was it premeditated? the answer is, yes, it was absolutely premeditated. it didn't work out the way they wanted to. they didn't exterminate all the jews in concentration camps or gas chambers, so they did the next best thing, they killed every jew they could get their hands on, and they can killed them as viciously as humanly possible. and now i will take questions from here. there's a mic here, and let's go with this woman first. can everybody hear me okay? >> thank you, mr. black, for this extraordinary panorama of the arab/muslim/nazi alliance and for drawing for us the continuity of this issue. >> thank you. >> from way back. >> what is your question? >> my question is simply, very simple. i've always heard that the grand mufti was instrumental in all

these events, and i would love it if you could give us a few more details about the persona of this man. >> the grand mufti of jerusalem was made a mufti by the british, and then they made him a grand mufti. and he was put power for the sole purpose of keeping the arabs of palestine into some kind of track quillty -- track quillty. and the reason for that was they were trying to build at that time and ultimately did build a pipeline from iraq to high that to bring all the british petroleum oil to the, to the allies and to the western world. now, british petroleum's name at that time was not called british petroleum, it was called anglo-persian and many other names. so the must mufti of jerusalem a shadow government. he was given virtual autonomy, he was on the british payroll.

he had his own infrastructure, and he had control over the western wall. he had control over the positive conclude. -- mosque. and he was a huge agitator, and it was typical for him to speak many front of the microphone and say i want everybody not to engage in any kind of violence, and then in the side he would say, kill the jews, kill them where they are. so it was speaking with two different voices, one for the western world and one for the arab world. this is a tradition that goes back to the mufti, and we've given all these, this information in the diplomatic cables, in the arabic ables. -- cables. we tried our hardest to quote the arabic communications at the time. so the mufti of jerusalem was devious, he was part and parcel at the highest level with the hitler regime.

he met with hitler in his office. he was under hitler's payroll, he was given -- he was elevated by hitler, and when i say he was with hitler, i don't mean he was just meeting in a dark shadow. they had newsreels. in fact, the mufti of jerusalem went to concentration camps. he went to the place where all the concentration camps were organized. he went, we believe, to a subset of auschwitz, and whenever they tried to rescue jews, the mufti of jerusalem would send irrepressible letters to the hungarian officials, to the polish officials -- not the polish, to the hungarian, to the bulgarian saying don't send the jews to palestine, send them to poland, okay? now, if you think that nobody knew when auschwitz was in 1941,

excuse me, 1942, 1943, let me correct you because a little girl in an attic in holland confirmed in her diary the jews are being gassed in poland. nothing reproduced in a book published by the afl-cio wild wide in numerous -- worldwide explaining that auschwitz is a death camp where they put gas in the cellar. this was very well known, and so when he said send them to poland, he knew what he was doing. thank you very much, i hope i answered your question. over here. >> the question is, what now? [inaudible] where do we -- who do we turn

to? because in europe when we saw the us a tabs coming to -- the bosnian muslims were coming in warsaw, i saw them personally on their faces. there was a whole regiment coming, moving forward. we had our government, the american government send bombs on the serbians. the serbians had milosevic, but where do we -- >> okay. let me try to answer the question. >> yes. >> yes, as i've explained, the muslim forces of the third reich who were not just independent militias, they were ss units dispatched all over europe in various formations for various tasks, although they were mainly

centralized in yugoslavia. they were trained in france. you saw, what do we do now? that question will not be answered by me. that question will be answered by everyone who hears you. i have given you the history of how we got to this. i will not talk about 21st century policy, but any 21st century policy which is attempting justice must look back on the true facts of, of history. there were many, there was enough bloodletting in yugoslavia to write volumes and volumes. and, unfortunately, what our government does now in the middle east n yugoslavia, etc., is up to a sense of justice in

history, and you and you will decide what that is and not me. thank you very much for -- >> [inaudible] >> the british really went to the nazi payroll. prior to world war ii, of course. now i'm going to take a question from this gentleman here. his name is schlomo, and he's with justice for youth from arab countries, what's your question? >> i had a personal question. the u.s. holocaust museum, as we both know, was not very keen to discuss this topic five years ago. >> [inaudible] >> could you tell me that if in

the last few years they're still not talking about this topic, or have they addressed it? >> okay. the question is when the u.s. holocaust -- whether the u.s. holocaust museum has consciously obstructed information about this topic. well, the answer is, of course, yes. and many people in this organization of survivors know how difficult it has been to get the management of the museum to be truthful and cooperative on many issues. in the -- i believe it was five years ago that there was an attempt to get recognition of the farhud. this man was involved, many other scholars were involved, and the holocaust museum put a stop to it by sending out e-mails to all the other holocaust museums because their narrative was that the, that the holocaust experience, hitler's war against the jews, was a european experience. i'm sure you all know the book,

"destruction of the european jewelry." but that does not mean that just miles south of there that jews were not destroyed in belgrade, which was, of course, the first jewish free city. horrible concentration camps in the north of africa. i always have to say that many jews who survivorred the holocaust in north africa did so because the arab-muslims in the north africa helped them and saved them. but that does not mean that there were not multitudes, there were not multitudes of arabs in common cause. the holocaust museum obstructed that move by spartic jews. there's now a page on their web site about the farhud. they are now putting in the information about the mufti. i believe you launched a -- what

was your involvement in the pressuring the museum to come clean? >> at the time i was executive directer of the international leadership council, and i had asked peter black who was -- was, i don't know if he still is -- the chief historian of the holocaust museum -- >> no relation, by the way. >> i went to the holocaust museum as a tourist and asked him some questions, and he denied any responsibility of the mufti and the nazis in north africa which is just not true. >> and what happened thereafter? there was a protest movement against the holocaust museum? >> i called for -- we sent a press release nationally calling for his firing because the u.s. holocaust memorial museum refused to speak with us about the topic and basically shut the door on anything relating to the farhud. you know, the holocaust museum's mission statement about the show what in europe, they don't mention africa or the middle east. >> okay. and by the way, did anyone in

congress take up your cause? is. >> congressman engel came to meet with the international synagogue and basically said on stage along with rabbi weiss that he'd work to cut funding to the holocaust museum unless they spoke about this topic. >> okay. so, now, the holocaust museum has made strides, but just so you understand, all my research at the holocaust museum was blocked. they would, andy hollinger denied me the right to speak to their use stash shi experts, their yugoslavian experts. and i'm very sad about it. i know that they've refused the people in this room, the survivors in this room the right to their own records. leo rechter here has been fighting this cause. our job here is to, once again, hope we can move forward

progressively with the holocaust museum to broaden their point of view i -- view and stop their confrontation with survivors, give them their records and open up their files and their experts to anyone, not just me, but anyone who wishes to speak to an expert. because these are very complicated files, should be able to do so. i'll take a question. >> it's really not a question, it's a statement. >> we don't want any statements. you must ask a question. >> i just want to ask you, isn't it ironic that germany today has such an unbelievable problem with their arabs? >> excuse me? [laughter] i'm sorry? that's not something i'm going to address. it does not have a place in this conversation. i'm only talking about the holocaust era. i have a question from you. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> please, history. history. >> history. >> 20th century only.

go ahead. >> history question. when you referred to the nazi machinery was still operating after the official disintegration of the holocaust to further the arab movement against the jews, are you referencing -- this is my understanding, that they were the ware wolves? >> well, you can call them the werewolves, you can call them the secret foxes, the vampires, whatever you want. for they were official positions, they were running the military coordination. their firsts -- first names were hitler, adolf, and this generation of nazis transferred into the arab world to create the middle east that we know today. so, and that is in the book. a question from this side, please. >> yeah. you draw a very clear historical line between, of the jew hatred

in the middle eastern world, but you also allude to some protection of jews, so i'm wondering if you can elaborate so we can use this also as a foundation for future hope. >> sure, i'll be happy to. anyone who wants to say that it's all arabs or it's all muslims is totally wrong. they're misinterpreting what i'm saying. i'm talking -- i mean, remember, no one has hesitated to document what the germans did in world war ii. was it every german? no. was it every pole? no. was it every -- let me tell you something, most french jews today are alive because of frenchmen in france helped save them. that is true. now, what can we use today? well, people say to me, is there no hope? how do you defeat 1400 years of

hatred? listen, there's a peace treaty with jordan, there's a peace treaty we egypt. this is -- we egypt. this is called coexistence, and coexistence can lead to peace. so when you come out of here, don't find a reason to amplify what happened in the 20th century, find a reason to move forward in handshake and brotherhood with arabs, with muslims to look back on the history as they have in south africa, as they have in yugoslavia, as they have in rwanda and move forward and say, now, what can we do from here looking at our honest history? so use the precedent -- >> you also alluded to actual peace, arabs protect the jews back throughout history. >> arab -- >> [inaudible] >> arab regimes depending upon the decade, depending upon the century, depending upon the

territory have alternately massacred the jews or elevated them to elite nobility. and i try to give the nuances of that in the book. there's a huge legacy of neighborliness between jews and arabs, but i also had to give the context. >> absolutely. >> you know what we can say about black people in this country, that black people in this country they rose, they became great sports stars, they became great jazz guys, but they became great jazz guys and great sports stars within the context of the civil rights movement, within the context of being, of being suppressed and being summit r subjected -- subjected to the cruelest jim crow laws and things of that nature. so, yes, were there blacks with plenty of money? sure. did they have to fight three times as hard to get there? yes, they did. and so, yes, there were good relations. i'm happy to emphasize the good

relation -- >> the thing, even in the farhud though -- >> even in the farhud, and the book makes this clear, many be times a jewish family was saved by an arab. in fact, the reason the extermination itself did not go through, it's true, thousands of arabs in mesopotamia murdered hundreds of jews. but there are also a few key arabs who saved it from if becoming total extermination. and they are named, and they must be recognized. >> thank you. >> and gnat marginalized. a question on this side. how much time do i have left? >> 15. >> 15, okay. >> i wanted to know if you are invited to speak on this issue to university campuses? >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> okay. the answer is -- >> columbia, nyu -- >> okay. the answer is i do about 300 events a year, and i'm doing many events on this topic at

universities. i'll be, i have a web site called edwinblack.com. my schedule is open, i'm not hiding from anyone. you can go to my multibook tour of 2009, 2011, and you will see i have 15 events in south florida, i've got five or ten events in san francisco bay in january and february, so i speak as often as possible. but i have to tell you something, there are many people who don't want this message. and not all these -- and some people within the jewish community itself do not want this message discussed. my challenge is to bring this history out without politics, without polemics and to use it as a basis for fact and moving forward in brotherhood with our neighbors, not as a way to

fractionalize this. yes. >> question for you -- >> this is judah. >> in my work helping you research the book, i came to some sort of conclusions on my own. a lot of what went on in the 20th century since israel's been formed, a lot of the negotiations for peace process and also problems that jews have around the world, a lot of people often say i'm not anti-jewish, i'm anti-israel. if israel wasn't there, if it reel wasn't doing that, your book clearly outlined that the nazis were actually anti-jewish because they changed that tone. in the end, they just wanted to get rid of the jews. what do you say to people who try to differentiate between being anti-israel and anti-jewish in the scheme of things when you look at the research. you've done this book and some other books. it becomes only about one thing and one thing only, in my opinion. >> well, you are correct, and you were in our research effort,

and when i say you were in the research effort, you were there hour to hour and minute to minute for many, many months as we constantly struggled to document this as pairly and in context -- fairly and in context as we could from all sides being careful not to leave anything out. the answer is, it is anti-jewish, not anti-zionist. the jews are in their homeland. so the vocabulary used is anti-zionist. but decades before there was a state of israel in 1948, in 1920 and 1921, decades before that they were still singing, palestine is our land, the jew is our dog. so this does not involve a sudden appearance of a reactive hatred. you know, i saw a guy come on the jon stewart show, and he was

in charge of this boycott against israel. he said, well, jews and arabs have always lived in peace in palestine. not a day, not a day, not an hour. if anyone finds one, if anyone finds a day, let me know that the jews and arabs lived in peace in palestine. either they were demis or they were before 1898 or they were reviled after 1898 for their zionist cause. and, remember, the idea that jews could not sit down at the wall was kept alive, elevated to mufti and became a cause for the whole muslim world for years and years and even today, even today there are efforts to deny the jews the right to claim the wailing wall as their religious place based on the information i've given you. one more question. do we have time for one more? a question from this woman herement we're going from left

to right. okay. >> it's never emphasized enough that the arabs actually didn't discover the oil. >> [inaudible] >> they didn't discover the oil, the oil fields. actually they were searching for water. >> all right. let me -- who discovered the oil? since i've written many books on oil and since i've got another book coming out next month called "british petroleum and the red line agreement," i can tell you this: oil is older than civilization. the first oil was being used by cavemen in south africa 60,000 years ago. there was oil in the 1800s in the middle east, but the exploration teams, the industrial oil, the oil with the gushers that you know about, this was discovered by the british. the first one in iraq being one

we have pictures of in my next book. i also wrote a book called "banking on baghdad" in which i explained the whole history on that. so whether or not the arabs discovered the oil only reinforces their view that their land was given to someone else to bring a nonislamic presence, a non-arabic presence into their country, and this has only intensified the jihad, the origin algae had against the west was born in 1920, and that's in the book too. it was not born on september 11th, it was born in 1920, and it was the reaction to jews in palestine, and it was a reaction to oil companies in iraq. one more question. i'll take one more question from this guy. just a minute, we're waiting for the mic.

don't add a statement, just ask a question, please. >> can you hear me? what you had said before about al-husseini, he had a house near hitler -- >> that's right. >> and there was a problem. they were about to make him a general in the ss. they couldn't because he was a semimite. so the problem was solved, he was not an arab. he was a turk. and, therefore, it was possible to make -- >> and what is your question? >> there's no question. >> you're through? >> i'm making a statement. >> okay. of with -- all right, fine. do we have time for one more question? all right. here's a gentleman who's come -- give us a question. 20th century, please. >> you mentioned the renaming -- >> what is your name? >> andrew. >> andrew. what's up? >> you mentioned how iran was changed from persian to iran and how it had roots with indigenous tries to nazi party and trying to appeal to hitler's nazi party, but how many people in

iran or worldwide acknowledged the roots of this name change, and what other factors contributed to the creating of the name iran? >> the name iran, when i first brought this out some years ago in some articles, i was subjected to a massive intimidation campaign. which means nothing. i stood up to ibm, so i can stand up to everybody. and the name iran is an ancient name that goes back thousands of years. and the swastika is, actually, an iranian or persian symbol. >> [inaudible] >> in the new, i'm talking about -- >> [inaudible] >> it is backward. but it came down through the indus, okay? now, somewhere in the 19th century there was a, i'd like to

make it clear that in the book we indicate that the, that the roots of the swastika, but you see it in ancient pottery of the iranians. around the 19th century there was a mixup of the words, and the scandinavians thought that they were the actual audience. and this allowed this fake arkansas yang race cult to -- aryan race cult to exist which was medicalized by the rockefeller foundation and the carnegie institution and henry ford into the concept of eugenics which i also wrote a book called "war against the weak" "and nazi nexus." does the world recognize this? no. you recognize it? yes. another question. yes, ma'am. just a second. >> do you remember by any chance what was the name of that person in croatia who was famous for

having in his office a basket of human eyes? >> all right. the woman says, do i remember the name of the guy in croatia who had a basket of eyewalls in his -- eyeballs in his office, showing it? that is referred to on pages 327 and 335, and i don't want to take the time to read it here, but we have his name, and we had access to the eustachy film archives. and he showed them off. there was 40 pounds of eyes, of eyeballs. and now i am out of time. i'll take just one more question. does anybody have another question? yes, ma'am. ask your question. >> excuse me, you had said that there were predominant names were adolf and hitler? >> >> in the past.

>> both names, yes. >> what happened to those names? are there adolf jr.s, hitler jr.s. >> okay. what happened to all the arabs and all the muslims who decide to name their kids adolf? well, most of them thought that this is not the best name to have in a post-war period, and they cast off those names. anyone can change their name like that. and most of them did, but some of them didn't. and the ones that didn't you can find decades later. in fact, i will read to you, if i have a moment, a very unfortunate letter. and this is an imaginary letter written to adolf hitler after he died. and this letter says as follows: it says, dear adolf hitler, i wish that you had triumphed.

i have the exact text here. i wish that you had triumphed. you are the greatest thing that ever happened, and one day you will come back, and i wish the arab world would have a hitler too. and that was written to an egyptian newspaper. and the man who wrote that letter was anwar sadat. in fact, i have pictures of anwar sadat coming to jerusalem, and his tie is covered with swastikas. in jerusalem. anyway, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] thank you. >> edwin black is the author of several books including ibm and the holocaust, and internal combustion: how corporations and governments addicted the world to oil and derailed the alternatives. to find out more, visit his web site: edwinblack.com. >> you're watching 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on

c-span2's booktv. this coming monday booktv will be live online from the historic sin dog in washington, d.c., pal stint man -- a palestinian doctor argues for an end to the bloodshed. his book, "i shall not hate," tells the story of his three daughters killed by israeli forces during the 2009 raid on gaza. at 7 p.m. eastern time on monday, february 28th, go to booktv.org and click on the watch button under the events information in the featured programs section of the page.

>> author most recently of a collection of essays exploring nuances of contemporary immigration and citizenship in the u.s. and europe, also the author of black faces black interests which received an 1994 woodrow wilson prize for best book publicists. for that book also won numerous other words.

join the department in 2009 and is now the professor of government. now, professor of government and african and african-american star of -- studies. she also works in the kennedy school of government. she studies american politics, particularly the areas of emigration and educational policy. she also works on issues in public opinion and political culture. the co author most recently of the american dream and public schools published by oxford university press. also the co editor of the recent collection, bringing insiders and combat tense black -- transplanting perspective. our final presenter is a professor of philosophy and political and public harbour policy. he works mostly in social and political ethics and is the

author of an influential article on emigration published in the journal of ethics and international affairs. for coming to harvard he taught in the philosophy, at dicks, and economics at yale. currently working on a book, the ground for justice, an essay on global political philosophy. joe will do his thing and afterward for the final we will have a debate which i will be moderating. i expected to be quite spirited. for authority to fight for the final 30 minutes we will open and up to questions from the audience. >> well, thank you very much for the introduction. my thanks for organizing this session and my thanks to carol and jennifer for offering to participate in discussion. i should say that i grew up just down the road and went to college a little further down the road, it feels like a kind of homecoming to be here today, and it's nice to be back, and i'm looking forward to the

discussion. in a book that provides the occasion for this workshop, many book, but cheap. in the book that provides the occasion for this workshop i offer an argument as to why we should grant amnesty to a regular migrant. when i say we i'm in the united states. i'm still an american citizen, even though i live in canada. liberal democratic states and europe, the argument applies to them as well. i braced -- embraced the term and mystique, but i've prefer the term regular migrants to the more common term illegal immigrants for reasons we can discuss later. in arguing for amnesty i am not going to challenge the conventional view that the state has the right to decide him it will admit and the right to apprehend and deport migrants to settle without authorization.

let me start with a claim, an example of a claim for amnesty that i suspect most of you will accept, and this is the case of margaret, this is a true story. born in the united states, moved to scotland with her mother as the and child that age for so. a few years ago at the age of 80 she left the u.k. for the first time to go on a family vacation to australia using her newly acquired american passport. when she got back to burden the immigration officials at the airport told her that while she was not legally entitled to stay, she had four weeks to leave the country. she was, in effect, identified as someone who had been and the regular migrant for the 70 plus years she had lived in britain since she never established a legal right to reside there. of course she clearly knew she

was not a citizen since he acquired an american passport. immigration officials were saying, in effect, center back, come up putting in the project -- rhetoric that when here what are often called illegal immigrants. well, you will be relieved and happy to see with that she was not deported. once the story appeared in the newspapers the more absurdity of forcing this elderly woman to leave a place where she lived busted for life was evident. eventually to state officials as well, whenever the legal technicalities. even if she had been and a regular migrant all those years, that clearly no longer mattered. so if we think about that case she had a moral claim, a moral planned to stay in britain. that claim was especially strong for three reasons. she arrived at a young age, have immediate family members in britain, and had been there for a long time to read each of these elements is worth considering separately.

first the fact that she arrived as a child and she was not responsible for the decision to settle in the united kingdom. almost all yang children, a product of your parents' choice, not around. that is important because people often insist that a regular migrants' deserve to be deported because they have knowingly violated the law. you can't really say that about children. they can't be held responsible for violating immigration laws. it matters where they live. in this case being raised in the united kingdom made her a member of british society, regardless of for legal status. it's the same with all children. the years of childhood are the most important from a society's perspective, the formative years of education and water socialization. it's just morally wrong to force someone to leave the place where she has been raised, where she has received her social formation, has our most important human connections just

because her parents brought her there without official authorization. human beings who have been raised in a democratic society become members of the society. not recognizing their social is cruel and unjust. finally the rules in north america and europe bread many and people in just this way. some of you may be familiar with the story of the young man at harvard and a newspaper a few months ago. i have forgotten his name, but he was brought from mexico to texas as a small child by his mother, raised by a port, single mother. went to school, part art, won a scholarship. classic american story. then on the trip home to see his mother his immigration status was detected, detained and friend with deportation. well, fortunately that deportation order has been put on hold and this seems as though he will be in the status thanks in no small port to the support that he received in the cambridge area. well, granting legal status of children like him should be our normal policy, not a lucky

exception for those who happen to get the support of a powerful committee. in fact, there is a proposal before congress called the agreement to act that would do just that the land i'm bewildered as to why anybody would oppose that. the principal that regular status becomes irrelevant over time is clearly those. this applies to adults, especially when they have family connections. so take another case, the case of miguel sanchez. again, a true story that in this case changed some of the identifying details. so miguel sanchez could not earn enough to pay the bills in his hometown. he tried for several years to obtain a visa and was rejected every time. in 2000 he entered on foot making his way to chicago where he had relatives and friends and started working in construction spending money on his father. he worked weekends at tak and

donuts, went to school in the evening to learn english. in 2002 he met an american born u.s. citizen who lived in his neighborhood. they married in 2003 and have a six year-old son. sanchez, his wife, and son live under constant fear of deportation driving to the funeral of or relative in another city causes stress because a traffic stop or accident can lead to his deportation. nor can they travel by plane. their son has never met his grandparents in mexico. meanwhile the live an ordinary life in the neighborhood, have friends, on a home, pay taxes, child attends preschool, finding other parents. so he is an american. it is an american family, but under current u.s. law there is no feasible path to regularize his status, and their should be. living with one's family is of fundamental human interest, the right to family private life is

recognized and european human rights legislation and family values have played a central value in american political rhetoric. all liberal democratic states recognize the principle of family reunification, that is to say that citizens should normally be able to have their foreign spouses and minor children join them. that usually takes priority over the normal discretion. but not when it comes to those who have settled without authorization. now, it used to be possible that to gain exemption from the normal immigration restrictions when people married americans, but that is no longer the case. this is wrong. once someone is marrying an american citizen or resident with ties to the united states for interest and living here in your spouse's interest in having her live here all the salmon new importance. they greatly outweigh any interest the state has in the porting a person in order to enforce the immigration laws. so even if you think, as i'm

assuming here, that the state is entitled to enforce immigration laws, it's not right to do so without regard to the harm that is done by deportation. if and the regular migrant mary's a citizen or legal permanent resident he or she should no longer be subject to deportation. miguel sanchez should have a legal right to stay. the final element, the sheer length of time he lived in the u.k. is also possible -- powerful. arrived as a child, but suppose she arrived at 20 rather than four. would anybody really think that this defense would make it acceptable to deport her 60 years later? the case clearly illustrates that there is some time beyond which unreasonable to deport people. settled without legal authorization. how long is too long? what if simmons had been 60 and not 80? with that have diminished her plan to stay? is and not. what if she had been 40.

well, the point is the case of lead diminishes, but the underlying principle remains, there is something deeply wrong in forcing people to leave a place where they live for a long time. most people form human connections where they live. it becomes sound. even if someone has arrived as an adult is seems cruel and inhumane to upper deck person to spend 15 or 20 years as a contributing member of society in the name of enforcing immigration restriction. the harm is entirely out of proportion by whenever wrong is caused by illegal entry. our own ordeal, grauman's expressed relief. or read about moving to america because i don't have any friends and family. when i first read this package as mild. i stood back and started to think about this. normally we don't think of moving to america as such a terrible prospect. think about what it would have meant for an 80-year-old woman to be uprooted from the only home she has ever known and sent to a strange place.

the fear and anxiety being threatened with that. it might have happened. and then think about the reality of a regular markets to can be and are deported even after very long periods of residence. working because our case attracted much public attention. that is what did the trick. had it not be a migration bureaucracy might well have sent her home. posing a particularly difficult challenge for those who would uphold at all cost the right to deport regular migrants. is there anyone here who would seriously defended that she should have been deported? hurd plans are not unique. the moral rights of states to apprehend and deported regular myron's erodes with the passage of time. a regular migrants become more and more settled, in society rose in moral importance. the fact that they settled without authorization becomes correspondingly less relevant.

at some point a threshold is crossed. they acquire a moral claim to have their actual social legally recognized. they should acquire a legal right up permanent residence and all rights to go with that. you might say, how can migrants become members of a society without legal authorization? well, the answer is becoming a member of society does not depend upon getting official permission to be here. it's a social fact. people who live and work and raise their families in a society become members, whenever their legal status. that is why we find it hard to expel them and there are discovered. their presence maybe it against the law, but they are not criminals, and it would be forced -- wrong to force them to leave. over time the circumstances of banter become less important and eventually they become altogether irrelevant. that is what happened in europe and the 1970's. people who had originally been admitted as guest workers with

the exclusive expectation that they would leave whenever the less granted permanent residence status. of course someone stronger than that is a regular migrant because they have been officially invited and, but the difference is not decisive because after all the permanent settlement contradicted the terms of their mission. what was morally important, what all those european state recognized was that these people had established themselves firmly as members of society. they had to change the terms under which they had been admitted. the argument cuts in both directions. if there is a threshold of time after which it is wrong, there is also some time before this threshold and is crossed images of gay. well, how much time? well, from the opposite, how long does the state have to apprehend and expel? i don't think there is a clear answer to that question,

certainly not one i'm going to propose. the growth of moral plans is continuous, but sometimes it becomes strong enough that further claims are irrelevant. fifteen or 20 years is much more than enough. ten years would seem to me like the maximum, and i have even argued five years of civil private residence without any criminal convictions would be sufficient have recognized one can argue about the details. on the other time -- other hand it does seem possible to say that a year are to is just not simonov. the qualification of this analysis is that we should move away from a practice of granting occasional large-scale amnesty of providing a right to stay on the case by case basis. this is a common practice. instead states should establish an individual rights of migrants to transform status from a regular to illegal after a fixed amount of time, such as fiber

seven years. now, having a sister 65 specific moment inevitably involves an element of arbitration. no one can pretend she's in five years rather than four or six involves any fundamental principle to be it's more a matter of social psychology and coordination, given the need to settle on one. but if one asks why five weather than nine or 16, it's easier to make the case if one is too short and 15 is too long, given common understandings of the way people settles and to society. some people are puzzled by the weight my approach gives to the passage of time by the then range and intensity of migrants social ties. is it right to pay attention only to the passage of time? people form and become members of community at different rates. the harm that is done to someone and forcing him or her to leave of various of the bids at the passage of time per cent of

matters, but what that normally signifies about the development of human life. so, it is that reason that i think is appropriate to give special way to the fact that the regular migrant has received her social formation in the country were to the fact that in the regular migrant marrying a citizen or resident and to the persons not having a criminal record and having a history of employment, these are relevant considerations. it would be a mistake to try to establish a much wider range of criteria of belonging and an especially big mistake to grant more discretion to officials in judging whether individual migrants are passed the threshold. this is an invitation to arbitration and discrimination. now, i know that many people find my argument offensive. namely the strongest principled objection is that amnesty rewards lawbreaking. it's true that belt rules

governing immigration our laws, but so are the rules governing automobiles traffic. we don't describe drivers as illegal drivers or criminals. in most states violation of immigration law are treated as an administrative or civil matter. but then if you think about that, and there are good reasons why they do that. accused of an immigration violation, you don't get all the protections of you do if you are accused of a crime. immigration violations, there is something wrong with describing those who violate immigration laws as criminals. in any event we recognize that laws vary enormously in the hires that they seem to prevent and any order that they seem to maintain. laws against murder are more important the laws against theft. the laws restricting emigration seems to be a lot more like traffic regulations and laws prohibiting murder and theft.

they serve a useful social function, but that can be served reasonably well even if there is an amount of deviants. for enforcement purposes it makes sense to focus on the really dangerous violators, those driving drug or so recklessly as to endanger lives and those who engage in terrorism or crime in the case of immigration laws. for run-of-the-mill violations, just having roles in plays and occasional enforcement will maintain order and a sufficient level. saddling without authorization via its immigration laws, but that does not mean we should punish people for that. there is a parallel between statutes of limitations for criminal offenses and the policy of not supporting migrants. most liberal democratic states recognize that the passage of time matt as morally. at least for less serious criminal violations. if a person has not been

arrested and charged with an unspecified time, 3-5 years, legal authorities may no longer pursue her for that event, or ham. but why the statutes of limitations. some people say that is because the evidence becomes less reliable, but i don't think that is a persuasive explanation. particularly important to have statutes for serious crimes like murder, but those are the ones where we don't. so i think what it really reflects is it is not right to make people live in definitely with the threat of serious legal consequences hanging over their head for some past action except for the most serious sorts of offenses. keeping a threat and place serves no good general deterrent function and causes great harm to the individual, out of proportion to the original offense. well, if we are prepared to let time erode the state's power could pursue actual crimes.

makes even more sense to pursue immigration violations, which are not normally treated as crimes. many of the people who favor amnesty, as many people prefer to put it, earned legalization, stressed for social cost and disruption that would be involved in trying to deport most of the 12 million people, about as many estimates to have settled in the united states without authorization. deportation is impractical and unrealistic, and i think those arguments are true and valid and helpful. but there is another more important reason why we should not try to deport most of these people. it would be morally wrong to do so. it would be unjust. the argument that i have been developing is a constraint on the state's right to control immigration, not a repudiation. nothing in my argument denies the government's moral and legal right to prevent and treat or to deport those who come without

authorization as long as it takes place under drizzly early stage of residents. even if we accept the state's right to control emigrations as a basic premise that right is not absolute and unqualified. the state's right to deport a regular migrants' weakens as the migrants become members of society. over time the regular migration status becomes morally irrelevant while the harm that deportation and flax grows. liberal democratic states should recognize that fact for regular migrant who has settled an estate for any extended time. thanks a lot. [applause] >> thank you for a very -- i'm going to start off by asking a question. i know that you probably know.

so my question to you is, what issue or maybe do is winning from this argument in your view? >> well, first, first of would like to start off by commending joe. when you read his whole essay i think that he has done an excellent job of trying to deal with the very difficult issue and a knowledge and, you know, some of the problems, some of the views of the other side. one of the things he neglects, however, is a group that i care the most about in this debate command that is disadvantaged americans most skilled low-wage americans that are harmed by the competition with emigrants and especially blacks, legal hispanics, and poor whites with

educations or less, that is one problem i have with tsa. another is the fact that he caused them by regular migrants. under u.s. law they are illegal aliens. that is what i intend to call them today. i think that by adhering so closely to political correctness we have blurred the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones and that we should not blur the distinction. i think clause matter. look at what it is taking place now on our southern border. all of the violence and many of the immigrants that come from mexico are coming from a place where the rule of law is not respected. i think it is important for us and america if we really care about our country and if we really care about new immigrants, we need to enforce the rule of law. >> in your view -- so what

should be done for presidents living here undocumented for years jackie makes the argument about the passage of time has some bearing. in your view, what should be done for this person's? >> well, first of all it is up to the american people to decide what should be done. until they have made the decision through their elected representative that has not been compromised i think we should enforce the laws that are on the books. and if we are enforcing laws on the books, we say we cannot deport 12 million people. first of all, we don't know how many are here. it could be anywhere from 12 to 18 million. we don't know how many are year. i don't know wire sank of million. if we enforce laws on the books and go after the employers that are hiring, you know, illegal aliens i think that some people will deport themselves, leaves. for the others, i think that a minister to judges to an

excellent job of deciding the cases that come before them. they can decide if there are circumstances that warrant an individual to stay until we have actually reform the legislation, i think it is just critical that we enforce the laws on the books. i'm not saying we should have amassed a deportation, but i believe that a mass amnesty is problematic because it is not a when-when for america. there are calls for local communities. and if you look at the situation we are in today in america, there are so many americans. jennifer, you know this. they themselves are waiting for the american dream. many are people of color, but some are poor whites that need the american dream. at think it is important that we don't neglect the citizens in america. i think our greatest obligation is to those that are here

legally. >> so, okay. i note that you are lots of sympathetic to the open border idea. i will respond to carroll's remarks. i wonder if you think