tv Yea Nay CSPAN January 25, 2015 12:06am-2:48am EST
not just combine art and science but believe there was no real difference between art and science. thank-you. [applause] >> to aid us now is author of the book was on the front? >> it is a motorcycle in the middle of nowhere in patagonia the bmw high-tech that motorcycle for three years and rode it all over the world. >> host: around the world?
why? >> of lot of us have tashkent's and dreams my passion is photography and motorcycle riding and i found myself with the forking the road unemployed and recently divorced so i decided instead of scribbling i sold everything i had an cop on the motorcycle to experience different cultures and different people all over the world. >> host: why the name of forks? civic we come to 4 percent over life and that is on the motorcycle to keep us going in the right direction and it is what we share and eat food with dad if you are a musician you away tooting fork that brings harmony so there is a lot of media but for me it was all of that.
>> host: the book does have recipes? >> it does. it is about my experience connected with people i went on the triple blow but it did not take long to realize i was never alone. if i was hungry someone was there. it is amazing how easy it is to connect with people we do that over food or drink. i thought rather than just travel can i would bring another element like a full sensory experience the photography and the food was better than to taste the different cultures? and they end up in the kitchen where we connect with each other and the culture. >> host: did you run into
any political situations? vivid there were a few places they really didn't want me to come into one of them was sudan. we definitely have not had good diplomatic relations so when i got to the border between ethiopia and sudan on my own diplomacy to convince them to let me begin but it gets study because i was on the internet with people in cairo and americans were trying to get a visa amazon and southern europe as well and they're all turned down by the city's the busies so now what do i do? so sad how they decided to grant a visa but there was a
catch from the geography point of view is the largest country in africa so they only gave these seven days to go through it and i had to time that very carefully. also with syria. you are supposed to have an opportunity even at the consulate you are supposed to go there because they don't grant them to anybody who lives in the country with diplomatic washington and i got to the border they said go to washington and now i could have got that first and i was on the road at two points it is of the good friday days and expires and six months and i am stuck atta border how you get into syria? i could turn around to go back through jordan or try
to go through israel and lebanon but i really wanted to see syria. i got my tent and camped out and i waited until i convinced somebody to call damascus to give me the okay. probably maybe because expectations were low but one of the best countries i visited i never once had to pay for a tank of gas they embraced me you were the american friend even at the border all the stamps and all the pomp and circumstance even i had to get a piece of for my motorcycle they said wait the inspector once to see you i thought a great they will not let me throw the chief inspector shows up at the border riot waiting and
ready to go he said first it is all about having tea. here together rehab of beer or whenever bed we sat on the border stop bob did church road and he drew me a map and told me where to go. is sad the government it brings tears to my eyes to think about what is going on there now because i had such a positive experience. but that is how we connect with people over the tea and culture. i embraced south africa with its diversity, all over south america with fantastic people all over the world.
and aunt beyond the border hassles or challenges that i call opportunities we can get through those. >> host: did you ever get treated poorly because you were an american? >> never once. i was in brazil at a cafe chatting and practicing portuguese. there was another american who brought up the fact i cannot believe we're always thrown under the bus. what he said is i am getting tired period americans think that. i take it is all its your mind.
i find that a similar with other travelers that i met all over the world that people were more interested in earning about us. but i would meet to people who would try a different times to get into the country. they want to come here. they don't want to push us away. that is for sure. >> host: did you ever have to call on the good graces or your brother your -- woos the correspondent for abc news? >> with the atm card internet access is everywhere but in the sudan it is with the atm card issued from of date so i was
challenged with how do i get currency to make my way for the seven days going through there? i called jonathan is there any way? he had been tuesday and -- to city and he left it a safe in a hotel somebody he had forgotten when he checked out the and believe it or not, this is amazing that the sudanese had his money. it was two years. is no bread will he be back so i went to that hotel to pick up the money. >> 46 is the name of the book a quest for culture. booktv on c-span2.
>> good morning i am the president and ceo of the hudson institute welcome back to our audience from c-span booktv and the panelists that have already arrived and those that are riding in a couple of minutes. the hudson institute is in international research organization based that prosperity and the defense of global order requires strategic and engaged leadership and partnership with our allies we are delighted to be hosting for immigration reform on the occasion of the publication of the debate over immigration that we will
introduce sure they. there is not much of the debate over the recent executive order over immigration that constitutional scholars view as unconstitutional but there is a sick to begin debate different positions that are held deeply passionately with differences and tensions of founding principles. we will hear from noted conservatives whose views differ strongly on this subject. i will say a few words encounter books and we are delighted tier partner with by publishing serious books on critical policy and questions under its leadership who is the publisher and president, roger is well-known as publisher of
the journal as the arts editor. his books and articles have appeared in every serious publication of consequence in the english-language. he is known for his sensibilities and willingness to do challenge of the day above the tradition and his dedication to the open debate and with that with great pleasure i will turnover. >> thank you. i am delighted to be here and we will soon will come to more panelist to are delayed in traffic. this is a critical debate when you leave we will hand
out copies that we have published of open borders? you will get a copy upon leaving a will not introduce the panel it would be superfluous but it is not true as some have suggested that we hired barack obama to be the advance publicity person for this conference. he did it on his own initiative but we are delighted he could bring such focus to this important issue. it is an important debate there are no easy answers. and alex will start off then mark will follow and the
other panelists will comment then we will allow them to respond and then we will open it up to the audience. >> 84 evade introduction for putting together a a great and for all the to be here today i do believe that classical liberal notion in favor of the right to migrate across borders to show why it should be restricted demand could reasons to take away a life liberty and property right now is give is illegal for a small number to come here unlawfully.
the tradition of free emigration of the past was closed a long time ago replaced by a highly complicated bureaucratic system rather than on other issues. with the burden that he should emigrate it is entirely backwards from the westward notion of an of innocent until proven otherwise. said to demonstrate to why the current system is presuming everybody is guilty either go through three basic reasons why they have a much more immigration in policy because the consequences to the united states is positive from the economic perspective they have also over traditions
support this for every single perspective and from western civilization to tie the match as they go so consequences or economics there is the net effect of various little disagreement broadly they agree on three big things free trade is good that it is good for the economy does matter how good is it that is the big disagreement on the right side and on the left side the number one issue that people think about with the economy is the impact of american wages.
to have a simple supply and demand model that should lower wages that is the number one basics of economics of by would increase the number of apples we would expect the number of apples or the price to fall. but something different happens because apple's stock by other apples but immigrants by the services of others to increase demand for labor. most studies find a lot of them find is positive as well. why is that the economy is dynamic not static if we increase that supply and and nothing else changes but the rest of the economy adjusts. with the increase is due to population over time so
there is very little competition so which economist differentiate and that means we compete in the labor market the mes area different skills to work together but the low skill emigration in the industry labor over communication skills because one of the advantages is to speak english because americans don't learn another language. i have no intention and to do so and i lived in europe for everybody speaks seven languages but fortunately they also speak english.
in the all-star bumped up that require communication skills. so they are the busboys and the dishwashers or the customers to speak english with the waiter or the way to restore the hostess to buy goods and services rather people such to increase demand for the u.s. economy so one of the most interesting things social worker produces $20 of value
that is the maximum wage he could possibly be paid because he produce is that amount of what is interesting if the wages were to increase because of a decrease that means the price of the product must go up. that is the actual result so that would increase of wages would be offset by the price of the goods that they built and also the source of wealth does not necessarily the dollar amount on the paycheck but what you could buy with those goods in and services. immigration in is of mutual exchange the cost is not fully internalized to all people who were involved in that transaction if we have such a standard that immigration should only be
allowed for all cost benefits are internalized than that would wipe out any sort of economic transaction that goes on. furthermore to be in favor of the free market it shows us we should show a relatively free labor compensation and we have the largest portion of gdp feel like free markets and free trading competition we should be willing to open up this part of the united states to more free trade in this area. if he thinks the increase of the supply of labor would decrease wages ask yourself why our wages so much lower in wyoming where there are fewer people that higher places where there are more people? there a lot more things going on and what about welfare? i worked at the cato institute i am concerned about the welfare state that
all the arguments you're against immigration is against the welfare state to begin with that we should build a wall of rounded rather than and chopping off immigration but you could make the argument there should be mandatary dietary restrictions because they socialize part of that health care industry so with the free marketeers but the problem is socialized medicine isn't that easy eat too much but to justify another intervention in another area with those restrictions are the free movement of people but for immigrants are less likely to consume welfare than for americans and then the dollar value is smaller.
vote for radical left-wing parties destroy capitalism and destroy our institution? as far as we can see we don't find that affect either the united states or internationally. what's interesting to point out is if you take a look at the per-capita expenditures in the federal government in the united states by far the period of time there was the most rapid increases between 1930 and 1970 when there is virtually impossible to immigrate lawfully in the sewer from northern europe. the federal government expenditure per-capita increased 17 full during that time period. in 1970 when it immigration has been liberalized you have seen an increase in immigration. prior to 1930 and the 30 years from 1900 to 1930 assad doubling but interestingly enough immigration was closed off was when you saw the largest increase in the size of federal
government. i'm not claiming immigration is the reason why the federal government slow to post the opening of the border but i'm saying if you're going to make a claim that immigrants are going to increase the size of government you have a lot of historical explained to do. in fact an adjunct scholar at the center for immigration studies and a labor economist supports broad immigration restrictions because it makes possible weisbrod increases in federal government and social safety nets. what do we do we take a look at the economic freedom score across the world and united states? is true of course that economic freedom creates more frustrating countries and more prosperity attracts immigrants so we try to see if there's any effective immigrants say in 1970 and how it affects economic freedom in every decade after that and each country around the world to see if there's some kind of a fact
to see if there's a slowing in liberalization of economies around the world and may actually find a positive effect. we find a positive effect that immigrants over time are correlated with increases in economic freedom over time as well even on the national level the united states and we find different results of the state level the united states but still if you're going to make the claim that immigration is going to destroy free markets or force people or move the political spectrum against free markets you still have explaining to do because the correlation does not support that. size and means tested welfare benefits over time in a state across states fortunately the states have very different sizes of the immigrant population very different democrats -- demographics and control over means tested welfare benefits. what we find is there's no correlation from 1972,010 between a size and intensity of the flows of immigrants the size of a minority populations increase because of immigration on the size and means tested
welfare benefits. we see no impact over time. you can also tell a similar story about guns or support for banning handguns in nine states based on gallup poll. support for banning handguns and this is important to me as a gun enthusiast there is an argument out there that immigrants are very opposed to guns and they will vote for gun restrictions. interestingly enough support for banning handguns peaked in the 1950s and the period of time unlawful immigration between the united states was at its lowest ebb and now we have seen a decrease in support for banning handguns down into the low to mid-20s% as a percentage of population is foreign-born has increased. again i'm not than immigration has caused the popular opinions or these effects i'm describing just that if you are going to claim the opposite you have a lot of explaining to do. what about ethical arguments? what about the arguments from our traditions about what is right or wrong and how to treat
people? where does that impact our perspective on immigration what immigration policy should be? i think we need to apply the same ethical standards we apply to the people and people have equal or more worth. of course we favor certain people over others. i favor my wife for instance i will do more to help her and they have more propagation toepfer then i have to help any of the rest of you. you are all fine people but that's a moral obligation and probably navigation to help people who are other americans more than i do other people. they're certainly a hierarchy of these obligations that just because i have a mouth addition to help somebody doesn't mean i can do everything possible to help them. what matters is how i can help them. my wife is applying for a job i can help her write her resume. i can proofread her letter for introduction. i can do research. i can help her pay for education to give her better skills. what i cannot do is tie the
other job applicants competing for that job for a tree to prevent them from applying for the same job. i can't block other people using coercion to do that and they think you can apply the same standards immigrants. now there isn't 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 is still not an argument to oppose immigration primarily because of our common law traditions. economic harms that arise through market competition or through competition are not a sufficient reason for protectionism. if i am meg baker on one street and you open up a bakery on the other street and you put me out of business because you sell it better loaf of bread i can't see you. it's called injuria.
because i participate in a market economy and take those risks. in terms of the same thing goes for immigration freedom of contract in our system even with immigrants is more important than supporting notions of economic protectionism that build barriers of big government to protect certain people from competition with other immigrants. what about our national rights tradition? individual rights to life liberty and private property preceded the creation of the state enlightenment classically liberal tradition and lock in these different writers can see the creation of the state and people of equal ethical and moral worth. the decoration of independence listed restrictions on immigration actualization is one of the many reasons for seeking their independence. the classical notion of laissez-faire which have all heard has to do with the free do with free-market economies in old french phrase was patterned and timed with them often phrased with the other phrase
laws they pass their which means let them pass, let people pass and move to economic institutions to freedom. freedom to move as a prerequisite for the freedoms we enjoy as well as the freedom in another cell. immigration restrictions create laws that have no basis in human rights. i'm sorry no basis in natural rights. he cannot find a justification and nash -- natural rights theory which is the foundation for our system of government that supports immigration restrictions for these reasons. what about utilitarianism and other proud western philosophical tradition? the economic argument about voluntary mutual aid different exchanges are wealth producing and should be allowed. they produce more wealth than they destroyed other areas in the same light capitalism and other areas are good. under each of these ethical systems under these ways of judging at all western in origin and traditions borders are ethically irrelevant.
and for that are the reasons they are ethically irrelevant. what about the rule of law and important arguments? we supposedly can't legalize large members of unlawful immigrants or change immigration laws substantially because it would violate the rule of law. the rule rule of law is important tradition in the united states and one that has helped us prosper in the united states but laws must be based on an accurate account of human nature. they cannot be based on the whims of legislators are social engineers who have decided that the u.s. population must be based on some sort of arbitrary standard of who we accept like immigration restrictions are. rule of law does not all laws are enforced equally. we can think of lots of buzz in american history that were heinous that were pretty bad as well as other countries. the main three portions of the rule of law are that they should generally be applied equally they should be ex ante
relatively predictable outcomes and consistent with our traditions. all three of those are required. immigration laws fail on each and every one of those. they are inconsistent with our traditions of welcoming immigrants united states from 17921875. we had open borders in this country and grassley after that point more and more restrictions place until the 1920s when there's almost total close-up there is the world. equally applied they are certainly not equally applied laws. they treat people differently based on skills country of origin family status and things that would be unacceptable in other areas of the law. they are certainly not ex ante. many people who have the same characteristics and applied the same be said to have radically different outcomes. if you want people to respect their impression was and i greased the laws must be respect -- respectable i think currently they are not respectable. william f. buckley junior said the laws attempting to stop
immigration when the same category as king candidate standing on the beach ordering the tide not to comment. i think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of reality of how the world works that they can minutely control and stop immigration or at least the vast majority of it. whether there's a disconnect whenever there's a disconnect between law and reality reality finds a way of making the law relevant. in conclusion i will say relatively free immigration or open immigration is the exact opposite of the big government policy because it would mean removing some of the most economically destructive laws currently on the books today. a free trade results in more japanese cars being imported we don't say the government forced japanese cars and to the u.s. through big government program. we say the market allowed americans to import cars from japan. if we were to radically liberalized the american immigration laws and the same
thing would take effect it would allow more immigrants to come here lawfully to be employed by americans and engage in voluntary market. the present value of all american human capital the skills and productivity of other values of american productivity is worth about $750 trillion. that's compared to the value of all of our physical factories plans computers but it's only $45 trillion. if you believe in free markets if you believe free trade and free exchange and capitalism are the right economic systems we should definitely expose this rather large u.s. economy that is currently protected to international competition and cooperation. their massive economic gains to liberalize immigration consistent with american traditions. it's consistent with their exceptional ability to assimilate people over time which has not changed by the way according to all the measures done by jacob big dork who has
measured this and every one -- so free movement -- in conclusion basically on all the western ethical principles that i have talked about our traditions of american liberty and freer immigration in the past support for the rule of law and positive economic benefits i think the united states should support a rather open immigration policy that allows peaceful and healthy 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 that alex said was wrong. i want i'll spend the next 25 minutes telling you why. the first question of immigration policy is whether
the american people have a right to limit immigration. alex argues no. frankly making the whole rest of the presentation irrelevant. freedom of movement into someone else's country is a natural right as alex claims that it doesn't 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 really and only 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 or farms have the exclusive right to decide for themselves whether
they want to move to the united states are not and we don't get a vote. if the american people have a right to self-determination, 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. this doesn't imply to 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 prohibited from limiting immigration to the united states then debate is irrelevant. essentially it's 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 the american people have the right through laws duly
enacted by their elected representatives to set the terms of admission into their natural home. in other words immigration is a privilege that need grant to people not a right that people are able to claim against us. this entails no policy in particular. from that starting point you would argue for high immigration or low immigration an emphasis on skills or family relationships are something else. you could argue for a more simplified streamlined system of managing immigration or a very complicated and bureaucratic one but it is we collectively as a people through the arrangements we have established in our constitution to get to decide who comes here and who does not, not the outsiders. given that what should we do? in my half of the booklet i offer a unified field theory of immigration policy based on the premise that mass immigration is
incompatible with the goals and characteristics of 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 this also could -- physical security a strong sense of shared natural identity a responsible system of social provision for the poor. mass immigration undermines all of these goals. this is a change from the past and the change is not the change in immigrants. today's immigrants aren't all that different from the immigrants of 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 the united states. immigration a century ago even then was a tumultuous and unsettling process 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 to make it quite successful. it was an important tool of nationhood. it was the only one -- we are not just a nation of immigrants but among other things a nation of immigrants. that is no longer the case then it's time to move on. to borrow from st. paul who were to the christians when i was a child i spake as a child and i understood as a child and thought as a child but when i became a man i put away childish things. mass immigration is one of those childish things that a grown-up america has to put aside. let me touch briefly on the more important areas of conflict between mass immigration in modern society 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 posterity and to patriotic americans identifying the american people as their people and the american past is their past adopting in a sense of america's past is their own even if there was a battle with their biological ancestors. it different scriptural quote describing what real assimilation would say. when a foreigner riffs a foreigner ruth says to her israelite mother-in-law naomi where wears about goest i will go and where they'll lodge i will lodge. though people shall be thy people and my god my god. there i will be buried. that is assimilation and that has to be the chief consideration or among the chief
considerations in making immigration policy and to changes in us not in immigrants matter here and make assimilation much more complicated problem and much more lengthy but -- link the phenomenon and that is one the revolution in transportation and communications technology that i shrunk the world and two the elites loss of commitment to the goal of patriotic as the mullahs -- assimilation. as briefly the technological changes are obvious to everybody communications is frankly always free at this point with skype. you can call anywhere in the world. transportation travel is dramatically less expensive than it was in the past and what this does and obviously it has many positive effects and i'm all for it but in the immigration context it eliminates the need
the sort of pressure forcing immigrants to reorient their emotional and psychological attachments from the old country to the new country. this is something that people would not naturally do. people are going to maintain the kind of connection and feeling about the place they came from. you don't have that there's 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 and the crossroads, the last musical number the name of the village and it's a bittersweet song where this place was terrible. in a sense they are lucky to be rid of it. on the other hand it was theirs. it was where they came from. they loved it and that's a natural human emotion. it is necessary to get beyond that to have the kind of real
deep psychological assimilation that's necessary and modern technology makes that more difficult. in the past if you would hop on a plane and go to your aunt's funeral in palermo for a long weekend or even called now you can. there's nothing wrong with doing this. this is a natural human thing but it means the process of uprooting and re-routing does not happen the same way. there's a series of swedish immigrants. there was a movie made called the immigrants and it's a four book series sort of their version of words. the final edition of the book is called the last letter home because the immigrant family moved to minnesota or wisconsin and 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 it doesn't have to be. that fundamentally changes the calculation of assimilation.
the second factor in assimilation and this is obviously a 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 in the 30s and 40s and her parents brought her to school in the unspoken compact was the school was going to teacher reading writing and arithmetic and also what it is to be an american. they didn't know, they just got here. immigrant parents make the same tacit compact today. what did my mother learn quick she memorized the gettysburg address learned that george washington was the father of our country and saying hail to columbia. do you think they are doing that than the unified school district today or the new york schools or
chicago or miami or any of the places that immigrants are living? no and it's not the immigrants who are doing it. immigrants aren't saying hey i demand culturalism. it is our elites that are not only permitting this but encouraging it. the second area of this conflict is security. the same revolution in transportation technology has created a different security environment one where the homefront isn't just a metaphor but the actual front the one that really matters. our most immediate enemies are not foreign armies but shadowy terrorist groups transnational criminal organizations. as the 9/11 commission staff on immigration noted quote is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks 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 horse-drawn buggy and some dynamite in the back? you could blow up something. you could kill some people and that happened in the past that the kind of threat that represented to us and the kinds of threats that we now are facing are qualitatively different and mass immigration compounds or efforts at maintaining our people security. there were two main ways it does this. one comment overwhelms her administrative capacity to screen out bad guys. and number two it creates an constantly refreshes the insular immigrant community that unwittingly serves as cover in incubators for bad guys. the peer craddick overload is pretty clear. the need for bureaucratic screening security related screening of immigrants is
obvious. most foreign terrorists have been immigration -- we have documented this a great length and they could've been stopped or retain consistent immigration enforcement something which is within our capacity if we wanted to do it. the 9/11 hijackers not a single one of them should've been granted a visa to the united states, not because somebody magically knew what was in their minds but because none of them met the basic criteria in our immigration laws having to demonstrate that you have equities back home that will lead you to return and not stay illegally. the fort dix plotters who were stopped before they were able to carry out their attacks were illegal border crossers. i made a ahca leafy who plotted against the capital foiled in 2012 was like so many others of these overseer and without a tracking system we have no idea which people have overstayed their visas and which have not.
this crush is such that all three layers of our immigration security the visa offices abroad our border patrol agents and border inspectors at the borders and their i.c.e. officers and adjudicators inside the country are overwhelmed and respond in the way you would expect in overwhelms preppers it to respond. they rubberstamp and way people through as a kind of active demoralized act of despair because there is no other alternative for it. the other security related issue is safety essentially that mass immigration creates insular immigrant communities and this essentially is understood about now. the people or the sea and the army are the fish while in the
same sense whether somalis in minneapolis salvadorans in washington constantly reinforced through new immigration resources that separateness and provides similar to the way italian immigrant communities provide a haven in breeding ground for the mafia. and when immigration was stopped those communities assimilated. the american-born young people had a real buy-in. they were americanized it may no longer were suffused in a sicilian old worldview of the outsider being the enemy and the kind of threat perceived. if you drain to see it makes it harder for mouth factors to find cover and to raise money to enforce discipline to recruit sympathizers. as one author's's observation
this is relevant he was writing about chinese criminal organizations and it applies more generally. he wrote it for mass immigration of chinese should come to a hault to chinese gangster may disappear in a blaze of assimilation. economics. mass immigration legal as well as illegal floods of low skill labor market and this matters because we are a very different kind. we are no longer settling lands as jack kennedy pointed out in nation of immigrants which was not intended to increase immigration at all but it was used for those purposes. we are not undergoing the process of industrialization and yet we are importing 19th century labor into the 21st century economy. this isn't to say that alex is wrong in saying immigration creates an economic benefit. it does.
george borjas recently calculated and his calculation was that the users of immigrant labor either the increase -- incomes increased to the tune of $437 billion a year. that's the cheaper let us and the cheaper restaurants. it's not all that cheaper. it's pennies on the dollar for a head of let us for instance but there's clearly an increase in the end come or profits of native-born americans from immigration. the flipside though is that those americans who compete with immigrants and their competitors see a 402 billion-dollar reduction in their incomes. americans are the least able to afford these sorts of things when you do the math it's roughly $35 billion net economic benefit to native-born americans from immigration. this is exactly the same population that george bush is
council of economic advisers publicize during the debate a number of years back. there are three problems with this though. $35 billion is trivial given the size of our economy. the benefit comes from impoverishing the people who can least afford to have their incomes go down in other words or redistributions program for the poor to everybody else and thirdly the entire set of economic benefits is wiped out by increased social service costs and that's the fourth issue i'm going to touch him with this conflict between mass immigration of modern society. a century ago government spending wasn't all that much. i tend to think it was something like 100 years ago all level of government consume something like 8% of gdp. today it's more than quadruple that share of the economy. taxes have to support a
dramatically greater government. robert rector of the heritage foundation has described as as saying transferred or redistribution are pervasive that now predominant government activity in all modern societies. we can say like many libertarians alex and others say well you know that's right so let's get rid of the welfare state instead of reducing immigration. my answer is not yourself out. call me when you get rid of the welfare state and we will have a debate about immigration. it's not going to happen. large government sector which i think should be made smaller tighter more responsibly run i'm a conservative but is it's not going away and it is the kind of if you will can opener in economics. assume i can number -- can opener economics that immigration would be great if we got rid of the welfare state. they can opener joke a physicist
and eight -- are isolated on a desert island. the chemist is heated up and it will blow up in the engineer says will take a rock and hit it in the economist says it's easy just assume a can opener. the fact is each family headed by a high stool -- high school dropout in the united states receive something like $38,000 more for taxpayers at all government levels, 38,000 a year more than he pays into taxis. essentially that's the cost of her mercedes 300 sedan every year from the taxpayers. what that means is every immigrant family that we admit headed by someone who does not have a high school education that admission is obligating the american taxpayer to buy him a mercedes every year. the problem here is not that immigrants are coming here to rip us off.
it's the mismatch between their low levels of skill and education and the post-industrial knowledge-based economy that creates this reality. the idea that we can wall off as alex said while the immigrants off from the welfare state is a fantasy. if there was less gravity i could run faster but on this planet there isn't any less gravity and on this planet we have done an experiment attempting to wall immigrants off from the welfare state. that was part of the 1996 welfare reform and the welfare reform overall was quite successful until her current occupant of the white house rolled some of that back. 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 just a question of who the immigrant was getting
his welfare check from instead of any reduction in welfare and immigrant groups that have the highest use of welfare also have the highest increases in naturalization and one sources and those welfare rules don't apply to any more. once you let in a low-skilled person into a moderate society those costs to taxpayers are inevitable and unavoidable and can't complain about it because you have created a situation where these people will be using benefits. it's not because they are lazy. work and welfare actually go together now. 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 and that actually is a good proxy for immigrants. so what do we do?
let me spend a couple of minutes on what should legal immigration policy be. all immigration flows have three components family skills and humanitarian. dan immigration should be limited to husbands wives and little kids because my starting point in thinking about what immigration policy should be is we don't need any but that doesn't means they're immigration that means zero-based budget. he started zero and see which groups of people have such a compelling case that we let the men anyway. number one is husbands wives and kids of u.s. citizens. that's a third may be even more than a third of today's current immigration flow anyway. second genuine einstein's. people have decided that our immigration policy has this einstein -- and we are leading in some. we are living in lots of
ordinary people with average skills who are not by any stretch of imagination -- and humanitarian immigration. this is a government-run charity program and i'm uncomfortable with anything like that but if we do it we should be limited. congress thought it was voting for 50,000 refugees a year low 30 plus years ago in a passive refugee law. it's never been that long and it should be confined to people who generally have nowhere else to go and never will have anywhere else to go. that doesn't describe many of the people we have met today is quote refugees unquote. you end up with half or less of the current immigration flow may be 400,000 immigrants a year. still more immigrants for permanent settlement in the united states and all the countries in the world put together anyway. it's just a lot less than we have now and reduces the impacts these counter modern immigration
and let me say a couple of sentences on how we get there because part of the contest -- context is what is going on the policy debate. i laid this art -- out in an article in national review this year in the way it's usually approached how do we deal with this illegal population what to do about legal population usually the way this is approach is essentially a constantly 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's essentially what congress passed your them but the senate passed lester is well with the addition instead those pieces need to be rearranged. enforcement has to come first not promised in the future but actually implemented rolled out surviving challenge.
things like universal use of the e-verify system. these are tracking so visitors will know when visitors leave. once that is in place it doesn't solve everything but it demonstrates a commitment to enforce the law. then we have a different grand bargain than the one that the gang of eight and president obama and john mccain and everybody else wants which is legalization amnesty for significant a significant share of the illegal immigrants who are still here in exchange for the permanent cuts in legal immigration in the future. thank you. [applause] >> let me begin i apologize to roger and my fellow panelists who are here because of family
health problem requires me to -- out of here soon as i have made room my remarks that i find myself agreeing with so much of what both mark and alex have said that i must be setting some kind of record for cognitive dissonance. hold on a second. talking just now about the senate immigration bill. much discussed in rarely seen. there it is. [laughter] 1197 pages. it has to be that long because the senators as well-known know everything. they know for example with the hourly wage of an immigrant animal sorter in 2016 should be $9.84 in case you are wondering which is 20 cents more than the
hourly wage of immigrant nursery worker in 2016. it's all in here. did you know that nevada is a border state? [laughter] you laugh and i know you are thinking about what chico marx said in a movie duck soup are duck soup are you going to believe me or your eyes? i know technically the southern tip of nevada is 164 miles north of the border doesn't matter. there's another $20 billion a border security and the majority leader of the senate in another few days wanted nevada to have its share at the trough. this is what you do when you do comprehensive legislation and you have to pass it in order to find out what's in it and i will give you a taste of it. this unimpressive two-page thing is the homestead act of 1862 which in some ways was their
first immigration line certainly is one of the half dozen or so important pieces of legislation ever passed. the parchment copy in the archives is four pages long. still it's 1993, 1993 pages shorter than this. this was their first immigration law and 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 united states which was identified on many maps of the time. that is all the area west of the mississippi is the great american desert. it was short because it was simple and 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 was still doing things until 1970.
this is how you don't legislate and what we should learn of course with regard to immigration is the lesson of the compromise of 1850. henry clay decided to have a comprehensive solution to america's problems at that time and so he put together a package that dealt with the fugitive slave act the texas and mexico border california stated interior for other things. when it failed way took his tuberculosis off to rhode island to take the sea breezes and stephen a. douglas shopping this up into four or five pieces of legislation which he did. there were 60 senators when he started in 62 when he finished because 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 the third is what to do with the 11 to 12 million illegals who are here. with regard to border security i simply note that a border
there is precious little empirical evidence that a substantial number of immigrants are coming here for the purpose of being on welfare. i think immigration is inherently an entrepreneurial act is uprooting oneself and often one's 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 her needs the welfare state of course exists to transfer wealth to the working young and middle-age they were tired overly and former pensions and health care. that's fine. when i get a fuller became in 1940 the first american to receive the regular monthly social security checks she presaged the problem because she abated a grand total of $22 in social security taxes and then turned on her country collecting $24,000 in social security benefits which didn't matter that time because there were 40 workers for every retiree. they are our three today for every retiree. when the baby boomers have retired in 2030 and the average age of the population coast coast-to-coast is higher than it is today in florida which is justly known as gods -- 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 and 2010. this is a grinding arithmetic that we are going to have to deal with. it is the case of course that is as has been said that the question of independence abraded george iii for among many other things interfering with the naturalization of immigrants and quote quote refusing laws to encourage their migrations hither. but it seems to me among the things we would pass to chop up the immigration bill into a manageable thing is the so-called stem piece for the
particularly talented. it is absurd that we have the world's greatest research universities filled with graduate students from overseas who are trained to add extraordinary value to economies but not two hours because they are then invited to leave. third what do we do at the illegals? in politics it is 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 lot 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 a substantial number of immigrants have been here five and even 10 years and a substantial number,
that is millions, the head children here and the children are american citizens. we are not going to deport american citizens or their parents. so where does this lead us? the 11-point 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 discontent on immigration and it really began in 1882 with the chinese exclusion act. passed in part with restrictions in response to nativists and nationalists labor unions in particular progressives who is part of their yen yam for social engineering they want to control the population the composition of the population and of course
at that time there were a great many eugenicists among the progressives and they thought they knew to what could be and who should not be americans for eugenic reasons. i tend to come down i think it's 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 their children of immigrants including at&t goldman sachs proctor & gamble craft google ebay intel pfizer and sigma. it seems to me one doesn't want to exaggerate the einstein component or the component of the founders of fortune 500 companies that they are a fact. it's also a fact and i thought mark was particularly interesting and instructive on the problems of immigration of assimilation i would say this
when vietnam fell in 1975 after that we took in 1 million vietnamese 175,000 of them 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 one of the worst periods of economic opportunity in american history. by 19824 years later the employment rate for these 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 the problem is not immigrants, it is the elites that have low
confidence and low affection for the united states to which we want these people to assimilate. it also is the case and i believe this is david hanson's hanson davis's phrase that the atlantic ocean was for earlier immigrants a psychological guillotine that severed them from europe particularly before boeing and airbus democratized air travel. the rio grande river doesn't 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 that the average immigrant probably dreads most about the american high school. there's nothing like sex drugs and rock 'n roll to make a young person in america and in a hurry and i have a feeling that is working.
i would 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 walls but the walls had doors. that's not however where his quote ends. the walls had doors and the doors were ronald reagan said open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. that's how i saw it and see it still. i think that puts me somewhat more in alex's camp than in marks but deeply conflicted all the way. [applause] >> i will talk from here.
in the encounter of broadside we have two diametrically opposed views of immigration policy that both arguments come from the center-right. one is libertarian alex and nowrasteh 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 that is limited constitutional government of free-market economy the individuals opposed to group rights vibrant civil society and the judeo-christian enlightenment cultural heritage. if we do that were fundamentally
transform america into a european-style social democracy? this issue goes beyond the question of who wins the presidential election in 2016 but concerns the future of the american regime writ large. it's in this context we are examining immigration policy. alex and mark basically agree on the big issue. they would both like to transmit america's limited government regime to future generations but how to get there they can't both be right. they are speaking totally 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 to make a contract with any other individual any where in the world. and 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 this scenario the nation trumps. alex states america's core founding principle is enlightenment period of natural rights and freedom is indispensable and immigrants ability to move infringes on the natural rights of americans who would like to hire them. alex says this was part of the view of the american founders and immigration restrictions cannot be based in economic protectionism and interestingly in his paper what is calls cultural protectionism. with the exception of those who wish us harm as global freedom of movement a founding american principle quite well this question was answered directly by governor morris the author of the preamble of the constitution according to madison's notes on the constitution at the constitutional convention. governor morris said quote every society from a great nation down to a club has a right of
declaring convictions on which new member should be admitted. the founders believed at the heart of republican government they were republican small r at the heart of republican self-government is first and foremost the right of a free people to govern themselves. government by consent of the government to illegal immigrants who come to the country are here without the consent of the government and that's the main problem. the moral right of self-governing free people have a right to determine immigration and conditions for accepting immigrants is governor -- governor morris said. but alex is arguing is we the people of the united states don't have the moral right to reproduce ourselves or to rule ourselves. the american founders supported what i call paige reddick assimilation.
there's an interesting letter from president george washington to vice president john adams november the 15th 1794. washington wrote my opinion with respect to immigration is except for useful mechanics in some particular professions there is no need of encouragement. the policy of settling them in the body may be question and retain the language habits and principles good or bad which they have brought with them where is by mixture with their people they and their descendents will be assimilating to our customs measures and laws. in a word we will soon become one people. the following year 1795 another naturalization act in which is that immigrants should open -- openly repudiate allegiance. i renounce my allegiance to king george iii but also the immigrants would go before a
court of admission to show they were attached to the principles of constitution in a good merrill -- moral imperative. washington's language habits customs the congress has acted 1795 that could moral character doesn't sound very libertarian to me. in fact washington is endorsing cultural protectionism have a language principle custom. those are cultural things. he is endorsing cultural protection. the founders were not simply enlightened liberals who believed only in the free market but as leo strauss famously argued there were two important pre-enlightenment pre-liberal pre-moderate residues. one was classical republicanism and the other was religion. athens and jerusalem was also part. what about assimilation today? alex states from the book quote
civic and cultural measures of assimilation not proceeding successfully and states a study bite figure. if someone naturalized and became a citizen kasem -- civically assimilated. these are not majors have assimilation. there's nothing about the deeper feelings. i can think of one political activist who would be civically assimilated under big doric material. his name is gustavo torres. ..
than assimilation over 20 survey questions over a patriotic attachment that reveals a large gap between native-born and naturalizes since. the question was asked to consider sell primarily an american citizens or citizens of the world? of 30-point gap on the question. 84% of native-born americans 54% those who took the oath said american. another question was asked if there was a conflict between the constitution and international law what should be the highest legal authority for americans? there was the 30-point gap's 67% constitution should take parity over native born but 37 percent of naturalized
said it should be constitution for public education of the school focused with the rights and responsibilities of citizenship as opposed to each ethnic identity and pride of their own ethnic group. >> bell the 49% -- and i agree when henderson and we should not blame the immigrants for american leaps is schools in incorporations. for sending you covers the wrong message to assimilate into multiculturalism.
george mentioned americanize schools. to show there was a survey done when kids enter the ninth grade after four years of american high-school they're less likely to consider themselves an american with those to identify considerably as americans said to have certain aspects of the culture. so the past. called back to the past. to july 4th and americanization of woodrow wilson or very few people in
this room publishing a at woodrow wilson speaking to do citizens the cannot dedicate yourself to america of less you become in every respect every purpose for the american you cannot become american if you think of yourself in the group's. it does not consist of national groups fellows have not yet become an american. amanda echoes among you upon in your nationality is now worth the side of the stars and stripes. >> this sounds like george washington. three cheers for woodrow
wilson. of course, i'd like woodrow wilson's day today's progressive vision of america, was a nationalist progressive but today it is based on gender before progress is the purpose is to oppress the group's. so with those marginalized groups and all aspects of society of the 21st century progressive with bilingualism the progressive version to be seen in that context.
ic the libertarian version of the project and from the cato is to share research coming on the ideological spinnings with the rapid assimilation in the third generation i assume that means more libertarian means. but those gains would be wiped out. looking forward to the cater research but looking at current research and ideological opinions. in order to of a bigger government with fewer taxes among the general public 40% smaller government among the
immigrant latinos is 81% to 0 percent smaller government. all latinos and developers a larger government. with asians 55% bigger government. with muslims 60% bigger government so for example, d support abortion is 31% within the margin of error. the university of maryland professor of saree said all counties excuse me, all counties in the in the grip share of the vote has increased the republican
percentage has decreased and of course, these matters will change their much like yesterday's a thai immigrants. but now one of these panels fivers six years ago i asked michael how long it took me to remember his answer is something about 70 years. >> that was six years ago. [laughter] in the future to be open end to arguments put the problem
today is the influx coming from elsewhere to keep the percentage down it was once a conservative state. >> if we continue it would be the future of the united states but california today is it neopopulist society. with the silicon valley in hollywood the feudalistic the oligarchs are ideologically defended with the old clergy of feudal days that consist of academics and intellectuals.
id using with the fewest analogy and then to be servile large number of low-skilled people that include native born and immigrants that have little chance of upward mobility against the prevailing institutions of california although they remain in the fact. so why did immigration succeeded the 20th century? the big reason it succeeded it was so successful was the passage of immigration legislation in 1924 signed and supported by calvin coolidge who believe did natural rights to clear the
facilitated the assimilation process this action is almost never discussed for obvious reasons with the defense argument said northern present -- prejudicial is so there is a whole range of baggage this is not the word that coolidge used as president he did favor limiting overall immigration includes addresses the congress december 6, 1923 that americans institutions rely solely and good citizenship we should not be limited to our capacity to sort them into the ranks of good
citizenship. said he is echoing the views of the founders of progressive woodrow wilson if you want to see where the american founders were then pick up the book by tom west for gore has a whole chapter on immigration that very much disagrees with what alex has presented today. kucinich down the legislation a 24 he believed it was needed to americanize those already present. then they oppose this because in general is greatly limited immigration from italy overall but coolidge did judgment to facilitate deadbolt of the
perpetuation from the current solution i eight agree support like that was out why and in the book today and i will stop there. thank you. [applause] >> i have 1,197 page but i find myself in disagreement. which one of these things? why do we have to microphones? so i can speak out of both sides of my mouth? [laughter] i guess i find myself in some disagreement with the
preceding speakers. i am a west family i take that stage that kissinger makes reference to in his latest volume of world order has every right to exclude everybody if they want to. we don't have a moral responsibility to allow visitors we tend to do so or have done over the history and wisely so but idled think we have a moral obligation to let anybody in and. and fis myself in disagreement with martin and george. i think they overestimate the degree in which immigrants kept in touch
with the countries of origin. they did not have sky put the research i have done suggest that the letters did pass back-and-forth in the post office would operate more efficiently than and they do now. for in the engaged newspapers with revolutionary publications kept people in touch with movements of countries all of origin. there was some groups where people came here for a while, worked at a job then went back to their country of origin. by the '50s and '60s the primary economic sustenance of many communities in italy or greece were social security checks the titles that were picked up in dieters in new jersey from
occupations over the years. people went back and forth. some did not. fiddler on the roof that was referenced is a version of inspired by the jewish experience. immigrants from eastern europe almost never went back except those who wanted to build communism they were liquidated. that was not a recurring problem that the jews never wanted to go back to eastern europe. and much of the bid said history of that period it is written by those from whom that jewish experience was not the only experience but just one. i disagree on that point. with john my fellow sicilian
america and i will only remind him he needs to remember how good it feels to walk down the street when your kneecaps works the right way. [laughter] i disagree whether the cause of the immigration act of 1924 or the totalitarian position of the force of the individuals vastly promoted assimilation. to in told chin counterfactual history had we not had that immigration act looking at the numbers it definitely reduced immigration to over the calendar years but in the years of of great depression
even with those quotas were not met we would not have had much immigration between 300 or 45. most did not anticipate we would have some with the post immediate ruled for two years but it did down reduce the numbers. the reason we had assimilation working relatively better than it has at the present time was that we had deletes and institutions and even and professors the we have not been so lucky that i jumped professor turned president recently i do have disagreements but i tried to
see the issues through a historical lessons because i think that is a better way to understand and to plug my book shaping of our nation. which george made reference to in his comments that looks at the internal migration but what you see in the course of american history but by very large numbers of people use take unexpected the in with some predictions by experts from one place whether a broad reach within the country to another place in very large numbers they start of an expected the. the movements last just
wonder two generations. then they suddenly stop because of the passage of legislation. sometimes it just because. the reason is that propelled that were inoperative and off didn't analyze the economic phenomenon and it increases or decreases as a response to the business cycle i think there is something else involved. immigration is an unnatural act. a prove yourself going somewhere else is what random numbers of individuals to read in a given time of mass movements
through did not just did economics people don't move because they increase the minimum wage by $1 and 25 -- $1.25 an hour it is spiritual or cultural they migrate when you see migrations of large numbers people move in order to pursue dreams or escapes nightmares when the dreams cease to be in chanting then mass immigration and can stop just as suddenly as it began we cannot analyze streams just by economic criteria. but rather to understand what goes on not just in their head but in their heart locating at the historic migration of lee
scott irish and other parts of the british isles this started in the early 18th century but huge numbers says the part of pre-sustaining population in the war was named after the losers. never thought of that before but it is true. and the outbreak of the american revolution. andrews jackson's parents from 70 in 65:down the road of the shenandoah valley. the seaboard did not want them fighting people and then they go down through
the carolinas to move to acquire texas to get rid of this southeastern united states. and eventually start the mexican war that it gives us california. the award doesn't really resume we don't get a lot of immigration in their years because europe was at war and the seaboard commerce wusses risky. but then we get the big surge in the 1840's of irish catholics and germans protestants and catholics for the irish come here to escape the famine in shows
was 8,008,041 it is 5 million today no other parts have been depopulated with mass immigration as ireland has been. we have the germans that the irish settled in the city's the first mass migration said germans go to farms they are attracted by the homestead act of the resettlement of sweden and norway wisconsin and the dakota is somebody said socialism would work here because it works is a sweet in my response is that would work here if we had 380 million swedes. it may work in minnesota. [laughter] the other 49 states is problematic.
we had significant problems to assimilate the irish particularly i said that work comfortably with irish-american and sisters. a and high rates of crime, violence and substance abuse we get the politics of the 1850's the american party suddenly comes up shoved aside from dave political concessions in then emigrants give linkedin his margin of votes he needs to carry those northern states to be elected president. that continued half of a century and then it peters
out and 80 nates ireland the ceases to be a nightmare antar may a is a growing politically. suddenly as ellis island takes over and then we are screening peregrines to make sure is a do not have contagious diseases, thin immigration incessantly comes from different sources. once again, the multi-ethnic nation's. so you get set to use the etfs those from the austria hon period in empire or the of northern part of italy
and they were pursuing the entry of the quality with the nationalist discontented and those who were in in minorities america was held out on eliot of economic opportunity, it was. with the unskilled could move up more rapidly but a nation where you could have first-class equal citizenship. ellis eyelids emigration and ends abruptly in 1940 resumes for a few years with the irish immigration it is larger it magnitude as a percentage of a pre-existing population than any we have
seen for the last 30 years to or three times as large. the challenges are not unfamiliar they seem daunting in the thoughts from ellis island that they could assimilate northern europeans because they come from our culture but the other peoples are not believe americans the country generally can do that successfully and as i mentioned a little think the passage of the 1924 act except the country quotas proportionate to that contribution to the american population of 8090 that ellis island did you not need apply. and a state that was critical is the assimilation but i do think problems of immigration today are