he said this to congress. we believe you can no longer look at activities that would traditionally be protected at the first and fourth amendment. we can no longer look at them as just being protected by the fourth amendment. we have to look at them through the lens of three cursors to terrorism and that is the way we have interpreted it. no one stopped to say wait a minute the nypd is reinterpreting the constitution? congress should say thank you. it really is a fundamental shift in american policing that new yorkers have given them for political cover. ray kelly remains very popular and there mechanisms remained popular. >> we have been talking to matt apuzzo pulitzer prize reporter and here's his book cowritten with adam goldman "enemies within" inside the nypd's secret spying unit and bin laden's final plot against america.

>> when did the u.s. slave trade start and how did it start? >> the u.s. was involved in the slave trade from the moment that we began as a colony of britain and indeed one of the interesting things about u.s. history is that in the constitutional convention there was a compromise between the states that had slaves in the states that didn't. the u.s. constitution said the federal congress couldn't take any action against the slave trade until 1808. the u.s. the first moment it could present jefferson sent legislation to congress that band participation in the slave trade by u.s. ships and u.s. persons and congress passed that

the u.s. prohibit the slave trade which was a long time before slavery itself ended in the united states but the issues were seen as different and even southerners were in support of fanning the slave trade. speedway where southerners in support of the? >> there were a lot of different reasons. one was it was perceived as the more unjust or humane part of the

>> when did human rights laws start a coming part of this discussion on the slave trade? >> really around the turn of the 19th century but what's really interesting is people think the international human rights laws entirely a product of the 20 century. in most of the conventional accounts people say it was right after world war ii and the holocaust happened. as news of that came at a bunch of things happened after world war ii. they were the nuremberg trials and the nazi war criminals and similar trials in the far east.

the u.n. was founded here the universal deck ration of human rights kid that's the moment when everyone said this is when international law started to look at issues. you might look they said actually was earlier in connection with the slave trade that international law was used for human rights purpose. in the early 19th century starting in 18701 countries like the u.s. and britain was another country that and the slave trade and it began to spread throughout the countries that had engaged in the slave trade but this was no longer practice they wanted to participate in. it was perceived as violating national -- natural rights the same ideas of rights that underpinned the revolution and the rubbish in france the declaration of independence says we hold these truths to be self-evident. all men are created equal and endowed at their creator with certain inalienable rights. obviously there was a tension but those ideas were spreading

throughout the world and there were religious revival movements. the quakers among other religious troops were very active politically and they perceive slavery and the slave trade to be morally wrong. as those groups became more at a in civil society they started to put pressure on the governments to say we have got to stop the slave trade and because it was an international problem all the countries of europe that were engaged in travels on the ocean were participating in it it wasn't something that just one country could stop. even if the u.s. said are banning the slave trade or written said we are banning the slave trade that wasn't going to be enough. >> portugal france the netherlands and these other countries were still going to pick up the slack. it quickly became apparent that in order to eradicate this practice there was going to have to be international cooperation.

abolitionists put pressure on the governments and especiallespeciall y the british government was receptive to that pressure and they began lobbing other governments to enter into treaties that would prohibit the slave trade. at first those trees like many human rights treaties were what we might call international relations cheap talk. that is they said slavery is wrong and we want to ban the slave trade that included no enforcement mechanisms. pretty quickly the tide turned and they said this is going to be enough so the british government began pushing for enforcement measures. they created treaty starting in 1817 that not only banned the slave trade but created international courts to enforce the ban. more than a century before the nuremberg trials reports created by a treaty to promote these human rights objectives ending the slave trade and what they would do is if a ship was caught

engaging in illegal slave trade it would be brought before one of these international slave -- and if it was a spanish ship and there was a treaty between britain and its brain -- >> the slaves would be freed and the ship would be auctioned off and the money would be split between the sea captain who brought the ship and then the governments involved. these international courts as i recounted in the book heard 600 cases and freed 80,000 slaves off of slave trading ships which is a huge number. >> all post-1808. what was the name of these international courts? >> they were -- the trees gave them different names. they were a bunch of bilateral treaties between britain and other countries. >> portugal the netherlands brazil were the initial countries in and the u.s. was joined during the civil war which i will tell you about in a minute but they were called the mixed commissions are sometimes the mixed courts.

the reason they were called mixed is because they involve judges from different countries. there would be a british judge and a personal judge and if they couldn't agree they would toss a coin and they would pick a third judge from one of those two countries to help decide a case. >> there was a villain at the door and we had to address it. so now we come to a point where we are different moment in

american history. we are in the 21st century. we have a stronger more affluent and better educated black america and yet we we are at a point in this is where i say cosby was a -- and he is saluted and heralded their community for what he did back then. he is saying we have a strong community and yet what about our brothers who are not coming with us at a moment when american society suffering a greater and greater class division? why is it that we have 25% of our brothers and sisters living in poverty and how can we speak to them, because the devil at the door is threatening us at this moment now becomes a matter of an internal threat. the internal threat is 50% dropout rate and even higher for black and hispanic lawyers. the threat is this is unbelievable. 70% of our children born out of wedlock rich means it's not a matter of morality.

this means the mother had is limiting her ability to move forward with her aspirations in the child is not in a position to sub port to give attention and raise that child in the way that child needs to become a fully strong educated functioning adult. >> michael barone is next on booktv. he talks about the mass migration movements internal and external that it made the united states what it is today. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good evening. let's try that again. good evening. excellent. i knew that you would all be a wonderful audience.

esteemed guests come for members of the m.i.t. community, local college republican chapter of representatives, and political activists welcome to the m.i.t. college of republican club's kickoff to its 2013/2014 political lecture series. i'm caroline schinkel president of the m.i.t. college republican club read on behalf of our members thank you for participating in this very special evening with our esteemed guests michael barone. on this grand campus in this historic city, in this commonwealth that has produced so many leaders from both sides of the political aisle we are building an inclusive organization. we are focused on the important issues, economic issues come for

difficult issues. the life-changing issues that affect the future of mankind as we shape our great country's political landscape. the divide may be wide in washington but not here. as archie club is reaching out to a larger audience come for a diverse audience. to everyone here tonight regardless of political affiliation. our guest speaker michael barone is himself playing a key role in shaping the political debate as a "new york times" best-selling author, columnists, political analyst and commentator. legendary for his wit, wisdom and worldview. michael is an authority on the demographic patterns and details that explain our country inside and out.

his newly-released book "shaping our nation" how surges of migration transformed america and its politics is the product of meticulous research ringing insightful observations. the book which analyzes the power and lasting influence of waives of migration on american history economics politics and culture over the last three centuries is being met with rave reviews. walter mcdougall of the pulitzer prize-winning historian at the university of pennsylvania says nobody knows the political map of the united states that are then michael barone. high praise comes from another pulitzer prize winner george wells who says there is bipartisan washington agreement about one thing. no one knows the political -- no one knows american politics more than michael barone.

a senior political analyst for the -- michael has written for the "washington post" in "u.s. news and world report." he is the principle author of the almanac of american politics which has been published by in italy since 1972. he distinguished author. among his books is "the new york times" bestseller hard america, soft america competition versus coddling and the battle for the nations future. in 1962, michael graduated from the cranbrook school in michigan which happens to be my alma mater. he was three years ahead of fellow cramp or graduate mitt romney and m.i.t. professor dr. lynn hobbs attended cranbroocranbroo k with michael and he is also with us this evening. michael holds his undergraduate degree from harvard and a law degree from yale. after his remarks he has

graciously agreed to participate in a question and response session with the audience and with that please join me in a warm m.i.t. welcome for michael barone. [applause] >> thank you very much caroline and fellow graduate as you noted i am honored to have my classmates lynn hobbs in the audience who is the only one in our last two years who got higher grades than i did. as a distinguished academic record and record of publications. you did note that i started co-authoring the almanac of american politics and the first addition appeared in 1972. i would like to point out that it's highly unusual for for the

first addition of a book of this nature to have been written by someone at the age of four. i am going to talk today primarily about my book "shaping our nation" how surges of migration transformed america and its politics and i'm going to conclude by talking a little bit about our current political alignments and house searches in migrations have contributed to that. how a country that votes increasingly by street party can vote for a republican -- at the same time but i'd like to give you a longer perspective and perhaps give you some idea of my interest in demography and political and demographic numbers. one of the important events of my life was in the early 1950s when my parents purchased a set

of world book encyclopedia. this was when i was seven years old or something. i was very excited about this because none of the reference books in our house had the results of the 1950s census. they only had the 1940 census and this was the early 1950s. i knew there had been distinct demographic changes. so when my mother would shoo me out to play in the backyard i would sneak down the steps -- the basement steps to where the encyclopedias were kept and made lists of the cities of the united states with the 1950 and 1940 populations. boston was 801 and cambridge was 141770 and the 19 census. for reasons that i have never been able to understand none of the other kids were interested in the census. even lynn hobbs for all his

great numeracy. but studying those trends and looking at some of the numbers and trying to put that together with the human realities insofar as i can perceive them as how i got started in writing a number looks and particularly this book "shaping our nation." at the beginning of its history the united states in the 19th century historian walter mcdougall notes if he could go back 400 years in time and view the world in 1600 you would find most of the concentraconcentra tions of the population similar to today's. there were huge population masses in ming china a muslim world of many varieties and strings. a western europe a fertile farms in trading ports and merchant towns a rush expanding from its muscovite base.

in the western hemisphere they were fast populations up as texan incas ruled by a thin layer of spanish soldiers and priests. north america in 1600 was very different from today. there you had been populations of native americans with civilizations worthy of respectful attention but largely unconnected to the rest of the world and to the advanced societies. today we have in that same place the united states of america the world's third most populous nation one which produces one quarter of the world's economic output and employs -- deploys 50% of world's capacity with only one or 2% of its people descended from those those who wear their 400 years ago. the peopling of america and historian david hackett fisher of america has been one of the great stories of modern history. as i considered macdougall's thought experiment and looked at some of the numbers i came to

realize the united states was peopled in large part by searches of migration internal as well as immigrants. very large numbers of people of similar cultural and ethnic character moving in very large numbers for short periods of time across the ocean or across the continent creating in the process new america americas of decidedly different character. these searches of migration have typically lasted one or two generations. they have typically been unexpected. nobody predicted when they would start and they have often been unexpectedly and suddenly ended. i thought one way to tell the american story is to tell the story of the major surges of migration from one that started just before the american revolution until today so that is the story of mike luck "shaping our nation" how surges of migration transformed america and its politics. the changes have been long coming. we often hear it said today that america has suddenly and

recently become a multicultural nation. it was multicultural from the beginning. english colonies have different political and religious origins when politics and religion were very much tied together which of course is not the case today at all. i'm kidding. as fisher tells us they brought different groups of colonists brought different folk from different parts of the british isles say you have puritan massachusetts, anglican and virginia and maryland founded by catholic family quaker pennsylvania, dutch reformed new york. the framers of the constitution understood this when they decreed there would be no religious test for federal office and the authors of the bill of rights understood it when they said congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion which meant that they would be no national religion but it also meant among other things that

states could maintain their established church as the commonwealth of massachusetts maintained an established church until 1833. americans have learned from early times not only to cope with to prosper as a nation with a cultural diversity but that diversity has also led to severe strains and in one case to a repressive the -- [inaudible] the first of my search was the mass movement of the scotch-irish from northern ireland and scotland in the dozen years before the mac and revolution. they started coming over in numbers in 1713 but there was a real rush, a real surge after the treaty of paris ended the seven years war known in north america as the french and indian war of 1763. unlike earlier colonial settlers they did not come over primarily because of some mixture of religious and political reasons are under some degree of coercion like black slaves or

white indentured servants. they were both immigrants coming from across the ocean and internal migrants moving from one fringe of the british empire to another. they had some economic motives and incentives but they also came to pursue dreams to establish communities where they could live as they please or to escape nightmares. they came to live in a sort of independent way. this was one of the three largest immigrant migrations as a percentage of pre-existing population in america with the other being a irish and germans in the 1840s and 50's and the ellis island migration from circa 1902 to 1914. the scotch-irish have been waging war on civil discord in scotland and northern ireland. think braveheart.

they set out from the atlantic ports to the appalachian chain and when they landed in philadelphia the quick or established and in philadelphia them to get out of town and go out to the frontier. they went to western pennsylvania and then down the shenandoah valley down the appalachian chain to the carolinas and then over the mounds to and tennessee. they're emblematic leader was andrew jackson born two years after his parents left northern ireland who drove ever further south where they defeated the indians in what is now the southeast beat the british at the battle of new orleans. he played a major part in the acquisition of florida which was then in spanish possession. he led an army down there and found a couple of british subjects who were in his few committing mischief against the united states so he tried them and hang them, subjects of the

greatest power of the age of property belonging to another country. we obtained florida as a result and he played a significant role in the annexation of texas and the acquiring of california by supporting his scotch-irish protége james cape polk for president in 1844 and recognize the annexation of texas and then led the united states and to the mexican war in which we took california in the southwest. ..

they were pent-up by the french and backed by the british alliance in the hudson valley. basically if you would keep the french out of the hudson valley we will keep those pesky interfering new england yankees out of your territory, too. of course that allianz ended with independence and they went back for the british which turned out to be a move even into canada. after independence knowing when the yankees were up for 200 years and the colonies by the way which almost nobody else settled because suddenly the new england yankees were telling you what to do if you settled so they stayed away. suddenly they surged westward. the people of upstate new york made a sort of providence of

religious revival. the western reserve in northeast ohio where you could self to the crystal see the new england town greens and covered bridges and southern michigan which they settled going from buffalo and the steamer's selling out in the west toward counties you can see in the map of the michigan cities and townships daughter named after a state new york communities all by the new england yankees. they founded chicago in a sort of miraculous year of 1848 they started building the ken house in chicago and set up the futures market to trade grain. it was the new england yankee foundation. the yankee d. asper was moralistic and intolerance. you may not think of those two things coming together of but they were and they spawned one remove net after another. women's rights at the fall convention in new york that was held in the yankee country.

the prohibition of alcohol. we have some in the audience who were from the southern michigan town of temperance. and abolition of slavery to the issue of slavery in the kansas nebraska that about slavery of the territories in 1854 was the yankee creation and the map carried by the first presidential candidate john fremont in 1856 and i have a copy, i have this map in the book which is kind of fun. it's a matter of the yankee diaz brac you can see it going from new england and upstate ohio where southern michigan, northern illinois and so forth. this was a vision and these were people that wanted to expand in the kind of cultural america that they believed.

others had a different visions. the southern plantation migrated and forced the slaves to migrate in vast numbers. the land of the atlantic seaboard to the mississippi valley where they established the coffin kingdom. it was a brutal migration. the sleeves were transported in trains on ships to new england or over land, but the slave labor may it caught him growing hugely profitable. the wealthiest county of the united states in 1860 census was adams county mississippi. if you see the grand antebellum mansions still to this day at least some of them. this is a hugely profitable thing. and other maps that we have in the book you take a map of the cotton production in 1860, a

percentage of the slave population of 1860 and a pretty much matches the counties carried by barack obama in the southern states in the rural counties carried by barack obama in 2008 and 2012. these are still areas with large majorities dating back to the time when the sleeves were transported back to the mississippi valley. both sought the westward expansion and deferred over the issue of slavery in the 1850's. then when abraham lincoln was elected president in 1860 with only the northern votes, just about zero votes out of the potomac or the ohio river. oe adding to the republicans yankee base some german immigrants, the result was secession and civil war. i sometimes called the northern victory the conquest of north america but it was incomplete because of the attempt of

reconstruction. historians for many years said that it was the great evil. reconstruction was the attempt to enforce equal rights for black americans in the south through military occupation. basically the voters got sick of the military occupation. i don't know if this sounds like anything in the last ten years. they voted to the democrats in and the settlement of the disputed election of 1876 monday and end to the military occupation of the south and the and to equal rights for black americans for the time being. the nation that went to a civil war was all but already been unshaped by the unpredicted surge of emigration from ireland and germany starting in 1846. the proximate cause was the potato famine were 1 million by it. and the 1851 british census showed a population of 8 million in ireland. the island of ireland including both the republican and northern

ireland is about 5.5 million. it never recovered a demographically from that. it also affected germany and continental europe what they were not so dependent else was ireland. so this was a huge surge of irish catholics. one of the three largest surges of immigration as a percentage of the pre-existing population in the history. the irish catholic for the first migrating growth to hit primarily to the big cities especially boston, new york and the factory towns. they haven't done very well at forming after all. and they stayed in cities in. they migrated not so much to pursue a dream but to escape a nightmare. they were not prepared for the life of the significant portion of the wave.

they have high rates of crime and substance abuse for a generation but they also had a knack for politics. honed in ireland by the movement of dino o'connell of protesting british law. holding monster rally is and constructing local political organizations and irish and american quickly become involved in the machine politics largely but not entirely in the democratic party, which was less interested in its rivals than advancing. they also dominated the american catholic church well into the second half of the 20th century. they have i think i've said that the capitol of irish america is st. patrick's cathedral. if you go to ireland to will see that the catholic churches were forced by the british even the cathedrals were on side streets. it was the anglican churches that were in the main intersection of the squares. in the united states, they put st. patrick's cathedral on fifth

avenue next to the vanderbilt house establishing where they were and right across the street from rockefeller. of course they didn't know there was going to be there yet, but a was a statement of that. and the irish were also give that music inarticulate. they sent much of the tone of popular culture in the late 19th and early 20th century from comedy to popular music. at the same time we got large numbers of germans putative some state in the big eastern cities primarily in new york. most headed to the midwest many went to the cities like cincinnati, st. louis and milwaukee. the journalist joseph pulitzer who endowed the pulitzer prize got his start in journalism by working for one of the competing german languages, peters and st. louis. it was kind of cutthroat. he got himself elected in the state legislature when he wasn't

quite 21 yet and he shot a fellow legislator, didn't kill him, but he was -- when you hear about the pulitzer prizes, keep in mind there is joseph pulitzer had a little bit of a wild life in german america. in st. louis many of the germans formed in the landscape of was reminiscent of much of germany. if you go the upper mississippi river, wisconsin, iowa, minnesota it is surrounded by these lovely hills and rolling landscape that looks a lot like the land in germany. they headed northwest come together north of where the new england yankee diaspora have gone and together after the civil war they created a kind of scandinavium province of america, wisconsin and iowa were most people today say they are of german descent, minnesota and the dakotas, north dakota has a

capital city named after a german statesman, the only one in the united states, bismarck. and having been there i can assure you that the streets are swept clean and neat. germany had been a battleground in european war and german immigrants and even motivated by the desire to escape the nightmare of the constant war. in any case, the of consistently been the most pacifist isolationist part of america moving from one political party to another depending on which is most in line with their views to the 56 votes were cast in the congress against the declaration of war in 1960. half of them came from scandinavia america which is the home of charles lindbergh who becomes the most prominent isolationist in the years before world war ii. i made the point that the surges in my region are not just responses to economic incentives

you go back and leave certain economists that will tell you this is just a matter of the labour market. if the wages are higher in rhode island than in massachusetts is improbable as that may seem. people will move from massachusetts to rhode island. economic incentives play role but people also pursue dreams or a state might mayors. one illustration of the thesis that economic incentives are not paramount is what we call the migration that did not happen. a defect in the three generations between the civil war and world war ii from 1865 to 1940, 75 years very few southerners migrated to the north, despite the fact that the wages were constantly two or three times higher. the economic incentive was there. there was no political boundary or no border patrol. there was no immigration station to get through yet when they

came from europe to the united states only about 1 million black summers and 1 million white southerners moved from south to north. this is a measure of the deaths of the wounds in the civil war which 600,000 americans and the country of 38 million by the. i've mentioned that the yankee north tried to impose racial equality on the south, but the was resisted ultimately by voters in the north and white southerners were left free to order their society in a system of racial segregation and in the customs that were enforced by law and violence and the threat of violence and who ventured north. when i went to the democratic national convention in denver of

2012, he learned of the democratic convention the 100 years before in 1908 some local businessmen decided they could make some money and they took a couple of railroad cars and into the mountains and filled them with snow. they put them outside of the convention hall as a tourist attraction because most of the southerners had never seen snow. they had never seen north to get in 1938 the psychologist published a book called caste and class in the southern town based on five months of the fuel work indianola and mississippi. it showed how they were restricted in their everyday life and how we had to call mr. and mrs. and were called by their first name they had to go to the back doors and looked down. they had to look down when white women past and so on and on the street and so forth. in the veto. like the work on the samoa but of course everything was known to every 10-years-old and the mississippi delta. the country was that separate

that people didn't realize what was going on. in 1892, the ellis island immigration processing center opened in new york harbor and the federal government took over from the states to process screening immigrants for health and ability to support themselves. it's actually immigration laws in large part 19th century regulated by the state authorities in massachusetts and new york and pennsylvania. right around that you're in 1892 in a time of economic distress, immigration to europe shifted from northwest europe from ireland, britain, germany, scandinavia to the southern and eastern europe. ellis island were mostly people that were second or third cast citizens in a multi-ethnic states, southern italians from italy, the poles and jews in the russian and the austro-hungarian empires. the prospect of equal citizenship attracted in

america, but the cultural customs, language differences led many americans feel that they couldn't be assimilated. as i said this was one of the three largest migrations of emigration as a percentage of the pre-existing population in the history. they headed to great cities on the east coast especially, but not limited to new york and to the industrial state in the cities of the great lake region. they found jobs in factories from the jews and the garment factories of new york to the auto factories in detroit and various ethnic groups in chicago and cleveland. these are the fastest growing metro areas in the nation at that time. from 1902 to 1914, the tide was at its peak in huge numbers. it came to a sudden and unexpected outbreak of world war war i in 1914. the ellis islanders did come from different cultures and

there was a fear that they couldn't be assimilated. they couldn't learn american civic culture. so the eletes like theodore roosevelt called for americanization. henry ford whole citizenship class is for the workers in the factories and the public schools did an admirable job of teaching immigrant children to speak, read and write english, to learn the basics of american civic culture and traditions. it's sometimes said that if i think that if i could employ a time machine i would like to bring back to run the public schools today the people that were running the public schools of new york city in 1913. nevertheless, there were demands that the immigration would be restricted and of wartime restrictions on people's movements convinced the government that they actually could be restricted as a practical matter to the and so, in 1924 congress passed an immigration act that in post

quote us from countries in proportion to their share of the u.s. population in the 1890 census that is before ellis island started the surge of migration that began to come. so immigration declined to a trickle in the 1920's and 1930's as it is always the case with economic times of distress you see more times of stress people tend to converge around and cultivate their own gardens and not take the risk of moving. then came an even of monumental significance. world war ii. some 16 million men and women were inducted into the armed services. an equivalent to they would be a military of 38 million men and women. think about how that would change the tenor and the tone of our society. shunted around the country and the world the demand for the defense workers shuffled many others including women around

the country. this plus the unexpected prosperity of the war periods open the the migration which hadn't been seen possible before. to places which seemed in different ways to be to some americans the promised land. one was the north were surge of black migration and one-third moved from the role of the assault to the urban north and a single generation of 1940 to 1965. 20 years. adjusted limited period of time. interestingly most came north and the carolinian to new york and philadelphia. alabama to detroit mississippi and to chicago, louisiana and texas west of california and they arrived in huge numbers which made for a great neighborhood change, the phrase of that i heard in new york in the 1950's sense at that time they were unloading to live in mostly black neighborhoods and these metro areas were growing

rapidly and vast numbers and blacks were moving in and migrating during and after the war. black income education levels rose sharply in during these years but they were also at the century behind the wave of crime and substance abuse and we had a crime basically welfare dependency trouble between 1965 and 1975 and plateau for about two decades afterwards. but as with the irish crime rates did eventually drop and they were held in welfare dependency helped by things like tommy thompson's welfare reform, rudy giuliani's crime control, public policy issues were followed by many other officials boast of the republican but including democrats as well. the black migration stopped abruptly and unexpectedly. it's one of these migrations everybody predicted straight

line trajectory everything is going to continue the way that has been. certainly in 1965i think after the passage of the civil rights act and the voting rights act and in somewhat unexpected compliance of white southerners to prepare with them made the south less of a nightmare in the continual segregation in the urban riots made the north seemed less of a dream and less of a promised land. the surge of migration must to california primarily from the midwest. the war brought millions of americans to california for the first time. how many here have been to california? just about everybody. a similar ordinance in 1940, demographically similar only a few hands would have gone up. people have been to california. in the face all the land that was reinjured american for the first time, but it was different from the rest of america.

in the 1940 census 90% live east of the rocky mountains. if you live east of the rocky mountains, the weather is unpleasant for a large portion of the year. i don't need to tell them audience in massachusetts that. and in california, and it is coastal california basically the weather is nice year round. so people started to see this -- many people saw this as the promised land. california population was increased by migration of military defense workers, the prediction was the have to go back. there is no way that you can make a living in california. people figured out how to make a living. they raised families, they started to doing things in big corporations and invested in auto plants and other things there and the migration continued. it basically started waning in numbers in the 1970's as california lost its comparative

advantage in climate. air-conditioning made a living in the south a whole lot more bearable. and in my opinion the better winter clothing in one of my favorite inventions the electric garage door opener me of loafing and having a garage a lot less unpleasant to the it in california and its comparative advantage of the climate, domestic migration and california started and i yearly in 1990. the defense industries close down the cold war period. but in contrast to the where millions of people were moving from other states to california since 1919 we have had a couple of million people moved from california to understates. in a large flow from california to texas. and i don't think i need to tell you the people moving to texas are not motivated by a decline

at. the dallas-fort worth metroplex last year had i think 100 days in which 90 of 100 the temperature was in triple digits every year and there isn't a cloud in the sky. people don't come there for the weather. but california has had an outflow. and instead, those migrations basically ended roughly about 1965 or 1970 and since 1970 in the last four decades we have seen two kinds of migration. one of them is the migration of immigrants and 1965 we changed the quotas imposed on the immigration act of 1924. the experts were asked if we would come out of the immigrants of latin america and the days of no act of the immigrants come from europe to the immigrants that come from europe in the past we have some immigrants

from europe, but not any thing absurd. instead we have had a surge of immigration from latin america and europe although as i tell people including some people want talk-radio can't believe it the number of immigrants as a percentage of the existing population is actually between one-third and one-half the level. was much higher than the irish and german period and the pre-revolutionary period. they came from mexico across the difficult to control land border and the industry of the rio grande which is not as wide as the charles river up at harvard. they did it primarily to the metro areas in california texas florida, illinois and new york and 80s and 90s and increasingly in the last decade to the

high-growth areas of georgia and north carolina the meatpacking towns on the great plains. the work on construction land and pursued an american dream of buying a house. they have to give mortgages to hispanics, w-2 we don't really need to see the w-2. these are spanish-language mortgage originators and it was the dream people were trying to achieve. many legal and many illegal immigrants involved in this and then suddenly the dream came crashing down in 2007 with the collapse of the housing market. if you look at the foreclosure in those years and to look at the counties where the year at the san bernadino in fresno and clark county and maricopa county i would estimate about one third

of those foreclosures were on hispanics, an awful lot more. and since 2007 according to the pew hispanic center, a net migration from mexico to the united states has been zero. migration there was huge for a quarter-century from 1982 to 2007 has at least temporarily ended and the flow of anything is the other way. migration from other areas has slowed way down and i think what happened is for mexican and other latin the united states seems less of a dream and mexico which has caught him vast economic growth and political reforms seems less of a nightmare. my prediction is that and one that i think framers of immigration legislation should at least keep in mind is that we will never see another wave of migration from mexico to the united states of the magnitude. anything like the magnitude

between 1982 and 2007. the other surge in the last 40 years has been in turmoil, what i call for abolition all migration. middle-income americans have been leaving high-cost, high tax, high housing costs metro areas like the metro new york and metro detroit. if you go back in history metro new york metro detroit between 1930 to 1970 and that period were growth makers that grew faster than the natural to weaken national average people were flowing to live in new york and metro detroit there was a job growth and energy and so forth. those areas for example and others like him have grown scarcely tall between the four years between 19701019 -- 2010. people have gone places like florida, the south atlantic's states, texas and arizona to the and you can see it in the census

data and compare 1970 to 2010, in 1970 new york had 18 million people and in 2010, 40 years later it had 19 million people. in 1970, texas had 11 million people and in 2010, texas had 25 million people. that's a significant change in america. obvious political ramifications as well. another form of volition will migration has been particularly among upscale americans to the congenial metro areas. people who choose the dallas-fort worth metroplex -- and they really do call it that down there -- you can offer them a promotion double the salary and they won't move to the bay area and vice versa. people in the area want to think of moving to texas. and this has resulted in a certain degree of political polarization as more states

become either safe republican or state democratic it's a little down the list of target states in the last four elections. the current recession and slow sluggish economic growth has slowed down with internal migration and immigration. what lies ahead? my answer is we can't really be sure. one of my lessons is the surges and migration starts unexpectedly. people perceive economic incentives but also conceive of dreams and desires in ways that are hard to anticipate and the experts can't anticipate in the past developments do not necessarily foreshadow. ..

it wasn't enough to prevent the rate of civil war that it's a very useful template. we have managed to do these things before and we should be prepared for whatever unforeseen things may happen again. let me just conclude by making a couple of comments about today's current clinical scene which may have been the subject of much news lately. and how surges of migration have contributed to that. i mention we have had this sort sort of volitional migration for the last 40 years. here is some political data you may not leave.

the 1976 presidential election san francisco bay area voted democratic by a 51-49 in the last election and voted democratic as something like 77-22. rural texas and parts of texas that are not in dallas-fort worth metroplex metro houston metro san antonio about a third of the nation at that time voted almost 70% for jimmy carter. in 1976 texas went them at tadic for jimmy carter. california went republican for gerald ford. things have changed politically in that last forty-year period. now the carter ford election in some ways is a little red of a misleading president because each party in that case happen to nominate somebody who was for a party's historic homeland. ford from upstate michigan the yankee diaspora and jimmy carter

from south georgia where they still hate the memory of general sherman. they don't call him general sherman. they call him sherman and so forth. one of my favorite was the coast statistics is the fact that the number two state for john f. kennedy in 1960 -- the number one state in percentage was rhode island in the number two state was not massachusetts his home state. the number two catholic state. it was georgia. why did george about happily for john f. kennedy? because sherman had marched through only 96 years before. the imprint of the civil war lasted a long time. we have got different cultural parameters today and why do we have a country that went into the 2012 election cycle with basically mild to negative job rating so that democratic president? negative ratings of a republican house of representatives and this country where most people

vote straight ticket these days. there were ticket splitters in the 70 and 80s but not much anymore. why did this country reelects the democratic president and reelects the dip republican house of representatives? the answer is in some sense searches of migration. what we have seen is that democratic voters who tend to be liberal on cultural issues and for whom cultural issues tend to be the more important than economic issues. that's true of republican voters as well. democratic voters -- blacks expand next -- hispanics university communities tend to cluster in many large central cities and some like-minded suburbs in university towns and communities and they catch huge percentages for the democratic party. that gives democrats a big advantages in the electoral college. if you look at the 2012 election you will see that barack obama

won 55% or more of the vote and i think 13 states with 179 electoral votes. it was only 91 electoral votes of an electoral college majority in states that were basically safe. those states weren't contested. so that's an advantage there. the advantage for the republicans comes an equal population districts because when you get outside those democratic clusters republican voters tend to be spread more evenly around and so you find them -- they are hurt in the electoral college. me carried states with 103 electoral votes with 55% or more. he had a much longer route to get to the majority of the electoral college but when you look at congressional districts equal population districts you see a different picture and it's

not just because of redistricting although that has a minor and marginal effect. what you see is you compare george w. bush in 2004 reelected with 51% of the popular vote. barack obama in 2012 reelected with 51% of the vote. george bush carried the electoral college 286 electoral votes. barack obama of electoral college 332 nearly 50 or electoral votes. how many congressional districts to congressional districts did he carry? that's obviously not relevant but it's relevant for electing members of the house of representatives. george w. bush carried 255 congressional districts. john kerry carried 180. bush was way ahead. barack obama in 201251% kerry 209 congressional districts and mitt romney carried 226. one of the reasons is you have a republican majority in the house

of representatives is that its demography. it's the way that americans have spread themselves about the country and the resulting political gridlock. so a certain amount of political conflict is built into our system. it's built into it by recent searches of migration and it's built into it like james madison and the 39 other men -- i'm sorry no women who signed the constitution in 1787 to set up separate branches of government and said the president runs the government and the congress funds it. i have bought that implies a certain amount of duty of consultation between people of the different branches government. there has been less of that recently than there has been of some other historic times. but the conflict is there and it's sewn into our system and with the two parties competing

pretty closely i think that we can look forward to the same. so with that and i have got an article in the wall street journal tomorrow morning on the opinion page that expands further on this. let me conclude this talk and ask for your comments and suggestions. thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you so much michael. i think your remarks have truly put the political landscape into perspective. now we would like to open up a dialogue with the audience and if you ask a question please use the microphone. do we have the question?

[inaudible] we often find ourselves on opposite sides. michael, i was very taken by your idea of these almost spontaneous migrations and then ones that almost as mysteriously cease as they had begun for no apparent reason. but it seems to me that one can explain the rapid rise like any kind of chain reaction and i think your idea of dream is probably a very good one because dreams are very contagious and they will continue to grow much larger members of people unless something stops them. eventually it course there is a saturation at the end because that kind of growth isn't

ultimately sustainable. so what is it that stops it and it seems to me that it has to do with what i might call a microcultures that develops. you have a group of people who have come over who like to be with other such people and they form microcultures but the generations is one in which there is some assimilation and it's that assimilation that against to the road that microculture. just as quickly i think you have the reverse kind of chain reaction happening and that is why it stopped so suddenly as it started so suddenly. but i think it's different sorts of things. it's not a normal kind of physical process which takes off and then finally saturates and get you a nice s-curve. that is what most physical scientists are very used to because they're very different explanations at the beginning and at the end.

>> i attempted to look at this and any more detail but it seems to me it's a very important kind of thing to look at it is as you say it really does govern a lot of even today's politics that this has happened. >> thank you. that is lent hobbs repressor of material sciences at m.i.t. and you are giving us a kind of scientific analogy here i guess is a fair way of saying it. assimilation takes place at different rates. the north in the south living apart for 75 years, that's very low assimilation even within one national boundary. i mean it's just striking. on the other hand one event that had a huge force and i use the term in the book a kneeling force. i don't know if that's good material science or not. world war ii. it brought all these people together. it rocked northerners and

southerners together in the same unitary unit in the same defense installation and so forth. it brought ellis islanders in with the other groups. the world war ii cliché always have one guy in the unit from brooklyn. this is demographically at it. in the 1940s census brooklyn had 2% of the u.s. population. one out of every 50 americans lived in brooklyn and came through ellis island. it did have a cohesive force and in the post-war. period that we grew up in it was characterized as a period of people wanting to be normal. ethnic differences were underplayed as compared to some other times in our history i think it's fair to say. you know, pizzo was an unusual food. in a match our area like detroit which had lots of ethnic groups and so forth so we have a sort of --

that promoted a kind of common culture and a process of super assimilation greater than in many other periods. i think that's fair to say and of course as i said it moved people around geographic way to california and other areas. >> you may never forgive me. i am a local and unsuccessful politician named john sears. twice mr. baran referred to the yankee diaspora and i had warned him it might at about this hour be a red sox diaspora. [laughter] because there is a mortal, taking place at pro-america park. i will root turn briefly to that in a moment. it would not surprise me to learn in this young audience there are quite a few people who are upset and at odds about

american immigration. and it may well be one of the things that is the biggest problem to the republican party. i would like to venture that some of us may not realize every one of you in the audience everyone going back a thousand years has just over 1 million grandfathers and grandmothers. caroline's middle name is bo regard. mr. baran heritage quite likely comes from the most colorful country in the mediterranean region. we are all immigrants. i am descended from john winthrop and immigrant. and i venture that we should really be discussing a little bit the problem the republican party has with this very important subject where heroes

at the moment of people named cruz and rubio and these people are obviously as new to this country as any of us and furthermore if you are a tiger fan you have to speak spanish. if you are red sox fan at the moment you had better master some japanese. >> my response to that is a partly sicilian american. it's kosher by me. thank you sheriff sears. republicans do have a problem. i think we generally have a problem in this country and that we have about 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. that's down from 12 million in 2007. the number of mexican illegals is down 900,000 according to census estimates but what do you do about this and to what extent do you have legalization?

there are various proposals for this. i find myself critical of both the senate bill that was passed last spring and other critics of the senate bill who are very concerned about border enforcement build a wall and so forth. i think we can do better with border enforcement. i think we have within our capacity technologically and consistent with today's attitudes to enforce immigration law through electronic unification. some on e-verify. the government does have some trouble purchasing and procuring i.t. as we are learning with healthcare.gov but i think we have the capacity to basically do that. as i say i think that people who are hugely concerned about the border are concerned more about yesterday's problem than a problem that's likely to be as large.

in years to come. so one of the things i have been saying is that i think we ought to consider tilting our immigration law more towards high-skilled immigrants and less towards extended family reunification. the senate will lead some distance in that direction and i think in both counts but not far enough in my view. the reason we have huge immigration from mexico leave aside the illegals, is not because there is a big quota in the 1965 act for mexicans but because of extended unification revisions. they came from the 1924 immigration bill. remember the 1924 bill was passed by a bipartisan majority at a time when republicans have the majority and republicans were carrying big cities with lots of immigrants. warren g. harding carried detroit cleveland new york and chicago.

they said okay we are going to cut off ellis island immigration let your family members come in. it was a concession to political reality and it sort of was the exception that ate up the bill with respect to latin american immigration because people came over and fast numbers with in chain migration. babies were born here and so forth. i think we have to move toward some towards some form of regularization and legalization but i think we also want to look at the example of our anglo cousins in canada and australia. canada and australia have many more immigrants coming through our point systems based on education, skills, incoming capacity to invest. they have -- they have had higher percentages of immigration each year as a percentage of their pre-existing population than we do and that have higher percentages of their population who are warned abroad in australia and canada. they also according to the oecd

report that was issued just last week have higher degrees of literacy numeracy ability to work with information technology which the united states is lagging behind. it seems to me that some canadians have said to me please don't adopt our immigration system. we want these high-skilled people in vancouver calgary montréal. as an american i would like to have more of them in the united states and i don't see either party or a big lobbying group addressing this. the big lobby group for high skill is for hwnd the pieces which tends to tie people to a particular employer. while that's nice if you want hikers off to get engineers for low wages that maybe we would like those this people just to be able to operate in the free market and see what they can contribute on their own without having to ask microsoft's permission.

>> michael thanks for taking time to talk to the group today. we all really appreciate having you here. my question regarding all the major leading cities in the country new york austin chicago san francisco l.a. and philly the most productive cities in the country, all lean very much to the left. what's your rationale for that? >> you didn't mention houston and dallas. which are two of our six biggest. >> those would be leaning to the right. >> they vote republican. as well as atlanta. why do they lean left? basically one of the things i say is if you are looking at the northeast cities from washington going through boston you are looking at los angeles and san francisco conquer you are looking at chicago or the coast of lake michigan.

you are looking the parts of america with the greatest income inequality. you hear democrats and people on the left say we hate income inequality. we want to tax the rich people and give money to the poor people. in the process they throw the middle middle-class people out. california according to the most recent statistics has the highest degree of income inequality in the country and the highest level of poverty in the country 23.5%. i think some poverty measures -- numbers are measured and we can talk as a side issue about poverty measures but the fact is that california's liberal policies have made it you know a highly unequal state and you have rich people as servants. that's not a very egalitarian society. if you want a more egalitarian society try texas or georgia, and if you look at the numbers and you have also had greater

economic growth there. the state of massachusetts has generally done very well. they basically massachusetts has imported high-skilled high education people. it is exported but it's a relatively small state. you have got six-point something million people here and a little less than arizona. california has 38 million texas has 25 million. massachusetts is almost like a single kind of nice matcher area that has worked out pretty well. but you still have pretty high levels of inequality as well. so i call the people who say they want more income equality and asked them the question, how come the places you run have the highest income inequality and i think the answer is you tax the middle income people out.

you have high housing costs by environmental regulations and other things. california for example but also metro new york. no population increase in the last 40 years. bring immigrants in and americans out has been the pattern. you know if you are raising a family and you are not high income, you are not ph.d. educated, you have a decent job what does the house cost you in the san francisco bay area or the los angeles area where you have the public school where most of the kids don't speak spanish? well you probably want to start off at $460,000, $640,000. people with middle incomes can't afford that. they are priced out of the market and what does the same house cost in texas? 140,000, 180.

of go and you can send your school kids to public schools. they have better achievements for hispanics in california hispanics. does the big government high tax model works very well? i would argue not so well. massachusetts may be an exception. >> hi carried i have two questions. i love the cover of your book and could you describe the inspiration for the image and the second question is, if you had one message for people to take with them regarding the book what would it be? >> okay. the jacket photograph the cover design was just handed to me by a subcontractor of my publisher at random house so my reaction was i like it.

take a look at the maps. this is my aspiration and per the usual author contract i paid for the maps. but this is the fremont counties in 1856 in the kanke diaspora. this is is the counties voting 60% for calvin coolidge. 68 years later. it looks sort of the same. what is the single message i want to take? a single message is this country can work. we have a kind of dna that has enabled people with a lot of different attitudes origins tastes beliefs to live together. it's hard sometimes. it poses some problems. i have a little more minor key about his country in this book than i haven't have in some of my previous writings.

it can be difficult. and i guess the other thing is and hobbes suggested this, dreams can percolate up in a way that we don't anticipate. what are the latest dreams? what is really motivating people the trends that one grows up with may not continue forever and certainly the ones that i have grown up with his eyes have suggested by contrasting the period since 1970 with a period from 1940 and 1930 to 1970, the movements are very different and that is you know -- i grew up as a legal democrat in michigan and we assumed that texas foolishly conservative would find out about the modern

world to change its ways and join michigan and the vanguard and so forth. well you know michigan's population in 2010, 10 million texas i gave you the numbers earlier. 11 million about the same as michigan and goes up to 25 million. for the last 40 years that model has worked well. the way is open for others to argue that maybe a different sort of model will work and i think that's what president obama and most democrats hope will be the case. so i kind of doubt it but i'm ready to see what portion of that i will be permitted to see. [applause] 's the michael thank you again for that surely enlightening presentation and that enlightening dialogue with the audience. now on behalf of the m.i.t.

college republican club i would like to present you with a small token of our appreciation which you can open really quickly. >> oh gosh. i usually mangle things. one of the things that people who are with me and in cram book will tell you that i am a klutz. okay. and m.i.t. coffee mug. [applause] >> we here at m.i.t. hope that you will sip from the smug as you venture into new vistas of research for your new book so keep that on your coffee table. again on behalf of our club thank you to all of our audience members for attending this special presentation with michael. we look forward to seeing you at future events in negotiation with other high-level figures such as michael and also we are an unfunded club so we appreciate any monetary donations you can make. we have the donation box on the table and again thank you for coming.

[applause] we do have michael's new book "shaping our nation" available-for-sale and he will autograph copies so make sure that you get one. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

>> i'm excited to have this opportunity to visit with you about this new book. it's very interesting and provocative. and like i said, it reminded me of when i was working in treatment about the relationship and it's one of the questions i wanted to ask you is why now? why is the subject se