they do things they're own way. it works well for what is. they have all kinds of things going on. so a lot of economic challenges. >> we have been talking with scott atlas. in excellent health. inky for being an book tv. >> pleasure to be here. >> now from the libertarian cato institute in washington d.c. global crossings. the book looks at the reasons people risk their lives to move

to foreign lands and compares migration trends in the past decade. this is about 90 minutes. >> welcome, everybody, to the cato institute. since the beginning of this year immigration has become of burning public policy issue in washington. for the first time in decades the united states considering that major reform in the way that it deals with immigrants, the ensuing debate and the possibility of reform is welcome, but the fact is politicians are arriving very late to this issue. that is because in this country there has long been a wide gap between restrictive laws and the

reality of immigration. the gap that reflects the economic and social fact that there are millions of americans and millions of immigrants from mexico and central america. we wish to engage in peaceful voluntary exchange but are not legally allowed to do so. that inconsistency has produced a lot of the problems associated with legal immigration. many serious problems and some imagined. the prospect of reform has stimulated the debate about the economic and cultural issues surrounding immigration, its impact, and is a debate that cuts across party lines and is one that has generated a lot of passion. howard a. possible legalization of millions of of a rise of immigrants and the creation of a

guest worker program affect wages and jobs? what does the evidence say about the extent to which immigrants are assimilating into american culture in recent decades. our immigrants a net drain or contribution to the welfare state into the mainly come here to work or to give state benefits? for that matter, the political impact of immigration is something that has been debated. what should we expect from an increased legal immigration in that regard versus the status quo? these are legitimate questions that go to the heart of one's world views. such issues as in equality and fairness, the proper role of the state in regulating business and labor, cultural or national identity issues, fiscal policy. so it is no wonder that this sudden interest on the part of leading republicans and democrats to address this issue

has caused heated exchanges to my exaggerated claims and some amounts of nastiness. that is i am pleased today to be opposed a forum for a book that takes a balanced look at a wide range of issues that are being discussed today. the book global crossings commemoration, civilization, and america comes at a perfect moment and puts immigration in a historical context showing how so much of the debate today is not actually new pan-american politics and that we can be guided by a lot of american experience, better to let the author talk to us about that. my good friend is a senior fellow at the center for global prosperity of the independence institute publishes -- who has

published his book. he has been a nationally syndicated columnist for the "washington post" writers your. he has been the author of numerous books, including liberty for latin-american and the guide, the perfect latin-american 80 which was a best seller in the spanish edition. he is in his columns and appears to run america ever week and has contributed to the leading newspapers in the united states. the has been a board member of the miami "herald" publishing company, and op-ed page editor and columnist for the miami "herald". i could go on and on, but i would say one more thing. he has also been one of the great champions of liberty in that america cannot very present

in all of his most important debates on the right side of the issues, i believe, and with this book records say in the americas. please help me welcome. [applause] >> thank you very much. wonderful and generous presentation. thank you to the cato institute for hosting this and alex were being so kind and hoping put it together. so i have been asked why i wrote this book, why was interested in this topic. and, well, there are several reasons. one of them had to do with my identity problem. i have been called a spaniard. a pejorative term.

rabin, pakistan the in london and now a hispanic. so i don't really know where i belong and do i am, but it is probably a good enough reason to explore this importance is you today. so let me tell you a little bit about what i do in this book. what i do is i take on all the different myths that i have seen over the years that driving this discussion in this debate, including the current discussion in the senate and soon in the house as well about immigration reform. i will cover all of that can give you my perspective. i hope that this will help but least clarify some of the misinformation that is out

there. one first myth -- and i have heard many people say. all sorts of backgrounds and all sorts of places. added not make any of this up. one final argument basically says we are getting the wrong kinds of immigrants a day. we used to get the right kind of immigrants. i am not anti-immigration, i am just against this current tide of immigrants that we are getting today. and the answer to that is the united states always got the wrong kind of immigrant. that has always been the case. the variety of the emigrant sources, types of immigration that this country has received and will last two centuries, to one-half centuries is simply astounding. of course between 1830 and 1880 was mostly northern europeans,

but between 1880 in 1920 it was all about southern europeans and eastern europeans and central europeans, nothing to do with northern europeans. they were the mexicans of yesteryear. and, of course, after that you had -- and even before that you had people from asia, the chinese during the gold rush, the japanese at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century. yes, you had hispanics a bit further on. a change in the law that triggered an unintended consequence. so there has always been the wrong kind of immigrant in the united states. it is simply not true. another important method says that the u.s. is getting a disproportionate number of immigrants. just this morning already airshow i heard the host side we are getting more than any other country in the world.

they're all wanting to come here. they don't want to go to other countries. again, this is very silly. about 3 percent of the world population is made up of first-generation immigrants. and he legal immigrants constitute about 1/6 of the immigrants that traveled from one place to another every year. so the total number of immigrants every year is about 215. the total number of illegal immigrants is about 30 million. the u.s. in terms of just illegal immigrants, one sixth of one percentage of this population. clearly much smaller proportion than any other country. so, again, it is not true that the u.s. is getting a disproportionate number. this is a worldwide phenomenon, and other countries are even more immigrants than the united

states. the only motive behind immigration is poverty. why should we solve world poverty? we have enough poor of our own. let us take care of our own. that is not the only motive behind migration. in fact, the poorest of the poor almost never mind reforming kutcher to the other. and i agree with and the borders of their own country. europe, let's take europe, until the 1980's, the early 1980's, europe was a source of migration , how migration. people leaving europe, and that was a wealthy and prosperous continent before they get into this mess. germany, the richest among the rich, exporting about half a million people every year until

the 1980's. clearly the motivation was not poverty. south korea is a source of a significant number of immigrants. immigrants come to the united states. that is a rich country. bangladesh women who are very poor. the poorest among the poor my great very little, even in asia which is the continent that has the greatest number of migrants every year. i could go on and on and on. a very. economic conditions are part of the store. you have everything, including distressed conditions at home politically, not necessarily economically. family ties. all sorts of different reasons for migrating. and historical ties have a lot to do with that as well. the u.s. has historically been entangled around the world.

complex, exchanges. that has created conditions for perris migration. a significant filipino migration to the united states as we all know. that has to do with involvement in the war at the end of the 19th century and also with the encouragement that the united states gave to filipinos to come to the united states historically including a special program. all those were a signal saying is okay to come. we recognize we're bound together. come to the united states the origin is not poor mexicans wanted a better life. it was u.s. business interest meeting to replace eastern europeans. first japanese workers in an eastern european workers in the early 20th-century, so they went to mexico and asked for mexican

workers. mexican workers started coming to the united states to work, and particularly in our railroad construction. so all of these historical ties have a lot to do with it as well . another important messages the fact that there's never been any hostility to immigration in the ad states. it always been a country of immigrants. we have always valued people coming from overseas to contribute to society. there has always been hostility toward immigration. of course it has always taking place exactly in the same way. it is not always been as intense, but historically it has always been the case that there was significant hostility to immigrants. if you look at what happened in the gold rush, the chinese to

where the object of vilification frowned upon by all those who were taking native-born americans. the japanese at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century were the object of tremendous, tremendous legal restriction. there were not allowed to even own property. they have defined all sorts of ways to get around the law. in the middle of the 19th century the home nativist movement was really born. the famous know nothing party. very much hostile toward immigration and had an impact on the government and generally on the outlook of society toward immigration. so it has always been the case. that is why we have seen throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century to

an evolving situation. as always been i guess an evolution towards more -- or a change toward more and more restrictions that reflected the mindset that was relatively hostile. not everybody protectionist, not everybody was reflective in these attitudes. there has always been a pro immigration current of opinion in the united states. what i am trying to get at is this is not something necessarily new were very different. one thing that think that we need to understand -- and this is also part of the method. whenever there is a big disconnect return the law and the reality you're going to get an impact. abbas of goods and services, also happens with people.

you constantly hear this argument. and see where they're coming from. i can sympathize with the sentiment behind it, you cannot as a country that is governed by the rule of law except people who violate the law. we're just not that type of country. this is not something that is morally or legally except to will. yes. i mean, on paper of course it is extremely powerful as an argument. you can argue with that. weber, the problem is when the law is simply not realistic. and the law does not take reality into account, you create a condition for a systematic violation of the law on a grand scale, and when that happens usually something is wrong with the law, not necessarily with the nature of the people who are violating the law. it is simply the way it works. it works with all sorts of other costs and come back, social conduct the stems from the

criminalization of things that should not be held as being criminal by the law. the same thing happens with immigrants, which is why when people say, well, there's a disproportionate number of america kimmel's -- of course. you made a condition of being an immigrant a criminal one, clearly have a lot of criminals. but if you adjust rates there are no more criminals who are immigrants that are native born. it's about the same rate. there are all sorts of studies. yes, you have camino, a significant number of people in jail, sometimes a loaded to partitioned, particularly in the last few years you could have been considered criminal simply because it was criminal to be an average. so it is important to get this myth of the way. for going to find a legal way to deal with what is a social

problem, clearly having almost 12 million people operating in the shadows outside of the laws social problem. we adjusted to make sure that that is not addressed, you know, from a starting point of believing these people are somehow, you know, biologically criminal. these people are simply the result of a disconnect between the law and reality. another important myth has to do with culture. for this time and time again and germany you have. these people are culturally different. unlike those previous waves of immigrants to work culturally in soon with our values, these people a different. and yet if you look at this in so many different ways you find exactly the same pattern. immigrants today are culturally and soon with u.s.-born people,

u.s. society, almost any way you look at it. philip religion, for instance, and the last 20 years -- let's talk about hispanics for a moment. the most numerous emigrants. 70 percent of them are catholic. about 23 percent are protestant. of the ones who call themselves catholic, one-fifth of them call themselves born-again, which is, by the way, something they never your land america. that american catholics never describe themselves as born-again. landsat's is that people want to fit in so much that they are describing themselves as protestants do in the united states. this is clearly an effort to tell the united states, we believe just like you. we pray texas like you. we're like you culturally. if you look at the family

values, which is something that i do not think conservatives who are critical of immigration clearly understand, you will find that there is barely more inclination toward family values today among immigrants than among any other part of society. for instance, to half of all the legal households are made up of couples with children. and only 13 percent of the legal households are headed by a single parent against one-third in the case of native-born americans. so again, if we spend for family values, if we really mean it what we want a society based on family values then surely there is a great comfort and -- comfort and support. they're not in medical to family values. there are all about family

values. so if you convince them of this they say, oh, but they're having too many children of. i don't know how you make that argument. you prove to them that that is no longer the case. the birthrate is going down and down and down, just as it is going down and down and down across latin america. it is still a little bit higher among the hispanic women in the united states, but only 60%. almost half of a child more than native-born women in the train is going down. i could foresee a time when it will be the same rate and they're is new discussion. until a few years ago there was high birthrate. today is going down. in an incredible way. and so those societies of beginning to face some of the issues that developed countries have been facing in terms of the

rate of, of course, contributors to the system of transfer to beneficiaries from that system. they're facing the same issues. so no matter how you look at it they are culturally compatible. you look at all of those neighborhoods that they have helped regenerate. i mention a few in the book. south florida, new york. the process is called gentrification. communities that were a complete disaster become very nice communities thanks to the effort of hispanics in general, but also a spanish particularly, but in general immigrants. again, that is the cultural side of the compatibility with the host nation. i will grant you this.

it is true that multicultural as an has distorted things a bit. think we would not be fair if we did not recognize that. and in the early part of the 20th-century there was something that used to be called americanization. frederick hayek, one of our euros, of course, praised americanization very much. he attributed to a virtue of having inculcated values and ideas relating to the free society. and i think there was something to be said for americanization. there were some aspects that were kind of chauvinistic and work, i guess, abuses that were sometimes committed, by and large i think it was a healthy thing. it was not so much government policy but just a general cultural attitude across society that somehow created incentives for people who came into learning english, becoming familiar with the values of u.s.

society, freedom, and all of these things. and there was a positive spirit that began to change in the 1960's. of course, this whole new paradigm of multiculturalism emerged. not going to go into a lot of detail. there's a whole chapter in the book. it's a fascinating discussion. i want to be sidetracked, what could their will say that essentially what happened was in the era of decolonization at the second world war we began to look at values and a different way through relativism. exchangeable. all values are equal. always of looking at society and institutions were pretty much equal. that gave rise, of course, to a whole new way of analyzing and studying societies from the past and then from that we went on to

think of minorities as his collectivist entities that were somehow in need of special protection, special rights to correct an imbalance that was historical and nature, the legacy of past abuses. and this, in turn, translated, of course, into all sorts of i guess social engineering based on ethnicity. we saw things like gerrymandering on ethnic lines, equal employment opportunity and positive discrimination, all sorts of things that gradually i think went beyond what was really compatible with the truly free society governed by the principle of equality before the law. that was bound to generate a backlash. of course it did, but my argument is this. the people who are to blame for

multiculturalism are not immigrants. they're u.s. academics mostly. and it was mostly something that emerges out of academia, not just in the nuys taste, but also in europe. so yes, there has been a distortion. yes, there are things that i myself as an immigrant do not feel at all comfortable with, but if we're going to fight multiculturalism, the way to do it is not to fight integration but to fight the ideology behind multiculturalism. so from then on i go to -- this is all like to prove that it is that immigrants were to blame. the issue of assimilation which again is laden with this myth. i am constantly told they don't assimilate anymore. they're all speaking spanish and reading spanish newspapers. did not used to be that way. of course it always was the way. german communities in the midwest, what to do? a printed german papers that spoke german. that is what italians did,

first-generation science. as the basis did. sometimes they do that still. is human nature. people want to feel they belong to something, protect themselves but that does not stop or interrupt the process of assimilation. process is still what it used to be, three generational process. a first generation make some progress, the second generation is bilingual but they speak english better than whenever other language rare talking about. by the third generation did not even speak the mother tongue so speak anymore and all. i have seen this among hispanics and it is a truly fascinating process, and it was always the case. exactly the way that it worked for the italians and compass, the germans. it has always been that kind of dynamic. just as in the past the second generation does better. the third generation assimilation is complete. if you look at marriage to marriage beyond the community, which is like to look at this,

we see this same pattern today as we saw in the past. i compared second-generation a giants to the early part of the 20th century, second-generation hispanics are particularly, the rate of of marriage among second-generation italians was 17%. today is a little higher. almost taunted%. by that third-generation out marriage is very strong. so, again, a very, very similar patterns of assimilating, assimilation. of course since you have a constant or permanent inflow of first generation hispanics it is only natural you're going to see some pockets of i guess spanish-speaking communities almost on a constant basis, that is not because they are not assimilating but simply because the inflow keeps recurring. so there is nothing to fear. they are assimilating. and i think that is something that we need to embrace.

that's why the germans signed the span areas with the more of course cans. and yes, the united states took in mexicans. it's wait it works. even in a high-tech economy you need, you know, certain repetitions. mechanical jobs that will be part of it. and somebody is going to have to fill those -- take out those jobs. that's something that migration helps to do.

do they hurt the economy? they do exactly the opposite. they help make the pie bigger. i went to the one of the most prominent economic critic of immigration, he recognizes it creates $22 brake billion to the economy every year. we updated the data. it's a conservative statistic. let's accept it for a moment. we just updated his calculation, and that would translate to about $36 billion today. if you make that legal, it probably will be increased by, you know, two and a half times. three times. we taunt almost $100 billion over a year over a decade. about a $1 trillion. that's the contribution to the economy by immigrant. how does the process work? they are producers, they are consumers. when they come in at the low end of the scale, they help others

move up the scale. yes, they have a tiny, temporary effect on wages at the lower end. our cat collation about 1.5 percent. others vary a little bit. it's a small impact. that's offset by people who are moving up the scale and earn eyer wages. and they help the labor intensive industries be more productive. they help keep prices down. as consumers, everybody in society is benefiting from that. the effect is, of course, a potent one. positivively potent. not to speak of high skill immigration. how can it not be a huge contribution to the economy? one-third of doctorate in engineering, technology sciences.

immigrants made silicon valley. the silicon valley miracle between '95 and 2005. imimmigrant -- immigrants founded many companies. they created half a billion jobs. it was absurd that the, you know, the rules, the prevailing rules are hopefully going change now. what were such that the quota for h1 visa will be exhausted on day one. as soon as they were open for applications they would be taken up. because the ceiling was 65,000 until a few years ago. it was a greater demand. it was economic suicide on the part of the united. let me finish by touching very quickly on the issue of cost versus benefit. that's another huge myth. the idea they -- immigrants cost a lot more than they contribute fiscally, i mean. that is simply not true.

there are so many studies, there was one great study conducted decades ago by the national research council. they calculated not only the fiscal impact of legalizing immigrants now, they calculate what would happen for the next fifty years. they are young. we can expect they will be working for the next fifty years in legal conditions then they calculated the knelt present value u of those fifty years in term what they will put to the system and take out of the system. they come up with -- it included, of course, children in school today, public school will come out and work for the next fifty years. you have to brick all of that to the equation. and their calculation was a net cost, a one present day value of $5,000. which is nothing if you weigh it again the contribution that i just talked about to the economy. other studies go even beyond that and say the net contribution without taking in to account the contribution to

the economy, the fiscal impact is going to be positive in term of generating more revenue for the government than taking out. and alex has written about this, i think very forcefully. my message is basically this. we are in an age of globalization. we have won the intellectual case for free trade. we can't say at the point that we have free trade conditions az cro the world. we won the intellectual case for free trade. nobody speaks against it on a intellectual level. nobody said i'm against free trade. they say i'm for free trade, but then they talk about the level playing field and all of that. i think it's simply not reasonable to expect that a world is moving gradually toward free trade and don't contemplates immigration in the way its. about trade in goods, institutes

about equivalent of 45% of world gdp. about 20% of world savings are invested out the country where they originate. only 3% of the population is first generation immigrant. it will have to be corrected. yo can either accept and embrace and channel the energy and force through legal channel and put barriers against it. you will be overwhelm either baaing the negative effect of actually being able to managing to control this will be huge or because you will not be able to control them. you will have spent lot of money and with all the side effect that come with it in trying to stem the flow. immigration is not a danger to the united to the value, to the economy, to the standing in the world, it is exactly the opposite. i think one of the best ways to keep the united states a free country, to keep it a prosperous country, to keep it as a model

for the rest of the world thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. our next speaker is alex. he's an immigration policy annalist for here at the cato institute. work before working here he worked a the competitive -- he has degrees in economics and economic history from george maison university and the london school of economics. he has been an -- has been quite involved and very influential in the current debate on immigration. please help me welcome alex. [applause] thank you, ian, for that nice introduction. thank you for coming today and

talking about your fantastic books. i want to say part of the reason why free trade is accepted intent julie by so many people around the world today as opposed to fifty or sixty years ago is because of the hard work of him and classic call liberal around the world. everywhere around the worlded. that hard work, i think, has paid off. we are able to do so much at the cato institute because people like myself are able to stand on the shoulder of intellectual of others who argued for the point for generations. thank you so much for that. i want to go to some other details about the fantastic book, global processing. some details we weren't able to touch on in the limited amount of time we have. one of the issues a lot of people raise when they come to immigration they think national security. they think today it a different

environment. we have issue like these. because of this, we can't be as open to immigration as we were in the past because of the issues. just like the point made in the book it's no different than 100 years ago. there's an intense campaign in the earlier 20th century carried out main by italians and communist who blew up to a dozen bombs across the united. targeting people like the attorney general of the united, and number use other public officials across the country at the time. people had a reaction that the that time. they said we can't have this type of thing. it's at the time when communists were marching across the world and having success in european union and the chaos. these people were seen as an extension that have. we need to close our border to

try to block it out. it's no different than what we hear today about islamic terrorism and other issues like that when we take a look at the middle east. but what is even more astonishing is how a lot of our immigration policy makes it easier for national security threat to persist. make it easier for these problems to go. in a lot of cases, increase the ability of these national security treats to the opponent of liberty across the world to a more exploit their advantages by taking advantage of american immigration law. one modern example of this is a 2010 there were about dozen somalis arrested in -- they were a member of the al-shabaab which was based in somalia. they were arrested in mexico and the mexican authorities released them early without any kind of

records. there was a big -- for lack of a better work freakout in the media. they thought these guys are coming here, coming to the united states, they will wreak havoc and, you know, as a result border patrol was briefed up. they apprehended or faded away and nothing happened. the point is because american immigration enforcement, because the immigrations laws are focused on keeping people out for economic reasons or any other time of reason a small amount of what they are able to do is focus on legitimate threats like this. instd they are more concerned with asking how will an additional worker effect the wage for tomato pickers. more concerned with how they will effect the labor market conditions for the silicon valley. a high field immigrant will take a conference call whether it's at the home and whether that's home is listed in the forum as it -- place of resident or work about

the legitimate threat out there. if we are concerned about this, if we think we live in an thaij is dangerous internationally. immigration needs to be restricted to regulated, okay, if you believe that is true. you should refocus and argue for a total refocusing of immigration away from keeping out willing workers and separating them from employers and focus entirely on the small but real national security threats that exist. throughout history, these threats have also been used to our disadvantage national security. think about the numerous hoops and hurdles american immigration enforcement put on scientists trying to flee europe and come to the united states to work. that eventually were employed to work in the manhattan project and other government research prompts to win the war. there was enormous bureaucratic fear to keep the people out

because of. they had ties to economists. they were kept out because a fear of a national security. one of my favorite example there was a chinese rocket scientist, he died in 2009, he was involved with rocket research in the united states and the '50s because a national security law that said communists couldn't be employed or immigrate to the united. he was investigated by the fbi they said there was a enough circumstantial evidence he was kicked out of the united states and deported to communist china where he was the founder of the international rocket and missile program. the entire rocket program in china was based off the engineering expertise that immigrant to the united states who wanted to stay here and live and work was forced back to china as a result of that. now i'm -- you know, i'm a libertarian. i don't think china poses an an external threat to the united

states or something like that. if you are worried about national security issue coming from other countries like this. the last thing you adopt is send talented foreigners who are have come back to learn the issues back to the home country. it's the last thing you want to do. now, i think switching gears to culture and how really americans have taken a look at immigrants and treating them pretty much the same throughout the history and how they have come. we have been skeptical to them. we have compared them negatively. there was a quote by an recent article of his on written on june 4th. he writes the immigrants of today are very different in many ways from those who are arrived here 100 years ago. now, i think he massive exaggerates the way of the differings -- differences between the imgrants. we heard about the immigrants. what is different is the americans today.

multiculturalism has impacted american society to an extent. i think that's a bad ideology. in a lot of ways we're more welcoming. americans today may say nasty things today but let's not forget the largest mass lynching in the 1890 in new orleans by italian immigrants by white americans who thought they committed a crime and gotten away with it. that was the largest lynching in history. in 1830 you had knobs of -- mobs of property raping the nuns inside. horrible things like this. the rhetoric today about immigration from american who are opposed is nasty. it is gross. we don't have the level of, you know, cultural aversion, violent to the extent that people are doing this. americansamericansamericans are

behaving in the phase of immigration than in the day. i think that comes across as well. but, you know, these worries a lot of immigrants being different are totally exaggerated. the catholic example is a great one. immigrants today are majority catholics just like 100 years ago. they come from different countries in the world and different part of the world. what is most remarkable about the pace of assimilation especially for mexican americans and the distend -- they came illegally and lived for years often time in the black market. but the extent to which they and their chicago have assimilated truly in a lot of ways who came legally 100 years ago and able to live in the legal market. what is truly remarkable, i think immigration was allowed to the the extend that all of the mexican immigrants who came here

assimilation. look at it way and realizing that immigrants who come today are more american when they come and become americans faster despite having to live in the black market. i think in a testament not just to the entrepreneurial and energetic spifort immigrants today and how they want to become americans. but also a testament to how much american culture has influenced so many people throughout the world. and how we are still beacon for millions of people who want to come here and want to become americans. i think the book goes if to fantastic detail about the process and the cultural process by which people become americans. it describes property says. it creates a model for how it happens. and of it the first time i read that third generation. the third generation of americans, you know, grand parents, immigrants your parents

are born here third generation. you look longingly back on the ethnic or religious identifier where your parents came from or grandpas came from. that's a feature of success. that's a mark of success of becoming an american. ooze americans we don't have an ethnic or racial identifier. the largest ethnic group in the united states by last name is german. that's going to change in the near future because of immigrants from central and south america. that's the largest group. we don't have a blood border culture convention of being american. it's a values conception of being american. it's a civic notion of being american. that's something that is virtually unique throughout the world and history. what this book does is ascribes that in 0 some of the best details i have ever read and both sociology and economic and academic and even popular books made for a popular audience for

for that notion, i think it made me -- i study immigration policy. sometimes i become spect call of the way my government does things. i become coapt call. it filled me with more enthusiasm and hope for the future of this country and the ability to assimilate immigrants. and thability to be a beacon than virtually any book i have read in my years of working on this topic. i highly recommend it to all of you. i clearly recommend it more it's a beautiful book. thank you very much for coming today. [applause] thank you, alex. we have time for questions. if you have a question, raise your hands and wait for the microphone. identify yourself and your afghanistan. so we will take the first question up here in front, please. right there. wait for the microphone, please. >> hi, my name is steven -- >> can you speak up.

>> my name is steven. i have no affiliation. i was kind of interested in this notion of unrole of unskilled workers versus high skilled workers as whether we want, you know, immigrants who are high skilled or low skilled. it seems to me that human beings are a resource, and therefore if lapse of low skilled -- low skilled employees is a resource. it doesn't mean that we don't need high skilled, but the idea that there's only a set number of jobs for low skilled -- look at all the people that came in to new york city that were low-skilled as at the turn of the century. jobs were created. in other words, i think there's a misconception that to look at economy and say we only have this amount of need right now for low skilled.

but i think the answer is if you bring more resources more low skilled workers, businesses will take advantage of that low skilled. we will produce goods that will be take advantage of the low skilled workers. even if those -- that production doesn't currently exist. it will come to exist because of the incentive. what i'm saying to you my question is isn't that another big misconception that you guys seem to overlook? and that you always hear so people saying we only want high skilled labor to immigration. >> okay. >> thank you very much. i couldn't agree with you more. i look at it in different ways. one way to look at it is just look at it domestically. much of this discussion would be better understood, i think, by people if they thought with the

issues in the domestic context. since the second world war, the u.s. has added about 100 billion people to the work force, if you count baby boomers general and women. if the blng blank they they would have generated so much unemployment that would be the number one issue in the united states. that's not the case. therefor never been in the sixty years long-term unemployment of any kind. look at arizona, for instance, which is a sensitive place for the debate. just before the first year of the bubble, i looked at unemployment rates in arizona, acknowledge the lowest in the country. 4% sometimes even less than 4%.

three-point something percent. and the work force continues to be immigrant. so clearly it is not generating unemployment. it is generating growth. arizona is a wealthy state. it's helping make, and i said, the pie larger. that includes both low skilled and high skilled immigrants. the idea of it separating is one i don't like. we're forced to so because the term of the debate are such. and because it's been framed in that way. we need to kind of take them apart and explain to people what low skilled workers do to the economy. what high skilled workers do to the economy. ultimately it's all about production. the stock of capital in the u.s. has been going up by a rate or 2 or 3% in the last few decades. that's why, of course, the economy has been more productive, and we have been able to generate a rise in

salaries all together. and yet at the same time we kind of cause an inflow of immigrants. that would have not have been possible if immigrants were hurting that productive process. >> if i could add one small thing. i have been doing a series of debates for the last couple of times this week. i have another one on sunday. the issue is always brought up. and the analogy i like to use is if we have 100 high skilled people in a room, let's say 100 college graduates and bring in 50 more less than a high school graduate to the room, the economy gets bigger production increases. the rejoiner, the people, the critics say you lower the average education level in the room by doing that. it shows the danger of knowing a little bit of matt and not knowing much economics. in average of the -- that's an example just because

danny denobody is actually any shorter. [laughter] that's something that is pervasive. to talking about public policy and the impact of immigration on the economy by using broad averages like this, really ask probably one of the worst ways to do it. and bedry the total lack of understanding of the -- how economics works. question right there. >> my name is steven -- it's a wonderful and wholly convincing presentation. one aspect i'm wondering about is the effects on the nation that immigrants lead from. are those nations any worse off? for example, it was said that when the 1848 revolution sailed in germany, a lot of german liberals came here. and therefore, germany became more autocratic. today as much as we complain in the building that economic regulation, a lot of immigrants

see the united states as a more fertile place for applying entrepreneurial skills. so are countries that immigrants leave from worse off say in entrepreneurial skills? >> that's a great question. well, -- forget about nation state and borders for a moment. what are we talking about? are we talking about how people are able to create the most value. in other words they choose their location according to where they can create the most value, then we exchange the fruit of our labor according to what we need and what we can offer. if you look at that way, you real people moving in or out is not going to have an long-term effect of the negative kind in any way. europe was exporting people, again until the 1980s as i said. those countries were becoming

more and more proper prosperous. we had that same in latin america. people my grated to move in as well from countries such as peru on a consistent basises for half of a century. it's a wealthier country today than venezuela. chinese immigration in the united states has played a key role in the economic growing prosperity of gradual prosperity of china. they have not only, of course, been able to export stuff to them and import stuff to them. they have also invested in china. so i think that borders and bare areas are artificial in term of the impact on the economy. we all benefit from a constant circulation of people. the same is happening in europe. some of the eastern or central european countries have been --

in the last few years. it became legal to do so. and yet they have becoming more and more prosperous. poland was more prosperous than fifty years ago. it export the people to western europe. >> i have some small things to add to that. it's 100% right. about the german 1848ers. they left behind complained about the liberals living. they plain and destroying merge individualialty in the process. 1848 forum of what became the republican party in the antislavery wing of the republican party. that is little antidote about the feeling of umm grant -- immigrants destroying the core of america no matter where they from. does immigration leave the sending country worse off? that usually takes the frame of the brain train, that's what

people call it. they say the best and the brightest or the most energetic leave and what is left behind everybody else suffers. that assumes a person in a country is a property of everybody else in the country. which is a essential notion that no person who has any concept of individual freedom or liberal in the classic call sense could actually view. what we actually see is when the opportunity to immigrant to leave occur. they increase the education. they acquire more skills. in order to do better in the source -- in the country where they want to go to. a lot end up staying. we see it in south africa in nursing school. a lot of people try to immigrant to the u.s. or the u.k. a lot stay behind in south africa. we see it in the philippines. and what was mentioned the filipino nursing program. they have some of the highest percentage of the nurses of any country in the world because of

the possibility to leave when they have that. as a result, the rest of the filipinos who are behind gain from that. it's a weird argument used by mostly restrictionist to say immigration is bad for people in poor countries when it's not true. >> turns to socialism in the united states. -- [inaudible] >> yes, sir, until the front. [inaudible] goring washington university. i'm one of the academics you speak of. and i, you know, i love the presentation. thank you i'm a little bit uncrvet of your roman [inaudible] how many times the third or

forty generation where you are you from? what language do you speak. maybe you can talk about how you think about asummitlation. because assimilation is based not only on the desire of an individual to assimilate, but also on the desire of the largest society to allow that person to assimilate. >> well, the first part is, are they assimilating our immigrants hispanic asian assimilating today. the way they did in the past. and the answer is definitely yes. the research is extension i have. i looked in to this in a lot of detail. there's many ways to measure it whether it's the use english, or whether it's mingling with the native-born population. marriage. whether it's entrepreneurship. that's another way to measure this. the idea is that a lot of entrepreneurship that is home grown but these hispanics are bringing in notions, you know, to entrepreneurship. that's not true. the rate of self-employment

among hispanics almost equals the rate for native-born americans. almost 12%. and the number of companies that are founding every year is just amazing. and astounding. what does happen is this. something alex touched upon in the comment in the book which is fascinating. the first generation, of course, is first generation. they are trying to find their way around. they trying to fit in. they have attachment back home. and you should look -- people ask me all the time. mexicans are so tied to the home country, didn't use to be the case. read some of the rerts italians were sending become home in the 20th century. expressing profounds no tal sending money back home as well. so that's only natural. the second generation moves in the opposite direction. they are so conscious of this of

being seen by u.s. society as not really fitting in. being somehow different. they escape from the roots. and they reject the root to the extent. that's not fair, you know, for everybody. but certainly a big percentage of that. by the third generation, they feel so secure they go back to those root, but in a different way. in a purely sentimental way. they begin to embrace national holiday because they know they are secure and accepted by u.s. pols. that's how cinco de mayo was born. it was never was a big deal in mexico. it's a big deal here. because it's a big deal here, mexicans bam home start thinking it's uncomfortable. mexican immigrants are more patriotic than we are. now we have to assume it's a national holiday as well. in mexico they are now celebrating it. that was the result not of first generation immigrants, certainly

not a second generation immigrants. it was third generation immigrants they thought it was time to celebrate that. who celebrates cinco de mayo? americans celebrate cinco de mayo just like they celebrate irish and italian holiday. having said that, this country is not based on the nation state is blood it's bayed on creed. it's not a nation staid. it's a nation of nation a state based on credo. i think the reality speaks to that. >> i think the cinco de mayo example is create. complaint think of a more american holiday than the defeat of a french army. that's exactly what it is. [laughter] he writes a whole chapter. it's about the immigrant moving toward the main stream society and moving a little bit toward them. what i learned was that in this book, everything i like to do on

sunday comes from the germans. i like to go bowling. i like to go to the shooting range. that's something that germans did on sunday that was really un-american in the 1870 people were afraid of it. because, you know, the old american version of sunday was you sit at home, and, you know, you go to church, you sit at home. you read the bible and don't do anything that is fun. the germans were like, no, we're not going to do that. we have picnics and have a good time. and that is an example of american society changing and assimilating partly to the immigrants and their culture. it's pretty clear at the immigrant, you know, do most of the changing. >> we'll take a question in the back. right there. >> hi, i'm emily from the atlas networking.

and my question for you it seems there a cup of constitutional things in the government that may need to change to immigration such as the minimum wage or welfare. a lot of immigrants come and work under the minimum wage and illegal immigrants may take welfare. or if they became legal, they might take more welfare. people argue it would also be associate drain on society. so i was wondering if you would speak on whether or not that's been discussed in the house, and in the senate. or your opinion on that. sewer. -- sure. the congressional budget office just came out with a report calculating what the impact and fiscal terms would be on legalizing 12 million people for the next decade, and beyond. they did two different calculations. you know, -- i don't want to get too

technical something dynamic scoring. you calculate what the effect on the economy will be. and calculate what the fiscal impact will be. the oh way of doing it is calculate the fiscal impact assuming there's going to be no huge change on the economy. whatever way you look at it, the impact is beneficial. what they do is simply calculate what impact is going to be on the deficit, and it's going to be a very positive impact in term of -- as i said, there are many studies that very respectable studies that indicate contribution is very positive. just thinking of one at the point. i mentioned one at the national research counsel. there was significant at the sometime. jeffrey can a study of what happened between the 1970 and the 1990. that was two-decade period. he came up with a figure. the net contribution was $25

billion. again, when you look at it you always think that the effect of immigration on the economy goes beyond what they themselves produce and consume. what they themselves pay and what they themselves take out of the system. because they impact the whole of u.s. society. they make all of the society more productive. the entire economy more productive. so ultimately it's almost impossible to calculate what it will be. we know it will be positive because if the economy becomes more productive and producing more goods and services. by definition you are going to bring more rev now the government ultimately it if were not the case, that's a great argument to get rid of the welfare state. i mean, immigrants were not to blame are not to blame for the fact that governments spending has gone up by a factor of 50 in the last century. until the second world war they weren't spited told relieve programs. we welfare reform that impacted

immigrants as well. now they are able to system only in a limited way. will are very few things more dangerous about the welfare state than it changes the perception of being asset and good for society to liability and viewing people empirely of cost. and look at the government agency and look and think people who take from there on the cost are terrible. we did research here. we hired out a qupful professors to do a study about how much welfare poor immigrants use compare to poor native-born comparison. you adopt apple to apple comparison. poor people to poor people in the same level. what we found is that poor americans use medicaid at the same rate as that program would be 42% smaller. it would be a huge savings.

when people take a dollar of welfare the damage is magnified beyond all comprehension compared to an american citizens taking the same amount. flow, you know, i favor getting rid of the welfare state. if we can't do that let's build an wall around it and try to the improve the perception and remove the perception that immigrants are takers. they make far, far more contribute far more to society than the paltry amount they take in welfare. >> okay. we have a question in the front row. >> thank you. i'm an economist. thank you for the presentation. especially the -- [inaudible] i couldn't agree more. my question is insight of the overwhelming economic evidence and the benefit of the immigration of the period everywhere across the world. how is that the anti-immigration

arguments find such a fertile soil. at least in certain group in the country. and in relation to that, if you look at the experience of other countries, i'm sure you have done in the book draw any lessons from the way other countries say europe or canada -- the way they dealt with the midst in order to have an immigration policy reach economic and cultural sense. the question is there's one myth where i couldn't really agree with you. you said that the myth that the immigrants have at love children. i think there's a myth that cannot be refuted. they a lot more children. it is precisely one of the economic benefits that immigrants bring the younger population. they -- bringing influx of younger people in to the nation and to the economy. that's a plus. >> great points you make. first answer, i think, it has to do with fear.

any community that is faced with a influx of newcomers will be afraid. and it would rationalize that fear of the argument of the kind we tend to hear. you prove they are not true. you prove they are myth. you throw at them all of these statistics and historical experience. and yet that fear remains. and i think it has to do with fear. that's how stereo types are born. and, you know, at the time of the irish immigration, the idea was that all irishmen were drunk. that was the stereo type. they were -- there may have been one or two on the wrong side of the law. not all mobsters. not all catholics were repress i. now we embrace it. >> a couple of centuries ago they were hated because they saw them as european repressers. today we have the stereo type

that hispanics are different or worse. now we begin to embrace indian because of the contribution to the sill silicon valley. they were the object of stereo type here. i think it has to do with fear. about children. it's definitely coming down. even in europe. there's no question. it's slightly huer than the native rate in europe it's two children. here as i said it's 60% higher than the native rate but the tendency is coming down. that's also the case in latin america. one more point about the -- the average age for immigrants is 27. the average age for americans is 42. again, that's a welfare state is what we care about. clearly that's a plus. it's more years of contribution to the system. and in term of taking money out of the system the transfer

system. only 1.2% of immigrants over 65% over 12 are% for the u.s. population. if the arguments are real, those fears should be dispelled by the evidence. i think there's feared at the heart of this. it's very, very difficult to dispel. about why the rest of civilization society doesn't take up the well known argument and fact and economic. i wish that immigration was the only instance of that. there are so many economic notions that have been known for a long time that are not taken up in the mainstream society. intellectually i think we want to debate about free trade. when you ask the common person, you know, do you think that we should be able to import goods and services from china without any kind of government barriers. that takes american jobs. of course it should be barriers so i think the notion goes beyond this to the conception that there is a fixed tie. i think people have this ingrained notion there's a fixed

pie of wealth, a fixed pie of jobs, a fixed pie of x, y, z. having for people come to the country will decrease the amount available to us. i think it's a head -- wrong headed notion. it's something we are fighting against in every sphere for public policy for a long period of time. it has to do with economics. we have a lot of work to do with immigration. but in numerous other issues. >> we have time for one more question, if there is one. we'll take it right there, please. >> hi, my name is mike. i'm a retired -- for the agency of national development. i was previously the officer in charge of central america. and we looked at at lot of issues in central america, and basically i looked in your book and i was going through the idea that most of the poor people do migration within the country or

a region maybe in central america. then i read in your pro long that the kidnappings in a certain period of time was poor central americans and mexicans as effect of the drug war going on. this is a key issue. because we have a disease in central america right now for coffee plants called coffee rust. it's going to impact about 3 million workers in central america that work in the sector. they are talking about maybe 50 to 40% loss of the sector and the employment. if they can move north,ic they may. i'm not sure it's on anybody's radar screen. if you are right, that they woability move north. they'll basically change their area of location. that will also have impact. i want to get your perspective on what could happen. it happened until the past. different type of migration from

central america before. but was pending. it's coming up. it's not inconceivable that a small percentage will try to move north and eventually come to the united states. but historical experience indicates they will mostly my grate within the area. that's what happened normally in central america. it happened in central america. something people don't talk about all that much. i know, the experience of my home country of peru very well. a country in the last fifty years has seen huge amount of migration internally. so much so everything has been impacted by the economy and the institution. the story is no different than the united. domestic immigration is four time larger than international immigration for the united. it's just a pattern that seems to be repeating itself

everywhere. i don't know exangtly what will happen with those people. if we can go by historical precedent, it's very likely it will not have a huge impact in term of international migration. it would probably have an impact dpeskly in term of the economy. that will take us to the whole issue of the central american economy, constitution, the drug war and all of that. a -- i looked from 2002 and 2010 the increase in origin with different countries of my grant. central america was 16.5%. it was off the chart compared to any other origin. the next was 9% for south americans. america can country of origin people not born here is like 2% increase. something is happening. you map it out here it's

incredibly different to come. people are still coming. from central america they are really coming. so. >> yeah, it's because not -- they have been doing better in the last few years. that's why i predicted a few years from now a debate in the u.s. will be where we going to get immigrants come? mexico doesn't want to come anymore. they are grow at 4% a year. the new mexico president wants to engage in reform. that will be enough to absorb the new work force. the young people. mexicans will be coming less and less. they'll be coming in place for central of america. perhaps until we need to get rid of the drug war. it's devastating the whole area. in com case we need to find them. maybe iceland. i don't know where. it will be an issue. it's going to be an issue. is it recorded somewhere? twenty years from now the

problem mexicans don't want to come to the united states anymore. [laughter] it's interesting since 2008 of lawful immigrants coming the united states, ashall bees have outnumbered the hispanic. i'm going use the word hispanic broadly. i'm an mesh, i use it central and south american. asians have outnumbered them. the gulf is getting wider every year. asian is the now source going forward of immigrants to the united states. it's the new historical dynamic. i predict my kids while they're adults will say alex why so were many people so upset about mexican immigrants. they'll be like the indian or south asia is very different. they are taking our jobs this time. that's what i think i'm going to hear in the future from my kids, if i have done a poor job of educating them.

but other people in the society. >> it's fascinating and i think encouraging discussion. i hope our friends on capitol hill will pay attention to the point made today and read out of the book on sale here at the discount for all of you interested. thank you for coming. please, join me in thanking our great speakers today. [applause] [inaudible conversations] you're watching booktv on c-span2. 48 hours of non-fiction authors and books every weekend. >> really, i have never seen in any report in the u.s. and any main news has been the story of the people that live with the constant sirens that go off every time rockets is close by.

and they have 15 stoakdz get to a bomb shelter. i went to visit elderly people, they were some of the founders. they were all probably 65 plus, many of them in the 70s. they hadn't slept through the night. it was in 2009, it was during the operation. but in the lunch proceeding that, and part of what triggered it was the constant bombardment. people hear about this in a way that is backwards. they hear that israel has made a strategic strike on a particular person or a particular target, and that was responded to with the rockets. that's the way it's reported most of the time. when in fact, the rockets have been going -- there have been over 12,000 rockets in the last ten years. some are maul.

they are made in grandmother's garage. a lot are iranian or they are larger grass constitutions that are not just what they call rockets which are small. these people have to get up and run every time there's a siren. they do it because they know can be killed and people are killed. whether they are killed in great numbers, it depends where it strikes. but these people were taking antidepressants, the children were in the area were all bed wettedders. they -- the people that i went to see were being bussed to a lot for a three-day weekend so they could sleep in a hotel where there was no disturbance. these are old people, they don't want to leave there. one woman said how can you come here? my children are afraid to visit. i didn't hear sirens. i heard explosions. we were less than a mile from gaza. these people live that way. the mothers that have to get their babies to the shelter, how

-- there's a little piece i quote in the book written by a mother, which child should i grab? she has five children. which do i take first. every time she's making these decisions. that state is jop going. it's quite right now because of the recent so-called truce with. i went to the north after the lebanon war where janet and i was on the tour i was on. we were in an -- 2006 there the north was bombarded. these were larger rockets. we saw so. places they struck and half the house is gone. the people had guns in jerusalem or gone somewhere else. most weren't living there. some were in shelters for a month living in the shelter. the state of war in israel is such that it's such a little

country, people say it's a size of new jersey. so even if it's the south. everybody has a relative there. everybody kids in the army there. it's not like a america where, you know, you hear of this. this is everybody's problem. and the phone starts ringing when these things heat up. and even my phone, you know, and particularly recently when we actually had sirens in jerusalem for the first time in thirty years. it was an interesting experience. you find yourself saying, okay, should i take a shower or not take a shower. [laughter] you know, or am i going sleep in my normal pj. i have to be with my neighbors in a bomb shelter. i don't think i want them to see the pjs. these are stew butted things to think. the consciousness is what happens it pervades everything. the state of war in israel is danger use. ongoing danger and ongoing

threat. it's also a consciousness. but it's also a way of going on with life no matter what. that's what the israelty -- israelis are best at. they just go on. they celebrate life. they don't just sit around and worry. they have dinner. [laughter] and they have parties. it's a cull char that celebrates life and the face of danger. that's what i would say thumbs up. >> the shifting from the misconception of what life is really like dwhriew just mentioned. the north -- i in the book you mention when you were there, which was a city in the north of israel that you met with the mayor, and he was the rubble of -- yeah. >> but what was his --

>> well, the people there who have been in shelters for almost a month were upset that the war ended when it did. they wanted it finished. they said we'll live inspect shelters for three months if this is the end of it. his view was, they burned ten years, we plant 100 trees. we rebuild and we prepare for the next time. because someday we're going to be the gateway to israel, and the lebanese will come and we will have dinner together. that is our goal. we want to be the gateway to the north. he was all about building and rebuilding and planting. and trees are a big deal in israel. it's the only country in the world that has more trees at the turn of the 21st century than it had at the beginning of the 20th century. everybody plants trees every time they turn around. the first thing they do is plant trees, and more trees than were burned.

that's what he talked about. it's a defiance. but it's also a spirit of building. and life. and the people were sorry the war ended when it did. people knew it ended badly. it was cut short of success. they wanted to be able to goat peace and live their lives again. that's they wanted to do. >> you can watch this and other programs online. at booktv.org. what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know. >> the first book is something i'm guilty i haven't read already. it's called the "victory lap ." it's about how political campaigns are run and how they use data and analytic to make the decisions. it was a political -- you cover a lot of campaigns work in term of talking and communications. this is kind of the hidden side. really the doingings that happen

and seems like an important book to read. that's the first thing on the summer reading list. the second book on the summer reading list is another political book, a biography of tip o'neal. it's an older book. i covered congress. it seemed like the perfect thing to read. supposed to be a terrific book. the third book on my summer reading list is "lean in" from facebook. "the new york times" reading list. it seemed like an important book to try to read. imrantd go a summer without reading a baseball book. it's not just about baseball. it's a novel. if i'm going to be reading a novel, it i it might as well have baseball stories inside. it's guilty pleasure reading i haven't done yet. "game of thrones."

it's, you know, very popular tv show. a huge book series. once you start reading the books, i've been told you have to read all of them. i have carve out quite a bit of time. i may try to tackle the first one this summer. let us know what you're reading this summer. up next on booktv afterwards. this week michelle swers and her latest book "women in the club "in it the georgetown university professor explores the impact of gender difference on the senate on the bills that pass. and the growth of the partisan divide. the program is about an hour. ..