malefactors to find cover, to raise money to enforce discipline too sympathizers. There was one writing about chinese border criticism and that applies more generally. He wrote it the Mass Immigration of chinese should come to a hault the chinese gangster may disappear in a malaise of assimilation. Economics. Mass immigration legal as well as illegal floods the low skill labor market. This matters because we are a very different economy. We are no longer settling lands as jack kennedy pointed out in a nation of immigrants which was not intended to increase immigration at all and it was used for those purposes. We are not undergoing the process of industrialization and yet we arent importing 19th century labor into a 21st century economy. Now this isnt to say alex is wrong in saying immigration creates an economic benefit. It does. George borjas recently calculated the size and the calculation was that the users of immigrant labor either their incomes increase or their profits increased to the tune of 437 billion a year. Thats the cheaper let us and the cheaper restaurants. Its not that much cheaper. Its pennies on the dollar per head of let us but theres clearly an increase in the income and profits of nativeborn americans. The flip side though is that those americans are in fact not their competitors. You see a 402 billiondollar reduction in it americans. Americans are the least able to afford it so when you do the math its roughly 35 billion net economic benefit to nativeborn americans from immigration. This is the same calculation that george bushs council of economic advisers did during the debate a number of years back on his immigration bill. There are three problems with this. 35 billion is trivial given the size of of the economy. The benefit comes from impoverishing the people who can least afford to have their incomes go down in other words a redistribution from the poor to everybody else are you thirdly the entire set of economic benefits is wiped out by increased social service costs. Thats the fourth issue i want to touch him because theres a conflict between Mass Immigration in modern society produce and draco Government Spending wasnt all that much. It was more then you tend to think. It was Something Like 100 years ago all levels of government federal state or local combined consume Something Like 8 of gdp gdp. Today its more than quadrupled that share of the economy. Taxes have to support dramatically greater government sector. Robert rector of the Heritage Foundation is described as a saint transferred or redistribution are pervasive if not predominate government activities of all modern societies. Now we can say like alex and others say what you know thats right instead of reducing immigration. My answer is knock yourself out. Call me when you get rid of the welfare state and we will have a debate about immigration. Its not going to happen. A large government sector which i think should be made smaller, tighter more responsibly run. Im a conservative but its not going away and it is the kind of if you will can opener economics. Assume a can opener economics that would say immigration would be great if the government of faith immigration state. A chemist and physicist and eight are on an island. The physicists the chemist says it heated up and it will blow up. The Economist Says its easy just use a can opener. The fact is each family headed by a High School Dropout in the United States receive Something Like 38,000 more from taxpayers taxpayers. All government levels and programs 38,000 a year more than it pays in taxes. Essentially thats the cost of her mercedes 300 sedan every year from taxpayers. What that means is every immigrant family that we had met headed by someone who does not have a High School Education that admission is propagating the american taxpayer to buy him a mercedes every year. The problem here is not that immigrants are coming here to rip us off. Its the mismatch between their low levels of skill and education and a postindustrial knowledgebased economy that creates this reality. And the idea that we can fall off as alex said while the immigrants often the welfare state is a 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 attempting to wall immigrants from the welfare state. That was part of the 1996 welfare reform and the welfare reform overall was quite successful until her current occupant in the white house rolled some of that bad. Immigration parts of it were not successful. Immediately congress repealed some provisions of it. Other immigration limitations were simply picked up by the state so was the question of who the immigrant was giving his welfare check from instead of many reduction in welfare and the immigrant groups that have the highest used of welfare offered the highest increases and naturalization rates. For citizen goes well for groups dont apply anymore. Want to let them into society that cost taxpayers are inevitable and unavoidable. You cant complain about them because you have created a situation. Its not because they are lazy. Work in welfare go together. The overwhelming majority of immigrant households that collect welfare have a worker in them because welfare is basically designed especially now to subsidize people who work. Families with Young Children who work. That is a good proxy for immigrants. So what do we do . Let me spend a couple of minutes on Legal Immigration policy. All immigration flow has three components, family skills family immigration should be limited to husbands wives and kids of u. S. Citizens. My starting point in thinking about what immigration policy should be is that we dont need any but that doesnt mean zero migration. That means zerobased budget. He started zero and see which groups of people have such a compelling case compelling case. Number one is husbands wives and kids. Thats a lot of people. Thats a third of todays media war than a third of todays immigration flow anyway. Second people have this idea that our immigration policy has this einstein element wedding and skilled people. We are living in some. We are letting in people with average skills who are not by any stretch of imagination on science. Thirdly humanitarian immigration. This is an almost governmentrun Charity Program and im uncomfortable with anything like that but if we do it is should be limited. It has never been that low. And it should be confined to people generally have nowhere else to go and never will. That doesnt describe many of the people we have met today as refugees. You end up with half or less immigration flow. Maybe 400 thousand more. Its still more immigrants or for permanent settling in United States than all the countries in the world put together. Its just less bad and we have found reduces the impasse the counter modern impacts and let me say a couple of sentences by mike on how to get there. Part of the context is whats going on in the actual policy debate. I laid this out in an article in the National Review earlier this year and the way its usually approached how do we deal with this population what do we do about legal population. Eventually essentially repeating the deal that we did in 1986 which is legalize the Illegal Immigrants upfront and promise to enforce the law in the future. That is essentially what Congress Passed last year in the senate as well with the addition of doubling future immigration into that market. Instead those pieces need to be rearranged. Enforcement has to come first not promised in the future but actually implemented, rolled out, surviving judicial challenge. Things like universal use of the everify system, visa tracking so that visitors wont know when visitors leave. Once that is in place doesnt solve everything but it demonstrates a commitment to actually enforcing the law. Then we have a different bargain than the one the gang abated and president obama and john mccain wants which is legalization amnesty for significant share of the Illegal Immigrants that are still here in exchange for permanent cuts in Legal Immigration in the future. Thank you. [applause] let me begin by apologizing to roger and my fellow panelists because a Family Health problem requires me to out of here as soon as i have made my remarks. I find myself agreeing with so much of what mark and alex have said that i must be setting some kind of rigor for cognitive dissonance. Hold on a second. Talking just now about the Senate Immigration bill. Much discussed and rarely seen. There it is. 1197 pages. It has to be that long because the senators as we all know know everything. They know for example what the hourly wage of an immigrant animus order in 2016 should be. 9. 84 in case you are wondering which is 20 cents more than the hourly wage of an immigrant nursery worker and 2016. Its all in here. Did you know that nevada is a border state . You laugh and i know you were thinking about chico marx in the movie duck soup, either believe me or your eyes. Technically the southern tip of nevada is 164 miles north of the border. It doesnt matter. Theres another 20 billion a Border Security and the majority leader of the senate wanted nevada to have it share of the trough. This is what you do when you do comprehensive legislation. You have to pass it in order to find out whats in it and i will give you a taste of it. This unimpressive twopage thing is the homestead act of 1862 which in some ways was her first Immigration Law and certainly is one of the halfdozen or so most important pieces of legislation ever passed. The parchment copy in the archives is four pages long. Still its 1993 pages shorter than this. This was their first Immigration Law in the sense that we had no Immigration Laws. We have naturalization laws but the point of the homestead act was to attract immigrants to settle that portion of the United States which was identified on many maps at the time all the area west of the mississippi is the Great American desert. It was short because of a the simple. It was essentially come here work the land for five years and we will essentially give it to you, good luck. The homestead act was still in effect and still doing things until 1970. This is how you dont legislate. But we should learn with regard to immigration is the lesson of the compromise of 1850. Henry clay decided to have a comprehensive solution to a americas sexual problems at that time. So we put together a package that dealt with the fugitive slave act the texas mexico border california statehood and three or four other things. When it failed clay took his tuberculosis off to rhode island and chopped it up into four or five pieces of legislation which he did. There were 60 senators when they started, 62 when he finished because the california senators arrived. All pieces of the compromise were passed separately and only four senators voted for all the pieces. Surely we can do the same thing with immigration understanding there are three basic questions before us. One is Border Security. The other is the needs of the American Workforce and a third is what to do with the 11 to 12 million illegals who are here. With regard to Border Security is simply not that a Border Security spending quadruple in the 90s tripled in the next decade and now has all the stuff in here that got nevada admitted as a border state. It seems to me we are unlikely to have and im sure Michael Baran will discuss this, we are likely to have a surge of immigration that we had in recent decades. Net immigration from mexico is negative for four or five years now. The border we have a problem with this is southern border of mexico which is poorest people making the arduous trip from particularly a disorderly society. With regard to the needs of the American Workforce i am well aware that Milton Friedmann who i revere as im sure all of you do so that you really cannot have a liberalized immigration policy and welfare state because people will come to get on welfare. Maybe, but i think this precious little empirical evidence that a substantial number of immigrants are coming here for the purpose of getting on welfare. I think immigration is an inherently entrepreneurial act. Its the uprooting oneself and ones family taking substantial risks and hardship for the purpose of getting here so they can go to work. Which is why the workforce 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 of course exist to transfer wealth to the working young and middleaged they retired elderly and the form of pension and health care. Thats fine. In 1940 the First American to receive the monthly Social Security check she paid a grand total of 22 in Social Security taxes and turned on her country and lived to be 100. Collecting the process 24,000 in Social Security benefits which didnt matter at the time because there were 40 workers for every retiree. Today there were three for every retiree. When the baby boomers have retired in 2030 and the average age of the population coast coasttocoast is higher than it is today in florida at that point there will be two workers for every retiree. Long story short we need in fact immigration to replenish our workforce. Particularly given we have now had six consecutive years of declining birthrate and given the fact there were fewer births in 2010 and the United States than there were in 2000 although there were 25 million more americans in 2010. This is a grinding arithmetic that we are going to have to deal with. It is the case of course as has been said that declaration of independence george iii for interfering with the naturalization of immigrants and refusing laws to encourage their migration hither but it seems to me among the things we would pass we would chop up the immigration into a manageable thing the socalled stem basis for the particularly talented. It is absurd that we have the worlds greatest Research Universities filled with graduate students from overseas who are trained to add the extraordinary value to economies but not two hours because they are then invited to leave. Third what do we do at the illegals . And politics surely its useful to start by facing what is not going to happen. What is not going to happen as they are not going home. I did the arithmetic once in order to deport 11 Million People it would require a line of buses bumper to bumper extending from san diego to alaska. It is not going to happen. Furthermore the American People in their native decency would not support the police measures required to make that happen. Particularly given the fact that a substantial number of immigrants have been here five and 10 years and a substantial number that is millions have had children here and their children are american citizens. We are not going to deport american citizens or their parents. So where does this leave us . The 11point whatever million Illegal Immigrants are 5. 2 of the American Workforce. We are not going to deport 5. 2 of the American Workforce. We have had this long meandering serpentine path to our current discontents on immigration and it really began in 1882 with the chinese exclusion act passed in part under restrictions and response to nativists and nationalists and labor unions and particularly progressives who is part of their yen for social engineering wanted to control the population, the composition of the population and of course at that time there were a great many eugenicists progressives and they thought they knew who ought to be and who should not be americans for eugenic reasons. I tend to come down i think its clear by now somewhat closer to alex then to mark noting for example that 40 of the corporations on the fortune 500 list were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants including at T Goldman Sachs Proctor Gamble kraft google at ebay intel pfizer and cigna. Seems to me one doesnt want to exaggerate the einstein component or the component of the founders of fortune 500 companies but they are a fact. It also is the fact and i thought mark was particularly interesting and instructive on the problems of immigration and assimilation but i would say this. When vietnam fell in 1975 after that we took in 1 million vietnamese. 175,000 in a very few weeks. Another surge in 1978 when the boat people began to arrive. The boat people arrived here in the middle of the carter era stagflation from the worst periods of Economic Opportunity in American History. By 1982, four years later the employment rate for the vietnamese boat people was higher than the employment rate for the American Population as a whole. The problems with assimilation that mark mentioned are real and he is completely right that the problem is not immigrants, it is the elites that have low confidence and low affections for united the United States to which we want these people to assimilate. It also is the case that and i believe this is victor hansons phrase. The Atlantic Ocean was for earlier immigrants a psychological guillotine that severed from your particularly in the days before voting and airbus democratized air travel. The Rio Grande River does not provide such a psychological guillotine. On the other hand i think assimilation for better or for worse is accomplished by american Popular Culture and that thing the average immigrant probably dreads most evolved the american high school. There is nothing like sex drugs and rock n roll to make a young person american in a hurry. I have a feeling that is working working. I will simply close by quoting Ronald Reagan from his farewell address to the nation. It is frequently quoted the part where he says the city on the hill has morals but the morals have doors. That is not where his quote ends. The walls had doors and the doors Ronald Reagan took broken to anyone with the will and the hard heart to get here. That is how i saw it and see it still. I think that puts me somewhat more in alexs camp than in marks but deeply conflicted all the way. [applause] i think i will talk from here. In the encounter broadsides we have two diametrically opposed views of immigration policy but both arguments come from the centerright. One is libertarian. Alex nowrasteh and what is conservative Mark Krikorian but immigration cannot be examined in a vacuum nor is immigration simply about economic policy. 21st Century America is in the middle of the regime conflict. The issue is do we submit . Do we transmit the future generations the american regime limited Constitutional Government and freemarket economy the individual as opposed to group rights, vibrant Civil Society and the judeochristian and enlightenment Cultural Heritage . Do we 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 in 2016 but concerns the future of the american regime writ large. Its in this context that we are examining immigration policy. Alex and mark basically agree on the big issue. They would both like to transmit Americas Limited government regime to the future generation but how to get there obviously they cant both be right. Theyre speaking totally different languages. Alex the libertarian views immigration from the Vantage Point of the World Economy specifically he views it as an economic citizen of the world, an individual global consumer. Individual should be free make a contract with any individual anywhere in the world. In this view, in his view the market trumps. Mark the conservative views immigration from the Vantage Point of national interest. What is good for american citizens . In his scenario the nation trumps. Alex states americas corp. On the principles of the enlightenment of natural rights and freedom of movement is indispensable if we use those rights respectively. Alex tells us this was part of the view of the american founders and immigration restrictions cannot be based on economic protectionism and very interestingly in this paper what he calls cultural protectionism. Now with the exception of those is Global Freedom of movement a founding american principle. This question was answered directly by geuverneur morris the author of the preamble of the constitution according to madisons notes in the constitution and the Constitutional Commission geuverneur morris that quote every society from a great nation down to a club has the right to declaring the conditions in which new member should be admitted. The founders believed that at the heart of republican Government Republican small r as well as vibrant liberals at the heart of republican selfgovernment is first and foremost the right of a free people to govern themselves. Government by consent of the government. Illegal immigrants are here without the consent of the government. Thats the main problem. This moral right of selfgoverning free people obviously have a right to determine immigration or the policy and the right to decide conditions for accepting immigrants geuverneur morris said. Also means the right of a free people to perpetuate institutions. What alex is basically arguing is that we the people of the United States dont have the moral right to reproduce ourselves or to rule ourselves. They tell us nothing about the deeper feelings. I could think of one political activist who would be cynically assimilated under these criteria. He is a citizen in he votes. He spent a good part of a cold war in nicaragua the state the sandinista and is admirer of the castro regime they he visited and he spoke at a conference of revolution in venezuela about a hugo chavez and was funded partly by the venezuelan government. I disagree with the idea that assimilation is just fine. With mark and george this is not the american tv to. Look at survey data put together for the bradley project these questions are deeper than assimilation. Over 20 surveys questions with patriotic attachment did reveal a large gap with naturalized citizens. The question was asked to consider yourself part rarely s. Citizen or a citizen of the world . There was a 30point gap and 84 percent of native born said american citizen for a 54 said american and citizen. There was a 30point gap. Are another question was asked if there is a conflict between the constitution and International Law what is the highest Legal Authority for americans . Us 30point captan with nativeborn american 67 issue take priority. 37 percent said the constitution should take precedence. There was a 30 gap on that but with education should schools focus on the rights the of citizenship with ethnic and dignity and pride of their own ethnic group . There was a 31 cap 81 said they should focus of rights and responsibilities of citizenship. But only 49 percent of of a 31point cap on that. Now has our speakers have said we should not blame the emigrants for lisa of schools for said the new covers the wrong message telling them to assimilate the not patriotism has read it in the past richening highschool one survey showed when kids injured in the ninth grade and then when they left after four years of American Highschool theyre less likely to consider themselves american with the percentage of people that they identified as americans dropped 20 after words it may have the americanizing the fact so a the past. So go back to july the fourth 1950 in philadelphia the swearingin ceremony Woodrow Wilson not a fan of anybody at this table but listen to the words of president wilson july 4th july 4th, 1950 and who has just become of their kinsman says he cannot dedicate yourself to america must you become in every respect with every purpose of your will thoroughly american. You cannot become americans if you think yourself in groups america does not consist of groups have been to think of themselves as belonging to a particular group has not yet become an america the man who goes among you to trade with your nationality is not worthy of of the stars and stripes. Woodrow wilson actually sounds like George Washington. Sold two cheers for wilson. [laughter] that was deliberately provocative. The like wilsons day the issue of america is that he was a nationalist progressive and todays progressives there based on race and ethnicity and the purpose of government is substantive equality to seek to eliminate a person a underrepresentation of groups 21st century progressivism has course the diversity bilingualism through government coercion immigration must be seen in this context. Seen as an anecdote. I see that libertarian vision as the unwitting handmaiden also the Forthcoming Research from the Cato Institute on idiological opinions that shows a rapid assimilation with the Third Generation i assume that means more libertarian means but Mass Immigration continues in the gains would be wiped out. In the meantime lets look at Current Research and ideological opinions. The following question was asked would you rather have a bigger government with higher taxes and more services or Smaller Government with fewer taxes and fewer services . Among the general public the result was 48 percent Smaller Government it among immigrant latinos the number was 81 bigger governmental smaller. It with 75 percent larger among asians 55 bigger government. On social issues emigrants in the general public are roughly the same set to use support abortion for anyone who wants it . The emigrants are 28 percent but within the margin of error. Professor campbell from the university of maryland is im sorry for all counties in the United States, excuse me where the immigrants share of the vote has increased including texas and florida, the republican percentage of the vote has decreased though these voting patterns will change todays satis emigrants are conservative values that would change Voting Rights but now five or six years ago i asked michael how long it took before i italian started to vote for republicans i think he said about 70 years. I remember asking you want to wait that long . You can correct me. Was 50 years. [laughter] in the future as emigrants succeed to join in the middleclass but the problem today is that it reflects a people coming from Central America and elsewhere the overall increase would keep the conservative libertarian percentage down. California was once a conservative state in the days of governor Ronald Reagan. If we continue perpetual policies california will be the future of the United States according to a liberal democratic journalists california today is a neo futile a society run by a small class in the Silicon Valley of hollywood these feudal list are ideologically defended that consist of academics and progressive intellectuals then you have that vast majority and then even in using such terms serves. The oligarchs are served by lowskilled people of Silicon Valley of native born immigrants with little to is about credibility if the prevailing institutions remain in the fact was hope not. Why did immigration succeed in the 20th century . That was part of it but it was not the big reason the big reason is the passage of immigration restriction legislation 1924 supported by president coolidge it cut mass emigration and clearly facilitated the assembly shed process this action is almost never discuss for obvious reasons with those advanced arguments with prejudice against southern europeans asians and others this is not what coolidge jews as president he opposed the japanese he did favorably the use Legal Immigration to facilitate assimilation. Addressing the congress he said american institutions wrestle leon good citizenship you arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorber them into the ranks of good citizenship. Costs so echoing the views expressed by the founders if you want to see for the american founders have immigration the take up the book called vindicating the founders there is a whole chapter of the immigration. Because he believed more time was needed my sicilian relatives at the time in general greatly limited immigration from italy overall. But kucinich would facilitate the goal of the perpetuation of limited government come on the current solution would do support something along that plan that mark outlined a little bit today and we will stop there. Thank you. [applause] i have a 1,000 page piece of legislation. But i find myself in disagreement. Why do we have to microphones . So i can speak data both sides of my mouth . [laughter] fiftyfive myself in some disagreement with the preceding speakers. That i think the west state that kissinger makes reference to the of the world order has every right to exclude everybody we dont have moral responsibilities to allow visitors potentially we tend to do so and wisely so but i dont see we have a moral obligation to let anybody in. I find myself in disagreement. I think they over estimate the degree in which immigrants of the first half of the 20th century kept in touch with their countries of origin. They did not have escaped but the research i have done suggests that letters did pass back and forth and post offices operated more efficiently than they do now. Foreign language newspapers they kept people in touch with movements in countries of origin there was a lot where people came here for awhile to work get a job that would go back to their country of origin. With the 1950s is 60s the primary economic assistance sustenance was Social Security checks the entitlement of which had been picked up with an occupation over the years. People went back and forth but jewish immigrants those that never went back except dealing with communism in the soviet union were liquidated at the time. That was another recurring problem of. So that selfworth that vivid history is written through the jewish experience. It was one but not feel they. So with my fellow sicilian an american i will remind him how good it feels to walk down the street way your kneecaps works the right way. [laughter] but whether or not the applause by the immigration act gore is alex may call it the totalitarian position to vastly promote assimilation to indulge it counterfactual history had made not had that immigration act of 1924 it did definitely reduce immigration over the calendar years that in the Great Depression but we would not have had much immigration between 30 and 45. Into the post world war ii years. It and then working at the present time. To have institutions that believed in america is even professors and turning is an example of wilson shows who tended to believe in that. If they do have disagreements here. So to think it is a better way to understand it to see how migration transformed in george made reference to in his comments looking at internal migration but i thought they had things in common because what you see with the course of American History is in large part very large numbers of people moving unexpectedly in one place if it is broad or region in these movements just last but then they suddenly stop because the defense id like legislation or sometimes just because they stop. The reason is that propelled so many to migrate if we often analyzed immigration their migration as an economic phenomenon if you can certainly see a is responsive to the Business Cycle by fate there is Something Else involved. With random numbers of individuals through any number of time that those that inspire people not Just Economics you dont have huge masses of people because they increase the minimum wage by 1. 25 an hour. But they migrate when use the migration of large numbers people are pursue reing dreams or to escape nightmares. If the nightmares ceased to be frightening than mass emigration can stop. We cannot analyze dreams or nightmares from of economic criteria. But rather by trying to understand not just in peoples heads but parts. In from lee scott irish that goes on in the early 18th century you have a few jumpers as a proportion of preexisting population that were named after the losers of the french indian war, the al break of the revolution this was jacksons parents who left didnt 1765 and they go down the wagon road of the Shenandoah Valley in this seaboard did not want these ruffians in the day go down through the carolinas and basically to get rid of the southeastern United States. And eventually with start the mexican war that now gives us a california. [laughter] it does not really resume. Europe was at war in seaboard commerce was kind of risky but then we get the big surge of the Irish Catholics and germans their protestant catholic. The irish come here to escape the nightmare of the famine in ireland is 5 million today. At cataclysms and mass emigration and the germans and the irish were the first mass migration some are attracted by the homestead act with sweden and norway and the code is in somebody says socialism would work here because it works is greeted my response is that would work here if we had 380 million suites. It may work give minnesota. [laughter] the other 49 states is problematic. We have a certificate problems assimilating the irish of particular i say that more comfortably to have the Irish American ancestors and our rates of crime with Substance Abuse in the 1850s the American Party is shoved aside as the political goods since with the antiand acreage 1860 with abraham lincoln. But that the irish went on the search for half a century interrupted by the civil war but not as much as you would think and said it peters out. But germany is growing and suddenly just about the time the ellis immigration station opens and the federal government takes over the responsibility to screen immigrants to make sure they are healthy it is a big surge from a the multiethnic nations interestingly the jewels the jews and poles the slovaks from vague empire and northern italians it to some extent these people were pursuing the dream of equality the years of nationalist discontent in interrupt the people in minorities like the jews being treated negatively. America was held up at eliot of american make it Economic Opportunity but a nation to have firstclass equal citizenship. That it continued to the ellis island immigration that is abruptly in 1940 resumes is like the irish and german emigration and like lee scott irish before the american and revolution it is larger its magnitude as a percentage of preexisting population than any we have seen over the last 30 years to three times as large the problems of assimilation are not unfamiliar face the daunting thinking that they basically come from our culture i think they generally can build that successfully and i mentioned i dont take the passage of the 1924 act that it quoted saw a Different Countries like ellis island needs not apply. I dont think that was critical in assimilation. But i do think it is an offspring of the 1924 act in an act of congress with unexpected results because we dont anticipate either that begin or the end of this search of migration that continues to occur the relevant to this topic today emigrant migration. The 1924 act gave family reunification provisions why was that true . Because republicans and democrats who voted had constituents from ellis island. To say i can give them the perception but then passing the immigration act sponsored on the senate floor by senator Edward Kennedy severing the first term by the voters of massachusetts the 65 act we will repeal the. Act become strong ellis island representing those constituencies but by 1965 that is not what we get. The experts testified we will not have substantial latin art asian immigrants. That is where they will come from in the future is europe but instead those provisions is carried over from the 1924 act each of the al lot. But my recollection from mexico with 60,000 per year we were getting 10 times that many between 1982 and 2007 is legal and illegal. To have this unanticipated surge of migration has never been of a wide river beds people that remained in the United States in large numbers in those years. To not have Border Control costs and interview this senior fault bother of the treasury secretary i said what was border enforcement of the 1820s . He said what . You go over the bridge. The dreams had not been a creative economic incentives were there their dreams were not contemplated. That marked mention in the 1986 bill and subsequent proposals have a similar formula with employer sanctions the these were passing the senate in 2006 with 2007 and the incoming now harry reid screwed up the bill that similar legislation in past battles this legislation was concocted to situation is that occurred at that time i tended not to support them now and i have changed my views that with the facts change i change my mind what do you do . But when we are concocting comprehensive bills the is some shinn was that the search would continue there would be a continued demand gore need for lowskilled labor in the United States. People from mexican origin they would tend have the low was skill level on average citizen can a lower than other latin is sources proximity of the border is one factor and in that background we are not going to deport 12 Million People the population peaked in 2007 so i was not worried about incentivizing further ilLegal Immigration was hoping technology it seems to be now with de credit card to buy the 50,000 car and that whole system works is it possible it could create that Electronic System that works . There is evidence to the contrary. [laughter] benzenes to me that was possible and that i intended to go along with this bill that had accumulated a series of lobbies that the hispanics lobby, the high tax lobby which saw as the. Visa hb1 visa and the farm lobby that they bring these bills together in one package to pass it with the force of the lobby but the other procedure is to do it the other way but what he did not add you is never a favored prohibition after he passed those five different bills, said they would pass things that way but these things have changed. We have seen from Central Americans that in the Current Situation and have the search is over between 2007 and 2012 is zero the surgeon did as the earlier ones of internal migration of the urban north that went out to be ended suddenly when the north stops seeming like a dream with the riots and the rights with the passage of the Civil Rights Act starts to be such a nightmare. When they change research that goes on forever suddenly stops. We have seen the same thing with mexicans. We now get more asian and latin migrants. That is a big shift from when the legislation was put together. I agree moving from lowskilled too high skilled immigration to have those unintended consequences we should have something in the high skill system this is not alexs favorite but i think it is better than what we have now with a recipient to go back somewhere else. I think it is a good idea to limit them. Talking to you diplomats from canada they said police do not adopt our immigration system. We want these people in vancouver and calgary. We dont want them in the United States. Lead is a pretty good argument for us to add and in the short or medium term that was weaker than 2007 and continued to be in a period of Economic Growth i see we want to move to the high skill immigration candidates won be visa tend to tie people to a particular company, that reeks of indentured servitude why not let them take their chances that is called the American Free enterprise system . We always need more high skilled people in the of high skilled wagers wages period people like alex then they can grin and bear it. With legalization we have seen president show promise dreamers in 2012 that pulled well most americans favor it i think that is similar to president obamas more recent or less popular but i am influenced remakes the point an awful lot of Illegal Immigrants want legal status that the 1986 provision only about half of those eligible are naturalized despites the effort of the Clinton Administration to get them to register. We have seen many the goals and illegals they tend to go back to honduras and theyre not necessarily there. And finally i would just say in support of my proposition to go to the system canada and australia have higher percentages of immigrants in redo the a bit higher percentages of a preexisting population also more Economic Growth with higher p i s a scores on tests than we have those that are worried they have conservative governments to be right thus to the competitive. Soviets to break up the lobby to disaggregate the legislation to adapt to the Current Situation that the search of lots and migration one generation is not going to return in current form and lets shape the immigration in a way to shape the nation better. [applause] thanks for inviting me. There has been so much said and written i dont think feeling that way is the function of cognitive dissidence it knows more to the notion this is a complicated human problem and i come at this not as a historian or analyst the my perspective is from the perspective of the of lot a and Law Enforcement in particular. The most complicated problems dont get solved because theyre too dynamic to the there is cognitive dissidence i really of the other side about argument i of the terrorism by because this is my torture weeks. [laughter] it is delightful to talk about ilLegal Immigration but often run we have to look at with National Security is whether the normal means that the threat that can be the existential threat. And in these arguments is focused on the folly to use the criminal Justice System as a point of counterterrorism win the mechanisms are not designed to deal with a threat like that. In this instance i think the opposite is true. I want to shout out for mitt romney not in a more recent incarnation as an adviser but the candidate in 2012 because he got a raw deal on this particular issue to say what i think is that humane immigration policy with voluntary deportation but i think what he meant is we have a finite we have a finite amount in prosecutorial discretion and not the way field, above and has written that as a license to mutilate the of all but prosecutorial discretion is a resource allocation doctrine to criminal Law Enforcement to have a finite number of resources in a much wider amount of crime and criminals to sensibly target the worst of the problem to get the best baying for auerbach. Romneys position was tardy your enforcement resources and that on the one hand was Illegal Immigrants who were in our country to violate not just Immigration Laws that we have enough pogrom criminals mutiny the criminals of the rest of the world here to the extent they have deportation resources targeted at them. The magnet for ilLegal Immigration is the hiring of illegals so we would have a National Position that is lots listed you have to enforce that against the businesses that hire for the incentive to cut of and therefore you dont have to worry about the fact you have 11 or 12 million illegal aliens has their productive and not a problem if they decide to leave because the conditions of finding employment were not fruitful they will voluntarily deport any reduce the illegal population to what is manageable then when that problem is below 11 are 12 Million People to have a more sensible conversation to do under circumstances in natalie give amnesty to 12 million but to not have any intention to enforce the border you are making a problem that is currently manageable much more mismanage. At the core of that i must confess and i am puzzled by this the core of the argument seems there is an obligation on our part to do something to relieve the condition of the illegal immigrant and frankly i dont understand that. Was the number of panelists have pointed out ilLegal Immigration is a voluntary act per gram not talking about the retrievers there are categories to say it is not their fault they are in that status but a person who comes here illegally in and chooses to live in the al lot status has created that situation on his own and i dont understand why we think we have an obligation to fix that. It seems the sensible way to deal with this again is gore after the people who violate our laws, to target the magnet to reduce the population to give people the incentive to leave. Then that makes sense and we can talk about if we should have an amnesty or not. So it is unfortunate that romney was outbid on that particular issue because it was bad labeling more than anything else. Put up with like to make a pitch for states rights and state sovereignty. Where i think the immigration problem goes off the rails is the notion it is a federal issue primarily. Justice roberts in 2011 lot of those sudden fall to ilLegal Immigration began the opinion by saying that power to regulate immigration is unquestionably a federal power. At this point it may be a federal power but for the First Century it was exclusively a state problem of Immigration Enforcement. The constitution only gives the congress the power to except the term of naturalization if we didnt have a Justice Department for the First Century. At the time of the founding that the egress was an issue for the states the policing of matters within the states would be of matter for the exercise of state power that included how hospitable for those who were not americans citizens and it did not have a right to be there. To give an example in 1837 in a case that involved the state of new york with expelling arriving aliens they said the state had the power to prevent her citizens to be oppressed Forum Citizens coming here from other countries without the means to support themselves. And it goes on to say there could not be a more appropriate exercise of the police power. So we operated under the anders standing it was a states rights issue. Eventually the courts rationalize the federal regulatory role to be implicit in the power to control borders but this i think and i would argue is where the jurisprudence has gone awry particularly in the last century. It is one paying to have a federal role but another fed basically vanquishes is the power of the real actor in the system the Supreme Court does this with the preemption doctrine they identify a federal role then as we saw in the arizona case it passes laws and regulations that was federal statutes with the arizona case that it didnt matter what the statute said bette obama this policy of non enforcement of Immigration Laws. Said you have state laws which bolstered congressional statutes regulating ilLegal Immigration and the Justice Department says no, no, no you dont have to comply with federal law but a federal policy. So now it is state supreme with Immigration Enforcement to you have a federal role to the somehow that this supreme now to the point is the absurd situation with the president says i dont need to of course, the federal lot because i have prosecutorial discretion in this state cannot do anything to defend yourself from whenever the problems are that you get from ilLegal Immigration because that intervenes my policy even if it is consistent with federal law. In the arizona case with the more recent one Justice Scalia pose a hypothetical. If addressing the constitution the framers had attempted to give congress the power to establish limitations upon immigration that will be exclusive and enforced only to the extent the president deems appropriate, what would happen . Of course, eric be no constitution, no United States, no adoption of over foundational lot. Long patient foundational lot. We do have an immigration problem but it is unseemly have fabricated into a crisis that we are equipped to manage and i would prefer to manage by federalism but certainly we can do the criminalJustice System that to the extent to call this a big problem more crisis is due to the federalization of enforcement and the folly of imposing one policy on 50 stays with cultural frameworks and economic markets. If i had my druthers i would have on the federal side age humanitarian enforcement policies targeted at a real lawbreakers