tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN October 5, 2016 2:15pm-6:21pm EDT
new homes. they say we can no longer afford to sit back and let the market take its course. or glasgow who established high quality and flexible work paces for start up high growth conditions in dynamic new sectors or right here in liverpool set to be at the global forefront of a new wave of technology, the home to census city, a 15 million pound business hub that aims to create 300 start up businesses and 1,000 jobs over the next decade and there are many other examples. it's a proud labour record, each and every labour councillor deserved our heart felt thanks for the work they do and difficulties they endure in doing it. [ applause ] >> but i want to go further because we want local government to go further and put public enterprise back into the hearts of our economy and services to
meet the needs of local communities. municipal socialism for the 21st century has an engine of local growth and developments. that's why i'm announcing that labour will remove the artificial borrowing cap and allow councils to borrow against their housing stock. that single measure alone -- [ applause ] >> -- that single measure alone would allow them to build an extra 12,000 council homes a year. labour councils increasingly have a policy of an in-house as the preferred provider and many councils have brought ben collections, counselors and services in-house. to save money for council taxpayers and ensure good terms and conditions for their staff. [ applause ]
>> i have said that labour will put security at work and employment and union rights from day one center stage, but one in six workers in britain are now self-employed. their right to value their independence but for too many it comes with insecurity and a woeful lack of rights. so we will review arrangements for self-employed people including social security that social -- that self-employed people pay for this their taxes yet aren't fully covered by it. we will ensure that successful innovators have access to the finance necessary to take their ideas to the next level, grow their businesses and generate employment. so as part of our workplace 2020 review we will make sure that our tax and social security arrangements are fit for the 21st century, consulting with self-employed workers and the fed operation of small businesses. [ applause ]
>> if the tories are the party of cuts and short termism labour is the party of investing for the future. [ applause ] >> well term level of investment as other major economies we could be so much more, unlock so much skill, ingenuity and wealth that's why we will establish a national investment bank at the heart of our plan to rebuild and transform this country. and we will borrow to invest at historically low interest rates to generate far greater returns. it would be foolish not to because that investment is expanding the economy and the income it generates for us all in the process. even this government after years of austerity and savage cuts is
starting to change its tune. i'm not content with accepting second class broadband, not content with creaking railways, not content with seeing the united states and germany investing in cutting edge and green technologies while we lag behind. last year, for example, the prime minister promised a universal service obligation for ten mega bite broadband but since then the government has done nothing, letting down entrepreneurs, businesses and families, especially those in rural areas that want to grow their economy. that's why we've set out proposals for a national investment bank with 5$500 billion of investment to bring our broadband, railways, housing and infrastructure up to scratch. [ applause ] >> a country that doesn't invest is a country that has given up,
that has taken the path of managed decline. a labour government will never accept second best for this country. [ applause ] >> our country's history is based on individual ingenuity and collective endeavor. we are the country of lovelace, turrig, brew nell, sara guppy, george stevenson, brilliant people that made so much and developed so much, but the tories have turned their back on this proud british tradition. they've put privatization and cutting spending first. britain spends less on research on a share of national income than france, germy, the u.s. and china. a labour government will bring research and government up to 3%
of gdp. [ applause ] yesterday rebecca long-bailey set out the terms of our industrial strategy review. we need an economy that works for every part of this country. so that no community is left behind. and today i'm asking everyone, businesses, academics, workers, trade unions and anyone who cares about our future prosperity to have a say in that review. we are a wealthy country and not just in terms of money. we are rich in talent, rich in potential. that's why we've proposed a comprehensive national education service at the heart of our program for government to deliver high quality education for all throughout our lives. [ applause ]
>> education has always been a core labour value, from the time of ellen wilkinson the mp for jarrow and education minister and before that and a national education service will be an essential part of the 21st century welfare state. in a rapidly changing economy people need to retrain or upgrade their skills without falling into debt. britain already lags behind others in productivity, partly that's about investing in technology and infrastructure and partly it's about investing in people and their skills. how can we build and expand the sectors of the future without a skilled workforce? but this conservative government has slashed adult education budgets, taking away opportunities for people who develop their skills and leaving businesses struggling to find the skilled workforce they need to succeed.
so today i'm offering business a new settlement. a new deal to rebuild britain. under labour we will provide the investment to rebuild britain's infrastructure. we will fund that investment because it will lead to a more productive economy, providing the basis on which our economy and our businesses can thrive. helping to provide over a million good jobs and opportunities for businesses. but investment in capital must include investment in human capital. the skilled workers needed to make our economy a success. so this is the deal labour will offer to business, to help pay for a national education service we will ask you to pay a little more in tax. we've already started to set out some of this, pledging to raise corporation tax by less than 1.5% to give an education maintenance allowance to college students, grants to university students so that every young learner can afford to support
themselves as they develop skills and get qualifications. [ applause ] >> business -- business shares in economic success and it must contribute to it, too. and i recognize that good businesses deserve a level playing field, so i also pledge to good businesses that we will clamp down on those that dodge their taxes. you should not be undercut by those that don't play by the rules. [ applause ] >> there is nothing more unpatriotic than not paying your taxes. frankly, it's an act of vandalism damaging our national health service, damaging older people's social care, damaging
younger people's education. so a labour government will make the shabby tax avoidance a thing of the past. [ applause ] >> our national education service is going to be every bit as vital as our national health service has become. and we recognize that education isn't simply about preparing for the workplace, it's also about exploration of knowledge and unlocking the creativity that's there in every human being. so all school pupils should have the chance to learn an instrument, take part in drama and dance, have regular access to a theater, gallery, museum in their local area. so that's why we will introduce an arts pupil premium to every primary school in england and wales and consult on the design and national rollout to extend this pupil premium to all
secondary schools. this will be 160 million boost -- blboost to schools to invest in projects that will support cultural activities for schools over the longer term. it could hardly be more different from the tory approach to education. their only plan is the return of grammar schools, segregation and second class schooling for the majority. [ applause ] >> and what a great job angela rainer is doing in opposing them in this. [ applause ] >> so this saturday 1st of october i want you to take this message into your community, that labour is standing up for education for all.
[ applause ] >> grammar schools are not the only way the tories are bringing division back into our society. they're also using the tried and tested tricks of demonizing and scapegoating to distract from their failures. whether it's single mothers, unemployed people, disabled people or migrants, tory failure is always someone else's fault. [ applause ] >> and those smears have consequences, from children being bullied in school to attacks on the street such as the rise in disability hate crime. i'm so proud of this party. in the last year we stood up to the government on cuts to disabled people's benefits and cuts to working families' tax credits and on monday our shadow work and pension secretary
debbie abrahams announced we would be scrapping the punitive sanctions regime and the degrading work capability assessment. [ applause ] >> as politicians, as political activists, as citizens we have zero tolerance towards those who whip up hate and division. stand together against racism, islamaphobia and anti-semitism and defend those being demonized. [ applause ] >> it's been shaming to our mult
multi-cultural society that assaults on migrants have increased sharply since the referendum campaign, a campaign that pedestrian ld myths and whipped up division. it isn't migrants that drive down wages, it's ex-employee testify employers and politicians who divide the labor market and rip up trade union rights. it isn't migrants who put a strain on our national health service, it only keeps going because of the migrant nurses and doctors who come here filling the gaps left by politicians who failed to invest in training. [ applause ] >> it isn't migrants that have caused a housing crisis it's a tory government that's failed to build homes. [ applause ] >> immigration can certainly put extra pressure on services, that's why under gordon brown labour set up the migrant impact
fund to provide extra funding to communities that have the largest you see rises in population. good plan, very effective. what did the tories do? they abolished it, then they demonize the migrants for putting pressure on services. a labour government will not offer false promises on immigration as the tories have done. we will not sow division, we will tackle immigration instead. whatever the outcome of brexit negotiations and make the changes that are needed. we will act to end the undercutting of workers' pay an conditions through the exploitation of migrant labor and agency working which would reduce the number of migrant workers in the process. [ applause ] >> and we will ease the pressure on hard-pressed public services that are struggling to absorb tory austerity cuts in communities absorbing new
populations. labour will reinstate the migrant impact fund and give extra support to areas of high migration using the visa levee for its intended purpose. and we will add a citizenship application fee levee to boost the fund. that is the labour way to tackle social tension, investment and assistance, not racism and division. [ applause ] >> this party campaigned hard to remain in the u mean union and i spoke at rallies from cornwall to aberdeen for our labour campaign to remain in reform. we did not convince millions of natural labour voters especially in those parts of the country left behind. left behind by years of neglect. now we have to face the future
together. we are not helped by pat niezing or lecturing those in our communities who voted to leave, we have to hear their concerns about jobs, public services, wages, immigration, a future for their children and we have to respect their votes and the decision of the british people. of course that does not mean giving a blank check to teresa may and her three-legged team of fractious breks a tears as they work up a negotiating plan but it's -- unfortunately they have a distraction from that because they have to squabble about whose turn it is to go to the country retreat each weekend. we have made it clear that we will resist a brexit at the expense of workers' rights and social justice. [ applause ] >> we've set out our red lines on employment, environmental and
social protection and on access to the european market. but we will also be pressing our own brexit agenda including the freedom to intervene in our own industries like steel without the obligation to liberalize or privatize public services. and building a new relationship with europe based on cooperation and internationalism. and as europe faces the impact of a refugee crisis fueled by wars across the middle east we have to face the role that repeated military interventions by british and other governments have played in that crisis. [ applause ] >> the chillcott report made absolutely clear the lessons to be learned from a disastrous invasion and occupation of iraq.
those lessons have still to be learned a decade [ inaudible ]. >> an arc of conflict that has displaced millions of people forcing them from their countries. that's why i believe it was right to apologize on behalf of the party for the iraq war. right to say that we learned a lesson. [ applause ] >> and right to say -- and right to say that such a catastrophe must never be allowed to happen
again. we need a foreign policy based on peace, justice and human rights. i tell you this today what great news it is to hear the peace treaty that's been agreed in columbia after 50 years of devastating war. [ applause ] >> and we need to honor our international treaty obligations on nuclear disarmament as much as we do on human rights and other things and encourage others to do the same. but we are a long way from that humanitarian vision. britain continues to sell arms to saudi arabia, a country the united nations says is committing repeated violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes in yemen. and on sunday it was good to stand alongside the yemeni community in liverpool who endorsed our call to end those arms sales to saudi arabia. just as the war crimes that are
going on in other places such as syria, there has to be a political solution to the conflict. [ applause ] >> so today i make it clear that under a labour government when there are credible reports of human rights abuses or war crimes being committed british arms sales will be suspended starting with saudi arabia. [ cheers and applause ] >> last year -- last year the votes we needed to win power went many different ways in all parts of our country while millions of our potential voters
stayed at home. many didn't believe that we offered an alternative that they wanted. it's true, there is an electoral mountain to climb, but if we focus everything on the needs and aspirations of middle and lower income voters, of ordinary families, if we demonstrate we've got a viable alternative to the government's failed economic policies i'm convinced, absolutely convinced we can build the electoral support that can beat the tories. this means -- [ applause ] >> this means being the voice of women, young people, pensioners, middle and low income workers, unemployed, self-employed, minority communities and those struggling with the impact of migration at work and everyone struggling to get on and secure a better life for themselves,
their communities. labour's vision for today as throughout our history is a struggle for equality. rampant inequality has become the great scandal of our time. sapg the potential of our society, tearing at its fabric. labour's goal is also about power. our aim could not be more ambitio ambitious. we want a new settlement for the 21st century in politics, in business, our communities with the environment and in our relations with the rest of the world. every one of us in the labour party is motivated by the gap of what our country is and what it could be. [ applause ] >> we know that in the sixth largest economy in the world the food banks stunted life chances
and growing poverty alongside wealth on an undreamt of scale are a mark of a shameful and totally unnecessary failure. [ applause ] >> we know -- we know how great this country could be for all its people with a new political and economic settlement. with new forms of democratic public ownership driven by investment in the technology and industries of the future, with decent jobs, education and housing for all, with local services run by and for people, not outsourced to faceless corporations. this is not backward looking, this is very much the opposite. it's the socialism of the 21st century. [ applause ] >> our job -- our job is now to win over the unconvinced of our
vision. only that way can we secure the labour government we need. let's be frank, no one will be convinced of a mission promoted by a divided party. we all agree on that. [ applause ] >> so i ask each and every one of us to accept the decision of the members, end the trench warfare and work together to take on the tories. [ cheers and applause ] >> anything else is a luxury
that the millions of people who depend on labour cannot afford. we know -- we know there will be local elections next may in scotland where we won three council by elections this summer, in wales -- thank you, labour scotland -- and in wales and across the counties in england. and there will be metro mary elections, too, including right here where my good friend steve rogram will be standing as labour's candidate. [ applause ] >> steve, best of luck. i will miss your comradeship, your humor, your criticism and your wonderful support. [ applause ]
>> and on the same way we're going to be electing andy burnham in manchester and scott simon in burnham. [ applause ] >> three big labour victories on the same day. are we agreed on that? >> but -- there's always a but, isn't there? we can also face a general election next year. whatever the prime minister says about snap elections there is every chance that teresa may will cut and run for an early election. so today we put ourselves on notice labour is preparing for a general election in 2017. [ applause ]
>> and we hope and expect all our members to support our campaign. we will be ready for the challenge whenever it comes. let's do it! let's do it and be ready for that challenge. let's do it in the spirit of the great scott's born liverpool football manager bill shankly. sorry, andy. don't go. don't go. don't leave. stay. stay. you're going to like it, andy, it's okay. the socialism i believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. that's how i see football and that's how i see life.
[ applause ] >> we are not all bill shanklies. each of us comes to our socialism from our own experiences. mine is shaped by my mom and dad, a teacher and engineer, both very committed socialists and peace campaigners. my mom's inspiration was to encourage girls to believe they could achieve anything in their lives. and i've met some of the pupils she taught. she inspired -- she inspired so many girls to take up science and engineering because of her example. i mean, my experience working as a volunteer teacher in jamaica when i was a young man taught me so much about the strength of communities, living in adversity and showing the most amazing solidarity to each other in poverty and in remote
communities and determined to achieve something collectively good for their entire community. [ applause ] >> and later i spent years as a union organizer in the national union of public employees representing low paid workers fighting for the national minimum wage, fighting for decent wages and conditions. unions make us strong, but also it's the determination of people could be strong for themselves and above all strong for each other that shapes me politics, shapes my ideas and shapes my values. [ applause ] >> as the great american poet langston hughes put it, i see that my own hands can make the world that's in my mind.
[ applause ] >> everyone here and every one of our hundreds of thousands of members have something to contribute to our cause. that's why we will unite, build on our policies, take our vision out to a country crying out for change. we are half a million of us and there will be many more. working together to make our country the place it could be. conference, united we can shape the future and build a fairer britain in a peaceful world. thank you. [ cheers and applause ]
following last night's vice presidential debate virginia senator tim kaine is campaigning in philadelphia. he will be talking about the economy and combined polls there by real clear politics show hillary clinton ahead in pennsylvania. senator kaine's rally is live on c-span. you can watch it at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> tonight on c-span a full slate of state race debates. it begins with the missouri governor's debate as governor jay nixon is term limited. after that arizona's first congressional district debate for the seat of ann kirkpatrick running against john mccain. live at 10:00 we will have the california senate debate for retiring senator barbara boxer. after that candidates vying for mike pence's seat in the indiana
debate. the second presidential debate is sunday evening at washington university in st. louis, missouri. watch our life coverage at 7:30 eastern for a preview of the debate and then at 8:30 eastern the pre debate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m. live coverage of the debate itself followed by viewer reaction with your calls, tweets and comments. the second presidential debate watch live on c-span, watch live at any time on demand at cspan.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. british prime minister teresa may addresses the conservative party conference for the first time as prime minister. the conference's first day was about the upcoming brexit negotiations which the prime minister recently announced would begin by the end of march. british foreign secretary boris johnson speaks later. >> 81 days ago i stood in front of 10 downing street for the
first time as prime minister and i made a promise to this country. i said that the government i lead will be driven not by the interests of a privileged few, but by the interests of ordinary working class families. people who have a job but don't always have job security. people who own their own home but worry about paying the mortgage. people who can just about manage, but worry about the cost of living and getting their kids into a good school. and this week we are going to show the country that we mean business. [ applause ] >> but first today we're going to talk about global britain, our ambitious vision for britain
after brexit because 100 days ago that is what the country voted for. we're going to talk about britain in which we are close friends, allies and trading partners with our european neighbors, but a britain in which we pass our own laws and govern ourselves. [ applause ] >> in which we look beyond our continent and to the opportunities in the wider world, in which we win trade agreements with old friends and new partners. in which britain is always the most passionate, most consistent, most convincing for free trade. in which we play our full part in promoting peace and prosperity across the world. and in which we with our brilliant armed forces and
intelligence services protect our national interests, our national security and the security of our allies. [ applause ] >> so today we're going to be hearing from david davis, pretty patel and boris johnson as we start to explain our plan for brexit and the country will see that the conservative party is united in our determination to deliver that plan, because even now some politicians, democratically elected politicians say that the referendum isn't valid, that we need to have a second vote, others say we should have a second vote. come on.
[ applause ] >> the referendum result was clear, it was legitimate, it was the biggest vote for change this country has ever known. brexit means brexit and we are going to make a success of it. [ applause ] >> now, of course, we wouldn't have had a referendum at all had it not been for the conservative party and had it not been for david cameron and i want to take a moment to pay tribute to david. i served in his shadow cabinet for nearly five years and in his cabinet for six more. i saw firsthand his commitment to public service, to social justice and his deep love for our country.
he led the rescue mission that brought confidence back to the british economy. he made sure that people on the lowest wages paid no income tax at all and he won the right for two people who love one another regardless of their sexuality to marry. he has a legacy of which he and our whole party can be proud. and to those who claim he was mistaken in calling the referendum, we know there is no finer accolade than to say david cameron put his trust in the british people. [ applause ] >> and trust the people we will because britain is going to leave the european union.
now -- now, i know there is a lot of speculation about what that is going to mean, about the nature of our relationship with europe in the future and about the terms on which british and european businesses will trade with one another. i understand that. and we will give clarity as we did with farm payments and university funding whenever possible and as quickly as possible. but we will not be able to give a running commentary or a blow by blow account of the negotiations because we all know that isn't how they work. history is littered with negotiations that failed when the inter october lars predicted the outcome in detail and in advance. every stray word and every hyped up media report is going to make it harder for us to get the right deal for britain. so we have to stay patient, but when there are things to say as there are today we will keep the public informed and up to date. so i want to use today to tell
you more about the government's plan for brexit and in particular i want to tell you about three important things, the timing, the process and the government's vision for britain after brexit. first, everything we do as we leave the eu will be consistent with the law and our treaty obligations, and we must give as much certainty as possible to employers and investors. that means there can be no sudden and unilateral withdraw. we must leave in a way agreed in law by britain and other member states and that means invoking article 50 of the lisbon treaty. there is a good reason why i said immediately after the referendum that we should not inn vote article 50 before the end of this year. that decision means we have the time to develop our negotiating strategy and avoid setting the clock ticking until our
objectives are clear and agreed and it is also meant that we have given some certainty to businesses and investors. consumer confidence has remained steady, foreign investment in britain has.continued, employment is at a record high and wages are on the up. there is still some uncertainty but the sky has not fallen in as some predicted it would. our economy remains strong. so it was right to wait before triggering article 50, but it is right that we should not let things drag on too long. having voted to leave i know that the public will soon expect to see on the horizon the point at which britain does formally leave the european union. so let me be absolutely clear, there will be no unnecessary delays in invoking article 50. we will invoke it when we are ready and we will be ready soon. we will invoke article 50 no
later than the end of march next year. [ applause ] >> now, i want to tell you a little more about the process for triggering article 50. the first thing to say is that it is not up to the house of commons to invoke article 50 and it's not up to the house of lord's. it is up to the government to trigger article 50 and the government alone. when it legislated to establish the referendum parliament put the decision to leave or remain inside the eu in the hands of the people and the people gave their answer with emphatic clarity. so now it is up to the government not to question, quibble or back slide on what we've been instructed to do, but to get on with the job because those people who argue that
article 50 can only be triggered after agreement in both houses of parliament are not standing up for democracy, they're trying to divert it. they're not trying to get -- [ applause ] >> they're not trying to get brexit right, they're trying to kill it by delaying it. they're insulting the intelligence of the british people and that is why next week i can tell you that the attorney general himself, jeremy wright, will act for the government and resist them in the courts. likewise, the negotiations between the united kingdom and the european union are the responsibility of the government and nobody else. i have already said that we will consult and work with the devolved administrations for scotland, wales and northern
ireland because we want brexit to work in the interest of the whole country and we will do the same with municipal leaders across the land but the job of negotiating our new relationship is the job of the government because we voted in the referendum as one united kingdom. we will negotiate -- [ applause ] >> we will negotiate as one united kingdom and we will leave the european union as one united kingdom. there is no opt out from brexit and i will never allow divisive nationalists to undermine the precious union between the four nations of our united kingdom. [ applause ]
>> the final thing i want to say about the process of withdrawal is the most important. and that is that we will soon put before parliament a great repeal bill which will remove from the statute book once and for all the european community's act. this historic bill which will be included in the next queen's speech will mean that the 1972 act, the legislation that gives direct effect to all eu law in britain will no longer apply from the date upon which we formally leave the european union. and its effect will be clear. our laws will be made not in brussels, but in westminster. the judges -- [ applause ] >> -- the judges interpreting
those laws will sit not in luxembourg but in courts in this country. the authority of eu law in britain will end. [ applause ] >> as we repeal the european communities act we will convert the akee that's the body of existing eu law into british law. when the great repeal bill it given royal ascent parliament will be free and the eu on matters such as trade to amend, repeal and improve any law it chooses. but by converting the aqui into british law we will give businesses and workers maximum certainty and we leave the european union. the same rules and laws will apply to them after brexit as
they did before. any changes in the law will have to be subject to full scrutiny and proper parliamentary debate. and let me be absolutely clear, existing workers' legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law and they will be guaranteed as long as i am prime minister. [ applause ] >> and, in fact, as we announced yesterday, under this government we are going to see workers' rights not eroded and not just protected but enhanced under the government. because the conservative party is the true workers party. the only party dedicated to making britain a country that works not just for the privileged few but for every single one of us. so --
[ applause ] >> -- so that's what i want to say about the process, but i want to talk to you about the government's vision of britain after brexit. our vision of a truly global britain. and i want to start with our vision for the future relationship we will have with the european union. because in this respect i believe there is a lot of muddled thinking and several arguments about the future that need to be laid to rest. for example, there's no such thing as a choice between soft brexit and hard brexit. the line of argument in which soft brexit announced as some form of continued eu membership and hard brexit is a conscious decision to reject trade with europe is simply a false dichotomy and one that is too often propagated is one that is propagated by people who aren't afraid of not accepting the result of the referendum. because the truth is many people are letting their thinking about
our future relationship with the eu be the relationship that worked in the past. the members of the eu for 40 years. we have just been through a renegotiation during which we remained members of the eu. and the government sought to keep us members of the eu. but what we are talking about now is very different. whether people like it or not, the country voted to leave the eu. and that means we are going to leave the eu. we are going to be a fully independent sovereign country, a country that is no longer part of a political union with super natural institutions that override parliaments and courts. and that means we are going once more to have the freedom to make our decisions on a whole host of matters from the way we label our food and the way in which we choose to control immigration. so the process we are about to
begin is not about negotiating all of our sovereignty away. it is is establishing a relationship any one we had the last 40 years or more. it is going to be an agreement between an independent sovereign united kingdom. applause. i know some people ask about the trade justify with trading with europe. we voted to leave the european union and become a fully independent sovereign country. we will do what inspect sovereign countries do. we will decide for ourselves how we control immigration.
but we will seek the best deal possible as we negotiate a new agreement with the european union. i want that to reflect the kind of mature, cooperative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy. i want it include corporation, free trade in goods and services. i want it to give british companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market and let european businesses do the same here but let me be clear. we are not leaving the european today to give up control of immigration today. we're not leaving only to return to the european court of justice. [ applause ]. as ever, with international
taugs, it will be a negotiation. it will require some give and take. there will also be pressure to give a running commentary on the state of the talks. it will not be in our best interest as a country to do that. make no mistake, this will be a deal that works with britain. but to think about our new relationship with the european union. it should make us think about our role in the wider world. it should make us think of global britain, the confidence and the freedom to look beyond europe. because we know the referendum was not a vote to turn in on ourselves, to cut off from the world. to stand tall, to believe in ourselves and to forge an ambitious and optimistic new role to the world.
and there is already abundant evidence that we will be able to do just that. important foreign businesses have committed to business in this country. 24 billion pounds within the biggest ever asian investment in britain. countries including canada, china, india, mexico, south korea, and singapore have already told us they would welcome future trade agreements. trade agreements with australia and new zealand. it should be no surprise, but it is. because we are the newest economy in the world. we have grown faster than any economy in the g-7 and attract a fifth of all foreign investments
in the eu. we have more noble laureates than any country outside america. we have the best intelligence services in the world. and it can reject its power around the globe. and friendship, partnerships, and alliances in every continent. we have the greatest soft power in the world. exactly in the right time zone for global trade. and our language is the language of the world. our weight is substantial enough already. [ applause ]. we've got the substantial being
of the united kingdom. let's have the confidence in ourselves to go out in the world securing those trade deals, winning contracts, generating wealth and creating jobs. and let's get behind the team of ministers. working on a plan for pwrebgs his, who know we are going to make a success of it and will make a reality of global britain. so let's have a great week this conference. let's get this plan for brexit right. let's show the country we mean business. and let's keep working. to make britain a country that works not just for a privy edged few but for everyone in this great country. [ applause ].
[ applause ]. >> ladies and gentlemen, on the 23rd of june, the british people voted for change. this is going to be the biggest change for a generation. we're going to leave the european union. >> [ applause ]. it was we the conservative party who promised the british people a referendum. it was david cameron, the conservative prime minister who honored that promise. and now it will be this government, a conservative government led by theresa may out of the european union into a brighter and better future. [ applause ].
>> this must be a team effort. i'm proud to count myself part of theresa may's team. i don't know what it is about our great women leaders. but aren't we lucky they're there when you really need them? [ applause ]. i remember the first one, margaret thatcher, talking about the difficulty a woman in politics faces. to get to the top, a woman has to be twice as good as a man. fortunately, she said, this is not difficult. back in 1979, her government had to confront some huge challenges. and today, just as then, we are at the turning point in our nation's stories. people voted to chart a new
course for our country to transform britain. and just as then, there were do-mongers, telling britain it can't be done. we proved them wrong then. and with them, britain will prove them wrong again. now, destination is clear. once again, we're going to be a nation that makes for ourselves all the decisions that matter most. once again, all decisions about how taxpayers's money is spent, taken here in britain. our lord here in britain. and our borders controlled here by britain. [ applause ]. ladies and gentlemen, the path is is bigger than this.
nor at this time just the future relationship with the european peep union. this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for britain to forge for itself a new place in the world. and to make our own decisions about the sort of country to be. a nation that is a beacon for free trade. a force for social justice. a defender of freedom. a furnace of decency. a nation where we celebrate the success of those who want to get on. but never forget those who need our help. above all, the steadfast democracy and the people's right to decide their own destiny. for each. democracy is what the referendum was all about.
the task is now to bring together the 17.4 million people who voted to leave and the 16 million people who voted to remain. now, i was one of the 17.4 million. but of course there are those of you here today, some of you, who will have taken a different view. there are some who want to keep on battling the campaign. people have spoken. the decision is made. so whether you want to leave or remain, seize the opportunities that are now before us.
while we're building a consensus at home, we faced negotiations with our aour neighbors in the spirit of goods. we need to appreciate and respect what european union means to them. they do it through the prism of their own history. dictator shape and determination. so it's not surprising that governments elsewhere in europe see the european union as a guarantor of the rule of law, democracy, and freedom. we have always seen it differently. to be honest, that's been one of the problems. after all, we were the world's greatest liberal democracy for over a century before we joined. we joined a common market.
we're now leaving that project. it gives us not just to clear the air but working better for all of us. we will actress luteally to deliver the right deal for preut an. it does not mean we want the european union to fail. on the contrary, we want it to succeed. a poorer, weaker europe. we stand ready to shoulder the burden. that has always been true and it always will be. whether it's helping to rebuild
the balkans, help to tackle the crisis in the mediterranean. of course we want it to play our part. that is also not in our national interest. we will always welcome the skill, the drive, to make the foundation better still. if the wind in the global marketplace we must win. and of course britain had always been one of the most tolerant places on the earth. it must and will remain so. [ applause ]. when it comes to negotiations, we will protect the rights of european citizens, along with britain and europe.
something i'm absolutely sure we'll be able to agree. on the other hand, to those who pedal height and division to those who made britain their home, let this go out, you had no part in our society. [ applause ]. but the clear message of the referendum is this. we must control immigration. did you hear last week telling us there is no need for any numbers. have you ever heard of a political party quite so out of touch with its own voters in let's be clear. we will control our borders and we will bring the numbers down. [ applause ].
>> ladies and gentlemen, i quite understand that some people doubt. i never have met anyone doing a business deal who thinks it is is a smart idea to give your bottom line. so i'm not going to apologize for taking exactly the sale approach. and i'm reminded about a story from calvin coolidge. one night in the form of dinner, a guest tried to lure him into can conversation, to no avail. increasingly desperate, she said, mr. president, i made a bet with my friends that i could get you to say three words. to his reply, you lose.
we must resist the taeugz. but these negotiations are too important for that. instead, we should all think carefully about where our common interests lie. britain is one of the strongest defenders of freedom and security is. it makes perfect sense to have the strongest possible ties with europe after we leave the european union. the same goes for trade. history shows is it is easiest for us to do business together the better it is for both britain and europe. we are looking at all the
options and will be parade for all the outcome. so we want to maintain the freest trade between us without betraying the british people to take back control of our own affairs. and to ensure that as the country leaves the european union the process is orderly and smooth. i know some people suggest we should just ignore the rules. what kind of message would that send to the rest of the world. if we wanted to be treated with goodwill, we must act with goodwill. so we will follow in the process. so we will follow the process to the leave the european union, which is set out in article 50.
the prime minister was clear she will start with the exit by the end of march. we need to also prepare for the brexit. it is very simple. the moment we leave britain must be back in control. and that means european law must cease to play. it places european law above uk law. so that's why we are saying today this government must repeal that act to ensure continuity, to taking a simple approach. european law. here in britain to make the changes of in a reflect the outcome of our negotiations and our exit. this is what people voted for.
power and authority residing. that way we are providing the max for british workers. for those trying to frighten british workers saying when we leave, it will be eroded. i say unequivocably no, they won't. beyond eu law in many areas. they will not roll those rights in the workplace. ladies and gentlemen, in today's most moving world. only nations that are acknowledge i'll and fleet of
foot that will succeed and prosper. i believe when we left the european union, when we are truly in control it will be even a better place to confront the challenges of the future. we start from a position of strength. we are the fifth largest economy in the world. we have the english language. 1.5 million people. excellence in manufacturing. and of course the global center. a leading member of nato. commonwealth, g-7.
>> the session continues on this most important issue. we hear now from ashley fox, the leader of the conservative and the european parliament and the southwest of england. ladies and gentlemen, ashley fox. >> this summer britain was shaken by an exit that none of us expected. it made us question the very meaning of our existence. that's right. and the british people voted to leave the eu.
wro had we have always expected the people to take the right position. and we will carry them out. last years at the conference in manchester, i said from this podium there would be good conservatives on both side of the referendum campaign. there were. and i said that after the republicanen dumb was over we would need to come together for the good of the country. and we did. the conservative party showed
that we are united that works for everyone. while later showed it is not. no one knows. the light bulbs outlasted them all. [ applause ]. across the country, there are different interpretations of what leaving the eu would entail. some are concerned we would seek a soft brexit. but the referendum never happened. it shows the crew how tough we are. but i believe we need a good brexit that meets the needs of
the british people and recognizes the desire of so many to page back control of our country's borders. one thing is for sure. brexit means we will leave the european institutions that exercise power over our country. so we will leave the commission, the court, the council, and, yes, the european parliament. so notice our departure. british entities will be handed at 845. the 40 fives. [applause] thank you for supporting my pending unemployment. [laughter] as long as [ applause ]. thank you for applauding. but the long distance remains a member of the eu, your
conservative will fight britain's corner. we will get the best deal for our constituents. and i will continue to fight for my constituency of the southwest of england and gigraltar. the conservatives will never abandon our couple patriots on the rock. [ applause ]. bell trigger article 50 by the end of march next year.
one this countdown to our departure begins there will be tough negotiations ahead. and we will support theresa may and our strong team of david davis, liam fox and boris johnson is. let us never be in doubt that the best days still lie ahead of us. after all, we're not only a nation of shop keepers, but also scientists. a country of entrepreneurs, innovators and inventors. and let us not forget of olympic and paralympic greatness. [ applause ]. britain is a land of strength, determination and resolve. we are a global trading nation.
and even though we are leaving the europeanen union we are not leaving europe. we will not walk away from our allies but seek to reinvigorate old friendships. we will not abandon our neighbors but scan the horizon for new. we are not leaving behind the past but preparing for our future. the british people have spoken. let us embrace the opportunity that brexit provides. let us go forward together and let us build a bright future for our great country. thank you. [ applause ]. coming next is my good friend and leader of the conservative
and reformist group in the european parliament. thank you. >> thank you. he's always been a great warm-up act. i agree that it is wonderful to see a conservative party. so focused on what knees to be done and so energized deliver a better future for britain. and preoccupied with the future of their party. we are focused on the future of our country. [ applause ].
in the referendum, we had a responsibility to listen. you know it's sad. i felt sorry for him. i did. while the labor party is over lack of leadership, our conservative prime minister shows that he is strong, able, and preparing to take on the challenges of brexit head home. our conservative p.m. has a respected and tough reputation from other times with the home secretary. how conservative prime minister is seen as a fearsome negotiator who is always prepared. there is no one better to guide this country on the journey ahead of us. [ applause ].
a journey that may not always be a smooth one. the shock. sometimes anger and often sadness. that's a lesson i'm sure our friends and countries across the u.n. i am proud to lead 18 different eu countries. only five years later we game one of the three main groups in the european parliament with governing parties from five eu
countries. it was unprecedented in the history of the european parliament. and why was that? because we listened. outside the walls of the european parliament and outside the walls of the commission, the change and reform grew up. yet inside the walls of these institutions the message does not always get through. it needs economic constance. and the group with or without will continue that fight. i will continue to go from strength to strength. we want to see a good deal for
britain. we want to see a good deal for the eu. we want to see a good deal that worked for everyone. in years to come, britain may no longer be reluctant. but it is is the interest of the eu for us to be good neighbors. to create more jobs and sell better product. this should not be a brexit of making our own democratic decisions as a nation. but neither should it be a brexit which cuts off our own nose to spite our face. this should be a brexit in everyone's interest to claim opportunities for everyone.
it may have changed from it's complicated to in a different sort of relationship. i know that we will come out the our side single and ready to mingle. [ applause ]. >> i believe in years to come we will look back and see brexit in that moment. both became willing. a britain that not only divides but a great britain that thrives. thank you. [ applause ].
>> good afternoon. it has certainly been quite a year. i know that many of you have spent the last 12 months campaigning hard both for our party and in many cases in the referendum. and for the first time friends and colleagues were on different sides of the vote. but regardless of he campaigned, there is one thing we can all agree on, that is only a conservative government would give leadership to the rest of the world. [ applause ]. the british public has made their choice and now it's our job to make it happen. that's exactly what we are doing. our party has come together for ordinary working people. much changed in the last year.
but much is also the same. we have a conservative prime minister who offers a united party, and a strong capital. we have a strong economy with low unemployment. we have a hrerd of the opposition in a competent party but is incapable of taking off the responsibilities of government. now, britain is a proud country which others look to for inspiration and leadership. we handy to abolish the slave trade. the freedom against tyrants from napoleon to hitler.
when the world faces its biggest challenges, it shows the strong leadership needed to overcome them. a leader in the commonwealth and of a nation that needed an international commitment for 7% for aid. we can and will play an active part in making our world a more peaceful and prosperous place. so it is an honor to stand here today as your international development and it is a huge privilege for the hard working team and our excellent cpcs.
it is of great conservatives like angie mitchell. in recent weeks i have seen incredible life-saving work around the world. 60 million people in sanitation helping 11 million children getting an education. or 76 million children against preventable diseases. we are transforming lives on an amazing scale. only last year we helped 5 million people affected by crisis to get access to blankets, tents, and clean water. this is something that everyone can be proud of. [ applause ].
lives are at stake. lives were lost as a result of this slow response. we want to improve the way the world does develop, the global age system so it is ready for the challenges of the 21st century. reform is about being relative for today and for the future. and this is why i will follow the money, the people, and the outcome. follow the money. because margaret thatcher famously said, there's no such thing as public money.
it is taxpayers's money. when we open up the budget to let people say where the money is going, we can be sure that he is the most vulnerable. and following the outcome because we link our payment to results from the ground, we have a system that really works for the world's poorest. poll the money, the people, and the outcomes. last month i announced support for the global fund to fight aids and malaria. it will save millions of lives in the years ahead. i linked it to a newly created performance agreement. for the first time the clear requirement office a global fund
it toous our money more collectively. and with a tougher focus on results and impact. we are sending a clear message at the international aids community. if we can command more from one of the best tphaougzs we are going to demand much, much more from everyone else too. and delivering the outcomes we accept, we will be sure your money supports programs that are working. [ applause ]. they were moving in efficiency. we must do so too for aid.
and that is why full transparency and accountability are top of my agenda. now, you can be proud of the impact around the world providing people with an opportunity to make the most of their talents. that's exactly what motivates us. we pride ourselves in removing the barriers people face in owning their own homes and achieving their dreams. we can be proud of the support we give to changing lives and creating opportunities in countries that are far less fortunate than ours. and in the last 30 years we have seen the biggest reduction in human misery and suffering. technology, innovation and science play a key role. and so have aid which helped the last 15 years.
but above all, this progress has been powered by economic growth and free trade. by empowering people, letting people trade and exchange with each other, open democratic institutions in the rule of law, by tearing down the barrier of trade and enterprise, we have unleashed the economic growth that issue rated millions of people from the shackles of poverty. and i can promise you this party will continue to champion growth, trade, and investments as a surest move to make poverty history. [ applause ]. >> it isn't just about economics. it is also about leadership. building upon that great tradition of social reformers.
that's why i am determined to support our prime minister's leadership on the issue of modern slavery. and to continue the leadership for women and girls. for millions more women. and that's why i will also put children at the center of our development efforts. investing in the next generation will ensure they have the nutrition and education they need. if we invest in human capital, we can have the future of entire societies. i recently met children who are in danger of trafficking or being forced to work who are at risk of violence and exploitation by armed thieves. it is children like these we must never abandon. britain will continue to stand up for universal humanitarian
values. this government is on the side of ordinary working people. their taxes pay for the aid and it is right that the aid work them. using the immense goodwill to help push people forward. if we abandon countries that suffer from poverty, from weak institutions, not only do the people in both countries suffer, not only do those countries become vulnerable but the problems that they have come closer to our children. conflicts in syria and south sudan not only hurt the people who live there, they destabilize the rest of the world and create opportunity for terrorists and
people smugglers to inflict more misery and suffering and put pressures on this country too. that is why it is in our national interest in invest in those areas in the world and alleviate poverty and suffering. and promote security where people are vulnerable. as our prime minister made clear at the united nations last month, our aid bucket has a huge role to play. it gives the people in the world in the poorest countries, a risk in the adjourn to europe. now, just think for a moment, how many more people would already have made that journey across the mediterranean? and how many more people would have died at the hands of the people smugglers? we're using both humanitarian
support and economic development. and in doing so, we are reducing the pressures from mass migration. that is aid working in the national interest. [ applause ]. we can help in ways that are mutually beneficial to both developing and developed countries. we all depend on one another. that is as true today as it was in 1981. and i am proud that our program is a crucial part in power around the world. people in refugee camps, stay proudly on our emergency
supplies. they know they have a friend and an ally in britain. [ applause ]. let's talk about a specific example on how we can champ on our interest. it has helped to stabilize our country and prevent it from becoming a base for terrorists that would threaten the streets of britain. and we have improved the lives of ordinary afghans with millions more girls in schools, better health care and greater prosperity. but huge challenges remain not least in the continuing threat from the taliban. when things get difficult, we need to remain strong and constant not just by supporting the afghan security forces but
by supporting the economy. today i can announce that we will commit up to 750 million pounds between 2017 and 2020 from the aid budget to promote stability. the money will be spent on health and education particularly for women and girls. we will help to protect the internally displaced people who have fled their homes from persecution and we will help to clear the land mines. reducing the human suffering rolled out by years of conflict and letting children go back to school and people get back to their daily lives. and crucially our support will help build a viable long-term state in the face of taliban aggression. [ applause ].
we are making this commitment because it will make us safer and demonstrate to everyone that the international community will not walk away from afghanistan. but making this clear commitment we are keeping the uk safe and we are helping to do justice to the sacrifices made by our brave armed forces. conference, it is also in our interest to support developing countries to grow stronger and more prosperous. as we look to redefine our place in the world following the eu referendum, we need to establish new trade. countries who we are providing aid to today will be the markets that we can trade with tomorrow. and access to the markets of developed countries can provide vital opportunities for the world's poorest people to work their pay out of poverty.
we want to deliver for the working people in britain and the world's chorus across the globe too. finally, conference, i want to be absolutely clear, just as labor have all the wrong ideas for helping people in this country, they have the wrong ideas for helping people in other countries too. people underestimate the risk that they purpose. let's not forget they are in their own words an international socialist party. they are deeply committed to an ideology that has failed again and again. an ideology that has failed the poorest people in the world the most. an ideology which throughout the 20th century inspired left wing economic policies that held back growth and stopped countries from developing. even today in places like venue
sway venezuela, we can see the results of this. children who cannot get supplied because of a man made economic crisis. these are the repressive governments that the leader of the opposition has heeded praise on. [ applause ]. conference, just as jeremy corbin has nothing to offer this conference, he has nothing to offer the rest of the world. [ applause ]. ordinary working people before those of a privileged few who is championing a bold role for brit app on the world stage, driven by clear, conservative values.
using our development policies to deliver value for money and greater security for working people. all divided to the credited labor party who weakened britain on the world stage and the failed policies have hurt the poorest the most. conference, it is clear. only with theresa may can we build a better country for working people and a better world for us all. thank you. [ applause ].
[ applause ]. >> thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you, gerry. thanks, everybody. thank you very much, gerry white. the other day he was at the u.n. generally assembly in new york talking to the foreign minister of another country. which one? i will preserve my reputation for diplomacy. let's say they have an economy about the size of australia. nuclear missiles. oligards. you get the picture.
after a few exchanges my counterpart gave a sigh and said that any difficulties in our relationship. it was you guys who imposed democracy on us in 1990, he said. and i said hang on. aren't aren't you in favor of democracy? and i asked for a show of hands in the room. all those in favor of democracy, please show. you would have thought this was a bit like asking maria whether she was in favor of rain drops on roses. the entire uk side of the room raised their hands to show democracy was indeed one of our favorite things. but much to my amazement, they
just kept their hands on the table and had the hairy eyeball. it was a bit of fun. my question was semi satirical. but the exchange was also deeply serious and revealing about the way in which the world has changed or perhaps the way in which it has failed to change since that moment of exhilaration in 1990 when the berlin wall came down, the soviet union was coming to an end. and we had come to a moment of ideological resolution. and that after seven frozen of rule, the guhlags, things have been forgotten, who are still
singing lennon's red flag last week at the labor party conference, we genuinely thought we were seeing the final triumph of western liberal values that unite the people in this room. not just free markets. but all the things that we then believed in that brief shining moment at the end of the cold war of free market capitalism. rule of law. human rights. independent judiciary, habeas corpus. sexual orientation. the eternal right of the media to make fun of politicians. we assumed -- [ applause ] >> we assumed, we assumed that this political freedom, social freedom, went hand in hand with economic freedom.
like buying an ice cream snickers bar. and a copy of private eye, free speech of a kind still unknown in many parts of the world, in a two for one deal. like two sides of liberties golden coin. and yet i have to tell you, the both sides of that coin of freedom have been tarnished over the last two decades. and we must be humble and realistic enough to accept that in many eyes, the notion that we could endlessly expand the realm of liberal democracy was badly damaged alas by the invasion of iraq in 2003, and symetricly, it was seriously discredited by the crash of 2008 and the global
suspicion of bankers. we've taken those twin blows, like punches to the mid riff. i think we've been winded. sometimes lacking in confidence in those ideals. and if you look at the course of events in the last ten years, then i'm afraid you can make the case that it is partly as a result of that lack of western self-confidence. political, military. economic. but in some material ways, the world has gotten less safe, more dangerous, and more worrying. after a long post-war period in which the world was getting broadly more peaceful, the number of deaths and conflict has risen from 49,000 in 2010 to 167,000 last year. the global number of refugees is up by 30% in 2013, up to 46
million last year. of course, much of that crisis in refugees can be attributed to the war in syria. it is part of a wider arc of instability that sweeps across from iraq to libya. and this matters profoundly to our country. because it is the continuing savagery of the assad regime against the people of aleppo. and the complicity of the russians, patiently bombing hospitals, when they know they are hospitals. that is making it impossible for peace talks to continue, and overwhelmed britain's ability to cope. when the volatile extremism erupting across the face of the middle east, we are seeing the
conta contain jous spread. if that threat to travel continues to have a palpable chilling effect on tourism, perhaps even on trade, then for a great trading nation like britain, that is a matter of deep concern. and then there is an union more phenomenon, stemming how ever unfairly from the disastrous events in iraq. that is the temptation of governments to take this instability and insecurity, which we cannot deny, and use it as an excuse to move away from democracy. across africa, you can see for the first time in decades that governments are gradually becoming more authoritarian.
rated free or partly free has fallen from 23 from 49. rewriting national constitutions to tighten their grip on power, and without going into details, since you all know them, i'm afraid there are plenty of countries, large and small, where multi party democracy is failing to catch on. and i think that is because there is also of you that has gained ground over the last few years, the fukijama, was wrong. i think you know who i mean. i'm just checking if you were following there. there is no real symtryn in the
golden coin, and you can have economic prosperity without political and social freedom. indeed, there is a view in many parts of the world that the only way to ensure pros perry aperit liquidate journalists and compromise independent judges, and generally, to depricate about how a society should be ordered. if i have one message for you this afternoon, it is that this i wi illliberal analysis is wrong, and the social political freedoms, as well as economic freedoms are not just -- they're
not the ideological opponents would say, they are essential for sustained growth. and i can prove that point, you know, i want to make reference to the difficulties of other countries, but that would be wrong. and undiplomatic, as i say. i'm going to prove that point by simply asking you to look by contrast at the society we live in. a 21st century britain that incarnates that symmetry. why more tech wizards in london than any other place in europe. is it because the politicians decided to embark on a soviet style program of training people to do tech, to -- i like to say, i used to claim that i invented -- nothing to do with me at all. i had no idea what it was. it all started because london acquired a deserved reputation of being the greatest city on
earth. a melting pot, nothing to damage the interests of others and provided you obeyed the law, you could make it your life pretty much what you wanted. that frankly is why we lead in all those creative and cultural sectors, and that's why we have the best universities on earth. oxford just named the best in the world again, because the best minds from across the world are meeting in some of the best pubs and bars and nightclubs. that's absolutely true, with the best cultural life any where on the planet and like sub atomic planet with flashes of innovation. that are essential for long-term economic success. and it will not surprise you to know that britain is ranked amongst the top three most
innovative places in the world. america is number four by the way. china -- [ applause ] >> china, i promised i wouldn't be competitive, but china is 25th. and the entire, to get back to my central point, the entire top ten innovative societies in the world are free market liberal democracies. and it is because we have both of those values at once together in this country. symmetrically that we are still according to the oecd the fastest growing economy in europe, with record unemployment, and fans particular achievements, and it is this new dynamic government led by theresa may that is working not just to ensure this country's success is felt by the few, but felt by absolutely everybody. and i think we should have no
shame or embarrassment in ch championing those ideals, and in the area of diterring, the message of global britain is we stick up as vigorously for democracy. my friends, i know this will not please everybody in the world, i'm going to try to any way, i think that vote, i think that vote on june 23rd, i think it was a vote for economic and political freedom. and freedom for this country. it was a liberation. [ applause ] over the last couple of months, i'm proud to say i've sat in all kinds of meetings, jerry was
pointing at fast feasts of lunch or dinner in the castles of middle europe, washed down with the finest wines known to man. and on one occasion, splendid breakfast that seemed to stretch from course after course, from 8:00 to 11:00. i've enjoyed all of them, every course. and i made friends. i made alliances. i've struck up all sorts of relationship. had wonderful conversations in the various euro creoles that i attempt to speak. but i have to tell any lingering gloom poppers in this audience that never one, never once have i felt in all my conversations in the european council that this country would be in any way disadvantage from extricating from the e.u. on the contrary, we will be liberated, liberated. [ applause ]
>> to be more active. more active, more visible, more energetic than ever before. i never tire of telling you, we are not leaving europe. we are not leaving europe. we will remain committed to all kinds of europe, whether it is sanctions against russia for what is going on in ukraine or sending our navy to help the italians with the migrant crisis in the central mediterranean, but we also will be able to speak up in our own distinctive voice. leading the world as we now are in imposing a ban on ivory, and helping to save the elephant. the dis-united e.u., the ivory importers, they are unable to do. we have a situation where the
e.u. is trying to veto, despite having a president called donald tusk, which i think you'll agree is an error. all relaunching the cause of global -- as treheresa said, sie the failure, and a few more positive forces in the global economy. the world's fifth biggest economy, taking back control. taking back control. not just of our democracy, taking back of the borders, and our cash, but our tariff schedules in geneva so we can
g galvanize, and continue the process of lifting billions of people out of poverty. and that is why the world needs global britain. our values more than ever. [ applause ] >> a campaigner. a campaigner for what we believe in, a catalyst for change and reform, economic and political freedom in a world that is losing confidence in those values. of course there are some people who say we are too small, too feebable, to reduced to have that kind of influence, and i think of the logically challenged labor party, where they want to abolish our armed services, and to keep the submarines as a job creation program, so the whole nation is turned into a glorified military
ca c capons firing blanks. i'm not going to pretend, i'm not going to pretend this country is something we are not. i go to an office so vast that you can accommodate three squash courts. so dripping with guilt bling that it looks like something out of the kardashians. and i sit at the desk of george n nathaniel cousin, an empire that was seven times the roman empire. when i go into the map room of parmiston, i can't help remembering that this country over the last two xse centuries most of the members of the u.n., which is not a major-don at the
general assembly. and i didn't -- [ applause ] >> i didn't, because -- [ applause ] >> those days are gone forever. those days are gone forever. it is a profoundly good thing that they are gone. it would be a fatal mistake to under estimate what this country is doing and what it can do. in spite of iraq, it is simply not the case that every military intervention has been a disaster. look at what we did in sierra leonne, the pirates plaguing the coast, the kind that we will continue -- british ships took them on, with all the courage and divisiveness of the 19th century forebeds.
the pirates had cost the world economy about $7 billion a year. when britain stepped in, the attacks stopped altogether. in fact, i'm glad to say, since 2012, there have been more hollywood films about samali pirat pirates. [ applause ] >> we don't want to wield, but when we give our armed services clear and achievable missions they can be effective, and with 2% of the gdp spent on defense, we will be the leading military player in western europe for the
foreseeable future. [ applause ] >> our hard part is dwarfed by a phenomenon that the pessimists never predicted, when we unbundled the british empire. that is of course ourself power, the pervasive of british influence around the world that goes with having the language perfected in this country, ours, and has more speakers than any other language on earth, up the creeks and inlets of all the go the gentle gun boats of british soft power, skippered by jeremy clarkson, more honored abroad than in his own country, or j.k. rowling, worshipped by some as a kind of divinity, or just the
bbc. no matter how infuriating anti-brexit they can be. [ applause ] >> it was sergey himself that said he watched our "war and peace" and said it was well done. that from the kremlin was praise. if you want more proof, this country not only invented every sport, but this year, it was our athletes from the country that can boast less than 1% of the world's population that came second in the olympic and paralympics games. thank you. [ applause ]
>> i hope all our friends in beijing will not mind if i point out that their teams had 1.4 billion people to draw on. look, to wind up my friends, it is true, i have said, that the world is not as safe or healthy as it should be. it is true that in 2016, we are worryingly affected by war and terrorism and the new perils of cyber crime. and in the painful refusal of many parts of the world, to accept what you and i might see as common sense, that free markets and free societies go together. but in case you are remotely tempted to despair, i urge you not to look at the problems. but look at the successes difficulties, life expectancy in
africa has risen astonishingly, in 2000, the average "e.tethiop 1990, 37% of the world's population lived in poverty. that is absolute poverty. it is down to 9.6% today. i think we with our commitment to our gdb going on development can take a large share of credit for that achievement. i pay tribute to what the team, 300 million pounds a year to ethiopia. i believe it is our duty, but above all, our economic ideas, our beliefs in freedom, our values, that continue to lift
the world out of poverty. and that's going to be our continued ambition. it has been extraordinary experience for me be foreign secretary for the last few months, and together, with my fantastic team of ministerial colleagues, sir allen duncan for europe and the americas, the commonwealth and the u.n., elwood, shamer for asia and the pass pacific, cats cradling the world in a stupifying accumulation of air miles, not that we can claim them, of course. seriously. and i have confirmed to myself my primary observation that we have in our foreign office, foreign commonwealth office, we have the finest diplomatic service in the world, covering more countries -- [ applause ]
>> covering more countries than the french, with only 70% of their budget by the way, just a point the treasury might note, and i'm giving nothing away when i say we have the most superb intelligence agencies in the world. [ applause ] when i make a speech, in a foreign city, i look around the heaving room and i become aware of a phenomenon, i think people in this country are barely aware of. that is that of the brits now alive and born in this country, fully one in ten is now living abroad. so talk about a population of 5 or 6 million, the size of scotland, bigger, no other rich country according to the world bank, never mind immigration, which i'm in favor of, no other country is a formidable
exporter, business people, lawyers, adventures, poets, whiskey sellers, french nicker sellers, which we sell in ever great to france, and we'll continue to do when we strike a deal that works for everyone. no other country is turned so tangib tangible, and with these five million brits take with them, not just the knowledge of english or the cast of the arches or which kind of game has a position called silly -- the deck about which i wouldn't want to be interrogated myself, they take an instinctive set of values, and whether they are retired teachers, working as
monitors in ukraine, or police officers training their counterparts in the parts of syria held by the moderate opposition. i find that these brits are respected and admired and sometimes unexpected way by ordinary people around the world. and in an age of anxiety and uncertainty, it is surely more obvious than ever that our a values are needed. and though we can never be complace complacent, we never take our position for granted, i think winston churchill was absolutely right. he was bound to come out. well, i don't know. i think winston churchill was absolutely right when he said that the empires of the future will be empires of the mind. and in expressing our values abroad, i believe that global
britain is a soft power super power. and i think that we can be immensely proud of what we're achieving and what we will go on to achieve in the years ahead. thank you very much, indeed. thank you. [ applause ] ♪ ♪ following last night's vice-presidential debate, virginia senator tim kaine is campaigning in philadelphia. he'll be talking about the economy and combine polls there by real clear politics, show hillary clinton ahead in pennsylvania. senator kaine's rally is live on c-span, watch it at 6:00 p.m.
eastern. tonight on c-span, state race debates, beginning with the missouri governor's debate, jay nixon is term limited. after that, arizona first congressional, ann kirkpatrick, running against john mccain. live at 10:00 p.m., we'll have the california senate debate for retiring senator barbara boxer, and after that, mike pence's seat, an indiana debate. the second presidential debate is sunday evening in st. louis, missouri. watch our live coverage at 7:30 eastern for a preview. and 8:30, preview for the audience. 9 approximately live coverage of the debate itself. the second presidential debate. watch live on c-span. or any time on demand and listen live on the c-span radio app.
first ladies is the name of the book, 45 iconic american women. mark farcus. >> a book grew out of the series on television, "first ladies on influence and image." we took some of the greatest historians and biographers and taken them and put them into narrative form. every first lady has a chapter in which you learn about the biograp biography, which includes the time as first lady, obviously. some of them had great influence. some of them have less of an influence. >> was it hard to find records. >> some it is easy. abigail adams, go to the massachusetts historical society, and they have thousands of letters between her and john adams, where sheeg lobbying him to remember the ladies and
issues of slave erie. martha washington, letters between her and george washington, only two exist. you go from one extreme to the other. and the farther along you make it in time, you see the, i think the a dap take adaptation of te. the past could get away if they wanted to be behind the scenes and not do too much. i don't think you can do that any more. >> former first ladies running for president? >> the chapter on hillary clinton, for anyone who wants to know how she approaches campaigning, politics, you read that chapter, one, you know right way, she is the most famous woman in the world. gayle shehey is with her, and it shows how hillary reacted to
things i think she would rather not have happened, but she goes on the attack with republicans, and so it shows a very savvy first lady and politician even back in 92''92. >> what did you learn? >> i knew nothing about these first ladies whatsoever. lucy hayes is known as lemonade lucy for prohibiting alcohol in the white house. she is a lot deeper than that. she is pushing causes. someone like grace coolidge, silent calvin, and grace is almost a rock star in her time. opposite of calvin coolidge. you learn about the modern first ladies, la lady bird johnson, they go back to her as a role model, because she is one of the first who really takes on causes. eleanor roosevelt does, but a little break taking on a cause, and lady bird takes on this cause as people think of as
beautification. it is really environmentalism. i learn they do play a role and the public stage, they can get alla lot done. >> richard, guest on the martha washington program, guest during the betty ford program and makes a good point. i think it comes out when you read this book. some first ladies, when you think about it, probably had as much if not more influence on the way we live our lives. look at betty ford. she comes out for e.r.a., ahead of the curve for first lady. not saying things gerald ford wants to hear, but her causes in substance abuse, in a way, she has had an affect on alli lot o people's lives. >> "first ladies, 45 iconic
women." now available at your favorite book seller and online. a look at the impact of immigration on the economy, the work force and local communities. a report finds minimal long-term effects on wages of native-born workers, low skilled workers suffer some, but the report concludes immigration has an overall positive effect. hi, thank you, sarah, and thank you all for coming. we are very excited with the release of the report which is three years in the making. so it's taken a fair amount of energy on our parts and the rest of the members of the commission, and we are very excited to share the results with you today. it was my privilege to serve with my fellow members, and examine this important topic. before we begin our discussion, and most of this will be a discussion where we answer questions and we're not going to go page by page or theory by
theory through all 500 pages. i just wanted to take a couple of minutes to stress some of the findings and at least highlight and give you a little road map through the report. so first, a little housekeeping. the project was sponsored by the john d. and katherine t. mcarthur who felt it was important to what we know about immigration. little did they know, three years ago when they basically decided that it was worth investing in this, where we were going to be in the presidential election cycle right now. we also received support from the national academies presidents to finish this work, because it actually took more time and money than they originally anticipated. and it is a follow-up to a study done in the 1990s, and they recognize that both the country as a whole and the role of immigrants have changed in the intervening time. the other thing to stress is
that independent of the role of immigrants, we went from a rare point in history in the 1990s when we were running fiscal surplus surpluses. a country at the end of the last x century. we're back to where we were historically, but at a larger level after the great recession, we're running deficits. this is important, because when we start talking about the fiscal effects, and some of those things like that headline in the washington times, it has to do with the fact that immigrants cost more than they're paying in federal taxes, but so does everybody else. the key thing to note and remember as we're talking about what is going on at the fiscal level, the fact that we're running deficits means if you do an accounting exercise and looking at taxes paid versus money spent, we're in the hole. and that has nothing to do with immigrants or any individual
person. it just has to do with federally what we're doing right now. and so that's just sort of important to know, and to remember, especially as some of these head lines come out that it is kind of misleading, because while immigrants cost money, so do natives. if you look at a similar headline to the washington times it would have cost $970 billion in 2013. so it is just something to sort of keep in mind as we move forward. so as noted by sarah, we examine demographic changes and immigrant population, evaluated research on the economic impacts of immigrants, examining numerous studies and hearing from experts. we did a pretty exhaustive search of both studies and research reports that were both pro and against what role immigrants are playing in this country. and we had a pretty diverse km committee and had consensus on
what we think the takeaways were. we differentiated in our report, and this is different than some of the other work that was done, between first generation or immigrant populations, second generation, or the children of immigrants, so this is people who are native to this country but have at least one foreign-born parent and other native residents. so if we talk about, and i'll most likely fall into this nomenclature, third or more generation, it just basically means anybody whose parents were not immigrants themselves or immigrants. so it could be people whose grandparents were immigrants, great grandparents, or people whose an scestors came over on e mayflow mayflower. one of the other things worth
stressing, we lose sight of the fact that while the number of undocumented number of immigrants decreased to the beginning of this century, beginning in 2007 and through now, the number of unauthorized immigrants has actually been constant, right. we've had people come in and have people leave. but there has been sort of a net wash. it is sort of important to remember, as we're going forward. so immigrants are also making up an increasing share of our population. they're also making up a larger share of the labor force, so partly, what we see, immigrants younger than they were his to historical historically, and younger than what has been going on with the population in the united states. right, so in the country, natives are actually aging. and more and more are leaving the work force and the labor force. so part of what is sustaining us is the fact that we have immigrants of working age who are working, and so the share of
the population in our labor force, that is now made up of immigrants has gone up from 11% to 16%. by 2020 to 2030, the only increase in our labor force population is going to come from immigrants or the children of immigrants. so native-born and third generation folks are actually leaving the labor force population more thoon they are entering it, due to sort of birth rate replacement. it is important to recognize that in order to sustain our labor force, we kind of need a certain level of immigration moving forward. so some other general findings. immigrants have also more recently entered the country with more education than they had historically. native-born individuals have also gotten more education. right now, immigrants are typically overrepresented in two groups. those without a high school
degree, even though they have more education, they're still a substantial percent that don't have a high school degree, and those with more than a college degree. so right now, we have a disproportionate number of immigrants in those with higher levels of education, especially in the stem field, so science and technology. we find that there is little effect overall on the economy on the roll of immigrants in terms of wages and employment. we find that to the extent that there are negative effects, it is sort of concentrated in other people who are most closely the substitutes for newly arrived immigrants. so if there is any effect, and the reports sort of span a large role in terms of showing these effects, it is mainly concentrated in effects on the employment or wages of prior immigrants or other people without a high school degree.
we also spent time and we'll talk about this more soon. on the role of high skilled immigrants. we find they can contribute positively to the economy and they actually are complimentary with both labor that has a college degree and that without a college degree. we'll get into that more later. but we actually find that they actually increase economic growth in this country, and add to our productivity. if we switched to the fiscal side of things, we actually see a more mixed picture. so again, as i recounted before, we're running deficits so if you just sort of look at sort of the overall fiscal picture, everything looks pretty bleak in that we're spending more money than we're raising in taxes. and while immigrants, if we allocate costs on an average basis, actually consume more than they pay in taxes, a lot of this has to do with how we
allocate education costs. so what we do in the study and one of the issues that we had to decide on how do you handle children. so if you were going to educate kids, do we actually say that kids should bear the burden of their own costs of what we spend on them, like the cost of education. or do we say that those were attributable to the parents. what we do in the report is actually say that the cost of kids sit with their parents. so for immigrant parents, we assign any costs of sort of children who are under 18 or under 21. so dependants to those kids, even if they are native. negative effects of immigrants, that's largely coming from the fact that they are younger, have more kids typically, and so at the state and local level, we're spending more on them, because we're paying for those education costs. you could instead of thinking of education as a cost, you can
think of it as an investment, from which case we should all bear some of that bud derden. we're looking at the first, second and third generations, the group that contributes the most to the country both at the federal level and state and local level is actually the second generation. so in part, what we're finding is that the investment we're making in kids is paying off later. most of those returns are felt by the federal government, rather than state and local governments, in part because state and local governments actually pay for education while the federal government does yet the federal government receives income taxes which is our main way of paying into the federal government. what is new in the report too is we actually do estimates of across the 50 states, and actually find tremendous variation in sort of what the fiscal benefits and costs are
for first, second and thirst plus generations across each of the 50 states. i've skipped a bunch of things. we have a lot more going on in the report. i would say reading executive summary and the brief is great. or you know, if you're board this weekend, can you get your own copy. and with that, i'm going hand it over to robert to start. >> let me start by introducing the other panelists whose biographies you have. jenny hunt, and then my colleague from usc, a demographer and policy analyst. i would suggest if you're interested in this topic, immigration, or either the economic or fiscal future of the country that door stop will be with you for more than a
weekend. this is -- this report is in some ways a companion volume to the report that kim mentioned that was done in 1997, the new americans report, and for people who have been in this field, that really provided a kind of a benchmark, i really important marker in our understanding of the fiscal and economic effects of immigration that has been a consistent influence in the way we think about these issues for 20 years. i think this volume has the same potential in terms of its longevity and influence. it is an extraordinarily complex undertaking that pursues a lot of very detailed subjects as well as presenting the broad strokes that kim has presented, and other broad strokes. there are still -- that was only
apart of the overview you got. so in a time that we have, we will barely scratch the surface of what this document offers in terms of both insights and questions. and ways of formulatings, it gives us a necessary vocabulary to start assessing these important questions. and takes us from one period of time, the 1990s into a different period of time, where the dynamics have changed considerably. i want to start with one particular subject, and it's one that relates to what i believe one of the most significant changes in the nature of the immigration flows itself, and
particularly in the last few years, which is the increasing numbers of high skilled immigrants and their impact on the economy. something that really wasn't that much of an issue in 1997, and now, since the recession increasingly is an issue and one that as our economy is driven by information technologies and other forms of economic activity that rely on brains and human capital in particular, the flow of human capital into the country and immigration policies play in providing the economic input i think is something that this report opens doors on in a way that we haven't seen before. jenny, i know this is a subject of interest to you. one of the -- one aspect of the report that i find very intriguing on this question is a very multi dimensional approach
to the economic impact of highly skilled or well educated entrepreneur. i was wondering if you could give us some framework regarding that part of the immigration flow? >> yeah absolutely. i do want to start by saying, though, some people have the idea, well, we know that skilled immigrants contribute to the economy, but unskilled don't really. i hope to be able to emphasize later that actually all immigrants do contribute to the economy. i'm going say some -- talk about ways in which the skilled immigrants contribute, but that's not implying they're the only ones that do contribute. there are two ways particularly that skilled immigrants might contribute that doesn't apply to less skilled immigrants. and within one is they might innovative, it doesn't have to be necessarily
innovative natives, because if come up with a new idea, the whole population can benefit from it. everyone can benefit. we think that actually affects economic growth, and not just the level of well-being of economic well-being in the economy. so that's one thing. of course, it is not only skilled immigrants, but we think they innovative more than less skilled immigrants or people in workers in general. so that's one thing. and then the second thing is that we think that skilled workers, which would therefore include skilled immigrants, might actually have what we call positive spillovers on their coworkers. so actually it is easy for a professor to think of that in that context, even though it is is not typical, we professors try to seek out jobs in departments where there is other very good colleagues, because we know it will interact with them
and they will make us more productive. in general, if you have some skilled immigrant coming into the u.s., they may actually raise the productivity of not -- now i'm not talking about the entire economy, but a group around them. nowadays around them means potential potentially, but face-to-face is still important. so those are two ways. but also in the skilled immigrants contribute in a way we think the unskilled don't, but there are these extra di dimensions you're talking about and some apply to immigrants more generally. for example, we think that skilled or even other immigrants coming in affect how natives decide to specialize. this can be looked at in two ways, but the first economic way of thinking about it is that people increase their specialization and what they're good at.
even at the high skill level there is evidence when immigrants come, that the natives go into specialties that use language more and communications more intense because they speak english better than the immigrants. and that increases the efficiency and productivity of the economy. so that's one, i'm not sure if you have another. >> so i was just going to add to that when i think that was great. the other thing that is true of immigrants has to do with entrepreneur, right. there could also be other immigrants coming. they're more likely to start and open small businesses, some of which grow into larger businesses, but also provide jobs for others, which i think is also an important role. and then in jenny, will probably get back to this later, because
immigrants are also more mobile or more willing to move within the country, there -- it means they are more likely to go to places where there are jobs or openings, so at all skill levels. which i think gets beyond high school labor, but also helps make the whole economy work better if people are more willing to sort of move to take jobs that are open and to help things. >> so we've been talking a little theoretically here, but all of these things there is evidence. we find that if you look amongst workers with college or more, that im grants are twice as likely to patent for example as natives are. that has the -- then there is one more theoretical step. we think it is contributed to growth probably, perhaps up to 2.5% over ten years, and that's something that compounds and continues. there is also evidence of exactly what kim was saying. that first, the immigrants have
to pick a place when they first arrive and they tend to pick the booming, productive places, and they're more mobile within the u.s. even with their official move, and natives contribute, so we have evidence of that. as i said, also evidence for the specialization of the natives and communications and english intensive jobs. >> yeah, i mean, i find that aspect of the report, a very important reminder not to think of our economy as a series of zeros sum games, but something this large and this dynamic, you introduce an element like a number of immigrants, and there is kind of a levening series of secondary effects into the entire economic picture. so it not a matter of one immigrant and one native and judging impact, but this richer picture which starts to emerge
from this report. as we all know all too well, we have been living now in a prolonged period of modest to slow to negligible growth rates, and there is ongoing concern about whether that's a circumstance that extends forward. before going forward, the demographic party in looking at the economic impacts, i'm curious how you judged that -- the effects of that context. how are these dynamics changed by the fact that they played out during the period where the overyou'll con me was either had obviously severe downturn, but the last eight, nine years of
slow recovery. how do we understand those effects and the effect of that context on these dynamic as soon as. >> you know, that's something we suddenly talked about on the panel, but realize thad there wasn't really evidence on how the context had changed things. so i could speculate, but it is actually not in the report, even though we also thought that was an important question. >> well, then, let's talk about the future, then. one of the important topics, ands you mentioned in your opening remarks, is the how we think about the future influence of immigration on the economy. and one of the questions which the report addresses that's been
a long-term point of discussion in immigration debates, the role of immigration in the social security medicare and other policies, an important part of the deficits you mentioned that are certain to increase in the years to come, so you've written a lot in the past, a lot of that is reflected in the report, that immigration flows till now have helped mitigate in part some of the effects after an aging population. what i'm curious boabout is hearing from the three of you how going forward, what does the report, tell us the way we should think of the role of immigration in what are certain to be very difficult debates, i mean, we've managed to avoid
them for a long time. so in washington, you never know. we could still avoid dealing with the fiscal effects of an aging population for a while longer. there will come a time where this has to be addressed. this report attempts to give us some ideas about how to think about immigration in that coming debate. i was wondering whether you could address, what are some of the important tangents that we see. >> well, thank you. as a demographer, i have looked at the future, and when does it start. it already started. i say it started in 2000, 2001. seriously, it did start already. we can't appreciate how is evolving without looking at what has happened recently. really about ten years out of date, sometimes 20 years in
california, it is out of date. we don't update things fast enough. we've gone through a volatile period with a boom, the bubble and the buts ast. people's perspectives are lacking very much. let me quickly recap. there was rapid growth in the 1970s and '80s when the baby boom entered the work force. then it started to slow down. but immigranted started to pick up in the 70s, right here in the middle of this decade, it is a total transition, where the working age population is now shrinking down to 8 million growth. and most of that now is immigrants and their children.
next decade, it is all immigrants and their children. there really is no third generation plus native/native growth after 2020. the large baby boomer generation that came in in the 70' and 80' that swelled the labor force is 40 years later going out the back door and shrinking the labor force. it is a massive exit. and there is still 40% of the newcomers, still these third generation, but not enough of them to offset the parents and grandparents going out on retirement stage. so what it means, we're shifting our reliance tremendously to this foreign-born population and their children who we've fortunately invested in in the past, as much as we needed them to invest to have a prosperous
retirement. i have some doubts. but let me just say, in terms of the ratios, there a simple way of looking how dependant we are on the younger generation now that we did investment in hopefully. it is the senior ratio or the dependence ratio. it used to be 24 seniors per 100 working age people. 24. currently, it is up to 27. it is rising. and by 2030, it is up to 40 in the u.s. so it's jumping tremendously. and without immigration, that would -- the ratio would rise even more. another quarter, 25% greater rise in the ratio. so immigrants have helped to sort of balance our population. they can't stop aging unfortunately, and keep us a little more balanced. now, that's the big picture on what's happening going forward. there's specific occupations that have to be filled.
1078 are high skilled, some are low skilled. but there's a generational support system where we're all intertwined. it's not really -- you can't separate the natives from the immigrants, or the immigrants from parents and their children. we're all really intertwined. there's a 25-year generational rotation that's ongoing. and we need to make that work a little more favorably than it has, because we're becoming so top-heavy now with all these retirees who deserve their retirement. they will claim it. i will claim it. and i always point out that this large baby boomer bubble that is causing so much trouble, it wasn't our idea. it's nobody's fault. it's just a natural path of events and we have to make the best of it. we are fortunate that we still have immigrants that want to come join us. >> i was going to add to that. we sort of go to the fiscal side of this.
one thing that is also important to remember is, even though we sort of talk about people paying into social security, and medicare, and about people feel like they've made their payments in, and that's what they're getting out, it's a pay as you go system. so it isn't necessarily the case that dowel's money is sort of sitting there waiting for him to retire. the money that's going to actually be used to pay off his social security is the money that you guys over here who seem pretty young are going to pay in. right? so it's basically something that we're in a pay-as-you-go world, so part of what we're doing is we need people to sort of keep coming, or be part of the labor force, and to sustain employment, in order for these things to work. how big or small these issues are, and sort of what the fiscal part looks like, it depends on how long existing people as they
age continue to work. and two, in addition to sort of what's going on with the population, what we decide as a country on the fiscal side. you know, there are all sorts of conversations that happen that aren't necessarily getting resolved in washington. sort of, how do we fix social security and medicare. if we can slow down the rate of growth in health care costs, that would help. if people worked a little bit longer before they retired, that would help. if we actually raised taxes and cut other spending, that would also help. but a lot of this is going to be dependent on sort of having workers be part of that, and immigrants and the children of immigrants are increasingly a large part of that. >> let me just follow on there. what i admire most in the report are the fiscal chapters. there are some beautiful graphs in there that look at the second generation who was born in america, grew up here, educated in america. how much more they pay in taxes as they become more educated. going from a high school degree to a college degree to a
post-graduate degree. it's amazing the differences, the increase. and i just know that when i'm trying to sell my house, i hope that some of the better educated people show up on my doorstep, and not the undereducated ones that i couldn't afford to invest in earlier on. we really have to pay forward in order to reap the tax benefits going forward into the future. and so the future already started in 2001, we might be in trouble, because we didn't do enough. but we still have a chance for the decade ahead, roberto. >> did you want to weigh in on this? >> i'm not as good at foreseeing the future as my colleagues. >> none of us are. you know, it does -- in a way you've just described this, when we go back to the thorny fiscal question of, to whom do you ascribe the costs of educating children.
i mean, do you ascribe it to -- i mean, there are two obvious choices, the children or the parents. the picture you're painting here, it really is the people who are going to collect social security benefits are the ones who are reaping the benefits of that education. all right? >> right. >> well, yeah, the notion -- you know, in this longer term picture, where you imagine the second generation, this very large -- the children of the '80s and '90s and the oughts becoming important contributors to our fiscal balance out in the '20s and '30s when all this crunch comes, i mean, that's really the payoff for the investment that was put in at the state and local level in their education. right? >> right. and there's some mismatch with
that. if you feel the federal government is getting a lot of the benefit that states are paying for it. but that's a whole other area. part of the reason the report is 500 pages is, we look at these questions like who do you attribute the cost of education to? how do you make assumptions about how you're looking forward, what we're going to do in terms of balancing the budget? and part of the reason it's 500 pages is that we have a plethora of economists, and so our answer to most of these questions was, we'll do it both ways. and so you'll see things where we look at things on an average cost, where we basically attribute things to everybody. and then things we'll look at sort of, well, is it really fair to say that immigrants who are coming in should be paying out for the cost of defense. there are things called public gs that we generally think don't -- the costs don't increase if you add another person to it. part of what we do in the fiscal section of the report, which we
did new work in, if we looked at things on an average basis, and then also on a marginal basis, and not surprisingly if you don't attribute things like defense to immigrants, they're actually very attractive and they help make the fact that we have these big deficits more affordable for the rest of us. >> well, that's good. let me go to another thing you said. you also said that there was -- we have new immigrants arriving. but we also have immigrants who are already here. and there's two ways to calculate the costs. when we go forward into the future, do we use the profile of the typical new immigrant to be like the people who are already here? or do we use a profile that's based on those who arrived just recently, in the last five years? if you want to make immigrants look worse, you would use the old immigrants as a profile who
are less educated, and the new immigrants look like a better fiscal bargain, you would use the new. some prefer to use the old. but the facts are, and this shows clearly in the report, that education has been rising steadily since 1970 for immigrant arrivals. each decade is steadily higher higher, higher, and so how could you go back and use the old when really the new is even probably underestimated for future educational attainment of new arrivals. i just point that out because that is in the news today also. people are using old immigrants to represent the future and it's not consistent with current trends. >> and in the report we viewed both. basically in the report on the fiscal side, we do a number of things. the first thing we do is we do year-by-year sort of accounting of what these things look like, the first, second and third-plus generations, both controlling for the age profile and looking at whether things are more or less recent.
and then we also do something where we do a 75-year projection going forward where we look at if you have an additional immigrant coming, what are the taxes paid and services received of them and their children and so like their children and maybe their grandchildren 75 years in the future where we're basically adding this up and in general immigrants look really good. that's sort of where you basically get both the amount of money you're investing but also that return from those kids in the allocations to that immigrant when they first arrived. then we also do stuff state by state for the state and local work, just showing how that varies across different places. >> i just want to underscore what might seem like a methodological or accounting issue, which is the measurement of impact at 75 years rather
than a shorter time frame. i mean, the nature of immigration is such that you don't know the actual effects on a society until the second generation reaches adulthood. this is a confounding factor in any discussion of immigration. the image i draw is if we had been sitting here 100 years ago, in 1916, the conversation about the impact of the european immigrants who had arrived in the previous ten years would have been extraordinarily dire, about their absolute inability to work in an industrial economy. they were unfit to be citizens of a democracy, they're producing crime, illness and who knows what else. less than 75 years later, 50 years later, that generation had conquered the world, had brought about the american century, had defeated authoritarianism in
europe and asia, and was confronting communism on the world stage. if you take a short-term view, particularly if you take a very narrow contemporary view, you lose sight of this. this report, when it casts its eye out in the 75-year projections, you see an entirely different set of assumptions. there's one other -- just one other housekeeping detail. large conceptual housekeeping detail. if i'm not mistaken, this report says in assessing fiscal impacts, correct me if i'm wrong, that similarly situated natives and foreign born have the same fiscal impact. is that correct?
there's nothing about being foreign born per se. >> so what we do is attribute costs and benefits, and i really have a green eyesight right now, to individuals. we do this in a number of ways. we start with individual information we have about people. if you're receiving certain benefits or you're paying specific taxes, we sort of attribute that to you. what we find, even though there are certain costs that immigrants have, like for example the cost of like bilingual education, or programs for immigrant children, we attribute to those children. but in general, most of the costs, and when we average most things in, the costs and benefits of immigrants and natives are largely being driven by a few factors, one of which is sort of their education and their income levels. so the education of the immigrants themselves, their income, and their age. so that sort of gets -- and the number of kids they have.
so what we find is that the people who are most expensive are those people that have kids. so the fact that immigrants look for expensive has much more to do with the fact that they are younger and they have kids, and less to do with the fact that they are foreign born. and that's where this whole question about whether we're sort of looking at them as investments or not. the other thing to note is if you look at an individual, whether they're foreign born or native, you see definite costs and payments in over a life cycle or over sort of a 90-year period. if you start off, you find that someone comes or is born. they're really expensive sort of when they hit age 5 and we're sending them to school. so basically state and local governments are paying for education. they're sort of in school until they're either 7 or 21. and they're expensive. they start paying taxes when they're 21 or so. you're getting a big benefit as people are paying taxes and they're not necessarily using
services themselves, so you sort of have this picture where they're above the line. then we hit 65 or 70, where the costs to the government are higher again because they're receiving social security and their health care costs go up. and so basically anybody, if you look at an individual person and you look at sort of how they interact with government, you see that they get money at the beginning and get money at the end, and in the middle they're paying in, hopefully to cover those costs and to make the whole system work. >> children and old people are annoying as they cost money. but the important thing here, i want to go back to this point, if you -- a couple that has three children and sends them to public school is producing the same costs. >> pretty much. >> pretty much, regardless of their nativity. >> yes. >> there's one big difference
though. same costs, but the payoff on the back end when the kids grow up, for some reason is higher for the immigrants' children than for the children of native born. the second generation on all the studies, all the graphs, we show this higher payoff. and it's not totally clear why. >> i think part of this has to do with, they get a little bit more education, and they probably are specializing in things that might have a little more payoff. anecdotally so not looking at the data. this is sort of like you have the kids of immigrants becoming doctors and lawyers and scientists are aren't necessarily going to be as likely to become ethnomusicologists. nothing against ethno
musicologists. >> now let's turn to the contentious issue of the day, which is much more the short term effects of low skilled immigrants. where you were going to take us initially. this report adds significantly to a nuanced understanding of the interactions between those workers and other similarly situated workers and the economies in which they exist. i was wondering whether you could just give us the high points of that analysis. >> especially since both you and apparently "the washington times" mentioned the short run, one of the things we talk about in the report is we don't really know what the short run is in practice. in theory we know, but in practice we don't know. so the short run would be, you suddenly have a huge wave of people come in a few months, and
there isn't really time for much to adjust in the economy. but we rarely see that in the u.s. there's more like steady but steadily increasing flows. interestingly, even at the theoretical models have not really dealt with the case of, well, how do firm change their behavior knowing that immigration is coming and is gradually increasing? so surprisingly, we don't actually have a good theoretical model for that. so overall, the first thing i should say, we in the report and the authors we cite in the report, we don't find there's any effect on the employment rate of natives from immigration. that's a bit different, actually, from other countries. in the u.s., no one in the literature is concerned about the employment rates of natives. so the whole question revolves around what is the effect on wages. and just like the previous report, we actually find that on
average, the effect on native wages is actually about zero. and then the question is what's the more nuanced picture. theoretically speaking, we expect immigration to benefit natives overall, including business owners and workers. then we expect there to be winners and losers. that's true within workers as well. and who the winners and losers are depends on the makeup of the immigration flows. it's a bit complicated, because as kim said, the immigrants are concentrated at the top and the bottom. and normally the losers are going to be people, native workers who see inflows of people just like them. in theory you would expect it to be the natives at the very top and very bottom who are hurt. but at the top there's this issue that there could be a
completely different thing, you help, the productivity is increased by having people to work with, they're complementary and not substitutes. for that reason and also for reasons of equity, we're most concerned about seeing native high school dropouts who are about 10% of the population. and what we did agree in the report is it does seem as though they have people whose wages are decreased by immigration. however what we could not agree on was a number. we came to a consensus about the sign, not about the number. and in fact there's a big range of studies that range from very small negative effects to actually quite big negative effect. and we did not take the step of saying, well, there was this or that floor and the one that found the small or the big effect, we couldn't actually get consensus on that. so we agree there is a group of natives at the bottom who experience a negative effect, we
don't know exactly how large. >> roberto, can i push back on jenny a little bit? it's not in the report, i know. there's a very small effect on natives, yet incomes aren't doing well for the natives. somebody has to be blamed for that, something or somebody. what else could be causing the fact that incomes have stagnated the way they have until recently? >> now you could write a whole other national research council report. >> i'm guessing they have. >> that's a very good point. i think actually there might be a sentence or two in the report. the big -- you're exactly right, the wages of the less skilled in the u.s., men in particular, have been falling, not falling quite to the level of female wages, but -- and the main explanatory factors that people have in mind for that, technological change.
offshoring, so moving production of -- actually especially less skilled tasks abroad. and then perhaps the -- a little bit, but i don't think anyone thinks immigration, even the studies that find the big negative effect, even that is not enough to explain much of this phenomenon, so correct in sign but not a magnitude for immigration. there's currently a bit of an argument after a long time of thinking that trade and goods was not important. that's more of an open question now. those are really the big factors. no one really thinks -- this is such a big phenomenon, no one thinks that immigration is a big contributor to that. but that's an excellent point. >> this also gets back to the fact that returns to education are increasing. overall in the country. and so when we're talking about this, especially when we're talking about natives with less than a high school education,
that's becoming an increasingly small group of people. as more and more people are graduating from high school. and so you basically find that you have to sort of understand sort of who it is we're talking about. and so how you sort of think about it, are we talking about the 50 or 60-year-old person without a high school degree who probably spent his life in the factory and, you know, was actually earning a pretty good wage, or are you talking about the 18 to 20-year-old african-american who just basically dropped out of school and is having a tough time? and so part of this is also trying to understand some of who these people are who are left in specific groups, and why we think there might be different effects. so one of the other things that were found in the report that's highlighted is, there does seem to be a small negative effect on the hours, not necessarily the
employment, of teenagers, of immigration. and part of that, you could imagine, has to do with the fact that if newly arrived immigrants and people who were teenagers or young are going into the workforce, you could imagine there are limited numbers of entry level jobs, so there's some of that happening. is that fair? >> i wouldn't say a limited number, but they're in competition. and that might affect the wages and that in turn might affect how many hours the teens will want to work. >> one last topic before we turn to the audience. we've talked about effects among highly skilled workers in the entrepreneurial economy and low skilled workers. how do we understand the effects in the middle, where the report
talks -- because of the hourglass shape of the immigration flows, they're not as direct. but there are certainly some effects. >> so i don't think that we have really good, purely empirical studies looking at this. we have studies that are a blend of theory and data looking at this. those studies say that precisely because there are not many immigrants coming in with middle skills and because the people in the middle might be complementary, they work with the people at the top and the bottom rather than competing with them, they suggest that at least relatively speaking, immigration benefits middle skill natives compared to the high and low skill natives or at least certainly again as compared to the low. the high, it looks like perhaps that there's some evidence it's not as solid as some other, but they may even benefit also from immigration. so the middle and the higher skilled probably are benefiting. the lower skilled probably are being hurt.
>> i want to explore a little bit about those benefits, can you say a little bit more about what they constitute, how somebody in the middle, they might not perceive it directly, but where in their checkbook accounts they would see the effects? >> an example would be, take construction, and we talk about -- >> we'll go back to you. >> you can go first. >> we talk about, say, construction. that's a classic, there's lot of inflows of people from mexico, central america, into lower level construction jobs. but there are people who are the supervisors of those people. and so if they actually do reduce the wages of the natives at the bottom, there will be a bigger demand for construction services because they're cheaper, and that will increase the demand for, more
likely, the natives who are the supervisors, and their wages will go up. >> so i was just going to say part of this, and part of the reason i seem to be more on these messages than maybe others is i spent all day doing some of this with the national academy directly, went through the slides that we have. partly, if you go beyond employment and wages, there are other ways that for, you know, that whole middle section benefit from immigrants being in the country, right? so what jenny said in terms of housing cost or construction is probably less, those costs are less because we have immigrants acting as construction workers. in certain regions in the midwest especially, where they're losing population, the fact that you want to sell your house, the fact that there are immigrants coming in is probably the main thing propping up those house prices. there are also all sorts of service industries that are helping make the economy run and the country run.
you know, if we think about where immigrants are working in terms of, you know, working as domestic help within the house, health care aides, nannies, there are all sorts of direct effects that everybody, even if you're not working with somebody in your job who is an immigrant, they might be affecting your life and sort of helping things run smoother. >> on the consumer side. >> on the consumer side, exactly. >> and certainly, what you're saying, many prices. >> yes. >> that's where people in the middle will obviously notably see the impact, is on what they pay for all kinds of goods and services, housing, a variety of other factors. >> and there are certain industries and certain occupations that are predominantly staffed with immigrants. and often these low skilled immigrants that people don't
necessarily want to do those jobs. a colleague of mine was at a hearing yesterday on long-term care. if you think about the people who are working in long term care facilities, a disproportionate number of them are not very well paid, often recent immigrants who are doing sort of some of the thankless work that we really need to do and that's going to become increasingly important as people age as a society. >> so let's turn to the audience for a little more than ten minutes or so. and then we'll come back to the panel for some closing thoughts. so i think there's a microphone, is that right? there is a microphone. raise your hands, please let us know who you are. i think this gentleman at the front is right off the mark.
>> your study or report seems to confirm previous studies showing that the effects on wages tend to affect native borns without a high school education. in addition to that you say it also affects prior immigrants. does that help explain why there may be a few anti-immigrant sentiment by the prior immigrants? >> actually i'm often surprised that there isn't more anti-immigrant sentiment in the u.s. amongst immigrants. over time and place, it's common, immigrants think they and all prior immigrants are fantastic but everyone who came after them is somehow not so good. i think it's for exactly this reason. i think you're right. >> can we have a microphone over -- here we are. >> jack martin.
the importance of this study, it seems to me, is that it provides information with regard to decisionmaking, which is important because of the fact that immigration is a discretionary policy. it's not written in stone. so when you find in the study that there are disparate effects with regard to who it is coming in, particularly low educational level, low wage workers having a more negative effect with regard to the fiscal consequences, that would seem to inform the fact that there's a valid debate with regard to how many of those lower educational level, non-english speaking people coming into the country because it has more of a negative fiscal effect. but the other issues really have to do with how many you're talking about.
and as i understand it, the results of the study suggest that the more, the better in terms of the economic advantage of a large number of immigrants coming into the country. but doesn't that ignore the fact that there are other outside factors such as crowding and impact on the environment and so on, which i assume are not taken into consideration at all in this report? >> so we don't make any policy recommendations in the report. if you go to chapter 10, and you're looking sort of after we spent this three years doing this, what we think sort of optimal policy for immigration would be, you'll be a little disappointed. partly we were tasked with sort of laying out information and helping inform people to make those decisions. we make recommendations, but they're mainly about the need
for better data, which is -- i shouldn't make light of it, it would actually be incredibly useful for us to know more information about sort of who that second generation is. but i think a lot of what you're saying is valid, and i think those are interesting questions and policy debates we should be having as a country sort of about whether and how we want to change immigration policy, and if there is some level. but we don't really get into those things. i don't know if you guys have. >> i do want to follow up a little bit. so the one key thing to know is that the benefit of immigration comes from immigrants being different from the natives. at least if you put aside the innovation and the spillover questions, issues. so if we had an influx of immigrants to the u.s. where basically a twin of every person already in the u.s. came in, you would actually expect that in the end, it would just be a bigger u.s. with everything the same otherwise, same wages, same
prices, because the benefit comes when the immigrants are different and it allows for greater specialization. one of the advantages of having lower skilled immigrants is in some cases they're offering services you don't get in europe because the immigrants are not sufficiently low skilled that these services are offered. that's one almost impossible to measure benefit of the low skilled immigrants. you need to add that. you need to add the fiscal side. >> so the demography, the demographic differences are actually sort of driving a lot of when we talk about the fact that having immigrants coming in. >> the point is that the report doesn't offer these policy prescriptions. it's a 500-page report put on the table as a buffet for you to choose from and for us to argue about later. because it really does feed a lot of ideas.
>> just to finish, you need to add the specialization, the fiscal, and the lowering the native wages all together. when you make your decision, there are three things about low skilled immigrants. >> immigration policy is a balancing act. you have to balance all these objectives. we need more data and insights to put into the balancing question. >> any other questions? yes. >> good morning. amanda bergson-chillcot. thank you so much. my question has to do with the difference between the national economic picture and the state and local economic picture. this is clearly an evidence-based report. what data do you think is in the report that would be of most
interest to a state level policy maker who is trying health issues at the state level rather than the sort of 30,000-foot national level of these issues? >> chapter 9. which i did a lot of the work on. but basically what we do and what is different than what was done before, and partly because i thought it was really important for us to do, is in that chapter we actually break out sort of the fiscal costs and benefits for state and local governments, state by state. and so a lot of this comes down to both the characteristics of the different populations, so the different groups, and also the decisions that states are making in terms of the level of spending on education and the tax systems they have in place. and so -- but if you're a state, you know, budget person, or if you're just a state legislator, they're going to basically go to that charter and look at sort of what things look like in
california versus texas. so part of that is to sort of break out how much this varies. the thing i hope they take away from this, because we do find in general that immigrants cost more than they contribute, is that second generation, where we're actually seeing this return, even to many states. the problem is, because people are mobile, and because state tax systems are less progressive and less based on income, it means that the returns aren't necessarily as clear for the states that have to make that investment in education, for what benefits the country as a whole. for state folks i think there's going to be a lot of delving over those tables, and hope it helps. >> time for one last question. you're straining there. >> hi, i'm heather stewart from the association of international educators. i want to speak to higher education for international students.
can you speak to the spillover effect of international students on campuses in the u.s., and also to, after they graduate, some portion of them would like to remain and work in the united states, what effects does that have on our economy and our communities? thank you. >> that's a very good question. and there's only a little bit in the report on that, which i think reflects partly the literature is not quite as big as you would think. i'm trying to think -- we did have a couple of papers in there that we discuss that look at how the choice of field of natives is affected by the arrival of the immigrants. but that's only a little part of your question. we can talk after and i can tell you a bit more about what i think i know that's not in the report. we don't have a good understanding. there's a very limited amount in
the report. >> it's kind of amazing, given that it's a 500-page report, how much is not necessarily in there. that keeps coming up. >> you now have approximately a minute and a half each for a bon mot that summarizes the 500 words. what is the takeaway here? or what do you want to add? let's go across this way. >> so one thing that we haven't mentioned yet, i do when i talk about these things stress what the impact on natives is because i find that's what natives are most interested in. but we haven't mentioned that immigration is very, very beneficial to immigrants. one thing we have in the paper, it's a very crude calculation, extremely crude, but we calculate that the size of the economy, of gdp, is about 11% larger because of immigration. that's in itself something that
some people are interested in, just the size, per capita, most of that benefit does actually go to the immigrants, but chalk that up as a good thing. so to summarize, what we show in the paper is that as we would expect theoretically but we find empirically, immigration raises the income of natives as well as the immigrants. but there are winners and losers amongst the natives. on average, no effect on the wages of natives, no effect on the employment of natives. but some negative impact on the, as kim stressed, the small group by now of very unskilled natives. and yes, i'll leave it at that. >> i would just:00 with two broad point. one being that we cannot evaluate immigration in a static way, at a moment in time. it's impossible, because the
investments or the costs of immigrants are at one point in time and the payoffs are later. if we don't look over time, we're not able to make any decision at all that's at all reasonable. and at the same time, the native-born population over time is also evolving. we're all evolving through time. the aging baby boomers in particular will be the dominant factor for the next 20 years, impacting the fiscal state of america. and so that's just inescapable. fortunately, children grow up. and children become the new taxpayers and the new workers and the new home buyers. so we have to keep both those things looking forward in time. i'll stop there. >> and i think we've covered a lot of what i think is important in the report. i think the points about the fiscal stuff is really important. one of the things that we do cover that we didn't get into as much is the fact that immigrants are actually moving into a larger set of communities.
so there is more geographic dispersion. and i think that's sort of an issue that, you know, warrants more study. so i would like to think rather than this being the last word on these topics is sort of an opening way of sort of putting some information out there that we can then build on and sort of expand what we know and what we need to know about the topic. >> absolutely. as i said at the onset, this report, it opens a chapter of study and debate that will take a long time to digest, add to, and expand on, much the way new americans produced volumes following it, this really seeds our study. and if there's a really, really simple bottom line to this, is it's not simple. and be wary of anybody on any side of the argument who tries to convince you that it's simple. thank you. [ applause ]
>> that was just terrific. so as we're bringing this panel off and we're going to move the next one on directly, if you need to stretch your legs, let me encourage you to do that in place, if we can, because we're going to go straight into the next discussion without a break. but it was really a wonderful chance to have three people who were part of three years of deliberation dig into and explain for us the information. and we're going to move from this discussion immediately into a discussion about the lived experience, and the ways in which the broader trends that we were talking about are playing themselves out at the state and at the local level. and while our next panel is getting miked, i wanted to also just thank those of you who are participating in a very robust social media conversation about this discussion. i really want to -- it's
interesting to see what people are pulling out from the panels and highlighting online. and i think those are areas that we can explore some more. i will say that the urban and usc are very excited about trying to dig into some of these consequences in our work together that's going to happen in the next chapter. so we will have our panel miked in just about 15 more seconds, and we'll move right ahead. so urban institute senior fellow audrey singer will moderate this next discussion. and are we good to go? all right. thank you, audrey. >> thank you. welcome to the starting point.
we're bringing it down to the state and local level. i'm audrey singer, a senior fellow in the metropolitan communities and housing policy center here at the urban institute. we're delighted to have you in the room with us and those of you who are watching on the webcast, welcome as well. before i introduce our panelists, i just want to say a word about the picture that we have behind us. when i saw that picture, i e-mailed kim rubin, asking her if that was two members of the study panel when they received the final report, jumping for joy. she wrote back saying, no, there would be 500 pages a book in her hand, not just one page. so this is a naturalization ceremony with a certificate, i believe. so we're really excited today to have a stellar set of speakers
from several communities around the country. next to me is renato soto, the co-founder and executive director of connection americas in nashville, which has one of the nation's fastest growing immigrant populations among all metropolitan areas. connection is a nonprofit that serves primarily latino families in the nashville area, with programs to support immigrants in buying a home, learning english and supporting the educational success of children and otherwise helping immigrants integrate into nashville. next to her is sonia lynn, general counsel and policy director of the new york city mayor's office of immigrant affairs.
moia is an agency that work to ensure the wellbeing of immigrants and supports their economic, social, and civic integration. and many, there are numerous programs and policies i'm going to ask her to talk about those in a bit, but sonia, her main responsibilities, she leads programs that promote access to justice by connecting immigrants to free and safe immigration legal services and also citizenship support. and they do that in a variety of ways, often through trusted community-based organizations and libraries across the city. senator moises dennis is a state senator from nevada. i should say nevada, i spent some time there, i know better, but i'm from the east coast. he's been a member of the legislature since 2011. mo is also the co-chair of the national conference of state legislatures task force on immigration. he works with other state senators from around the country to focus attention on state level concerns around immigration issues and to help
ncsl influence policy and legislation at the national level on a range of issues. i really want to congratulate nas and the study panel experts for this report. it says a lot about a lot of things, as we've just heard. and it's much harder to characterize things at the state and local level, the lived experiences of immigrants and the communities in which they live and work and go to school and worship and shop in. and of course it's -- we were going to use that as a frame to have a much fuller discussion about what it's like in various communities around the country. and i should point out that of course immigrants are not evenly distributed around communities in the country. and their costs and their contributions also really vary widely cross places.
neither are there investments in immigrant communities made by municipal many governments. housing markets, labor markets and the opportunities that they offer also vary widely. different places attract different kinds of immigrants. that's kind of thing we'll be talking about here today. while the federal government is responsible for creating national laws and policies around immigration, most of the policies and the programs and the practices that affect immigrants and their families are operating at the city and the county and the state level. so it's the nashvilles and the new yorks and the nevadas and the las vegases that are the places that face the practicalities of integrating immigrants. they and other places around the country have choices in how to invest in immigrants and their children, and they do so in varying degrees. some places, especially those with a long history and identity as immigrants gateways, have been involved in the integration
of immigrants into the social, political, and economic fabric of those places. they're more likely to have well developed organizations that reach out to immigrants. often they have nonprofits and community based organizations that have been started by immigrant newcomers, that carry on this nongovernmental role of being in between immigrants and the institutions and the communities in which they're integrating into. other places where immigration is a newer phenomenon, shall we say are somewhat less excited about immigrant newcomers coming into their midst and often places over time have developed policies that serve to deflect or exclude immigrants, often aimed at those who are undocumented, but as we know, the undocumented and legal immigrants and u.s. citizens are all wrapped up, sometimes in the
same families and households and certainly in the same communities. those policies tend to affect a larger group of people. so i'm going to start with renata. nashville is currently the home of about 150,000 immigrants. it's doubled in size since 2000. and immigrants now make up about 8% of the population. and i would like to talk to you about connection a bit. tell us a bit about the organization, its work and its goals, and what kinds of issues moved you to start the organization. >> it's great to be here. i would say i'm one of the 40 million in the report. i came to the u.s. when i was 21, with the opportunity to finish college and stay here because of marriage. nashville is one of the many places that you describe, where many nashvillians did not know someone who spoke a foreign
language and came from somewhere else in a very clear and tangible way until 20, 25 years ago. connection americas is a response not only to the growth of latino families who are coming to places like nashville or atlanta, georgia, or charlotte, north carolina, or dalton, georgia too, but also a response to recognize that as those families are looking to become part of the community and start a business and buy a house and pursue the american dream, that also the nashville community was grasping a change that some welcomed more than others. we are a support network for those families that are arriving and also a place to have conversation with native nashvillians about why in the first place mexicans come to
nashville, why are central americans arriving, what are the conditions we leave behind and what are the challenges and opportunities we're seeking in our community. we've been around now 14 years. our focus has been promoting the social, economic, and civic integration of families. it's a two-way street, immigrants are trying to learn a new language, new system, new customs, but we're deliberately understanding that nashvillians also have to adapt in reciprocal ways, and that we are a more diverse community, but that nashville will be only inclusive if we take the steps to make sure that those immigrants have opportunities and tools to succeed, and nashville as a whole will reap the benefits of their contributions. we are an organization that at a very basic level, to break it down, helps families buy houses by accessing financial products that meet their needs. we help entrepreneurs find,
pursue an idea, and turn it into a successful business, including a culinary incubator that pretty much highlights the conversation in the earlier panel of people that are coming with family recipes and with amazing creativity and skills, and are turning that into successful businesses, catering companies, wholesalers, and creating jobs for others, not just for themselves. we are also very invested in the point of making sure that the second generation is also fulfilling what the report says, primarily focusing on ensuring that the children of immigrants or immigrant kids who are already a growing percentage of our school system in nashville have the opportunity to succeed in high school and become the first in their families to graduate from high school and go to college, through a national
program developed by the national council of larasa. we're one of 20 organizations across the country who implement that. i'll talk more about how that connects to what we heard in the report. certainly we understand that immigrants are not just workers who want a good job, but are people full of aspirations and needs and assets and dreams. and we try to be a support at every point of their life in nashville, and hoping that we're also a voice for bringing nashvillens and immigrants together, to understand how our presence benefits our city. >> if you would like to say something about the second generation, i think it's of great interest, certainly in the report. it spends a lot of time talking about not just the short term but the long term benefits of this population. i don't know if you can elaborate on how the second generation is doing as they become adults, as they enter the
workforce, are they staying in nashville, what's going on around that? >> so nashville, you know, even in our 14-year history we already can see the change of our community. 14 years ago when we started connection americas, we were mostly exclusively thinking about the resources, tools, aspirations, challenges, and assets of the first arriving parent. usually the dad who came to nashville for a construction job when nashville was in the middle of a construction boom, building a stadium for football and an arena and other big infrastructure investments. i love to hear the story from a priest in our community, the neighborhood we're located, that says how in the early 1990s, his church changed by the number of single men that showed up to church. and then three years later, his church changed again because
those men now were bringing their wives and kids who they had sent home now that nashville became a place where they saw a future and a place to call home permanently. so in that same way, at connection americas we see not only those adults who are the first arriving, learning english, being employed in service industry, hospitality. tourism is a very important industry in nashville, and certainly the immigrant work force is propelling the vitality of industry in big ways. but then also we started seeing the shift of our school systems. and actually for us, it's more important to see what the school system is looking like, what the census tells us about how many immigrants are in our community. that's like the more real snapshot about what was happening in nashville. already 25% of our children in kindergarten are latino. and 30% of the students in nashville come from homes where english is not the primary
language. and that continues to grow every year. we have a system of about almost 90,000 children. and so what we see now is both the children that came with their parents as immigrants but also the children being born in nashville who are already in kindergarten and now graduating from high school. and a few years ago, precisely recognizing that change in the clamor from parents to also have resources to help their kids succeed in school, we brought the nclr program to nashville, an intense afterschool program to help them succeed. what i can tell you is that we are in front of that american dream of the parents who might be employed at what you call low skilled jobs, although i would argue that many people in this room could not build some of the brick beautiful walls and things that we see around, and i find it very, very skillful.
but certainly their children are this group of people that have not only this expectation from their parents but this eagerness to make sure that they will be the ones in their family who will change the trajectory, who will make it to college. and that is great. we're trying to make sure that they have the supports to do that. however, we are also competing with our own self-interest in tennessee in that -- and in many places in the country. many of these kids who are undocumented are not seen as the tennesseeans who they are and for them college is more expensive, having to pay sometimes three times the amount of money as it would cost a tennessee student. while our state and governor is pushing a plan called drive through 55, meaning that in the next 20 years, tennessee will achieve that mark where at least 55% of our citizens will have graduated from high school and
have some kind of secondary education, because only 25% of tennesseans do now, because we understand the economic investment that having a more educated workforce will mean to our economy in tennessee. so on one hand, our governor and our system is pushing that we reach 55%, everybody let's get a secondary education somewhere. but on the other hand, we have about 14,000 students in tennessee who would benefit from in-state tuition rates that are already saying, i want to go to college, i want to be a doctor, i want to be a teacher, i want to be an engineer. we're making their work harder and we're making the path more expensive. and sometimes we're easily tempting them to go to another route in which they will not pursue further education. and so we see what the report says in two ways.
the energy of those kids, what is propelling them, and the parents that are propelling them to achieve that, the eagerness to become the first in their families to go to college, to break that and achieve an educational level that many of their parents do not have. but yet in our state we're still grasping this sort of reverse policy that is against our interests when we're not making that possible for 14,000 kids and others behind them. >> thank you. so new york, well, everybody knows new york is the place with the largest number of immigrants in the united states. it has a long history of receiving immigrants. receiving immigrants. it has the statue of liberty. there are nearly 6 million foreign born people in the metropolitan area there, which is a huge metropolitan area.
more than half of them live in the city of new york. and as a place with a history as a continuous place of settlement sets it apart from many places. so new york is really ahead of things in a lot of ways and it's kind of unfair to other places, but they are able to present options and opportunities that other places can't. and so what i'm interested in hearing from sonia about is how a municipal level infrastructure works, how the city government works and invests in these communities, and their interactions not only with immigrant communities but with the nonprofit sector, various other city agencies, and what it's like to be in a place with a well-developed, well-funded infrastructure to support
immigrants. so talk to us about what you guys do at moia and why the city invests so much. >> great. thanks, audrey. and thank you all for coming here today, thank you so much to the urban institute for hosting this really important conversation. i'm really excited to keep talking about these issues and to really dive into the report in the days and months to come. moia in new york city, as audrey mentioned, we have this broad mandate which i think is a fantastic one, which is to promote the well-being of new york city immigrants and support their social, civic, economic integration. we at moia are in the city charter. we're within the mayor's office. we recommend policies to, you know, pursue our mandate. we conduct outreach throughout the city and immigrant communities in the five boroughs. we help immigrants navigate the city government, new york city
generally. under the leadership of mayor de blasio and commissioner agerwal, which we focus on a few strategies at moia in this administration. one, to really realize a vision that we have of inclusive government, an equitable city, a government for all new yorkers including the 3 million foreign born new yorkers, and make sure that these immigrant new yorkers have access to city services to pursue their dreams, fulfill their potential. another focus that we have, as audrey mentioned, is supporting immigrants in accessing justice. for us that means making sure that we can connect people to immigration legal services, support them on their path to citizenship.
we've done some research with the urban institute actually that shows the economic benefits of naturalization for immigrants, a rise in wages, in employment rates, it's good for immigrants, it's good for their families, it's good for us in the city as well. so access to justice is a big deal for us. and then advocacy on behalf of new york city immigrants at the local, state, and federal levels. and in doing this work, you know, we work with a really broad range of people. we're a small unit within the mayor's office. it's not our job to serve all new york city immigrants. we do it in partnership with our sister agencies in the new york city government, with the really rich and broad kind of community of community-based organizations in new york, faith, labor, business. you know, we work with all kinds
of stakeholders and partners who see the benefit in supporting new york city immigrants. and then i think another sort of key to our success is thinking about, you know, testing innovative policies and programs, new approaches for delivering services, connecting to immigrants. we -- i think probably the best known program that we've launched in this administration is the idnyc program, new york city's municipal i.d. card which was launched at the beginning of 2015, so less than two years later, one in ten new yorkers has a municipal i.d. card. it's just been tremendously successful. i'm happy to talk about it more. i think it's been a really great learning experience for us. the partnerships and collaborations that need to happen, and how to design
programs so that they're useful and beneficial to immigrant new yorkers and to all new yorkers. i think we've learned that that's a real necessary ingredient for a program's success. >> from what i know, it sounds like the nycid is one of those kinds of things that benefits not just immigrants that didn't come out of your office, right, or did it come out of your office? >> we were definitely one of the agencies involved. >> so the idea is that if you have one of these i.d.s, that you have access to a bunch of things, and it provides city agencies and other organizations i.d. but i guess you've got one in ten now. do you have a sense of how well people are using this, what share are immigrants or foreign born people, what they're using it to access? i again want to stress, new york
really is a laboratory for other places. and because they're a little bit ahead in terms of how they view immigrants and the money that they have to spend on them, these are lessons for other places. there are many other places around the country, cities in particular, that have municipal i.d.s and have had them over a while. we're learning a lot about how populations use them. i wonder if you can tell us more about new yorkers. >> absolutely. definitely we were not the first city to create a municipal i.d. program. new haven, san francisco, other cities had these programs. and we are talking to sort of jurisdictions all the time that are interested in starting municipal i.d. programs. in new york, you know, i think sort of to answer one of your questions, audrey, but how are people using the i.d., you know, what benefit does it have to them.
we actually did a study with a third party evaluation firm that came out last month to really dive into this question of, is it working, do people like it, what are they using it for, are immigrants actually using it? definitely immigrant new yorkers were a key population that we had in mind in designing and implementing the program. they were not the only population by any means. this is a card for all new yorkers. i mean, we wanted it to be broadly appealing in scope because we did not want it to be a card that stigmatized card holders. we wanted it to really be something that signaled kind of the most precious identity of all, which is that of being a new yorker, you know, in my opinion. the valuation was interesting. we confirmed the card is popular
throughout the city, so we have card holders in all zip codes across all five boroughs. you know, definitely higher rates of enrollment in immigrant dense neighborhoods and populations. we don't ask about immigration status, by the way, so we don't know who's undocumented, who's documented, people's citizenship status. it is really do we know who you are, do we know that you live in new york city. those are the questions that we ask when people enroll. other things that we learned in the study are that the immigrants who had a card, who self-identified as immigrants, responded to the survey, about 66 perseus it as their primary i.d. about 36% have it as their only form of u.s.-based id. people use it for all kinds of things. using it exactly as we hoped
for very kind of quotidian things, like entering city buildings, going to pick up their kids at school when oftentimes you need to show id, using it to open a bank or a credit union account with a participating financial institution, using it -- when we were designing the program, we worked with a wide range of cultural institutions throughout new york city who agreed, who were really excited actually, about offering free one-year memberships to their institutions for card holders, and that's been a really popular benefit for the card and i think has drawn a really diverse cross section of new yorkers to the program. they're using it. the museums, the concert halls, the other cultural institutions are really thrilled to see new populations come through their doors, enjoy what they have to
offer. we just announced new benefits this week where new york road runners, which is a recreational racing club, running club, has offered memberships to card holders and sporting goods stores offering discounts. you can get prescription discounts. it's kind of a key to the city for new yorkers. it's in their wallet. you can use it and enjoy everything the city has to offer. what i think is kind of the most powerful statistic that came from the evaluation was the really high rate, i think, over