tv Trump Administration and Immigration CSPAN April 28, 2017 4:13am-5:07am EDT
to see it kept, but there is a lot of behind the scene angst that this staff is turned off y what the senator did when he was the leader. it is going to be very hard to resist presidential clamor and public clamor to do away with the legislative filibuster. i think my bet is on the side of its remaining, but i don't think it is near a short thing. >> steve, over to you. >> lease join me and thanking the panel.
>> all right, well, thank you very much. we have one more meaning in our panel today before we break, and that is a eally urgent panel focusing on immigration reform. it's no secret that immigrants play an extraordinary role in this country. everybody who is here is dissented from an immigrant -- descended from or is an immigrant. you think back to our great innovators, we would not be where we are were not for our immigrants or immigration policy. the other thing is as business leaders, we often find it difficult to find the talent or skill in the work ways to meet our business needs. here to discuss all of that is another great panel led by a principal economist at the conference board. her research focuses on consumer markets, labor demand, and household research markets. she also serves as adjunct professor at george washington university and georgetown university. she immigration reform. it's no does not have to travel arsons both are relatively close together and down the road. panelists include the president of posey institute, the ceo in general of the thunderbird school of management and the president of freshdesk.
welcome, everybody. diane: hanks. i was sitting outside the room for the last session. omeone needs to tell me if you talked about the border wall. o? ok, so, we get to start our session with the premise of the border wall, and by the end of it, if you just hang in there, there will be drinks, so it will be a big upward trend. so just stick with me. steve already mentioned where my fellow panelists come from. i thought i would start us off by having each of us tell -- give our perspective -- why are we here talking about immigration policy. i am an economist, and i work for parts of the conference board. my parents are immigrants. i have a quick story to tell. my dad came from korea right after the korean
war, which is how he got turned on to the idea of becoming an american, because he fought alongside marines and learned everything he learned about america drum the war. when he came here, he left behind his father's pharmaceutical company. he was the eldest son and was supposed to take it over. when he first arrived, the immigration officer, whoever was in charge back then at the border, asked my dad what he was here for, and he said, "i'm here to be a bachelor." he met he was here to get his bachelor's degree, but this was an example of the language barrier at the start, so it was a little rocky start for my dad, so that's why am here talking about immigration policy. mr. tart, so it was a little rocky
morrison: and the professor of ceo of the thunderbird school of global management, which is now 71 years old and was founded right after the end of world war ii with the promise of promoting democracy and economic development through trade and through the global leadership and also the development of more effective global leaders. i am very interested in the topic of immigration because of the impact it has on education and on our student body and universities overall and impact those students have when they graduate on economic development in this country, but also, in many cases, when they go back home, the impact they have on public policy and conomic development. as we get going with the panel, i would like to share some thoughts on that. ms. lim: our next guest came all the way from going with the panel, i would california, this place called silicon valley. i'm thrilled to have him. he is an immigrant, i ignore, social leader, civic leader -- entrepreneur, social
leader, civic leader. >> my reason for being here is, one, i think you alluded to it -- tech and silicon valley would not exist without immigrants, if you will, period. if you look at the trend, m 1995, 50 2% of startups had one cofounder that was foreign-born. that trend has declined in the next decade to more like 39%. numbers come from kaufman, but the reality is without immigrants, you would not have the innovation that has changed the world and all our lives, so, clearly, it hits home to us in tech. not just silicon valley but i would say across the country. second, it is personal. i, too, like your dad, came here to be a bachelor as an international student. i am a product of the
-1b visa program. i am proud to have gone through the process. today, i am a job creator, so i'm happy to share my perspective of having been through that broken immigration process, but a process that nonetheless was very productive at the end of the day for me to be able to add value, if you will, to our society here. ms. lim: and our immigration policy experts studied this for many years. he has a lot of great perspectives from various research reports he has worked on over the years. michael: welcome. thank you so much for having me. i had no choice but to be interested in this subject because i am the president of the migration policy institute. we are about 17, 18 years old. we were ounded the week of 9/11.
thanks to me, we are one of the preeminent think tanks in the area of migration in the united states worldwide. we think that it was very important knowledge to be had from comparative study. we are in brussels and in the united states, and we think there is a lot to learn and a lot not to learn from the experiences of the continent in terms of thinking about immigration. we also are very focused on thinking about the interconnection of immigration olicy and integrated immigrant policy of the united states. we are committed to this in part because of simple demography. the united states is home to about 5% of the world's people, but we are home to 20% of the world's migrants. a quarter of our children in the united
states are children of immigrants, and that number is growing. one of the reasons we are interested in this is because this is such a dynamic population. 1990, about a quarter of recently arrived immigrants in the united states had a college degree. today, almost half of recently arrived immigrants in the united states have a college degree. this is just not understood, not perceived. the contributions will be striking and much higher than people even expect. ms. lim: so, yesterday, president trump was n wisconsin at the snap on factory in wisconsin, and he announced that he was signing a new executive order nicknamed "buy american, hire american." one thing i'm interested in getting all of your perspectives on is -- who was president trump speaking to in
that audience in wisconsin, and how will his stance on -- primarily, we're talking about immigration policy -- how does his stance on immigration policy as he was getting to in the executive order -- how is that going to address that population that he was speaking o yesterday? mr. morrison: i thought that was an interesting speech, and who among us could disagree with the ambition of hiding -- hiring more americans and buying more american-made products? i think it is a noble mbition, but it is part of a much bigger dialogue about what is happening in the economy and the transformation of american industry and american companies, creating incredibly complicated global supply chains and so on. having said that, there are two components of the message. one is if this will actually impact the
economics of international trade and international supply chains, and the second is more of a mindset, a challenge to mericans to think more carefully about how they manufacture, where they carefully about how they manufacture, where they manufacture. i think that the psychological impact is something worth noting, that too often, american companies or japanese companies or chinese companies create a paradigm of how to operate, and most of those get locked in place. people perceive competition a particular way. they follow what other companies are doing, and it does take a great shaking and rattling for people to stand paradigm of how to operate, and back and think the new about models for organizing themselves internationally. to the degree that these kinds of interactions can help ceo's and decision makers stop and reflect upon how and where do
those kinds of decisions i think is a positive move forward. i do not think it is inconsistent with the volution of corporate america. mr. syed: the first question is who he was speaking to. we know who he was speaking to. he was speaking to a very narrow part of his base, but it does not move the agenda forward. let me share part of his story. i finished my bachelors at university of texas. i had a double major in computer science and economics. in my computer science class, there were a total of 40 or 50 folks who graduated. there were less than i would say six or seven people who were native born. he rest were from india, pakistan, china, germany, so forth. 41% of folks who are pursuing doctorate or masters
in stanfield are international students. you look at my forth. 41% of folks who are pursuing doctorate or masters career, it is an example. after i finished my undergrad, i spent nine months in which i had to find a job in my field, nd that was had to make sure i got a job where i could go through the h-1b visa program. it was a very rigorous effort. companies had to make sure they were paying me at a wage that they could publicize was a prevailing wage. i had to stick with that field of study and make progress in that an advance my career. that's when
i went through my green card process. long story short, it took me years -- decade-plus -- to be able to not only go through the process and become a resident and eventually a citizen, but also stick in my field, prove myself to be in a place where i am an entrepreneur that by google and sequoia and excel. the example that we see -- and this is the data that has come from the kauffman foundation and others -- for every h-1b worker, there are 232 american jobs that have an created. i know that does not make for a nice campaign slogan, but the reality is that is how you hire americans. this is, as we all said, a nation of immigrants. before the h-1b program, there are other programs. i think unfortunately, it does actually set us back. 190,000 applications came in the first four days of the h-1b visa
program this year. i refuse to believe that this for abuse of the system. that is demand. i cannot find folks who are qualified. i would love to higher in my own community. it is not only tech, but i think it really destroys the brand of the country. we have people now who just for doing business in the u.s. are afraid to come here because the narrative is, unfortunately, so negative that people say if they have to do a meeting in london, i could just be there as opposed to coming all the way here. we know who we are speaking to, but i don't ink it solves the problem. we absolutely should reform things and look at programs that have been on for 20 years and make ure if there is any abuse,
which does happen, that is taken care of, but you do not make sweeping changes like this because i think it only takes us back. >> on the narrow question of h-1b's -- and i hope you will correct me -- the policy correction is is the displacement and wage reduction as the -- as a result of the displacement of these immigrants into the united states. i have to tell you, having struggled with a lot of the literature on this, which makes what i'm going to say boring, it's not quite clear. the evidence is not strong that we are seeing these competition effects. in terms of audience, it is clear in terms of immigration more broadly -- i think the president has been speaking and continues to speak to his base. one of the things hat is interesting about
immigration is that this was the most fleshed out part of his campaign. not only was it the most blessed out part of the campaign, he has assiduously kept to his campaign promises -- not only was it the most fleshed out part of the campaign. he has eally been assiduously committed to it and really been competently committed to it, iven his goals. when he came in, he had jeff sessions and you look at this h-1b policy, it does not make a lot of concrete changes that will go into place tomorrow, but what you are seeing with the policies of the administration as a whole is while there may be a few policies really on the round right now, the needle is still moving. the debate is changing. we have moved from an in, he had jeff sessions and
steven miller, who were very conversant in immigration policy. we would say even if around immigration to a nationalist framework around immigration. we have moved from a supposition that immigration s good for the economy that -- to a premise that immigration is problematic. and you can see tangible, behavioral changes already from the administration. you can see ome decline in travel. some to a premise that immigration decline even before yesterday's announcement, many cities are already adjusting to the president's proposal to do away with sanctuary cities. a lot of ities are already on board with that. some are vocally resisting it. you can see many immigrant communities are reporting crime at lower rates. in any event, the debate has shifted and behavioral effects re already being felt. mr.
syed: i think when we talk about the frame shifting from more international to more nationalistic, i know it is not your intent, but there is a possibility of that being was a conversation that the chief strategist in the administration had with then candidate, which talked about that we had a civic problem in silicon valley. if you folks were hearing about this, the civic problem was that 75% of ceo's in silicon valley are asian-americans. "mr. trump, we have to deal with that civic problem." these are the words of steve bannon. that is what informs that immigration agenda. you could make the argument that perhaps there is a tendency here to -- that we may not find qualified people,
but i think it is much deeper han that. that is why there is not really a thoughtful reform. because it is driven by instead of ideals not making immigration the focus but ather to shift the country pasta moccasin because there is a strong belief that somehow folks who are minorities are taking over, and, clearly, the narrative worked in parts of the country for him to have won a victory in the electoral college. but i think we have to be very careful as we work on reforms, which we should certainly stay on, that we do not confuse it. as we push back with things that are clearly coming from racial overtones -- by the way, there are not 75% of asian-americans who are
ceo's in silicon valley. that is actually not true. yes, asian-americans are part of the orkforce, but as you move up the ranks, unfortunately, leadership ranks do not keep in ace. i agree with your comment, but i do think it is deeper. i am hoping that as some of these folks find their way out of the administration, perhaps there will be a general idea to reform some of the things and if someone makes the argument we should become more inward, perhaps because on that front, but i do think it is driven in part why the issue around race. ms. lim: i want to follow up on the idea that in the tech sector that may be asian immigrants are not a perfect substitute for native horns in terms of leadership roles, like you are saying, somehow they are not moving up to the top that easily. yesterday, president trump
suggested when he announced his executive order -- first of all, he suggested that there is some abuse. i'm a little bit curious what you all think about the idea that there is significant abuse going on in the visa system. secondly, -- i guess particularly the h-1b he was referring to. secondly, there was this notion that the problem is that when we let in too many people on these h-1b's, it depresses wages for americans. that is an economic question to me. it suggests -- our immigrant workers a substitute or complement to nativeborn workers ? he was talking to a manufacturing facility, but i'm curious -- where did you think immigrants actually hurt nativeborn
workers, american workers in terms of jobs and/or wages? mr. morrison: let me add one more point -- i do see a softening of the tone of the president over the past few months on this topic. if you look at what was actually said in the speech in wisconsin, it is a proposal to get rid of or diminish some of the abuses in the waiver program, particularly at the lower end of the market, where there has been a lot of outsourcing and bringing in contract workers from emerging markets at the $60,000 to $70,000 salary range. i think certainly at the lower end of the market, there have been indicators of suppression -- depression of workers and fears that that strata of the orkforce is feeling. i think the ambition, certainly
associated with the announcement, is to move the h-1b program to the higher end of the market, in part to satisfy the demands of the tech community. my broader concern is about the size of the program. this is a miniscule number of educated people coming into the country, and the impact that that has from a university perspective is profound because right now, we have one million international students studying in the united states. our share in the united states of international students has dropped from nearly 30% to just under 20% in the last 10 years. even though the number of international students is up, our share of the global market for international students is down, down, and down, in part because these students recognize that the potential for them to get a job in the united states is -- i will not say miniscule.
depending on the field, they will not get jobs in the united states, so they come to the united states and take on heavy tuition burdens. they anticipate getting a job here, and they cannot get the these is. i think there is a much bigger issue rather than looking at 20,000 displaced or the depression of wages for 0,000 people. i think there is a much bigger policy discussion which we need to look at, affecting literally millions and millions of people in the university setting and beyond in home countries and here in the impact that has on trade and economic development. ms. lim: where are they going instead of the u.s. to school now? mr. morrison: interestingly, what we are seeing this year since the election, the number -- and this is not just when university, it's across the board in the u.s. -- 30% to 40%
fewer inquiries -- what we call leads from international students looking at studying in the united states. interestingly, it is actually higher, the drop, in the u.k. as a result of brexit. they are more exposed. 70% of their graduate students are international students. they are taking a bigger hit. where are they going? australia, canada. depending on the language group, china. they are staying in china, staying in india. i cannot say there is one country that is the net recipient, but it is a problem much bigger than theh-1b visa. > that are 25,000 h-1b visas offered per year. in our economy, we produce roughly offered per year. in our 100,000 jobs a month. the point i'm making is it is a miniscule number spread across various sectors. science, technology,
rchitecture. even fashion, apparently, people come on h-1b isas. it cannot depress wages. that just does not add up. where are we displacing people? i can speak to my experience with the process. in cases where we do hire people and we do sponsor them, at the end of the day, why we are hiring in tech is because we need talent. the competition to pay somebody $10,000 more or less does not even figure in. because we know what good talent can do.
especially in our part of the country, and our part of the economy, it is the knowledge and skills a worker has, so it is, again, very simplest it to make these broad, generalized statement. it is a question of skill, experience. are we going to nickel and dime on $5,000, 10 thousand dollars, 20,000 ollars, $30,000? of course not. they are painting this terrible scenario, and i think it does a terrible disservice to folks who are listening throughout this part of the country and are again unfortunately with duck into this hysteria -- they are again unfortunately with up -- they are again unfortunately whipped p into this hysteria. mr. fix: the story today is the story 20 ears ago -- who loses in terms
of the competitive effects of immigration into the united states, to the effect that it is best to the extent that it is discernible. tina populations lose. one is other recently arrived immigrants who are more completely substitutes for immigrants, and the other is residents of the united states who have less than a high school degree. that population is a population that is rapidly declining. it also begs the question going into the future, with the u.s. population becoming increasingly educated, with a u.s. population that is aging, it's not clear that low-wage unskilled jobs are going to go away and the population is going to be there to fill those jobs may not be enough. we may need immigrants not just at the
high-end of the skill spectrum. we may going into the future need immigrants at the low-end of the skill spectrum. one of the great defense of u.s. immigration policy is there are not any pieces at the low scale and of the spectrum. 85,000 for high skilled workers is not ery many visas. there is a little evidence of abuse in the h-1b program. there was a great series and "the new york times" about abuse in a few companies. disney, for example, has but immigrant workers in who had to train, and the u.s. workers had to train the h-1b workers for their jobs, and then they were let off. the bigger issue in the program is that it has been captured by a few, large,
ntermediary firms over time. this is thought to be an abuse. this is thought to be an abuse. one of the things we really do ot know that we need to know is who are the end-users of is who are the end-users of those visas? it could be not abuse but a strong competitive practice, but i just do not think the evidence is very strong now. just to put in a plug --ms. lim: just to put in a plug and follow on your need for low skilled workers, a forward-looking index that does not just look at the excess of demand oversupply but looks ahead 10 to 15 years and talks about the likelihood that an occupation would be in shortage given how easy it is to utomate the job or to offshore it or have it done remotely or with part-time work, that kind of thing, so the occupations and higher shortage over the next 10 to 15 years will be health care jobs, and in articular, the middle, lower
skilled jobs, not just the doctors because there's a lot of us who are going to get old, and our children are not necessarily willing to take care of us, so we need to kind of import people to take care f us, and they cannot be automated. i wrote a blog about rosie, the nanny on "the jetsons" -- remember? i don't think we consult our problem with robots. we cannot have with robots. we cannot have people take care of us from abroad. -- i don't think we can solve our problem with robots. there is a need for all kind of skills, not just at the high-end, but we will have a uge need for human services to care for our elderly population. i don't know how that will get solved. can i make one additional point? a
new study finds that if you eally want to know the reason, ar and away, technological change swaps -- swamps the others for the decline in lower wage workers in the united states. ms. lim: i think that we should take questions because i'm sure there are a lot of questions. >> i'm courtney hill. i work with virginia international university in the area. where is small, private, nonprofit
university. we are 98% international student body at our institution. with trump coming into office, it was also a double whammy because one of the largest national accreditors also lost recognition, so a lot of these international students coming to the u.s. -- i think last year, it was something like 32 billion dollars they brought into the u.s. economy. they created 400,000 jobs in the u.s. especially at our institution where we are about 60% stem-related masters degree programs, they have now lost heir two-year obj extension -- two-year opt extension. most are deciding to either go to canada or stay in their home countries. any insight on where this might be going over the
ext year or two? mr. morrison: i think it is not just your university. we are seeing this at many universities across the country. it is very troubling, and it has much to do with psychology and less to do with policy in the short term. there are only about 16,000 students studying from the countries that are impacted by this visa psychology and less to do with basically embargo. but the psychology, the communication, the messaging of this puts the fear of god in hundreds of thousands of students and probably millions of potential students who say they do not want to go to the united states because they will not be welcome. we even have respective japanese students who think it will have a problem getting their student visas. it has nothing to do with japan, but the psychology, the messaging has been sent.
that psychology will change over time. this is not something -- unless it is reinforced again and again, and it might. it's early days, but normally, the messaging, there's a period of time where it wanes and we are back to the good old days, but the good old days are still, i think, a big concern because we want international students to study here. there's every indicator of the multiplier effect, even those who go back home, the ones who organize companies, become policymakers -- their influence in their home countries can be found, how they view the united states as a multiplier effect and on and on and on and their willingness o work with american companies nd so on. having those students here also helps our students by exposing them to diversity and promoting them to creativity. there's every indicator having these students here is a good idea, but for that community to prosper,
there has to be, for many of them, a pathway forward so that students here also helps our students by exposing them to the educated can find when they want greater opportunities to stay in this country. my concern with the policy is that technology is changing so rapidly that a policy that was set 20 years ago and will be difficult to change for five more years and beyond is not a way to run an economy. we need to be much more fluid in our bility to create and shape policy. i guess executive decisions is the fastest way forward. but that does raise additional sets of questions and issues. mr. syed: i just wanted to add to your point, brand america gets affected to be honest with you. when i was looking to apply to colleges in the u.s., one of the reasons i wanted to come to the u.s. was the cousin of what it
represented, and that's what i mentioned earlier. if you are a student, business person, entrepreneur, you want to come here not just because of the market, but it's ideas. the statue of liberty actually -- people are aware of that all over the world. how do you bring that back? we don't know, ut, clearly, you have a lot of work to do because it may not affect policy, but it does affect psyche because it's very detrimental to our image around the world. mr. fix: just a brief point, one of the great advantages of foreign students is to promote the economic health of universities because they pay full tuition, and by paying full tuition, they enable those universities to cover the cost of native students, subsidize in-state students who would otherwise not be able to attend universities. >> thank you.
once again, paul haskins with cbre. i agree with you 100% in erms of the nation of america, and of course, silicon valley and northern california, having immigration be so meaningful to the industry in the country. as a native new yorker, i feel that is what makes new york city perhaps one of the most appealing cities around the world, if not the most appealing city. so i appeal to you, if you are having problems finding labor in northern california, you might relocate to new york. i believe one of the reasons we have such a strong labor force is because people around the world are so to new york. i believe one of ttracted to being in new york.
second, though, in terms of a uestion, i think you mentioned 40% to 50% of students that are in graduate stem programs are overseas, international students. why do you feel that is not more appealing to american students? why don't you feel the demographic is more appealing to american students? why do you feel there is such a strong popularity overseas? mr. morrison: that is a great question. if you look at the u.s. population, roughly 5% of the world's population, we have the best universities, particularly at the graduate level, in the world, so it's not surprising that we would have so many international students compared to american students. if we are truly global universities, you would anticipate 5% of the students would be americans, not 50% or 60%. so we are seeing a
phenomena, however, which i think is good for development, that it used to be the only good schools -- i'm exaggerating here -- were in america. that's not the case anymore. we are seeing world-class schools grow and prosper around the world. students who used to come to the united states have good opportunities in singapore, in japan, increasingly in india, and so on. let's also remember that some of these rules -- i have been visiting some of the big, prestigious schools in india. they might have 10 times more applications are opening than the best universities in the united states. they are incredibly competitive institutions with a very high caliber of instruction. we think america has got the best -- i believe we do. i know we o, but we have growing competition out there, and if we don't get our act together,
we will see a continual slide in the number of students who are choosing to come study in the united states. mr. syed: i want to speak to a comment paul made, which is a valid point about not getting out there. before we go to new york city, we need to go across the country. i will give you an example -- we have a lot of companies that open secondary ffices, and they often just go to nevada or oregon. why not international? why not columbus, ohio? we have not done our part, if you will, to actually take we are able to create into the middle of the ountry. you're not looking for computer programming skills. you're looking for market skills. you can hire folks across the country, but people normally have not made the effort. i think that is on us to bridge that gap. there is a
ot to be done for us to expand across the country. ms. lim: but how easy is that to do, to ring in more of a foreign-born population in two parts of the country where there has not been that much? mr. fix: we are actually doing a study of metropolitan areas in the rust elt, which is really interesting because in almost all of these metropolitan areas, you see the native population declining, but what is really striking to me is the composition of the foreign-born population across the rust belt. in almost every metropolitan area across the
rust belt, the human capital profile of immigrants, the college graduate -- the share of immigrants who are college graduates is significantly higher than the share of natives who are college graduates, so this recent opulation is a highly educated population who was brought into to a large extent by universities and by industry, and it is quite striking and uite promising in many ways. mr. morrison: let me just add, there's something about the profile of those international students who have the self-confidence and often the family support to pick up and move halfway around the world to do anything, let alone study at a university, so those who are not self inclined, who have self images or limitations -- they are probably staying at home, so we do tend, just by the nature of moving overseas,
attract a different kind of person. ms. lim: well, yes, it is a lot of work to come from overseas with a lot of uncertainty. i know from my parents' perspective, you have to be pretty sure and etermined that you are going to make a success of your life to give up all the security you have act home. mr. morrison: absolutely. when they arrive, we know they are highly motivated, so it's not a surprise that many will go on to achieve greater things in their lives. mr. fix: and their concentration in stem could be due to the fact that they need a higher return on their education because it is so much more cost we -- costly. when you think of their parents, i say that is the parent of two liberal arts graduates. ms. lim: there is still a language they area. my dad was not going to say he came here to be a bachelor and then major in english language -- english literature. it's not going to happen. > this is a very interesting conversation. this topic is
really important to me in articular, but i guess where i'm coming from is we can have all the intellectual i'm coming from is we can have conversations and policy conversations about this topic all we want to, but in less the message is being communicated to the average american, if you will, it does not seem like is going to go anywhere. i would like to hear some ideas for messaging, pr campaign, if you will, on getting this information to the general public. ms. lim: that is such a great question because that reminds me that i wanted to kind of an hour session with hat our community as a business community can do to further this issue. one thing that struck me when president trump had his executive order
ban on certain countries was that i immediately wondered how many of my colleagues at the conference board were immigrants. or children of immigrants. you know when the super bowl had all those commercials that were sort of increasing awareness about how e come from all over the world in this country? i'm wondering -- i feel like those little things, like if companies were more vocal about how we all rely on a global talent pool to staff our organizations, our institutions, but i'm wondering if you guys have ideas for what businesses and universities can do to take more of a stance, a position to the public to make the public more aware of how reliant our economy is on the immigrant population. mr. orrison: one of the advantages
have that thunderbird is we have 44,000 alumni around the world, and they are true believers in globalization and diversity. wherever i go, i talked to our alums and tell them about these challenges. they know about it, but i ask have 44,000 alumni around the world, and they are true believers in globalization and them to engage in the community. one of the biggest problems with universities is we all talk like professors, and the public -- the minute you start having a conversation about public policy and the research and start throwing around data and so on, they just shut right off. especially this kind of highly educated, connected group need to recognize that the minute we start talking, the average person in the street just shuts off, and we need to be very cognizant not just of the content of the message, but how we are talking, what stories we are using, what kind of emotion and reason and balance we can bring into the conversation. if we do that and are mindful of
the impact we can have when we are communicating effectively, i think we can have a huge impact on the dialogue and the debate that isa -- we cannot just be in and have go chamber. >> i am actually very optimistic. i think there is a deeper purpose to what we are doing now. what has happened in my industry, tech leaders have ome out in a manner and form they never did before. before the election i led an effort where 140 plus ceos and vc's from red states publicly signing on to support immigration and constructive dialogue. you never saw that before. you had people
protesting he for -- before. what that does is, i do think it is putting a face to what is immigration talent doing to this country, not just in tech or high skilled jobs but all over the country. telling stories, sharing how we are the fabric of this country. we are following in the footsteps of our forefathers to make this country better. as i mentioned earlier, there have to be concerted efforts for us to put up shop to the middle of the country. we have not done that, we have been lazy because it is too far, too cold -- let's get out there, right? there is talent out there. we all have come to these paths. they would love to be more connected. the stories are very
important, we have to get out there and publicly come out. people are forcing us to do it. i am optimistic. it would take a while for it to get on the right past. but i have never een that realization, that level of engagement, like what has happened in the last three months. ms. lim: michael, do you want to wrap this up? mr. fix: being in this field for ext to forever, as we go through immigration proposal after immigration proposal with who was not in the room. who was not in the room was universities, state and local
governments, business. it seems to me one of the interesting developments is, universities are more vocal about issues. the doctoral program has nergized universities. tech is now speaking at a broader level than h-1b. state and local governments are now extremely fragmented, but they are very vocal about sanctuary cities and the loss of their powers to do what they want. it is a singular moment for those within the echo chamber to ring these parties together in ways we have been getting together for many years.
ms. lim: that is great. on that optimistic note -- >> i just wanted to end of this session on a thought. i got a call last week from a ced member who has presented on ways we have been getting together for many years. ms. lim: that is great. on that optimistic note -- mmigration in our conferences, they could not be here today. she is from a venezuela and has a successful money-management firm. here is her thought, i will give her all the credit. it is widely regarded that it costs in this country to under $50,000 to raise a child from the ages of zero to 18, that higher education costs another $250,000. the investment to raise a child from zero to higher education is about half 1 million. since 1990, we have allowed into this country about one million immigrants a year. she says, how would you like to save $1 trillion in investment? you could save $1 trillion in
investment, half $1 million by increasing immigration to 200,000 people a year into this country at the skill set and education levels. we could save $1 trillion a year in investment by expanding our immigration by 200,000. she ncreasing immigration to wanted me to leave you with that thought. please join me in thanking.