the case is just mind boggling. thank you for your question, though. [applause] >> thank you for having me out. >> we are live this morning as the group of faith leaders are holding a press conference here in washington to kick off the national tour on faith and morality and politics, this is live from the national press club here on c-span2. >> let me welcome you all today and announcement of the national higher ground declaration day of action on september the 12th and i will be talking more about that in just a moment, before we say anything, i want to ask the reverend, a good friend and

brother at the united church of christ if he would come and open us today with the word of prayer, would you? >> good morning, i want to thank everybody for being here, dr. blackman and dr. barber and dr. forbes and everybody else, clergy that are gathered here today as we do from our tradition where we draw upon our powers, let us join in a moment of prayer. we want to thank you first of all, thank you for just being god and watching over us and filling us with the spirit to do right, the spirit to go forward and bring forth your justice and your hope, to lift up mighty cause so that people are united and blessed in the process of being united because we stand here today for justice and we stand here today for hope and we stand here today so that the nation can change its way and do

what is righteous and right so that there's a spirit of justice that becomes pervasive in this land, that we truly live toward the creed that we are called to live towards that all people may find the place of joy and happiness that each and every one may be secured and each and every one might exist in a state of justice and hope. now bless us in all of the endeavors particularly as we go forward september 12th. allow us to feel your sacred and wonderful spirit and allow us to be on fire with the light of justice and spirit that brings ability the peace. in all these things we pray, amen. >> amen. at this time we are going to open with a special promo video that's connected to the revival

times revolution of values and talks about the higher ground moral declaration day of action. [music] >> there are over 2,000 scriptures in the holy text that talk about the nations should lift up the poor, children, immigrant, strangers, women, the sick and any who have been made to feel unkeptable.

these things are at the center of the moral consideration and we call on a resistance to divide and conquer strategy of extremism. we are we are here to promote moral value in our nation. >> our silence has contributed to the place that we are in right now. our refusal to speak out across party lines, across racial lines, across gender lines, against what we know to be wrong, the faith community has been complicit in this cover-up. >> where is our moral voice? [cheers and applause] >> where is our willingness to stand up and say, enough? >> leaders to continue the movement but that's only after

this kind of public execution, the public crucifixion at the hands of the oppressor. >> the way to change what's happening in our societies is by letting our hearts be broken open by the anguish and the truth in having it broken, there's room to recover. >> america just might make it through the struggle. >> we must shock this nation with the power of love. we must shock this nation with the power of mercy. we must shock this nation and fight for justice for all. we can't give up on the heart of our democracy, not now, not ever. [cheers and applause]

>> together, organize together, fight for the heart of this nation. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. [applause] >> this promo is being released today and let me just welcome all of you in the grace of god and the spirit of love. i first want to say how humbled i am to be walking with all these clergy who represent thousands around the country. i see my friends who fight for 15 and others who have been a part of this work particularly all around the september the 12th action.

the higher ground moral declaks that i'm going to talk about has been signed by 2,585 clergy across this country representing christians, muslims, jews and other faith. we've also had persons who are not necessarily faithful but believe in a moral universe and nearly 11,000 citizens and activists have signed on with with representation of all 50 states. it's been privilege to travel across the country for those who may not know by t, my name is reverend william barber the second and president of senior pastor of the church and third reconstruction fusion politics and the rise of a new justice movement that is part of the story of the movement where tens of thousands literally have joined together in wasn't

southern states and particularly all north carolina and over a thousand people have engaged in civil disobedience in january, february of 2014 over 80,000 people showed up. and the largest civil right justice in the south since selma. but be all that as it may and even my work with the north carolina naacp as president, it's been my life's privilege and i've learned so much traveling with reverend who is here today, the senior minister of the riverside church in the city of new york. he served as senior minister for more than 15 years, nationally and internationally known speaker, preacher, teacher and

is the president and founder of healing, healing of the nations and also the drum major institution. it's been such a privilege to travel with him. i wouldn't make one announcement but he told me not to do it, today is a special day, amen. i've been privileged to talk with the reverend tracy blackman who is the acting executive director minister of ucc justice and witness ministry, she was appointed to the position by a unanimous vote of the ucc board in october 2015. she's also the 18th installed and first woman pastor, 156-year-old christ the king united church of christ in ferguson, missouri. she has gained international and national recognition particularly around her fight for social change when michael brown was shot in ferguson.

and it's one of the voices in the world. it's been a privilege to join with sister simone campbell who serves as the executive director of network since 2004. she's the religious leader, attorney and poet with extensive experience in public policy and advocacy for systematic change and lobbies on issues of economic justice, immigration reform and health care. we've also been privileged and this this is the four legs to this table, the reverend harris, professor of new testament and also the director of the project that is working to continue to work that dr. king began when he talked about the poverty, poor's people campaign.

today we open up with our good friend reverend dr. hagler. dc contingency and the revival time for a moral revolution has been coordinated by repairs of the breach healing of the nation's drum institution and cairo center. we also have great support, the ucc church, design ls of -- de muslims, the fight for 15. and the list continues to grow. why are we here today? on monday september the 12th at 11:00 o'clock a.m. in every time

zone clergy will lead a higher ground moral day of action outside of state capital and city hall in district of colombia. in state capitol and here in the district of colombia, it will be at their city hall because as you know, we are still fighting in the district of colombia which continues one of the great moral challenges in our country, people who have taxation without representation. now, the higher ground moral declaration will make three declarations, one, faith leaders, advocates, activists and people who have been hurt and impacted by regressive extreme policies and extremism in our political system will hold rallies outside of state capitol buildings and city halls to deliver the higher ground moral declaration and it is a

moral policy framework to respect the governors, u.s. senators, presidential candidates and candidates for office and major parties. you can find this higher ground declaration at www.moralrevival.org. and i will talk more about that. the goal is to have activists to march together to these state capitols to symbolically since that's the center power and accepting the district of colombia to make the moral declaration by having impacted and talk about extreme policies have hurt them and each clergy will actually read this declaration. it is a nationwide petition calling our -- our government, our political systems to higher ground. number two, the second declaration will be communities of faith and deep moral consciousness will be called on

to go to the pose november and beyond and vote candidates that have the highest capacity to advance moral public policy agendas and then number three the third moral declaration would be the call on religious leaders on two weekends prior to the presidential election and mini state election to call on faith leaders to preach and teach in their churches, senegogs and other places, health care, access for all criminal justice reform and ensuring that historically marginnized communities have prek under the law. it's being coordinated in over 25 capitol cities, we are working in conjunction as i said with our anchor groups in all of those cities where we are

traveling to do the social justice revivals, also with many of the members of the fight for 15, they will include montgomery, alabama. little rock, arkansas, sacramento, california, denver, colorado, hartford, connecticut. washington, d.c., tallahassee, florida, atlanta, georgia, springfield, illinois, indianapolis, indiana. francfort, kentucky, boston, massachusetts, st. paul, minnesota. excuse me, jefferson city, missouri, concord, new hampshire. santa fe, new mexico. raleigh, north carolina. albany, new york, columbus, ohio, colombia, south carolina. nashville, tennessee. austin, texas, richmond,

virginia and madison, wisconsin. groups of clergy activists and impacted people will be the anchor groups. others may join but that will be the anchor groups that will go to the state capitols and make the moral declaration, will actually march around or on the area of the state capitol is located and the te clargs will be delivered both through hand copies and through e-mail and to senators, canned dates for the senate, sitting governors and others. a part of the revival, time for a moral revolution of values which is a national multistate tour to redefine morality in american politics. the reviable challenges leaders of faith and moral courage to be more vocal in opposing harmful policies that disproportionately impact vulnerable communities.

as i noted earlier, the higher ground moral declaration has already been signed and now by more than 2,000 clergy and more than 10,000 people of faith across this country who understand that we need to advance a moral agenda. that agenda includes democracy and voting rights, poverty and economic justice, workers rights, education, health care and environmental justice, immigrant's rights and xenophobia, criminal justice, lgbtq lgbt and war amongorring. we are very clear that the time has come to challenge the limited view of morality often put by the so-called religious right or the so-called conservative evangelical, we understand that any notion of evangelical to be consistent

must begin with critique of system that is create poverty injustice inequality and certain people are left than other people. somebody has to stand up and say, it doesn't matter party has in power, who has majority once elections are over. there are some things that transcend political majorities and majority politics and the narrow categories of liberal versus conservative and democrat versus republican. there are some things that must be challenged because they are wrong, extreme and immoral. but before elections are over, of faith, people who have a deep moral conscious must be engaged. we cannot simply judge candidates by whether they had a photo op here or photo op there. we must look at policy and how that policy lines up, when we look at, for instance, in the jewish text, issaia says, those

who legislate oppression and rob the poor of their rights and make women and children their prey or go, for instance, to the new testimony, jesus first sermon. he talked about the poor, the sick, the blind, the broken, the hurting and everybody who has been made to feel different, made to feel strangers, we must declare acceptable year and nations would be judged by how we treat the least of these, the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, those in prison. we believe that we must redefine morality in the public scare, -- square, we can no longer accept, when we talk about morality where you stand on abortion, homosexuality, second amendment

and where you stand on property rights and tax cuts, we believe from our deepest religious values and our deepest constitutional values, even with the constitution does not begin with things that i list with. our deepest moral principle is an understanding of question, not simply about i in mind. and then secondly the establishment of justice, the providing for the common good, the promoting of the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility, those are the great moral of our constitution and faith, justice and love are the great moral of faith. so someone must say, it is extreme morally indefensible and inconsistent for us to make it harder for people to vote. that's immoral. it's extreme and immoral not to address systematic racism and pay workers a living wage and to

guaranty labor rights in a country that declared equal protection under the law. it is extreme and immoral, 100 years after teddy roosevelt talked about health care for all and more than 2,000 years after jesus always set up free health clinics wherever he went, never required to pay copay, politicians to get elected and get free health care after they get elected but then fight to ensure that all people get health care. it is extreme to raise taxes and fees on the poor and make college students pay more interest for loans while we cut taxes for the wealthiest of our society. it is extreme 62 years after brown versus the board of education to see resegregated high poverty schools be the major challenge in our country and to underfund public schools on the one hand while we fund

private corporations on the other. it is extreme. it is morally indefensible to pledge one nation under god, with justice for all and then fight against liberty and justice for the lgbtq, immigrant in our country and to seek to put laws in immigrants. politicians to put laws in place that if they were in place 100 years ago their own ancestors would not have been immigrant in this country. it's extreme to care more about the second amendment and how we can proliferate the people to get assault weapons and guns than we fight to ensure people can get a voter card. it's something extreme when you can get a gun easier than you can get a voter card. it's extreme to claim that the

legitimate discontent against brutality of unarmed blacks is antipolice and somehow just a black thing when we see black, white people, latinos, jews, christians, muslims all marching and declaring black lives matter. it's extreme to cash for purposes, extreme not to love the palestinian child and not the jewish child. we believe it's a necessity for this destiny of democracy that we realized that we need a revolution of values. we must raise our moral discontent and decent knowing that whether hurt now or later, history has shown that moreal shall deceive change and justice that eventually block them on the landscape of our democracy. lastly, one year before his as

is -- as assasination. this was after the civil rights of '64 and '65, he knew that the moral work was far from over. he said then that silence was betrayal, we declared today if silence was betrayal in 67 than a moral revolution of values, a higher ground declaration is a necessity today. lastly, i want to read one other scripture that even come from the quran. even in the quran believers both men and women are in charge and responsible for one another. they all enjoin the doing of what is right and for being the

doing of what is wrong. wherever you look, our deepest faith traditions or even in our constitution, there is this call for a higher ground moral declaration. we believe that the conversation we ought to be having right now in this country whether it's presidential, governmential is where the candidates stand on these issues, prolabor, antipoverty, antiracist policies that build up economic democracy through full employment, living wages, adjust transition away from fossil fuel that make sure that the people who have worked there are not thrown aside, labor rights, affordable housing, direct cash transfers and social safety net and other support for all families struggling to get by, fair policies for immigrant and

critiquing policy around war amongorring. number two, equality in education, that should be a focus. where do you stand if you're running for president or you're running for governor, where do you stand on equality education by ensuring every child receives high-quality, well-funded, constitutional, diverse education and access to community college, university, equitable funding for minority college and universities, where do you stand if you want to people's vote? do you believe health care for all is a moral issue, expanding medicaid, ensuring medicare and social security but then moving towards universal transparent equitable health care for all and providing environmental production. do you mr. politician or ms. politician, see environmental protection as a

moral issue, do you see protecting women's health, do you understand that there's a problem that people can buy led-free paint but can't buy led -- lead-free water. do you believe that fairness in the criminal justice system by addressing inequalities that operate in that system against black, brown and poor white people, do believe that fighting the proliferation of guns is a moral issue, do you believe voting rights and expanding voting rights and women's rights and lgbtq rights and religious freedom and immigrant rights and protecting and never backing up on the fundamental principle of equal production under law, moral issues, if you don't think they're moral issues, then don't debate? say to us whether you believe whether they are moral or immoral issues.

they can't be both ways. we believe that our moral traditions have a firm foundation upon which to stand against the divide and conquer strategists of extremist and it's time that we claim higher ground, higher than left versus right, higher than democrat versus republican, higher than simple partisan debate, but we understand that some things are not about partisan debate, they are about what is right and what is wrong. every politician in this country makes a big deal -- that's all right. that happens to the best. we believe in dancing and standing for what's right. [laughter]

bible because the people went through an marked every scripture that has to do with how you treat the least of these children. how you address issues of poverty. they found 2000 scriptures. some of the things we often hear is called morality you can even find in scripture and some of them you only find one or two and none of those one or two scriptures trump this one. you must love your neighbor as

yourself and treat the least of these. it's a time for a moral reset and this country and that's why the revival is calling for a higher ground moral declaration. i went to ask doctor forbes met -- doctor forbes and blackmun to come and we will take questions from them. thank you so much. god bless you. [applause]. >> brothers and sisters, in a few days america will be commemorating the horrible and tragic events of september 11, 2001. when it between towers of the world trade center came crashing down from the brutal attack of terrorists.

during the mournful days of shock, grief, vulnerability and fear, which followed, i recall hearing god bless america. at broadway plays, baseball games and numerous public assemblies. as the song goes and you can remember hearing at the baseball game, as we raise our voices in a solemn prayer, god bless america, land that i love. stand beside her. and guide her through the night with the light from above. as we come today's first after labor day to the home stretch of the presidential election campaign, our nation needs to be

singing that song and praying that prayer in earnest out of the sincerity of our troubled hearts. once again 2016, 15 years after 2001, fear, anxiety and assorted vulnerabilities hang like the dark gray clouds hanging over new york skyline. what's hanging now all over our country, villages and urban centers in the cloud-- well, the cloud of terror foreign and

domestic threaten our sense of safety and well-being. also, this is a cloud to for some people a new demographic with demands for equity and justice. those clouds make the future seem fragile and concern for many and makes democracy seem like a too costly risk laden experiment with on unrealistic utopian ideal and desperate ethnic economic and political interests threatened to shred the social contract untying the

terms contained in it that made the united states one body, but is now making it look more like body parts. we need to pray, god bless america, land that we love. stand beside us right now and guide us through the night with a light from above, but to pray god's blessings and it to remain indifferent or adversarial to moral and spiritual values of justice mutual respect, compassion and care for the poor , the disadvantaged and of the other, to pray and be

indifferent or adversarial reveals what we have been working on, a serious character defect. moral degeneracy and spiritual anemia, there are signs all around us that we need a moral revolution of the values in nation. doctor king suggested that we have become captive to the triple evils of racism, materialism and militarism. now, anyone with eyes that are open, we see more clearly than ever before hauch truly put-- prophetic doctor king was in his description of our national malaise. take for example racism.

folks, just to think of the outrageous hysteria occasioned by the presence of a black family in the white house. and it's lasted for the entire two terms. just think of the zenith phobic passions puling the current immigration caustic conversation consider the police community manifestations of brutality at the resulting mistrusts and

mounting video evidence and daily data supported statistics that there is racialist stick malignancy in every system and aspect of the american way of life. i think we are going to need a moral revolution. materialism, what is it in america-- [inaudible] >> the political process, politicians, preachers, football players and their heads, body parts market share, prisoners,

votes, life and death for higher our currency is imprinted in god we trust, but is it really true that in general money is god in our nation? money has more influence than regards to our values, our political affiliation, our social arrangements. markets values mean more than morals or our mamas. and agreed-- greed, i used to talk about grades in regards to money, buying elections and gun legislation and money determining attitudes regarding

healthcare and prison complex or international alliances, but you and i were in seminary and the roman catholic priest, father right, quoted a scripture and i had to go home and look it up myself. i know this is a club where you talk politics and stuff, but there may be a moral dimension. couldn't believe this. i don't think people will believe this. they will think we concocted this for the revival, but it says right here in matthew-- >> they say they want to hear your microphone. >> you want your me on the microphone? matthew five: twenty-one and 22 , says you have heard it was

said of those in patron times you shall not murder. i'm talking violence now. we know murder is by ives and lord its guiding in the streets. we talk about black lives matter, white lives matter, jewish lives matter, muslim lies matter, old folks lives matter. i like to think so, the old folks lives matter. [laughter] >> but, whoever murder shall be liable to the judgments, but i say unto you that if you are angry, anger all over the place, every time you turn on the television, radio anger and there are people who are glad someone is angry to express my anger, anger anger angry with a brother or sister you are liable to judgment. then, the priest said and if you insult a brother or sister you will be liable to the council and if you say, you fool, you

will be liable to the hell of a fire. he ended up saying you call folks fools and you may go to hell. but, anyway, that's enough for maybe except there are two other things i want to say then i will be through. we in trouble, folks. the problem is that a whole lot of folks don't know what to do about loading. boating-- floating is god's way of telling us how important we are. we are made of image and likeness of god and even god says what we name things even matters, the airport it's important for us to understand

that this is no simply political process patchwork. that when the issue of voteing comes we are determining where we believe the snake on the ground or the god that made us, we have to make up our mind and so reverend, i don't know how we get this done. the reason we are going across the country day by day and it looks like through the whole month of september and october is because i discovered that while there is an election november 8, and everyone should vote and if anyone doesn't vote is because they ain't paying attention to god. god says you are my child and i put voting power in you and anyone that messes with it ain't nothing but a snake anyhow. every day there is a referendum and that's why we have to go every day i wish i could get a

break. every day we have to go because there is, folks, a referendum. is a moral referendum and it doesn't wait until november 8. the way you vote on november 8, is going to be based on what you do about the moral referendum and if that happens day you get up because every day we get up, we are faced with the decision, god made the universe and said it was good and arranged for it to be held together. there are folks tried to pull it apart every day you get up you are going to opportunity to cast your vote in the moral referendum. on them to ask you this question and then i'm sitting down. we are god's children. you think to live your life without paying attention to what matters to god in regards to how we treat one another, in regards

to how we spend our money, in regards to how we form our alliances and our association, you make a vote every day. does it matter more to you what god thinks about it than what the snake thinks about it? that's a vote for a fair. other is, god made us as one people. question, some folks try to do what we call pseudo- substantiation, big word for saying we are one species, but some are more human than others and others have actually taken some human beings and made chattel property out of them or treat other people as second-class citizens. every day you get up, you will see signs of folks that are parceling out human beings and putting some in the lord category, lower stock. you have to make a vote every time you see it. mi for that or am i against it?

finally, god had a dream, not just doctor king that had a dream, the dream of the kind of world that god wants to see an every day you get up and walk out of your house you are going to look on the world and you got to to vote. this is the kind of world i want to be in or is the world i want to be a part of in the world i'm planning to work for the world that the creator dreams from the dawn of creation? i'm going to leave you today-- i'm going to the train station back to new york and every time i get a chance i'm going to vote today and if i can vote right each day between now and november 8, i'm not going to have to worry who to vote for what i get there. [applause]. >> see why he is in my prayer book?

>> good morning. doctor forbes reminds me that the last time i was in the press code i was here with a rabbi who enlightened me by sharing with me that in the hebrew language the word cold is the word that translates voice and it is also the word that translates a vote that every time you hear the word voice and he view scripture you can eat-- hebrew scripture you could easily say god is voting and that when god spoke creation into existence that god was voting that creation was good, that when god briefs whites and we became human beings that god indeed was voting that we are all equal. i suggest to you as doctor forbes has said that our voice is indeed our votes and that we vote every time we speak out. we vote everywhere we go on every issue.

now, doctor forbes also talked about nine-11, which everyone agrees was an act of terrorism, but i am a child of the 60s from birmingham, alabama, and there was another act of terrorism that happened in september, for little girls were bombed and eight church culture 16 street. i remember the anxiety and angst that come around that day every year. one of those little girls sisters went to school with me. it is also an act of terrorism that this country should do great pendants for because that active terrorism unlike the one on 911 is attached to the infected moral aptitude of this country. there is a live-- live in spread around and most of us are drinking the kool-aid.

the lie says that all people are not created equal. .-dot ly says that someone has to win and someone has to lose. the lie says god did not create enough in abundance for all of human creation and all of creation period to live in harmony and i'll be taking care of. the lie says we don't have enough resources in this country for everyone to make a living wage and for everyone to have a decent quality of life. the lie says everyone is not due healthcare-- adequate healthcare and adequate housing and adequate food supply. the lie says the indigenous people of this country should be on standing rock fighting for land that was taken from them in the first place. about life says that women should not have control of their

own bodies that people who have nothing to do with our reproductive system should care more about our wound than they care about food in our stomach. the lie says that lesbian, gay and transgender people are not considered equal in this country and should not have the same rights and the same benefits afforded for marriage to all. the lie says-- the life and well-being of my child is not as important of the life and well-being of someone else's child. the lie says the government is not a service of the people, but the government rules that people the lie says that god is republican nor democrat when god does not give a hoot about your political convictions. the lie says god is american when god cares about the whole world that god has created and our voice is our vote.

the question i posed to you today is, will you be prophets of resistance? or are you going to be priests of an empire? that is the question. some folk are doing what they are supposed to be doing. there's knowing-- there is no lie and hidden agenda of what is coming out in this political agenda, but my concern is for those of us that have declared that we have been called by a higher power, those of us who are declaring that god indeed leads and direct our paths and are worth, my concern is that we have become complacent and infected with this toxin that i say to you is not just racism,

but is the desire to be god. at its core, america's problem is that we have created god in our image. rather than serving the image in which we are created, so my friends, there is more at stake for us than any political election. there's more at stake for us then who is in the white house. that matters, but that changes every eight years. what we are fighting for, what time marching for, the reason that i'm speaking out is i believe our very soul is on the line.

and if we fail to see the god in every created being, then we will have failed god. choose ye this day whom you will serve. choose ye whether you will serve the god of capitalism or whether you will serve the god of creation. choosy this day whether you will serve a god or favor-- of the favor or serve a god of favoritism. choose easy this day, i have made my choice. i pray you have made yours.

[applause]. >> and if so you clearly hear we will be joined by rabbis, some who could not be here today because we originally planned this on the 29th, i had a very close friend die and we to go back. you hear doctor forbes. you hear doctor blackman and i will bow-- and by in a moment other clergy to stand with us as we take questions. week look at this map of all the places we will have this they have action in the places we are going with the revival. the revival does not end at november 8, because we do believe we need a revolution of moral values there's not a moment, it's a movement. we must shock at the heart of this nation. every age has needed when i coined a few weeks ago moral

defibrillators whether it was frederick douglas, harriet tubman or whether it was walter walsh and bush and others in the turn-of-the-century. mary mcleod, a philip randolph or whether as doctor king or door that day,-- dorothy day, everyone needs have issue of not this false version of left or right. we are concerned about how that has dominated our political discussion. it comes from the french revolution. people say you are liberal, conservative, what you mean? i met both. i want to hold onto justice because it to conserve means to hold onto that essence up. i'm a theological evangelical conservative liberal big assist.

who decided we had to talk like this? who decided as my good friend who wrote america's original sam wallace said-- evangelism as way of talking this country becomes a euphemism for white christians who believe a certain direction. how can we grab the holiest? it's not new. 1900s there was a movement called the redemption of movement. it actually worked to tear down reconstruction in this country and terra part blacks and whites. there's another that call themselves list southern strategy after the death of doctor king. it sounds good. might mean you're going to lift up the south, but the goal was to divide this out because whites think black people and brown people to vote against them. in other words black and brown

people are not just people with problems, but our problem people that was the goal of the southern strategy. then you had the moral majority in the goal was to limit the moral discussion, prayer and the school and abortion, homosexuality and waist and on those issues, but that's contrary to our deepest foundation, our deepest religious values. someone will say this is just a progressive agenda. how can you read moses and not be progressive? moses-- moses was so progressive he wanted to come out of egyptair crash was so progressive he wanted to feed 5000 and challenge the systems about injustice. moral agenda. there will be some that will say the first critic that cost too much. well, i'm glad there's a nobel peace prize lawyer who wrote a book called the price of any quality, how much does it cost

us in money and morality because in moral agendas hurt people that are extreme that do not lift everyone are constitutionally inconsistent morally indefensible and also economically insane. insane not to have a living wage. how can you say on the one hand you want people to have jobs but you don't want to give them a living wage? healthcare is economically saying. it adds jobs, creates people at healthcare allows them to work, i mean, the fact of the matter is what we are talking about is economically saying. then we hear all of this talk about violence and some people, you know, they want to point out a city where there's violence, but not talk about all of the violence that we have perpetrated upon those in poor

communities that end of creating systems of violence and that's why i love what loretta scott key when someone asked her whether she think about violence since her husband was assassinated and she said violence is greater than when someone gets shot. she said get out housing is a violence, deny people education is a violence. poverty is violence. taking people's culture is violence. police brutality is violence. ..

you can't be both and russia citizen. you can't be a citizen of osha person. if you undermine my right to vote you're suggesting i'm not a person. [inaudible] >> clear and simple. let me add one piece to that. is one of the greatest immoral things happening right now is i come from a state where in the 21st century, in 2016, a governor and the legislature were found guilty of intentional racist discrimination, not disparage treatment but intentional. it happened in texas. we have 20 some other states where there are cases going on right now. in a democracy. we did know what was going to happen, but intentionally, and five regarding rights is not just about the black people.

voting rights is about labor rights, health care. because if you don't expand the electorate, that a certain small group of extremists can federal electorate which is why they try to narrow the electorate because they know they can't win if there's a broad electorate. but here's something that is a moral tragedy. i hope in this debate season, lastly, they will take questions, there will be one entire debate on voting rights. we've been talking about national security, and we've had a debate on economics. let's have one debate on voting rights. where do you stand if you're running for president, governor? word used and understood the voting rights act? because how can we go through a whole season asking people to vote for us and not deal with this issue of intentional vote and where people stand? and then we need to look at this.

strom thurmond only filibustered in 1957 civil rights act for a little bit over 24 hours. that's all, about 24 hours. when i stopped counting, this current congress, since jun june 2013, has engaged in a filibuster in congressional what dr. king would call imposition and notification for more than 1135 days. when i stopped counting. 1100 -- that's immoral and democracy. that the congress is required by the 15th amendment to protect voting rights, has sat on fixing, and members of the media, we ought to be talking about that. as a moral issue. talk about economic justice as a moral issue, health care, education.

so we are glad we are moving out on the 12th. you can go to www.moral revival.org. we've been doing these revivals since april democrats and people are coming up because people understand we need a moral revolution of values. let me ask brothers and sisters to fight for taking for helping us organize, other groups as well but they here today to come up, the clergy. if y'all wouldn't mind any up. we will not be long, see if there any questions from the media. we are not going to do that union -- okay, i promise you. doctor forbes, tracy, if you come i don't decide so we can easily move to the mic if necessary. the others just come up around all of us. these people represent thousands across the country. as we said, more than 2500 -- do you want to come on up, robert? okay. 2500 come over 2500 clergy have led thousands of others. i'm glad to have robin williams

here, one of our great friends. are there any questions from members of the media? yes, ma'am. >> on the topping of voting rights, some counties in north carolina are still fighting a ballot early voting including on sunday. can you talk a little bit about why this is an important, specifically subdividing? >> it's not some counties. it's a board if elections. what happened is the courts ruled, the federal courts ruled that north carolina's governor mccrory and legislature had engaged in intentional discrimination in a case filed by the naacp and churches and individuals whose biggest tastes in shelby, biggest case since the voting rights act was passed and we wonder when that happened, however, presidential candidate trump can do our state and charm and actually said that the courts were not opening up the possibility of fraud.

think about that. the court said the state has been engaged in intentional rasuracialist commission. instead of synchrotron, you're wrong, we need to do right. said what the court did unanimously would now open of fraud. then he went further and said with a loud, brown people in illegal immigrants, the faint, the hate you're talking about. after that, the executive director of the republican party sent out a memo. normally we in the civil rights community, we know stuff like this happening but normally we don't actually have evidence. we surmised. he sent out a memo that was supposed to be secret but became public, telling republican members of the board of elections to institute voting policies that reflected republican values, not what the

ports have said. -- courts. they're not reflecting republican values the because that's not what abraham lincoln with you or teddy roosevelt. really when hussein was implement extremist values and so the boards of elections, many of them have done that and you have thave a deterrent on the eh because north carolina in or traveling in this endless vote of all three members, but the majority of the board elections are determined by what the government is. many democratic members of voting against these plans, for instance, when the things you when the things he wanted to of is move all the voting places off college campuses, especially early voting the the other thing shut down all the early voting sites except at the board of elections and then only keep it open during working hours. which the goal of early, early voting essential for people under the people that can't get off during regular hours would be able to exercise the right to

vote and democracy. they want to end sunday voting. some of them even saturday voting so we are in a major fight. that's what we're talking about. something is morally wrong with you. with your thinking, within a democracy. in a democracy you worked to suppress and among the vote. something is wrong with that. we hear people hauler a lot about prayers in school, but where are you when people are praying on people's voting rights? where are you when people are preying on people's wages? assessors question, in this democracy. any others? >> you said there was a meeting speak was on the eighth in north carolina. specifically the board of election meets a captivating on all these plans that were not voted on unanimously. to our lawyers and others will be there.

>> can you explain to folks a don't know why sunday voting is important for the community speak with it's important for us. all of the rules we talk about sunday voting the same day registration to early voting, we want those movements, we fought for you. we challenge the democrats because they're somebody said, we challenge democrats and we want those things because remember we did not get protect voting rights until 1965, august 6, 1955. north carolina did not have an african-american to return until 1990. so it was 25 years after the voting rights act that north carolina the southern state once again had one african-americans in united states congress to ratify all kinds fight all kinds of opposition that went on from 65. in the '90s with early voting ended 2007 same day registration, early vote in sunday's vote.

many churches according to the statistics which is sunday voting in honor of bloody sunday. the argument of many black and white congressional congregations would say if we were beat on sunday and bloodied on a sunday, we ought to cast a ballot on this sunday. it worked, and more than a million black and brown people showed up at the polls on early voting and same-day registration in 2008. once that happened, once that happened in our state, all of a sudden folks at that's fraud. when black and brown people started voting in mass numbers and the black vote in north carolina went to 70%, and black women were higher than any other demographic, and it started happening particularly around the south. because he did a 30% of african-americans to register to vote in the south beyond what you it's no longer solid south which opens up those 11 southern

states, which opens up the american democracy. because there's 160 electoral votes in just those 11 states. fraud was going even when there was no fraud. and these legislators, lastly, they requested from the board of election before the vote on this voter suppression law, give us the statistics about black people use different rules. and th once the black and brown people use the most were the very ones that they try to remove, which is why the court said it was surgical. and intentional racism. >> i just wanted to speak very directly to your specific question. when you live in a country with economic inequity, there are certain ways that that shows up in neighborhoods of marginalized people. and so i believe that as a

country we should be borne with the right to vote. we should have to lose it. no one had the register to pay taxes. they figure that out, right? and so every way that we can mobilize people to vote is important. the last two national elections in st. louis, i've let a voting rights mobilization effort. because the economic impact of people's ability to have transportation, the ability to be connected with other people who are voting is all impacted. and so when we as faith communities begin to mobilize people on sundays, we are able to take our buses and our fans and take people from the pews to the polls. that's why it's important. and anyone who's concerned about the democracy in this country should be celebrating that more people have the opportunity to vote than less.

if you want the minimum-wage job, and many other people i know who work the minimum-wage jobs work more than one, because you can't live off of the salary of one of those jobs. it is hard for you to have time to get off and vote, even if the losses they are supposed to let you off, right? celebrity picture off, if you can go and vote on that day, it matters. and if we want anyone's voice to be heard, we should the country that is about making it easy to get to the polls and not hard to get to the polls. so the question becomes, what are you gaining by not helping people make it to the polls? follow the money. when you follow the money, you will have your answer. and as the faith community it is incumbent upon us to mobilize

every bus, every fan, every card, to make it happen. the last presidential election, we drove some into the polls who would not voted in the last four elections simply because he did not have transportation. we took people who could not read, just because you can't read doesn't mean you can't vote. we took people who couldn't see, registered people who have paid, who have been convicted of crimes, have worked their sentence, have paid their debt. they should be able to vote. that's why it's important. acus anytime you find people trying to stop something is because they know the power of it. >> we hear a lot these days

about making america great. i think it's important when we talk about voting to say if you wanted to measure how exceptional a nation is or how great it is, one of the indices of great this has got to be what is the percentage of people who are citizens of your country who believe that their voice matters, who have an investment in the outcome of the welfare and well being of that nation? so i think we've got to recognize, you really want to be great, think about, what is the voting quotient, and a higher the voting quotient, perhaps the greater the nation. use the press to vote. you in this interrupting your mission of the great is that you talk about or claim that you aspire to.

>> and you understand why. uk this articulation. in our moral, it's not just about feel good. it's about policy. and that's one thing we want to drive home because a lot of times what we see in the current the rain is if somebody happens shake hands with the preacher, pray for them, no, no, no. you can say lord, lord, with your mouth. but your heart or the heart of the policy can be far from the moral standards that we know are to be true. the bible clearly says where your treasure is, follow the money. where your treasure is, that's where your heart is. so in this declaration what will happen on that day, and impacted person come impacted by voter suppression will tell their story and then a clergy will read our higher ground policy moral declaration. and it concludes that we should

be registered, you register for the draft automatically but we also should be protecting and expanding the voting rights act right now. because today's attorney general lynch, this is a deep moral issue. i think about all the time. we've had two african-american attorney general's in history of this country. we had the first female african american attorney general. we had a black african-american male, attorney general. after 2013 both of them had less power to enforce the voting rights act then the attorney general had august 7, 1965. when we talk about the sunday voting, some people could walk to the polls. let's walk out. now there are folks trying to take that away and trying to undermine. and lastly i always make this point.

i want to make it on cnn if there are no the question. we'll start. i mean on c-span. we can talk all we want to about this challenge, but if you look at where the voter suppression has gone on and lost since 2013, all you have to do is look at the states that have it had an increase in african-american roles and latino roles. and one dynamic were african-americans and latinos, whites if you have to come together, poor whites. where there's potential for that because that is the coalition that can fundamental shift in american politics. dr. king knew it. we know it. so whenever you've seen the potential, so for instance, if you look at the south, files happen in other places but i want to explain something you on c-span and then we will stop. if you take north carolina, virginia, south carolina, georgia, mississippi, alabama,

florida, tennessee, kentucky, arkansas, texas and louisiana. if you can control those states with a limited moral message, that's called the bible belt, and all that you talk about that you ought to be concerned about either candidate is where they stand on prayer and abortion of what not. if you can get people to accept that, so folks excepted, that's the moral agenda, if you can fool people to think that those people, black and brown people are the ones that are costing you jobs, people getting free stuff which was the goal of the southern strategy and strom thurmond. because they get free entitlements, then that undermine your economic sustainability which, in fact, you need the same things. and then you can suppress the vote. you control over 160 electoral

votes. you control nearly 50% of the united states senate, and over 31% of the united states house of representatives and you haven't even gotten to the other 35 states. that's what this is about. flip that over. eq can get people to understand that morality is more than those three things and understand it's about economics and poverty and living wages and health care in voting rights, educating blacks and whites, poor whites and blacks and latinos to understand the commonality, that they are not enemies and that if they work together they can determine how policy is set that will uplift all communities. and if you can ensure that the voters are not suppressed and deliberate the states, you free up this democracy. it's time for a moral revival and a revolution of the moral

values of this country. thank you. we've got to run. they tell us we've got to get out. thank you so much for being here today and please feel free to talk to any persons individually. god bless you. see you on september 12. all mics are still alive, y'all. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> if you missed any this event you can find in c-span video library would you can watch, clip and share this and all of our events online. go to c-span.org. congress is back in session today after their seven-week summer recess. capital producer rick kaplan we did this view of the architect of the capitol, and he's greeting the first tour of it as the capitol rotunda officially reopens after repairs over the summer. >> and here's another view of the ceiling and some of the paintings in the capital that are now no longer under wraps after several months of repair.

>> and as congress returns members have until september 30, the end of the fiscal year, to extend current government funding past the deadline to avert a government shutdown to the house will begin with debate on a bill that would allow the library of congress to collect video and audio recordings of gold star families for historical purposes. there's another bill that would establish certain rights for victims of sexual assault in federal criminal cases. you can see the house to the allied to be an eastern on c-span. the senate is back here at 3 p.m. eastern. lawmakers are expected to debate military construction and va programs. there's also a bill to battle the zika virus. a vote to move forward on those items set for 5:30 p.m. eastern. see this in a life right here on c-span2. >> for campaign 2016 c-span

continues on the road to the white house. >> i will be president for democrats, republicans and independents. >> we are going to win with education. we are going to win with the second amendment. we are going to win. >> live coverage of the presidential a vice presidential debates on c-span, c-span radio app and c-span.org. monday september 26 is the first presidential debate live from hofstra university. on tuesday october 4, vice presidential candidates debate at longwood university in virginia. and on sunday october 9, washington university in st. louis hosts the second presidential debate. leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on october 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debate on c-span, listen live on the free c-span radio app.

spent the book is called "prototype politics." the author is professor daniel kriess. what was your goal with this book? >> guest: mike goldberg was to try to tell the history of technology in politics over the last 20 years. really started in the middle of the 1990s up through the 2014 midterm election cycle. really tried to explain some of the differences between republican and democratic parties win again to picking up technology in the service of electoral goals. >> host: what you mean by the term prototype politics? >> guest: one of the things i really wanted to try to figure out is where does innovation come from in political campaigning? sided campaigners in that new technologists and new tools? how do they pick up new social media platforms and use them for new ways?

how did they invent entirely new ways of engaging the electorate, whether it's on twitter or whether it's on snapchat? what i wanted to think about in reading a lot of the sociology literature and political science literature and communication literature was where does innovation come from? how does it happen, and why is it so important? in the book i talk about how campaigns become prototypes, which is model for doing things differently in electoral politics there's a couple of examples of that. probably most famously obama's election in 2008 which was really the first campaign gives social media like facebook effectively for the purposes of organizing, engaging the electorate and ultimately turning more people out on election day. in 2012 we saw another great example of a campaign that became a prototype which was

sort of new ways to use data and analytics in the service of election goals. one that's now become widely copied on both sides of the aisle. the idea of a prototype is about constructing a new way of doing things it becomes a model for future campaigns to then adapt and to take up themselves in the service of trying to elect their candidates. >> host: professor kriess, does the superior technology and data when elections? >> guest: no. technology and digital media and social media platforms and data and analytics don't win an election for candidates. there's many other things that are more important. this includes just the intellectual context which party is in office, who is the incumbent, things like fundraising and which goods are more likely to turn out on election day. and really important structural factors like the state of the economy.

all those things provide the backdrop, the hands that candidates are dealt so to speak, that they didn't have to navigate effectively. where technology and digital media and data and analytics company and are providing games at the margins. can we deploy resources better in terms of contacting the right voters to turn them out on election day? can we use e-mail in a really effective way in a beta tested way to raise the additional dollars or recruit additional volunteers for campaigns? can we use data in an effective way to figure out which states we need to contest, which messages will resonate with voters? how is it best to reach them, whether by a particular time on cable television or showing up at the door at an hour when they're likely to be home. once we are talking to voters, what's the right message to say to make them care about the election and ultimately make them turn out on election day?

when we talk about campaign strategy broadly and talk about campaign technologies and digital media and data and analytics, what we really talk about is figure out ways to gain advantages on the margins. to gain a couple of extra points when it comes to turning out the right voters on election day. when it comes to raising an additional couple billions of dollars that it could be ported to field offices, or can be used to run broadcast advertising. that's the advantages we are providing. but at the end of the day i think that's a question openly of efficiency and a question of margins that exist around these larger determining factors like the state of the economy and partisanship and encompassing. >> host: who has done it well on the margins? >> guest: i think a couple of examples you would sort of look at in the course of history, and here's where i will go back in time and say during the 2004

cycle, george w. bush's campaign, that really was heads and tails above what john kerry and really the democratic party was able to put together. during the 2004 cycle, the bush team and the rnc had a much more sophisticated national voter database with the data on members of the electorate. they had a much more extensive turnout operations in states such as ohio. a had really novel online precinct captain programs that were tied to field organizing which was helping them bring in people online and put them to work in the field making phone calls to targeted voters. at the end of the day i think that's what you really saw during the 2004 cycle was a bush team at republican party that just that much more sophisticated technology and data and analytics and digital operations in the democratic party. and it was because of that that the democratic party after 2004,

particularly under chairman howard dean decided to take a step back and if i wait what they were doing and really build a modern technology and data infrastructure that's now provided the core for democratic campaigns during every presidential election since. a couple of examples of the point you really build off network that the democrats put in place after the 2004 election was obama's campaign in 2008 which really harness the power of social media, particularly facebook. in the service of electoral organizing, mobilizing youth and young voters turned out on the polls, using social media effective as a tool for fundraising. andino, building massive invalids on or about 39 person e-mail list for the purposes of fundraising. mostly financing their small dollar donors. i would point to the obama

campaign in 2012 as another great example of a campaign that harnesses data and analytics effectively to get obama a margin of victory over his rivals, mitt romney. when we talk about margins we are talking about obama's smaller dollar fundraising operation driven through e-mail. that was able to help obama keep pace and rely on fundraising they could be spent much more flexibly than 15 of romney and republican party as well as outside groups that have more ha restriction on how that money could be spent. i would point to those three examples of being ones that harness the power of technology on the margin, to give those campaigns competitive in electoral advantage. george w. bush, barack obama, and again barack obama in 2012. >> host: did the republicans not capitalize on their 2004 technological success?

>> guest: i think what happens is george w. bush team in 2004 and the rnc really had every advantage in the world of the democrats at that moment in time. so there was less of an impetus comes off that election to rethink fundamentally what they were doing. and to make massive new investments in the party at that moment in time. i think the other thing that happened, or just the contingencies of history. george w. bush had a very fraught second presidency with declining numbers in the polls. a lot of energy and the momentum behind the republican party had sort of dissipated by the 2006 midterm. even more into 2008 election, and extorted financial crisis, one was a republican party's nominee john mccain was sort of inheriting and incumbent presidency, wondering extraordinary economic

challenges. i think all those things sorted combined to mean the obama campaign in 2008 and the democratic party more broadly as well as a network of democratic party organizations founded after 2004 to remain among very prominent political consultancies today were really able to capitalize on energy and the money flowing into democratic coffers at that moment in time to make significant new investments and technology in data infrastructure, and digital media, talent and expertise in ways that really pay dividends in 2008. then something that i think the democrats wer are able to contie capitalizing on after 2008 as well, and ultimately heading into the 2012 obama reelection campaign, or the obama team really inherited a lot of this work on this network of staffers, organizations and infrastructure that the democrats were able to build from 2004 and carry it forward

to the president's reelection victory. meanwhile, i think on the republican side even coming after the 2008 campaign, the republican party heading into 2012 suffered from significant debt, the troubled tenure chairman michael steele, just that less money to be able to invest in these areas, less infrastructure developed at that moment. during 2012 faced a fractured field where the old but nominee mitt romney just really faced not only a tougher, stiffer competition but had to spend more resources in areas like mass broadcast and could afford to build a technology infrastructure that the obama team in 2012 during their, ensuring their tactical vantage could be building for an entire year, while romney ran into contested primary. >> host: professor come in your book, "prototype politics" to talk about this quite a bit in your last entry mentioned it a couple times, what kind of investment are we talking about

in technology? is this pretty expensive stuff? >> guest: i think what happens is you see ebbs and flows particularly during presidential races where particularly well-financed presidential campaigns will invest in the order of millions of dollars in building out a technology infrastructure. and what this really entails is first and foremost talent and expertise. one of the things i've had a lot of my research is that campaigns often want to expertise from outside the political field, engineers and developers, who can come in with specialist skills. and use them and bring them to bear in politics to solve political problems at that moment in time. another area they live to spend money on is ongoing data maintenance and data management. this is something that gets carried across election cycles, and is built up by political parties themselves as well as outside party firms. what this means is really

looking to provide basic data infrastructure, cloud platforms that will support analytics services, databases, as well as the real drug work that it takes to maintain -- grunt work. to make sure that it's up to date over. this is what, when presidential election become important to in the course of campaigns they make millions of voter contact. when you send people out and knock on doors, they gain information on voters. they figure out what they care about. they figure out things like what are active phone numbers for them come where active e-mail addresses, whether it might be plan on voting in a party primary or a general election. all that data makes its way back into the coffers and the party databases. at the end of the data is? >> guest: across election cycles. it's the ongoing work of infrastructure building and infrastructure maintenance that

party spend millions on him and campaigns invest millions in resources and. to really build up the electoral operations that provide them with advantages on election day. >> host: hub of digital campaigns evolve over the past? >> guest: so that's a great question. i think first and foremost one of the really interesting patterns that we see is that we live in a time of rapid technological change were cycle to cycle entirely new platforms are cropping up, that campaigns havhad to navigate and adapt to. as well as theirs changes in social media platforms continued that campaigns have to figure out how to navigate the one the examples i love is after i wrote my first book, i interviewed a campaign staffer on the obama 2008 campaign. one of the things they thought it was that in 2008 twitter was an afterthought for the campaign

and that they had been interned or somebody basically ran the twitter feed because so few people were using it. it was sort of a marginal attraction in 2008. but by 2012 twitter had become an absolute central way that campaigns were using technology to actually help set the agenda of the professional press. you can look at this just in terms of the massive growth of twitter usership here just in the span of those four years. they begin an entirely new genre of campaign communication that campaigns have to figure out how to best use, what are the audiences that we need to apply to appeal to. how do we use this an effective way to reach reporters as well as our active supporters to fire them up and translate the energy and enthusiasm into the electric resource such as volunteers and money. that's just one great example of a campaign platform that just in the short span of four years became absolutely central to

modern campaign communication and provide significant advantages simply in terms of being able to set the agenda to the professional press. to jump ahead to 2016, snapchat is an increasingly important tool that campaigns are using to connect to go with younger voters. voters 18-24 who are interested in seeing the behind the scenes to elections. have painted that they figure out how do we use this in any way, what sort of audiences are there, what sort of the medications work? one of the things we see is there's an ongoing change where entire new things crop up like twitter and snapchat that campaigns have been how to navigate the new ways. the other thing i would say is that social media platforms in particular don't remain static. if you look at television advertising, the 30-second spot remains largely the same over the course of 30 years. in terms of what the genre is,

what it's designed to publish, the people who produce it, the process by which to produce a. been greater targeting, you can use cable networks to be more fine grained the target your message but at the end of the day when you think about it, like that 30-second campaign advertisement general has remained the same across election cycles really from the 1960s on to today. however, social media platforms and social media firms are changing and t they changed the platforms on an ongoing basis. one of the things i found significantly in my research is about platforms such as facebook will change the algorithm that relate to the sorts of attention that campaign content receives. during any one election cycle facebook might change their algorithm to reward videos as opposed to static content, or links to facebook's own content as opposed to links to outside content. or visual information as opposed

to textual information. these things constantly change, and as a basic medium for campaign communication, campaigns have to be very sensitive to looking up the analytics and the data they have coming in about the reach indication that the content is receiving on a platform such as facebook in order to figure out what is going to be the most effective content we can use in that moment of time? have to adapt to changes in facebook's underlying algorithm in a way to get better reach and engagement on the platform. >> host: daniel kriess is a professor at the university of north carolina chapel hill. peace with the school of media and journalism. is first book which came out in 2012 is called taking our country back. his newest book, "prototype politics: the making and unmaking of technological innovation in the republican and democratic parties, 2000-2014" professor kriess, has the

digital portion of a campaign being integrated into the larger organization, or is it still a separate unit? >> guest: so this is been something that campaigns have struggled with historically, which is sort of where does digital fit in a contemporary campaign? i think one of the things you see when you look at the history is sort of a broader evolution of moving digital away from being a department really in the service of the broadcast and mass media communication to now being part of campaigns that really touched every other aspect of a campaigns operation. so when you think about what digital does, digital plays a role in field campaigning. so would you go to sign up to volunteer for a campaign online, want other things you're going to want to do is figure out how to all those people who are signing up for a campaign online key to our field operations in a way they're being useful for us,

whether it's on the ground connecting them with your local field office of whether it's helping them make phone calls through a web browser and go to voters that i very much targeted in terms complied with the campaigns and electoral goals. digital is not in the service of field campaigning. when you think about fundraising, you can't think about digital media apart from the amount of resources that things like e-mail is able to bring in more online advertisements is able to bring them. the digital media is very much used in the service of online fundraising a really effective and really important ways. online advertising is something that supports every other aspect of the campaign, whether it means voter registration or whether it needs fund-raising or message and persuasion advertising. so what i think you see over time this sort of the increasing recognition on both sides of the aisle, and in campaigns from both the lowest and highest levels that digital really has a

hand in every conventional aspect of contemporary campaigning in each to be integrated with all the other aspects o of the campaign. into this and campaigns have very strategies. some campaigns give digital of senior staff position. one where there really worked with other division heads to help confident what they're doing. some campaigns have developed liaison positions where dedicated teams of staffers will work closely with staffers within other units of the operations to help bring these different operations together. sometimes they create mixed teams where you might have a digital staffer working with the field staffer in order to help them all sort of work together to complement one another goals. when you look out at the landscape, we are rapidly moving to a time when just digital is part of everything else that every idea on a campaign does and it doesn't quite make sense to think about these things

separately anymore uzbek professor kriess, there's a lot of microtargeting of people going on online, isn't there? >> guest: absolutely. and i think one of the things, one of the stories i tell in both of my books really is really the ways in which technology data and analytics have become increasingly central to contemporary collection, in large part because it's a lot harder to reach citizens than it was 30 or 40 years ago. when you think back to the 1960s, you could reach 80-90% of the electorate by buying a television add on the big three networks at that particular moment in time. to reach anything like that saturation do you have to be across hundreds of different media platforms at all different times of the day, and trying to appeal to people even though while they are dual screening watching live tv while also consuming media on the laptop over mobilephone.

so in this world of much more fragmented media attention come in the world of dual screening, in a world of multiple different platforms where people consume media and time shifting, campaigns within the data and analytics in technology to figure out which voters do we need to reach, what messages are most likely going to appeal to them, and how best to reach them? how do we get our message to people and help them realize what the stakes of election or. how'd we make think about politics, how do we get them interested in our candidate. so microtargeting grows up around the strategy were campaigns have limited resources. they can't contact every member of the electorate, so how do they use of data in a way where they figure out who are the most likely people were going to be supporting us and how do we get them to the polls, how do we make them care about the election? and then figure out which people are likely to be persuadable and

likely to be, to vote. so how do we figure out how to harness data in the way to go after them, to craft a persuasive message and at the end of the day convinced them to vote for us so that we can gain more votes at the end of the day? microtargeting fit exactly in sort of this broader dynamic that how to use data in a way that makes people car care about politics, had we figure out where to reach them and not to openly do we get more votes at the end of the day. >> host: what's happening this year when it comes to technology and campaigns? >> guest: so i think we can talk about a couple different things in terms of the 2016 cycle which is so anyways has been unprecedented. on a number of different levels. first of all outside alluded to before, there's this new platform. new platforms like snapchat, platforms that are growing electoral importance like

instagram that campaigns are not figure out how to use to appeal to voters in the ways. we talked about his early on but like snapchat is now emerging as an absolutely central tool as a way to reach younger voters in particular and really deliver campaign messages to them. i think another thing we've seen really effectively during this election cycle is the importance of twitter, particularly for donald trump who has really i would say in an unprecedented fashion leverage the power of social media and particularly twitter to set the agenda to the professional press. when he uses particular forms of rhetoric, when he uses twitter in a way to excite certainly his base of supporters but more broadly, uses twitter effectively in a way that professional press let's take a ban on coverage and then start writing about and get story ideas from or use in a rebuttal

to the words of his opponents during the primary and general elections. i think that's been unprecedented. i don't think we've ever seen a candidate as effectively use social media to set the agenda to the professional press that apple fight is a message in a way that utterly saturated mainstream media coverage. that is qualitatively new. one of the things we've seen on the democratic side of the aisle is the continual investment out of in digital media and digital technologies but also data and analytics. the hillary clinton campaign has invested sizable amounts of resources in expertise and analytics expertise that comes from the democratic party's own networks. it comes from consultancies that were founded after the obama 2008 and 2012 campaign. specializing in data and analytics. it comes from the parties massive voter database that includes not only massive data

stores for public sources and every member of the electorate but also all the feel-good that the obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012 generated in addition to commercial data sources to figure out which voters should contact the what should we say, who will be likely to vote and how do we design a failed strategy around that? that's the final piece i think we see on the democratic side of the aisle is a continual investment in fuel strategy, knocking on people's doors, registering voters, taking out sort of which voters do we need to contact, what we need to say? how are we going to get into early vote? how are we going to get into the absentee vote? ultimately how to end up with more votes than our upload on election day that basic field organization that the democratic party really has developed since 2008 and the you saw it was such a great effect on both obama runs. i think hillary clinton has been working to replicate in

mustering volunteers as well as data and analytics infrastructure to help her carry out from now and really heading through november. >> host: finally, professor kriess, do you have any personal evidence about what the two campaigns or the two parties don't about you because of your online activity? >> i think that one of the things that campaigns try to do online is bring you into a database where they want to identify who their supporters are and they want to identify at the end of the day how do they contacted us in order to continue to sort of reach out to them? most importantly what campaigns want to do is run things like the online ads to capture e-mail addresses so they in some way can figure out how to address contact and continue to go back to these people. they want to use sources of data

to get what sort issued might you be interested in, whether you're likely to be a hillary clinton support or donald trump supporter, in a way you can reach out and run target advertising to help you open up your wallet, to give money to the campaign, or you might be susceptible to a volunteer appeal. and want to figure what issues you might care about and be responsive to. what i think you see and do my dozens of conversations with campaign practitioners over the years is campaigns use of digital media and social media to help bring people into a database that can be further leveraged to try to find volunteers, to try to find donors and then ultimately to try to turn these people out on election day. and really that's how campaigns sort of use digital and social media to target and profile and ultimately make appeals to people in the course of the election season. >> host: professor kriess of

the university of north carolina at chapel hill is the author of this new book, "prototype politics: the making and unmaking of technological innovation in the republican and democratic parties, 2000-2014". thanks for being with us. >> guest: thanks so much. >> congress is back today after their seven-week summer recess. the end of the fiscal year september 30 and members have until then to extend current government funding past that deadline to avert a government shutdown. the house begins by considering a bill that would allow the library of congress to collect video and audio recordings of gold star families for historical purposes. another bill would establish certain rights for victims of sexual assault in federal criminal cases. the house is back at 2 p.m. eastern. live coverage on c-span. the senate is back at 3 p.m. eastern on their agenda today, military construction and va programs. also work on a bill on the confronting. senators vote to move forward on

those items at 5:30 p.m. eastern and you can watch that live right here on c-span2. also this weekend is in a hill reporting that senator marco rubio will introduce legislation today to force iran to return money it paid at the american victims of iran backed terrorism. treasury department would be blocked from making payments to iran out of its judgment fund until tehran complies with the. the obama administration paid $1.7 billion to tehran earlier this year. this a decades old arms dispute. senator rubio said the obama administration's misguided policies have to be stopped, adding the iranians continue to take americans hostage. iran should not receive a penny, treated. the florida republican legislation is backed by republican senators john cornyn, marker, kelly ayotte, john barrasso and shelley moore capito. there in the midst of heated reelection battles but you can read that in its entirety from

the hill today. with just about two months left until the presidential election, both candidates are hitting the campaign trail this week. donald trump is speaking in north carolina later today. expected to talk with his immigration policy and we will have live coverage starting at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> i will be a president for democrats, republicans and independents. >> we are going to win with education. were going to win with the second amendment. we are going to wind speed ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. the c-span reader app and c-span.org. monday september 26 is the first presidential debate live from hofstra university in hempstead new york. then on tuesday october 4, vice presidential candidates governor mike pence and tim kaine debate

at longwood university. on sunday october 9, washington university in st. louis host the second presidential debate, leading up to the third and final debate, taking place at university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. listen live on the free c-span reader app or watch live or anytime on-demand at c-span.org. >> a panel of labor and global economist talk about the impact of immigration on wages in the united states with a particular focus on the pay of low skilled workers. a panel discussion hosted by the kid institute in washington was full of a question and answer session with the audience. >> well, good morning, everybody and welcome to the cato institute. my name is alex nowrasteh and i'm immigration policy analyst.

if anything, this 2016 election will turn more on the candidates respected immigration position that on any other. donald trump the republican nominee won his primary primarily based on that topic for support for reducing real immigration, building a wall and deporting unlawful immigrants. on wednesday night he delivered a major address on this topic in phoenix would basically double down on his position squashing the rumor that he would solving on this issue. hillary clinton on the other hand, explored a more moderate liberal station opening of immigration policy to enhance enforcement and legalization of many unauthorized immigrants. libertarian party candidate gary johnson former governor of new mexico has already for large-scale deregulate opening of immigration combined with legalization for undocumented immigrants with beefed up immigration apparatus. the topic of immigration as a loudest and most official disagreements of this election

season so far. although pauling's shell integration is not a top issue this year in the minds of voters, the electorate certainly has not been as interested in a topic in about a century. unfortunately, that either interest is combined with a healthy dose of misperception of both public and policymakers. to attempt to remedy that misperception and influence the debate on this important topic cato has put together this conference and by some of the best research is a top minds in academics from around the country who work on this, work on this topic to present their findings with the goal of informing this debate. in the future we'll published an edited volume of contribution by our distinguished panelists. today's conference will consist of five panels with of course the ledger between. the first panel, this one right now will discuss the immigrants affect wages, labor market and other related issues. estate will discuss unlawful

immigration, border patrol, border enforcement and the government's role in effecting that. the third will discuss how the often overlooked topic of the immigrants affect the real estate market, of particular importance to americans since the housing crisis and the great recession. the fourth will examine immigrant entrepreneurship in the united states. in the last panel will delve into the most recent frontier research and that immigrants affect clinical and economic institutions in destination countries. .. which is a relatively new financed by facebook

cofounder jerry moscowitz who serves as our president. the subject of today's conference has hardly received more attention in the presidential campaign, the subject of this panel hardly ever receives less attention which is evident about the impact of immigration on the economy. up until a few years ago i was a senior fellow at the center for global development and my former colleague michael quinlan will be taking that back and he is one of the foremost advocates of the view that openness to immigration is one of the most powerful ways to reduce poverty in the world. and also the lack of openness represents one of the greatest market failures in the global economy. that argument is part of the reason i am here to represent my organization interested in

as you issue as a grant maker, an employee of the company that consoles themand i did consulting on exactly this question . i am pleased to present to you some of the leading producers of research in this area as one of the leading consumers. without further ado i'd like to introduce our first speaker who will have about 20 minutes. devante is professor of economics and chair of the economics department at uc davis. he's published extensively in journals and books about the question we are here about and he has a grant from the macarthur foundation, world bank and national science foundation. if you want toread more about him, you can . giovanni? >> thank you. thank you for inviting me. it's a great conference and i'll jump right into my topic

with information here in 20 minutes. i hope you can read more or less into this. the first thing i'm going to try to address is the research that has been done in the last 15 years. this is one of the causes of the wage stagnation especially for low educated citizens, low educated workers and that's in the last 65 years. i will show you how many people just think very simply that one reason is we have too many latinos taking jobs of other people, the supply story is that of the labor market and doubting the wage. a couple hints of how this is laid out at the national level using a very successful framework and then i will ask okay, if we don't find much at the national level, at the

local level, can it be some specific market which is invaded by immigrants with wages depressed or their employment level is being affected and then in research on question will come by because the evidence teams to me to go against this idea that in reality there are some people who think that in some cases immigration can actually boost wages of native workers. i think there are two facts that people put together that immigration hurts wages. first, in the last, i think in 19822014 because this is when these wages diverge, low educated and high educated, low skill and high skill opened up . no college educated people in terms of wages have done relatively badly in these 34 years and in these 34 years and 50 years in which immigration has increased in the united states.

here is fact number one. college education has done much better. this is the growth wage of wages between the 1980s and 2014 dividing the labor market in two from people who go to high school and also people have more than a bachelor and this is a percentage change of their wages so their wages over these 34 years and you see that more than college educated have done relatively well. their wages have grown 20 or 30 percent since 30 years so almost 1 percent per year in real terms. the high school dropouts have done very well.the high school diplomas, their wages have gone down. and even if they break into two groups, no college and college, the college educated have done quite well. not college educated have done poorly. it be that migration is

responsible for these divergence? no, justices is stating this practice that migration has increased the share by 10 percent over the same period is enough for some people to say yes, then immigration must be a culprit. however, if you are willing to do the next step you see other things that have changed the industry in particular. computerization, organization of the labor market and for monetization played a role in the demand for labor, international trade offshore that unionization and manufacturing have shrunk dramatically, minimum wages have gone down so it is not a mere implication of the growth. and if the indication has to be a reason at the national level or explaining this, let's look out immigration just at the national level has changed the supply of this group, this is just the supply story, there are too many immigrants that came in this group. then there should be a high

supply of immigrants down here in the low supply of. if they change the structure of wage, then the inflow of less educated people must be much larger. the truth is that looking at the future of this 34 years and comparing the influx of immigrants to the size of each group in percentage terms, you get the income of immigrants has increased as a supply of highly educated much more. so it's almost an absolute in the sense that they've gone the opposite way from what you would need as far as wages increasing. the inflow of immigrants has been a little larger than the influx of low so immigrants at the economy have used a lot to a simple fact of supply and demand.

i am criticizing these numbers because it speaks to productivity and we talk more about, it's just true how much that people who assume that it's the oppressive effects of immigration and how far do we get in explaining this change in wages to immigrants? i'm going to show you, taking a simple advanced supply model and increasing the supply of immigrants and leaving everything else fixed, how far do we get in explaining the wage change? i'm going to focus on the bad performance of known college educated through this system and the marginal college educated, can we explain for four months of the least educated of all through the group of high school. so we have this idea that i

see that this didn't come out the way it was written. this is on powerpoint but let me just point this out here that the relative wage of two groups, that's the green and now on powerpoint, okay. the wage of the worker depends on the availability of wages, the first term over there and their relative supply so if you increase the rate of supply and increase it unchanged then you will see effects on the wage of that group and the effects of the groups will be a barometer which is first substitution or elasticity of supply we get this simple

formula but very robust used by economists, is that a state of college or no college, that is being generated by immigration, how much is it a depression of the noncollege wage relative to college? then we can do the exercise between high school dropouts and no high school dropouts to see the relative supply generated by either of these and how much generates this depression of our wage outcome. the important barometer here that we need to express which is elasticity in wages. i'm actually going to take the barometer that people were in favor of finding an impact on wage immigration will argue. i'm going to buyus this model . in favor of finding a negative effect from immigration. in prioritization, the college, no college in that equation for college to

college has benefited many in the elasticity, it's between 1.542 or 1.5 and three. in the outcome, the estimated outcome from different people or between people who are dropouts is more contention. people think they are similar so they are relatively easy. they exercise the most negative potential elasticity or the most negative scenario aimed at people without a degree and people with a high school degree are not subject . these are college to know college, they are different because this is the measure of how different they are in the labor market, how they are in their relative wages. i want to point out i can show you in 2014 which is the

ways they would have, by reaction to localized effects and the immigrants that infusing a group of college, they are relative to the size which directly affects their relative work. the first effects of previous immigration which is relative to this number. the relatives of decrease in quality of oncology there and college educated are doing much better. is it an actual relative change in oncologists means that in the 80s, the college educated increase their relative wage by 13.7 percent and in the 19th by 3.7. my estimates are that college educated do better since the

quality increases. if you look at part of these numbers in the screen, this is the part that explains. in fact, in all these decades of the three decades, immigration by itself was actually reduced because there are so many college educated from the group that comes in.we push that a little bit but it really explains it is the college noncollege group. then we take the highschool dropouts . again, this is the problem, this is the growth of inspection. then therewould be the wage effective immigration . this is the relative change. you see that again between three decades between 80s and 2000, immigration even at the wrong time so it wouldn't explain the dropout, all the way into 1990s and for the

record very recent view that it goes down but these exercises are done and let me summarize a little bit to say that even if you take the most of negative destinations of this, the college, noncollege you simply don't have the number to generate a negative effect of immigration because a lot of these college educated are in fact going the other way. for example, dropout in high school you have some action but only in the 90s. the 90s look very different so i want to emphasize that the bullet here is to say that really where a lot of the researchers pointed out is it pretty much should have been affected by the 90s which were very different from the 80s and were very very different from the 2000. how? this is a way of looking at how the 90s were different from the 2000 area this is the drop of immigrants as a group, as a percentage of the group.

this is what happens in the 2000, 2010. this is in 2070 so you see the change of immigration as a percentage in the group is smaller thanin the high school group so you see that in every decade , inflation is fixed relatively more or almost the same. all through the 90s, only in the 90s this was increasing these groups relative to the other, it was not very much so again, it's fixing in 2008 is in the action of george bush versus al gore, then maybe we have a decade in which efficiency is met but we are keeping in 2016 that we had a decade after that in which immigration has actually gone back to the standards and gone back to be

very actually, if anything happier and this is how the wages increase if you think of immigration hurting the group where they saw in the largest markets, they are looking at in terms of wages. the other one increase in spite of the fact that the upward spectrum increases so by themselves, immigration should have had less educated in relative supply. okay. so in the exelon, i think the numbers are very hard to explain any of this increase. what about the local impact? if we looked at its true that immigrants are differently distributed among different regions but it is a long tradition of this local immigration law and they have found much effects and best

on the wage identification and that's why people move at the national level and said yes, the local region are not a closed economy, people move quicker. there is a lot of research on this but let me summarize with a recent paper that we did adjust rapidly. if immigration has a local effect and it's an important and significantly affecting wages, at the very least you should find a negative correlation between large immigration and wages of low skilled or wages in general of workers, the depressed wage in that and then you have to establish discrimination is probable or not, it's a little problematic but even on the service is a perfect, correlation is interesting. if there is no correlation, it means at least there are other forces that upset the effect of immigrants when they flow and certainly the immigrants flowing in the opposite direction.

it's a change in the wage of the amazing worker, this is a percentage of the label force. relative us labor markets which are in a 22 supposed to meet themselves broken down for decades in the 1970s or 2000. again, it's more immigration that serves a negative line. here, it's a sedative with a positive correlation. if you do the things scattered plots for the changing wages of native workers, you get a flat deal. again, is problematic cause is a percentage less and maybe then you will observe. so the correlation, you have actually zero correlation with employment at a little positive correlation with wages. and even if you break wages to keep the wage high or less

educated and you look in the correlation of this with immigration you will then see as much as the latter of positive correlations but you find relatively positive correlations with the wage of college educated. so it looks like, to summarize thestory, the labor market , wages are painted and more or less the same as in every other market but still they move a little back. is there a correlation but then you saw a regression controlled on other things and again, i just want to give you an idea even if you point in this debt correlation and if you include a lot ofcontrol , and initial control, what you get is that the condition of the correlation for most wages relative to the positive but

sometimes not but college educated, sometimes we do that at the local level. we do get the region, the region in the group. and even if you try to address the larger point and again here, economists try to isolate the possible immigration just by the press of immigrants on the idea that they are going where other resources are spent, if you isolate thatso-called supply pushback , then you see popping immigration on average wage, you find essentially more not less effect in the terms of the integration on average but you see a positive effect on college educated, this is that. so in a sense, the evidence altogether seems to say that

the relative number of jobs there to create the act and at the local level, it is evident that there has been accumulated that it is a little effect, particularly the effect on the wages of low educated then there would be a positive effect on the higher educated. it's one half minutes which i am going to make you see half a minute, i would say that there has been in effect positively. a lot of mechanisms say it's possible that immigration affects positively the wage of college educated. the first is even when you look at similar types, they are not the same cycle. they take some occupation of jobs that maybe are moving out, they specialize in cycles down because more outdoors, more waiting here that the immigrants are leaving. the economy states that the importance of clarity on helping the negative worker

even when they are here, this is thechannel they face . second, even in the areas of the experts, sometimes the technology use depending on what worker they have, whether it's immigrants who are doing very well, they tend not to use of more mechanization and they tend to use the technology that uses immigrants more intensely and it makes them increase the productivity. so into areas where there are distance , they work with and all need to show where they grow at afaster rate . finally, the immigrants consume also and generates a potentially higher student services which are supplies and this could also be an effect. but if one is to focus in this way of important positive affect of immigrants, one is that too,

i show you high school immigration is the largest percentage term of immigration and further i would say that it's crucial to immigrants, immigrants are crucial to enhance and increasing innovation as some work and then i will add that it's particularly science, technology, engineering and math which right now are a very large percentage that increase productivity. in fact, if you look at the distribution of immigrants as a share of the population and you work with some college all away to people with adhd in college, you see that immigrants are really concentrated in the very high end of the education spectrum, about 30 percent with some degree in the us of immigrants and you can calculate the effect of this, assuming there is a positive productivity in this group

because this group adopts better technology, this group increases the innovation. so we are just referring here to a matrix of the sheet, we calculated that the increasing age one of the worker due to the increased of this was passed in the 90s and we've drawn in 2000, maybe these locales productivity increase is due to that inflow of 20 percent for collegeeducated by about two percent for non-college-educated . then we have something on interpretation but we decided because it is something here so i'm going to do and say that on one level i think that if immigrants have any effect on any part of the wage distribution in the 90s, it was a sign of an almost

relative to the other and it's sufficient, there are reasons to think it was a negative affect, many others could have offset in the generation and how positive affect at the local level. and in particular school immigration having an important contributor to that. [applause] >> next we have even lewis who like my father long ago was a professor at dartmouth college, an associate professor of economics . and he's also affiliated with the international bureau of economic research. as you heard, he is particularly an expert shall we say in the impacts of immigration on entrepreneurship although other related ideas also. he's also published in lots

of doctoral on this and i'm sure other topics. >> high. thank you for having me here today to talk about immigration. as alex alluded to in the introduction, immigration has been in the news a lot lately and there's a lot of competing claims out there about what the impact exactly of immigration is so what i bought i do for you today is give you kind of an overview of how economists think about the labor market impacting immigration, what impact it has on workers and unfortunately, a lot of the things you see in the press and in the public policy debate stem from misconceptions about what exactly that impact is so i want to try to get past his first and get to what we understand through all our

evidence and work studying immigration that impacts the fee and so i call myself do wrong and one right models of the labor market assumption. that's three models i got to get through in 20 minutes so i better jump right in here. so often the way we talk about immigration or even in the public policy debate, the concern about immigration stems basically from the look at the large numbers. the baseline is the eight digit number that represents the number of immigrants living in the us so this must have some huge impact on our workers. i'm going to basically argue today that to focus on that number, the kind of absolute numberof immigrants is the wrong way to think about immigration but i will get to that. often in the kind of debate , there is an explicit comparison to the number, another large number which is the number here.

you see the need for policy breaches from advocacy organizations but here's an example . the number of illegal immigrants outnumber the number of unemployed. the article here and you know, if you want to call it that, this particular article was drawing on huge separate unrelated sources. it's kind of estimates of the number of illegal immigrants and the dls report on the number of unemployed and it didn't make the link for you as much is implicit but the argument is clear. it somehow if we got rid of all the pesky immigrants, there'd be all these job openings for workers and the unemployment rate would go down. but is that really true? that brings me to my wrong model number one which is where the logic of this breaks down. it comes from thinking there's a fixed number of jobs. if this fixed number of jobs, one immigrant comes in and

some needed has to lose their job or for the immigrant to get a job. i want to point out that economists have been arguing against this point of view for a long time. there was an economist in 1892 called david schloss who turned this labor fallacy. it is also used to argue shorter hours will generate jobs. economists have been arguing against this for a very long time. and it's this wacky idea that won't go away. so let me just start by showing you there's not a fixed number of job in the us . that the number of jobs in the us from 60 million to 140 million in the past year has more than doubled. you notice it doesn't always go up. there's recession growing and the past decade there hasn't been that great as we all know.

and it's a series of slow growths where we start to get the feeling, not the reality but the feeling that the economy is a zero-sum. it isn't. and one of the points, there's a huge body of research and giovanni showed some of the evidence on this is directly about this question that this has been studied and studied empirically. to immigrants displaced work. for every immigrant that comes in, how many natives lose their job? and specifically what the upshot of this research is the exact opposite of that civil thinking. it's that for every market that comes in, not only does the native not lose their job ifanything there's a slight increase , there's more than one job created. we've already talked about some of the reasons for this but the one is immigrants are not just showing up and sucking money out of the us economy . by virtue of being here they demand all the things they need to live area housing,

clothing, entertainment, etc. and as a result, that by itself is almost enough to generate enough jobs in themselves but on top of that there's all the other mechanisms that giovanni also alluded to, the fact that on average they specialize in differentjobs and i'm getting to the end of my talk . there's supply and demand shares by which product diversity has been studied, one of the most visibly obvious ones which is actually being studied is immigrants raised the diversity of restaurants in the area and this by itself generate employment. they tend to start a lot of businesses so there's many channels by which they can actually raise the number of jobs rather than decrease it. let me go back to the motivation for this which is that simple logic about a fixed number of jobs is exactly the wrong solution. if we rounded up all the immigrants and sent them

home, this would most likely lead to an increase in the unemployment, not decrease. the number of jobs would be, okay. all right. i hope the audience looked pretty receptive to the idea that fixed number of jobs idea is wacky but so pervasive i thought i have to be down. but let's get to the next level of sophistication of raw models which is what about weakness? we know supply and demand, more workers must demand lower wages. you've probably seen a picture like this where you've got some kind ofwage on this , you've got the number of workers on the x axis and then you got this downward slipping line call the labor demand curve and they don't particularly tell you where that comes from and it turns out that's very important. i'll come back to this in a minute. you've got fly circles and you can drawing a board if you want to, it's fine.

i've simplified it by drawing it as a number of workers, that read on there. in a market economy is a very simple model of a wage at the intersection of supply and demand. if you add workers, wages have to go down, isn't that right? indeed, there's a paper by a prominent labor economist at harvard who says basically saying with the title of which was the labor demand curve is down or flipping as if the rest of us were labor economists have forgotten our basic economics. and recently kind advocacy organization to these numbers seriously and they came up with this estimate that immigration is costing us all $2500 a year. this is something called the native population growth in corporate which i had never heard of but there's information in the name of that organization that i will

come back to in a minute. so is this really true? is it really costing us all $2500 a year? that would be an enormous cost of immigration if it were true. well, let's start with professors, we don't always believe what the harvard guys say and it turns out to be nonsense. and i'll explain very carefully what i mean by that. so that brings me to my wrong model number two which is it turns out that labor demand curve that comes from this assumption that stock of capital is fixed. if you have heard the term capital stock way economists, basically this refers to all the other inputs in the extreme side of workers that produce outputs. the buildings, this lovely auditorium, our theaters, microphones etc. that we use to help us establish that and this is substantial part of the economy.

the tools we work with are responsible or at least a third of gdp. so the entire reason for that picture, that downward sloping demand curve is the assumption that that stock of capital can never change. so what happens in this kind of oversimplified view of the world is when immigrants come in, the amount of tools people have to work with goes down. there's less capital for a worker to work with. maybe you are already on to my next point which is that economists don't believe this at all. i can start with the simple fact that the capital stock is not fixed which is already even in worker terms, the capital stock of the us per worker has also more than doubled in the past 50 years. let me explain why this is really happened. why immigration doesn't really delete the amount of the worker. i have illustrated with the kind of overly personal exam.

supposed giovanni immigrates to the us in this fixed capital stock. what would happen is, the capital is fixed, he's going to have to share an office with somebody and he's going to have to share a computer with somebody because you can't get another computer so as he shares a computer with me, as a result of having to share savings with him, i'm going to be less productive area and in a market economy my wages would have to go down for someone to hire me but that overly simple example illustrates why is not going to happen because giovanni is going to realize that he could be a lot more productive if he had his own machine and it's not that expensive for him to get his own computer. there's this return on capital for him to buy a computer or get an office, that sort of thing so that's why it doesn't really happen. what economists say is in the long run, the labor demand curve is completely

horizontal. that the kind of capital stock that adjusts to bring back capital workers to what it was before immigration so i added, you might see some of these economist words, in the long run. economists get made fun of by saying this a lot so came did a lot of work on this by saying in the long run, we are all dead. it turns out we are not talking about the span of a human lifetime here. we're talking about basically right away and the reason is simple. in contrast with the big numbers, the annual rivals of immigrants are quite small. there's less than 1/200 of the existing workforce and just to give you perspective on that, that's less than the amount of workers added each year just from a sickly kids growing up and entering the labor force.right? if you are okay with the idea that the economy adjusts just

fine to natural population growth and unless you work at the native population growth incorporated you are probably okay with that idea, then you are going to be okay with the idea that the kind of capital stock adjusts fine to immigration. what i would like to point out about this is the $2500 number. the reason it's absurd and nonsense as it comes from a particular way of calculating the impact which is it seems that all 42 million immigrants in the us arrived yesterday and they all, the capital stock had no new stock. and that's absurd. in fact, what happens is they dribbled in over the past 50 years and the capital stock had plenty of time to adjust. so those are my two wrong models in the labor market and my model, the two models are wrong exactly the same way.

they are focused on the absolute number of workers coming into the us and it really what matters instead is not the absolute number of workers but the relative number of different kinds of workers . so it's janitors do not compete with engineers for jobs, right? they make a lot more sense to think about workers of different types were workers of the same type competing with each other. indeed, to simplify things let me just imagine there's actually two types of workers. unskilled and skilled. and in fact, that sounds simple and it is oversimplified as i will come back to in a minute. that's a pretty good approximation of the us labor market if you defined unskilled as noncollege and skilled as college so basically college educated workers compete with each other and noncollege educated workers compete with each other for jobs so what

matters in this data is how much immigration affects the ratio of unskilled to skilled workers. that's when you can have an impact on the labor market. and it turns out there's a formula for that and sorry for being matted this stuff but it's a pretty simple formula and it's right there, if you take the number of unskilled immigrants to unskilled natives and subtract the same ratio for skilled immigrants and skilled natives in this set up, another way to put this is so those ratios represent how much immigrants grow the workforce of that type. let me illustrate the formula with three examples. imagine all immigrants were unskilled . that first ratio would be potentially a large number. that second ratio would be potentially zero and so at

least we would have alarge positive impact on the unskilled to skilled ratio, makes sense. they are all unskilled so they'll push up the ratio . the first number was here so all immigrants are skilled and then they had exactly the opposite chance. all right. there's one more example that turns out to be highly relevant. imagine immigrants and natives were roughly equally unskilled and skilled. that first ratio be about the same as that second ratio and impact on the skill ratio would be zero. in that case, the labor market impact of immigration be zero despite the fact that immigration was potentially a large sphere of the workforce overall. more generally, what we do is multiply this with the slope of relative demand curve to get the wage impact so it's similar to that picture i showed you earlier. the problem with the picture earlier is he was

oversimplified, right? just to point out, nobody's rejecting supply and demand. the core product of economics so i'm not going to reject that. it's just that very simple model is not adequate to describe the labor market impact. so with that in theory, what about in practice? why don't we take a look at these two skill ratios or immigration, that will tell us what the labor market impact is and that showed in this figure here which is similar to the numbers giovanni just had. the dark bar here is noncollege immigrants, that's a sickly in each of the decades 90 to 2000, immigration raised a number of unskilled or non-skilled workers by roughly 6 percent. and if that's all that happened, there would potentially be kind of a modest decline in the wages of noncollege workers in this very oversimplified model but notice as giovanni pointed out, that balanced out by

inflows of highly educated immigrants, right? so not all immigrants are unskilled.a lot of them are highly skilled as we know. and that balances out. another way to put this is kind of a lot of the popular focus is on the absolute height of the bars, that immigrants are a scare of the workforce but one tell you today is what you should be focused on is the difference in the height of those bars and that's small, that's tiny so there's not much potential for immigration to the labor market. that law was completely oversimplified but there's not two types of workers. and immigrants differ in a large number of ways from natives, even among the unskilled natives . unskilled immigrants so they tend to be more of the extremes of the education distribution area they tend to have not as good english skills, they tend to specialize in jobs that don't require a lot of communication and the net

effect is that you can write down a model with many more skilled groups, it's a little work on that formula i gave you but giovanni has done this and he shows you some of the results of that calculation and basically what you end up with when you do all the calculations is the vast majority of nativeborn workers see wage increases evening just theory but also verified empirically as a result of immigrant inflows. on top of that, there's other mechanisms by which the labor market adjusts . so that, even that kind of relative demand curve that i alluded to, that assumes a kind of fixed production technology that firms can that at all to the fact that there's suddenly a different type of work are available. in practice, do it at that has the effect of finding out the labor demand curve and essentially making the harm, if there is harm which is very concentrated on the immigrants itself is born, is reduced. all right.

to sum up, i showed you two wrong and one right models of the labor market impact of immigration. the wrong model number one is there's a fixed number of jobs and this is completely wrong and it's so pervasive and it leads to exactly the wrong policy conclusion. if we actually rounded up all the illegal immigrants and sent them home, this would probably lead to an increase in the unemployment rate of nativeborn americans because it would destroy jobs, not create an area wrong all number two is on a fixed stock of capital which is implausible on its face but in practice because that will actually adjust, there's basically no wage harm from just were workers to the economy because the us economy does very good at scaling up. the scale is the wrong focus of immigrants today and it's worth pointing out that the adjustment happens in the timeframe that immigration is

actually occurring. the short populations are not even veryrelevant . the right model is one in which immigration affects the labor market when it affects the relative supply, different types of workers and that's the right focus of policies on filling shortages and that sort of thing, that's the right way to think about immigration and not the absolute number of workers . in practice, immigration does very little wage harm. there is any harm it would be concentrated on the immigrants themselves nativeborn workers, wage increases c increases, not decreases and they are all better off immigration that are happening in this time of , this rhetoric about immigration. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. our next and final speaker is alan do row. is that right?

how is a senior research fellow in the markets trade and institutions division of every which is the international food policy research institute and he has a lot of other important titles. his research has focused on the effects of migration on corporate counsel, we are focusing on the receiving country and also the role of women in rural economies, i heard that word before and understanding the impact of agricultural impact on a broad range and i look forward to your comments. if this doesn't cramp your style, they ask you to speak into the microphone. >> thank you. thank you for having me. i'm pleased to be here following giovanni and ethan. i'm going to tackle a little bit of the elephant in the room which is george soros famous paper written in 2003 entitled the labor demand

curve is downward sloping. before i do that i wanted to say on the development economist. itake this from a different perspective than a labor economist. most of my work has been focused on thinking about the impact of migration on the source of communityrather than , so i'm thinking about the migration in mexico , i've written on migrants in mexico but el salvador and internal migrants from china , migration within ethiopia, that kind of thing . so that's a very different type of, it's a little bit of a different problem. that said, when you think about internal migration you think about it as migration with three borders effectively although that's not quite the case in china. i want to point out that it's a way of thinking about migration that i'm kind of used to. the other thing is the development, is, we concern ourselves with an omitted variable. labor economists concern themselves with two things that came late to the game

but when i talk about a variable bias, we tried to find a relationship to two different variables and worry a lot that there's actually something else out there that's going on. we actually saw george for us present this paper in 2003 when i was a professor of economics at williams college and basically he made the claim that the labor demand curve is downward sloping, everybody's estimating is wrong effectively because it's not a really accounting for adjustments to local labor supply, etc. and the wage elasticity is really -.3 oh -.4 rather than negligible , rather than the sky arguments so what i want to do is say let's not believe them for a moment here. let's take what they said and say okay, you're going to believe more of this for a moment. rather than the negligent or large, ogres get a large

systematic review of literature about -1 or two, what does that mean? be careful what we mean by elasticity. it means if we raise the relative supply of one part, one component of the labor force, the wages in that group will decrease by a certain percentage. if we raise the relative supply by 10 percent on group, wages will buy two percent with the systematically reviewed estimate but what boris is arguing is that it three percent or four percent and last year used that -.3 in a stimulation he did in the journal of economic literature that basically said if we have any kind of increase in migration, there's basically effectively the potential of cost to the north. in terms of dep, were talking about cost in terms of this wages, we are talking about real costs to the economy,

gdp per capita would actually decline with large-scale migration from southern countries or poorer countries to the north. okay. so one thing that i want to know is that and we've seen this a little bit and talk about it a bit is that if we look at historical migration, i took the first three bars from one of these papers and so these five bars from 1950 to 2000, i added. so immigration to the us weather immigrants to the us labor force were a huge component of the labor force until basically the great depression of the depression and then waited decline and the possibility of decline and migrants say we've got something better to do. there's a lot going on in that period of time but regardless, 1960 to 1970 when he starts this, it's really the lowest point in migration

, immigration as a share of the labor force in us history and its increase but it has nearly increase as much as since the 1920s. it looks actually like it leveled off again which is a big procession that we had that makes sense. as i said, i'm going to focus on, isolated burial's diatribe to this paper and i focus on the wrong variable john going to explain but there's this bigger labor force explains to 1960 in 2010 with the entry of women into labor force. any of the audience here are female and you guys all know that things changed dramatically in. of time. far more women work now than in 2010 so what michael author joe and i did was we actually decide to replicate the paper and try to and women and this is essentially as a share and see if we get a similar result or essentially we thought maybe

an omitted variable bias and i explained to you why not but why effectively tells you a story about why we maybe should believe, not me, why we really should believe this model that we will go back to believing giovanni and even during my talk. the share of women should act the same way. if the labor demand of earth is downward sloping and we got the right way to estimate the demand curve, if we look at women, women should decrease men's wages. we are not going to look at overall wages, were going to look at men's wages and see what happens to men's wages when we had women to this variable. let me preview my results in case you get bored and stop listening to me. we're going to first replicate this and add the 2010 census data and doing that, just doing that gets me back to -.2 which is the

standard estimates as they said, systematically reviewed estimate in literature. that gets us right back to a quote on quote, normally estimated migrant immigration. i'm going to find no correlation between women's entry and immigrant entry which is not surprising because they are entering to some extent different parts of the labor force although that might not be quite right based on what i've heard earlier although in different parts of the way that they defined labor force is the way i should put it. that said, i'm going to get a positive coefficient on the entry of women into the labor force on men's wages using this model and in fact if i use annual wages, the effect is significantly positive. so clearly i'm not estimating a labor to the end curve if that's the case, if you believe the labor demand curve is downward sloping. what are we going to do? we're going to split this

labor force into 32 education experience cells. the education levels are more segregated than this introduced which was basically the first three and up together so we're going to go less than high school education in some college and then college or more and we will have eight cells eight through five, up to six through 40 years of experience. we're going to measure wages as the average for that census year among all members , all male members of that education sell so we're going to drop them into a number of things that we try to exactly replicate. we're going to consider men aged 18 through 64 as effectively difficult to do anything else, he argued it was difficult to compute experience for women. what we've done is try to

adjust for the fact that women drop out of the labor force for short periods of time to have children. were going to adjust that experience, we use calculation by two labor economists to do that's a good enough with the share of women's experiences slightly lower for a specific age than men. okay. then we estimate an equation that look very good also. i next education, let's get it. what matters is t in the equation, that the morehouse equation. that's the component of migrants within that education sell and the f is going to be the share of women so essentially the share of immigrants is the number of immigrants over the number of men and have is going to be the number of women divided by the number of men plus the number of women in the cell. okay? first i want to show you is we replicated the data well. he actually published a table of all wages in his paper. we came really, we have, we

made ourselves to make sure we did it ourselves and found a correlation of .994, i think. the actual data so we came really close.we didn't hit his exact number but that probably has to do with differences in coding and for those of you for a general audience weshould always worry about that point . we always try to be as terrible as we can to explain what we are doing but you are always making assumptions of what the data is written about so that's why i'm saying something. this could show you some of the changes in shares at the pioneer if we look at the labor force, actually the share of immigrants in this less than high school cell does go way off. but that has to do with the fact that people in the us are graduating from high school in larger numbers than ever. so that's the self that we see growing faster whereas other cells, giovanni was

talking about how fast the share of immigrants is growing in terms of college education. small component of the college educated labor force. so that's an interesting, we have to be careful about the way we're defining things and on defining things a little bit different. we look at the change in the share of women by education level, note that the bar there are again increasing but which are increasing the fastest? it's the bar all the way on the right. women with bachelors degrees are entering the labor force in much greater numbers. so if we put these things together and put them on the graph, we look at the share of immigrants in a cell versus the share of women in a cell, what we see is that we see this big bulging of blue dots, the blue dots are

less than high school so that's where the migrants are and they have all sorts of different experience levels, that's what the differences here is the varying experience levels. whereas if we look at the share of women, they are spread out along that line, that regression line there. this sort of means something but it really doesn't because the significance because of that big bunch, you get these axes over here are women spread out the cells and we can actually tell you for sure why are there so few women over there? there are so few women over, where are there any cells over here at all is what i wanted to say.

but when we replicate this with the share of women, what do we get? we get an upward sloping line. it has to do, again i want to be really clear. this is men's wages i'm using on the white access. this is not women's wages. this is men's wages. if we look at men's wages using the same model, you see in particular the college educated women, when there are more college educate women, men's wages tend to increase. so that probably has to do with a capital story or that we were hearing earlier, or it has to do with a complimentary story.

by complementarity i mean when women into the labor force there are new ideas and in particular parts of the economy women are entering. after sherry the coefficients and the elasticities. here's our replication on the left and hears our addition of 2010. if you still believe that model it after all of my nice pictures, what you see is the coefficient drop from minus point for five, and minus .3 it. all we have to do is add a little bit more data than more years of data and we can get back to the standard systematic we reviewed goin coefficient ane literature. if we add women, if we just had women in the model that is the second row, we go see anything. if we add when we don't get anythinanythat because there ine total different education experienced sales.

as the original hypothesis was completely wrong and i am admitting to that. if we look at the and backs on annual from 1960-2010 we get an insignificant effect on immigrants that may have to do with the labor supply stories. fidelity get too far into that but the point i want to make is on the share of women we see the positive coefficient of as explained before. that any means that this model can't really be estimating labor demands. we need a different model of labor demand that is more sophisticated. let me give you one explanation that has been described yet, and that has to do with, not only have we had a huge increase in capital, we got a tremendous structural change that took place in the economy between 1960-2010 in the u.s. looking at, what i've done is this is valued added shares in gdp.

the green on come is, the darker green, the lime green is services. services always the largest part of economy but the green is manufacturing. we seize a huge decrease in the share of gdp that's coming from manufacturing. that should mispricing anybody in the room. none of this should be much of a surprise. the blue and the orange bar where we are seeing the most growth and value added in the gdp. that is professional and business services, and finance. we are becoming a really services-based economy and knowledge economy. it's reflected directly in the gdp shares by valued added. it's not surprising we need a lot more workers in those and that's why we see immigrants coming in with ph.d's and that's why we see women entering these labor forces and having a strong correlation with the

men's wages. just to note. the purple is the government and its almost exactly the same size 50 years on. so to conclude, by adding, if you don't like anything else i've said, take it that if we had 2010 to trend once data the elasticity no longer come is no longer they are and if we plug that elasticity, into borjas' own spreadsheet which put in his journal, provide as part of your of economics literature paper, and did that simulation can we get the trillion dollar bills in the sidewalk again, the trillion dollar bills and the sideloading gangsta migration in the work of people move from the south to the north in terms of gdp. all we have to do is move some people from south to the north doing doing the same jobs and we would see gdp increased.

at least in partially equilibrium in terms. the coefficient on the share of women suggest a structural flaw in the estimates, and we see a lot of that evidence from ethan and giovanni that there really isn't that much competition between immigrants and natives for jobs, et cetera. i just want to leave you with the take away that we should be really cautious about believing any estimates that the wage impact immigrations are that i. thank you. [applause] >> i'm going to open the question first with a couple of questions and then we'll open it up. we have about a half an hour. if i may presume to sum up a

couple things based on some of my own synthesis of this literature. there's a strong message that we really shouldn't be so worried about the impacts of immigration on the domestic labor market. i think there's three planks to that. one is that not only did people who move your work, but the beauty. that is to say, they produce, yes, so to compete in audit factor markets such as labor market but they also consume. they have to buy food, housing, et cetera. they're stimulating demand at the same time. another as were a lot about, capital stock adjusts. it may do so instantaneously not only because the labor inflows relatively small relative to the size of economy but it's relatively stable. if you're extrapolating from past trends and your apple rgb you look at, make a best guess what could happen this year based on flash and all reflected

in the expansion in the labor supply. the third is the notion of complement, speaks mostly to low-skilled immigrants. i always use the restroom example. if you have a bigger supply available of people who could work in the kitchen, washing dishes and such, then that improves the economics of the restaurant business and allows it to expand unless you to our people who work at the retail interface and have had more cultural and linguistic savvy, shall we say. so these are all dampeners and what we might otherwise expect to be a harmful effect. so my first question, inspired most by ethan's passionate about rebutting the scoring models but it's for interview. i have -- i am a child of divorce and it was pretty angry divorce as a group having to live with contradictory worldviews, and somehow reconcile them.

to avoid groupthink would ask the panelists, was the strongest contrary argument you can make? who is most likely to lose if only in the short-term, economically? and i'm imagining someone working in a mining town where there does seem to fix applied jobs. if you tell the person, an immigrant comes and it's a good hurt you, you will not compete for jobs we say i would last -- the last number 50 years the number of jobs have doubled. which the strong argument you can formally to everything we've been in? >> i'll take the first crack at. you know, theoretically immigration could do harm to those mining workers, to any number of low skilled workers or even to high skilled workers if they were that concentrated. so it turns out that immigration, immigrants tend not

to locate in places where they would compete the most strongly. that's part of what's going on. another feature of immigration that we haven't really talked about is the fact been very responsive. there's research on that as well, that immigrants are the first ones who kind of move out of the market when the economy is not doing well. that has a benefit for these labor market as well because it diffuses recessions in local labor markets and makes it the concert effects of the recession less harmful to the particular location. so that would be what i would say to that. >> yes your a couple points. there are some workers in some type of job which have suffered a lot in the last 20 years for a number of reasons. the example you gave which is mining. mining is disappearing because we buy the same product cheaper

summer else. mining is his job is to screen because machines do the job. there are some jobs in which people are stuck in those jobs. they will have a lot of technology trade and maybe from migration. some of the workers who are maybe older, somebody specific scope and a manual type of job. those are the candidates to be more hurt. however, our economy as dozens of other forces which are endangering the same type of jobs, and so clearly even admitting all of it of a hurt from immigration the solution to the fact that there are no more manufacturing or mining jobs is clearly not stop immigration. if you go to the policy point, is it a small part of the problem relative to other come i would say economists should look at costs and benefits should strongly say no. look at the type of solution company, in a positive way, of

course education and retraining and more mobility and increasing the build a people to move across labor market. this seems to be one order of magnitude solution for those type of workers. >> two things. one, i want to pick up on the costs. let's pretend we are in a world where the three of us are listened to on the national stage and we reduce migration barriers and let in more migrants, okay? what we have to do then is also think not just about the cost of retraining workers, which we neglect all the time, the soviet economist theorized that all the time but it never really happens in policy. but the of the cost is actually in thinking about education and health policy. i think more about education because i kids in primary school

and my local primary school has a very transient population because it's very migrant and the kids move in and out of the great and they become very difficult to educate because they are moving from one apartment buildings which is one district to another and, or the move from prince george's county to montgomery county or vice versa, or into d.c. or whatnot. some of those kids to get here have been through a lot and any psychological services and they need help with english, or, and i think we need to think about those costs. i believe there are no which impacts but the artifacts we need to think about as a society that gets missed. >> my other question may be particular for, particularly for giovanni.

we talked about the work of george borjas, an economist at harvard. he has a new book coming out next month i believe, not coincidentally i think time for the election. at this understanding is it's meant to be kind of a popular book, building on his past work rather than presenting the research. one piece that has been pushing pretty hard is an analysis that he did last year of the impacts on wages in miami of the boatlift which was a major influx from cuba into florida, in particular miami. i think it was 1980, right? april 1980. giovanni has written a response. hit may not be the only one but he's one i'm aware of and so there's been some back and forth. i think to the extent this book gets coverage that will be something that gets a lot of attention so i would be interested in comments from you or others on that. >> yes.

the controversy back again. it's not that i enjoy fighting and life. i would like to research and argue why it's good research, but, being honest, of course people make choices in their research design and, of course, there are important choices. but i think that ultimately, so two things. first, how relevant is this debate to the overall immigration debate with this is an episode of refugee, particularly relevant for let's consider an evaluation of the sense of refugees that come in which is different from 90% of immigration into europe which is gradual, which is economic reasons. how much you can extrapolate your but let's say we talk about refugees and using this as effectively -- things to approximate a little bit scenario in which doomsday in

terms of wages should happen because they are constantly. how much affect we find? this debate started because the first they didn't find any affected a new paper found some effect. i would say summarizing into lines is we have very sparse the data on miami going to prevent sometimes we catch with average wages with not even can observation. but we also have a choice because there are some day the fed that is better that that is the using the bigger data set which allow you hundreds of observation for the period and using a market that should've been been affected can people with low education both hispanic and non-hispanic us-born and men and women back then come i simply cannot find any effect whatsoever an and, in fact, if i find something a little bit of a positive blip of which is around that. but there are some double sets

which are smaller which out there and there are some that you can construct. which can get some never give effect. there are other samples -- negative affects. some gig opposite effect so there's so much not indicative it just taking everything on and sing is with this example is the only like one, don't want all the others tells you, it seems to me you need quite a lot of faith in what the answer is into it to give, rather than letting the data speak. my point is that after all tortured of the data of all, the point was confirmed. we don't find very much affect. i also think that shouldn't be the focus of the immigration debate because the immigration debate is not that much but in the u.s. economic driven immigration which has been gradual and much more distributed. >> javon is right.

it's a very extreme case, and, unfortunately, there's not a lot of labor force data on miami in that period but there's better data collector and a better data on firms. what i've got to my own research this that basically firms adjusted quite well to this. they basically adapted in the way you predict. they shifted to producing things that could take advantage of the inflow of low skilled workers. this public account for the sake basically find nothing the way giovanni described it. >> i'd like to open it up. this should be a microphone that would be passed around. i hope you have lots of questions. these we can take it mic and then identify yourself so we all know where you're coming from. >> and. [inaudible] >> i can be but i'm not sure

anybody else can. >> rachel with welcoming america. i first wanted to thank you for your research and for your remarks today. one of the things were seen as a trend is despite the national rhetoric about immigration that when we get down to the local level it's a much more pragmatic view. and so we are seeing many cities across the country who are intentionally trying to attract and retain immigrant population is a key part of the economic develop strategies. part of that rests in particular in places that are former rust belt cities or cities like st. louis which a concert in contrast to this narrative about ex-im immigrants, st. louis has a plan to become the fastest, has the fastest growing immigration by 2020. the reason is because they like many cities have a declining population, a declining workforce. i wonder if you could speak just in your own research around, there is a variable there around

the aging population and aging workforce and how that might impact some of the numbers. >> i have two quick answers. i think one of the difference between immigration and trade, so i think is emerging of the but in the debate in the research is trade is also eliminating some local jobs because of factors are shrinking significantly. and maybe of course it's decreasing the price of goods as many other economic benefits but at the local of the maybe it does not generate any positive multiplier once those jobs are gotten there some economies who have found some negative effect on job come on trade on jobs. immigration is different because it is one person more which also consume, which add to the local. normal it is relatively young person, very old person did not

move. it's a combination of people who do manual jobs which are needed and relatively -- so it's a very interesting group of people to attract and the location in order to revitalize it. i think economies to this interesting job of the job multiplier effect of attracting some jobs. you create other connected jobs which are sort supply. i think immigration is a some of that flavor. in the aggregate to that degree that that again that their age this division presents -- prevents some of the shrinkage of our labor force is interesting and in some locality, more than others. i do think that immigration is a more effective way of keeping, generating local jobs than other type of mechanisms which are also at work. i totally see why jesu this is o the blessing immigrants are easier to track. to respond more to positive

economic conditions, though some rust belt cities have tried. i things are interesting area. i think more is needed. >> i'll just add one briefing which is a talked about the adjustment of the capital stock. there's a bit of asymmetry which is easier to just up and then is to adjust and. what happens is locations is that kind of the schools are decaying and the kind of qatar to adjust capital stock downward. one of the things immigrants to do, they support the housing market, support the public sector. >> another question.

>> you mentioned professor borjas this new book. i i.c.e. agents yesterday finished a debate with him on this book. which was a pr by the way an issue that hit hits the fans afterwards i encourage you all to read it. but one of the claims that he makes in his book, which have interested to hear your take on and respond to is that he says that there is actually an efficiency gain in the economy up $50 million. but essentially to represent a decline in wages of native workers and what happens is because native wages decline, they have a redistributive effect for owners of capital essentially, this is a. what immigration this is a does act but also redistributes wealth from workers to owners of businesses.

so there's a and effect ending his calculation of $500 billion. so what do you make of that and how to respond to that? >> that they respond. this is likely the second wrong morally put up with exactly the effect. this is a concert with the assumption that labor demands come down because capital did increase. that is tackling out of this exact a. it's called triangle efficiency gain in economics. that's a model that we have left for 20 years i would say. we have showed you making those models, some of which more realistic than others. economies are doing more. one thing that capital cannot consider miscalculation, much better approximation in the capital, adjusted assembly but if you assume, the labor demand to supply, an efficiency that is the effect and the weakest big is your. then you need look at the.

of evidence on productivity affects of immigrants. zero positive effect, plus fixed capital. it's not even a starting point for this conversation the way i see it. >> i am frankly disappointed to hear you actually went without. i was willing to give him credit like that was the "washington times" or "washington examiner." but that's just wrong. >> thanks for the presentation your ethan, you conclude more or less your comments with kabul if it's a throwaway or, i would like you see more about the idea of any for filling shortages. it seems to me that the idea of filling shortages, shortage analysis competes with the idea

of adjustable capital stock and capital. it seems that using immigrants to fill shortages is an alternative to forcing capital to build those shortages. i'm wondering what effect that has versus outlined the capital stock into net change the ability for workers to bid up wages spirit let's take a couple questions since i saw several hands. >> i'm going to talk about the elephant in the room, undocumented immigrant workers. versus native workers, and a situation which has been change and probably will change in the next few years, the increase in the minimum wage. what will happen if many employers find that the requirement for increasing the

minimum wage affects them adversely and they begin to higher more undocumented workers to replace the workers that they have because they can't afford to pay them a salary that they had been paying? will that affect both the wage level for native workers and a number of unemployed? i have heard the term used today not very much of an effect. i'm not sure whether that can be quantified, particularly in a micro situation like this. >> my first thought on that is that, my main thought is actually our models, i think economic models are really good for increasing from looking at small changes in wages. so the literature, and i'm a

consumer, not a producer, but for literature on minimum wage and effect on playing -- employment overall is that it really doesn't affect employment. that said, we don't know what happens when you go from that minimum wages we have now which i can't even tell the exactly, but to $15. that's a huge jump. and so even the simulation models, i don't think any of us we believe what that would do. in terms of how i'm now let me think from the employer's perspective resected. what you're suggesting is that the employer who is an optimizer, because i'm an economist, he's going to look at the probability of trying to shift more capital intensive production of whatever he's doing relative to the cost of hiring people below the minimum

wage and the risk of getting caught and fined. my sense is that if i'm a risk-averse capital owner on the plan want to take any risks so i wouldn't, i would believe more in the shift of capital replacing labor than the undocumented immigrant will take the place of labor. that's my immediate thought about that. i think we're talking about illegal immigration in the next session. >> on minimum wage, so the question of what will happen when the increased minimum wage is a bit of an open question because i think we have a lot of evidence that relatively small changes in minimum which don't seem to affect employment very much of that group. the idea could be that people use more efficiently what they have. there's a push towards productivity this division of the cost.

a 50% increase in minimum wage would be opened out. we'll have to see the one thing the undocumented. undocumented are all paid minimuminimum wage because firmt want to attract attention on themselves. i did a survey in agricultural workers in california who are the people who say that, they are paid less. they were all paid minimum wage which is low right now. if minimum wage is $15, immigrant and untied the immigrants right now on the labor market at the low skill level are kind of like other workers in many respects, and ie sense they are on the book. they are paid as the others. they just don't have is also security number that matches anything. it's a great economy like people claim in europe, not selling drugs. they are doing jobs. ..

>> there is a question about what minimum wage will do but there's also on the other hand what if we also regularize the people at the time we do minimum wage and it's not going to happen in one year, it's gradual and the timing would be interesting to see what the policy response, yeah, it would be possible in some election goes one way and not plausible the other way, but it's a possibility. >> yeah, so the question is it better to wait innovations to fill the kind of shortages in the economy or is immigration the solution to that, i don't

really have an answer to that. >> those are kind of two sides of the same coin in a way. there's an interesting example from history. when we shut down the borders in 1925, there's a lot of concern about how -- what's manufacturing going to do without all this workforce and there was a big analysis of this at the national bureau of economic research and then the great depression happened and then the same analysis which was ongoing switched to is automation taking all our jobs, so very similar to the debates today but illustrates that those are really two sides of the same coin. >> thank you, nick. can you verify that all of your numbers on immigration include both legal immigration as people that hold valid immigration

visas as well as undocumented both and including people who overstay their visas, and secondly, if i look at washington, d.c. where i live, i observe that an awful lot of the construction jobs, office buildings, renovating houses appear to be held by immigrant, whether legal or undocumented, i have no idea, while there's still a fairly large unemployment of african-american males in the city. there appears to be a fairly substantial impact in the city that i can't quite reconcile with theert call study that is you've done and wonder if you can speak to that? >> so the numbers that we use are from the census, i try to reach every single person that's residing on the united states

and there have been -- these are the estimates from which people start to calculate the actually number of undocumented, then you subtract how many entered legally. this is the best way. there are some estimates that maybe given that these people move around we are not at 100% coverage of undocumented but the numbers we use are the best we have that we include both documented and undocumented. about construction jobs and high unemployment among black communities. here you're hitting the short circuit that a lot of people look, there are some jobs that are done by some people and they are unemployed, therefore kick out those people who get employment. you do it it at local level rather than national level. there are many reasons why it's high, one of which job paying relatively little and some of

these undocumented do not have access to the same, you can say they are the push to work, which is stronger. the employment people of with no high school degree among immigrant is about 70%. native is about 30% because native have access a lot of other benefits, it's not so painful. they can have unemployment insurance, medical insurance now, if they are out of their job. so in a sense the incentive is very different and there are -- you can argue that taking away those jobs, some company will have to shrink. i'm not sure. there's clearly a problem of job training. a lot of those people at the level of level of education may have some issues with drug abuse and all seems to be smaller in the immigrant community who is working at very high level.

so it's hard to tell. the best we can do if immigrant are taking the job is trying to look systemically over the nation to see if places where jobs of immigrants have grown a lot and corresponding to shrinking of native. as we were showing up there, the opposite is a little true. i know the appeal of saying, kick them out and see what happens if the african-american get the job, i really don't believe this is the way it goes but i'm sure some people would be so tempted by your type of thinking that, you know, they try some stuff on this way. i think that's exactly the appeal to say one would solve the other. i really think that that won't happen and you will destroy local jobs, but, again --

[laughter] >> of course, and understand. you just put two facts together and then -- yeah. sorry, i didn't mean that you are saying that. this is the argument which is given by saying, you know, the undocumented should leave and the jobs should be created for the natives. >> okay. let me collect a few questions and have very short responses. over there. on the white shirt. two there. >> my name is richard, i'm currently working with the american continental group but i'm here basically on a one-year visa from ireland and my via

will run out. how do people get visas? i work three different companies , but it was -- i would have to convince a company that they have to pay $5,000 and convince the immigration office that an american could have my job which an american could be doing any job that i can do which i would be lying, skilled people allowed in here when people are willing to come to work have to go home after a year. >> i saw another question near you. no more? any last questions? over here. thank you. [laughter]

>> hi, my name is diam, a lawyer, have you looked at it international, your research compared to other countries and are the universal truths, can we learn something from other countries in the way they do economic research? >> this woman up here. >> foundation for empowerment. i have a question. i tried to switch a little bit slightly to a global level. giovanni you talk about refugees from cuba in miami, so that has little weight in overall economy in miami.

after now you have crisis and the deal in germany and we know how many refugees are coming and i am aware that you have worked in european labor markets as well. what do you think about the impact of the refugees, surge of refugees in germany or other, particularly in germany and in other european markets and my second question is, i heard that donald trump was saying that hillary clinton is like another angela merkel in america. there was lowest point of immigrants in america. i guess at this point mostly refugees from europe. so i'm just -- my question is to

everybody is that the -- what should be american policies for refugees in this situation? thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm going to stop it there. i want to give panelists maybe 30 seconds each to very incompletely respond to these questions or offer final thoughts. do you want to start? >> sure, i would be happy to start. >> i apologize we can't give the time to the questions that they deserve. >> yeah, richard, to your point, a lot of unskilled workers get here through lottery, i empathize with your plate. a lot of people overstay their visas which is how we have illegal immigrant in the country. not to give you any ideas. [laughter] >> on your question, i'm going focus on these two, yes, we do work -- i do work specifically on other countries and not really much on u.s. immigration, just to give you an example of

-- of the gains to migration, we have done in study in ethiopia. con subjects relatively double so control for human capital basically comparing them to similar people, thanks. >> i was going to respond that you had a bad experience with the u.s. immigration system as well. we made a policy decision in the 1960's basically favor family members of existing immigrant and that's where a lot of the unskilled immigration comes in. you know, unfortunately it's very hard to change policies. that's not necessarily the best policy but it requires an act of congress to change policies. other companies have executive control over the flows of immigrant and in those countries it's easy to admit and policies

and that sort of thing. >> yeah. there are novica working visa for low-skilled worker only agriculture. is it useful, there's a lot of research in other countries. europe has an issue, europe has a problem right now on refugees. i think it's more linked that they have ignored the problem and no planning on how to respond to migrant flows. it's been clear for four or five years since the syrian war exploded that this was going to be an issue. much more generous welfare system, much harder, much stronger insider, outsider in labor market.

this makes european immigrant much harder to find a job, much more on welfare state. when i go there and talk to them, the american system in this seems to be better. people are here and the best welfare you give to immigrant is a job and that's what has been working in the u.s. both for economy and integration with a lot of issues because at the low-end of the wage maybe is particularly low. but we need to continue understanding how this work and play across different countries. >> okay u i want to thank all of our panelists. [applause] >> you will see a long review that i wrote about this literature with a lot of discussion of study from other countries which you asked about. a few housekeeping announcement. there will be a 15 to 20 minute break. restrooms are located on this level, to the left of the

elevators and lower level. i think you turn left to the bottom of the stories and the restrooms will be down there. thank you. >> we have more from the recent day-long conference. speakers include director gary painter and university of washington governance philip. >> i'm excited to be moderating the discussion with scholars on migration. the question of border security, whether we do or do not have a

secure border and how exactly we measure what border security mean sits at the heart of every debate over immigration policy in this country and it's what we will be talking about today with two different perspectives. consider this, the u.s. employs 21,000 border patrol agents and we spend more each year on immigration enforcement than on all federal law enforcement combined. apprehensions in the southern border, rough number of people trying to cross the border without status, those apprehensions are at near 40 year lows, but for all we know about the inputs, how many agents we have, how much technology in different sectors, et cetera, actually measuring what we know to be a secure border has been elusive and divisive.

scholars are in general agreement that the population peaked at 12 million people in 2007 and dropped ever since. according to recent estimates, there are 10.9 million unauthorized immigrant in the u.s. today unauthorized immigration is declining and for countries like méxico it's now net negative. but why this decline and that's contributing to it. without jumping too far ahead, one of the question questions we will be debating today is whether border security has played a role in that decline or frankly whether border security has been largely ineffective and missed intended targets. the answer to the question is mere than academic and really how we define border security, whether border security deters migration will be one of the key questions on any time of

immigration reform whether next year or any type -- time in the future. the question becomes what types of border securities are more effective than others, should we putting limited resources building a wall, maybe boots on the ground, technology or something else entirely. and if border security is not effective given how much we currently spend on it each year, should we be putting this money and resources elsewhere and are there parts of border security that are less effective than others. so here to bring some clarity to issue, two of leading scholars, douglas masse, professor of sociology of princeton university and codirector of the mexican migration project, documented or undocumented migration from méxico for nearly 30 years.

bryan roberts, issue on border security and immigration policy. he has worked in the institute for defense analysis and consulting firms. in 2010 assistant director for border and immigration programs in the office at the department of homeland security and he also previously worked in dhs office of policy and science and technology as economist and program manager. he holds a ba from the university of pennsylvania and ph.d in economics and massachusetts institute of technology. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] >> it's a pleasure to be here today. i've been studying mexican immigration, immigration from latin america and generally for a long time now and one thing i've learned is that when

congress makes immigration policy, it doesn't make policy with any knowledge of immigration and it is not really trying to achieve anything in the management of immigration and are responding to political contingencies. how can i use immigration as a tool to mobilize voters, how can i use it to gain resources for my agency or support a cause i like. and when you look at american immigration policy, many ways it tells you about america's hopes and aspirations and fears and apprehensions than anything else . and to understand where we are right now, we really have to go back into the 1960's, the 1960's were the civil rights era. the civil rights era was more about hopes and aspirations, ending jim crowe, deracializing

public policies at the federal level and so what i'm going to do is give you a short history lesson and where we are now and what you see on the screen is a summary of immigration flows from méxico over the past 60 years. in late 19 -- we have three lines here. the blue line here is legal immigration, the red line is temporary worker immigration and the green line here is undocumented migration and that is border apprehensions divided by the number of patrol officers. if you have more officers you're going to get more apprehensions and by dividing by the number of border patrol officers you get a rough proxy for, i'm not saying that this is the actual number of undocumented entries but this

is a good indicator of the trend in undocumented migration over time and consistent with a lot of other data sources. so you see that back in the 1950's, right after operation wetback ramped up apprehensions along the border, the united states was importing about 450,000 guest workers into the country from méxico every year and legal immigration, permanent residents was running at 50,000 per year. in late 1950's, half a million mexicans coming into the united states each year, 450,000, 90% of them circulating back and forth and the study showed that even among legal permanent residents a huge fraction were using permanent resident actually as a defacto guest worker visa and circulating back and forth. heavy circular flow. 1965 comes along and hopes and

aspirations and the civil rights act passes in 1964, the voting right passes in 1965 and 1965 amends the nationality act not as a tool to achieve any objective for immigration necessarily but to deracialize and deprejudice a system that had been put in place in the 1920's that had band asian immigration and african immigration and set up quota to favor northern and western european and discriminate against southern and eastern european, jews and catholics and reduce the overall number of immigrant. so by the 1960's, the civil rights era and dan is in charge of house means committee u they're kind of bent out of shape how congress talked about their grandparents and so immigration reform was really about civil rights and readdressing past wrongs and it

was debated very much as a civil rights era, one of the things they insisted on was if you're going to change the immigration system, we want to put a limit on immigration from the western hemisphere because that's where brown people are and so in 1965 congress rewrote the immigration nationality act, created a preference system that gave preferences to family members of relatives of family members already in the united states, smaller segment to labor needs in the united states and this was use today allocate visas outside of western hemisphere initially. the western hemisphere before 1965 had no number call -- numberical and mexicans could enter in limited numbers, 50,000 per year . by 1976 ramped down the quotas

to 20,000 visas per country per year and that's the global quote of system and global cap of 290,000 visas. although in 1965, congress left the brasero legislation expire. the braseor program that brought in 450,000 workers in late 1950's, so in 1965 there was a dramatic break and congress if you read the debates, they didn't talk about -- we have half a million people coming from méxico every year, it was more about, you know, are they going to be a lot of asians here. we want to keep more brown people out. those are the concerns at the time. and so what happened in 1965 is there was a massive break in the system and that's the genesis of undocumented migration, you go

suddenly from a system where you have half a million people coming in the united states with legal visas, most of them circulating to a new system with the temp rate work -- temprate work visas are gone. all the migrants in méxico connected to employers in the united states, it was institutionalized into expectations and practices on both sides of the border. possibly quickly reestablished itself under undocumented auspices. it expands to roughly 1980 and then really kind of stops growing and begins fluctuating. so basically during 1970's, the labor flows that prevailed in 50's were reestablished only now a mass majority were circulating under undocumented and that created a new dynamic

whereby since there are illegal migrants, illegal by definition they must be criminal and law breakers and give narrative in the american media where latinos in general and mexicans in particular are portrayed as a great threat to the nation and a series of metaphors are brought ut to explain this to the public. there's the flood metaphor where illegal migrants are going to flood america, drown culture and inundate society but the marshall metaphor by united states being invaded by alien army and migrants were launching charges tat border, border patrol officers were trying to hold the line against the alien, these are all terms that were widely used and you can see this in the figure here.

i did a content analysis of leading newspapers, washington post, la times, wall street journal and looked at references of mexican immigration as flood crisis invasion in leading newspapers and the rise parallels the rise on undocumented migration and peak at the same time migration peaks and then begin to fluctuate. every time there's a peak, there's piece of antiimmigration legislation enacted. what this did was set up a dynamic where you had effect from outside the system where there was a massive change in policies and suddenly illegal migration ends because there's no entry well-established legal system. illegal migration increases, so you get a big increase in illegal entries which, of course, drives up apprehension

which become it is visible manifestation of illegal migration, push it is country in a very conservative direction and these are parameter estimates that i used from the general social survey and other federal services data and that drives the toward restrictive legislation, restrictive operations, increasing border patrol agents and that produce more line watch hours, hours spent patrolling the border. if you have more people and resources devoting to catching people in the border, you catch more people in the border, that feeds back on the system to drive up apprehension, so illegal migration actually peaks in 1979 and begins to fluctuate with no real cekular trend there afterbut apprehension continues to rise not because people are coming but they are putting more effort to catch those who are coming.

head of border patrol, ins puts a press release, therefore we need more resources, many e resources are made available, more apprehensions become a cycle and you can see this in the next -- this is the standardized index. the number of apprehensions, keeps going up and up and up even though the trend has flattened out. and this resulted in progressive militarization of the border, exacerbated by things like the cold war, and the war on terror in the 90's and 2000's, you can see the massive increase in

border enforcement. in $2,013 this is the border patrol's budget in real terms. it's flat. 1970. [inaudible] >> then in -- this right here is 2001 patriot act and that puts it through the roof. now, remember that illegal migration right about here so this is well after the flows and peaks and really by 2000 the flows are begin to go decline into the united states. this massive mailtaryization which was disconnected from the underlying traffic along the

border occurred and it had a pronounced effect, not necessarily the ones that were intended. i'm going to just read out what the effects were and then i'm going to show you data that supports and transform geography of border crossing, shifting the places that migrants use to croz and also incidentally shifted the geography of migrant settlement, creating a whole set of new destinations throughout the united states. increased cayote, border smugglers, increase the cost of cayote and had limited affect of bord eer apprehension despite all the resources put into it and it had no effect of likelihood of getting into the united states, but it did increase the risk of death and

injury during border crossing. so that's what the change in reality on the border and how they affect behavior. there was no effect on taking the first undocumented trip. you're not discouraging somebody leaving for the united states without documents. it decreased likelihood of additional trip or returning from trip. it really stopped the outflow. and that had serious consequences. now, i'm going to be drawing from now on most of the data that i gave before, publicly available data from surveys or from the government in the united states, now i'm going to use data from mexican migration project which i have been

running with my colleague jorge durán from guadalajara and we have been connecting data throughout méxico and we go into a community, take a representative sample, find out who in each household has ever been to the united states for everybody who has been in the united states we collect information on the first trip, most recent trip, the total number of trips, the information includes wages, working conditions, destinations, residence and legal status. and then for each household head, we collect a complete history of border crossing, roughly when they left school to the time of the survey and we know information about every time they went -- headed out to the united states but what happened with them at the border, how many times apprehended, where they went and

what they did. all this data was publicly available and we have 4,000 data users including from the department of homeland security, ill might add that make use of the mexican migration database, the largest compilation to my knowledge on information on the movement back and forth of documented and undocumented migrants from méxico to the united states. people who have settled in the united states and no longer return back. most of the surveys that we have done in the winter months when migrants were circulating back. this has become more difficult because they don't circulate anymore as we will see. what i'm going to do is i estimated a series of of equations and focusing on the u.s. context and mexican contest, social capital, region

of origin and community size, that's just all held in the background and what i'm focusing on is the u.s. context and the key variable is border enforcement and this is an instrumental variable we estimate to eliminate from the the endorsement effort and log of the border patrol -- a log of the instrument of border patrol budget over time and also control of rate of employment in the united states, relative access to residents and work visas and the u.s. minimum daily wage, rate in méxico, gdp growth in méxico, homicide rate in méxico and mexico daily wage. we are trying to hold as best we can economic and social circumstances on both sides of the border constant and look at the effect of border enforcement.

and so the rest of the evidence that i'm going to present in the figures and what they show here is the observed probability of crozzing at a traditional location predicted from our mexican migration project data from the life history of all the households guests which are hundreds of thousands, years of observation at this point. and the solid line is the observed figure that we get when we just calculate the data and estimate it as a simplest mate. and the dashed line is what we get as a predicted value from the model. when we -- the only thing we vary over time is the border enforcement effort as measured by a log instrument of the border patrol budget and holds everything else in the model constant. and so you see the raw trend is that everybody crosses the same place through 1986-1987 and irka

immigration former control act target it is busiest border cross, el paso an san diego and then this begins a process of decline that appears over time and it really takes an acceleration in 1990's, 1993, 1994. operation is launched in el paso and then in 1994 operation gatekeeper in san diego, in that sector. militarization there and, of course, migrants walk into this wall of enforcement resources that wasn't there before and suddenly they're caught and the next time they are cut they avoid the build-up areas. the net effect was to channel migration away from el paso and

san diego into the sonoran desert and arizona. the arizona sector was a complete backwater. there hasn't been significant immigration since 1920's and the number of crossings that occurred along the mexican -- the arizona portion of the border was very small. so as you can see, the effect of the militarization was to, in fact, shift the points of border crossing. it increase it had likelihood the crossing with a cayote and people always use a lot of border crossing guides to come into the united states but what the militarization did cus tushed it from a very common thing into a 100% thing where

everybody now crosses with border crossing guides where in 1970 was only three quarters of crossing guides. changing it from about an average of $500 in real terms through the late 1980's and then accelerating up into 2010 when we cut off the data here. it was about 2700, it's pushing $5,000. so did it increase cost of border crossing and the risks of border crossings. here is the dash line is the effect of the border militarization of raw number of deaths counted along the border per year and roughly explains the trend.

so things change quite dramatically. what's a poor migrant is to do, the solid line is probability of apprehension over time which basically ranges between 20.2 and .4 and averages about 3.33 over this period 1970 to 2010 with very little trend and you see that the effect of border enforcement was really quite minor and slight increase over time but that increase and statistical terms was not significant and gaining entry over a series of attempts. you can see through 2006, 2005, probabilitiy of getting in across a number of attempts was 1.0, 100%. afterwards it begins to fall off

and maybe that's an indication of border enforcement finally having attracted or maybe it's not, it's difficult to tell you in the data because very few people have migrating and are stable estimates. and this is the observed -- this actually observed probability to taking first undocumented trip to the united states, that's the solid line and then the dash line is the effect of border enforcement which you see. you see a dotted line and that's the effect of the average age of people at risk of migrating to the united states without documents and that has been going up and up. it's really the shift in the average age of the mexican population that has pushed down

the rates, the probabilities of migration in recent years. now we have the observed decline, dark line, the dotted line shows predicting from mexican fundamentals only, the mexican conditions only and the dash line is what you get when you predict from the u.s. fundamentals only and so you see the fundamentals haven't change that had much and if if the fundamentals are not driving the downward slope of the migrants, it's really the average age as you see here. this shows the probability of returning from a first trip, it's spikey and goes down but the trend is really explained largely by the increase in border enforcement.

so in conclusions from 1986 to 2010 the united states has spent $35 billion in law enforcement and in so doing transformed what had been a circular work flow in three states, population of families living living in 50 states. in the 1990's particularly the effect of border enforcement was on the probability of leaving for the united states but profound on the probability of returning to méxico from the united states and that increased the net inflow and that's what you saw in giovanni's slides all of a sudden unskilled workers coming in the 1990's, they are always coming in, in the 1990's they're not going home because it's costly and risky so they settled, by pushing the flows away from california, transform what had been a regional flow affecting, california, texas and illinois into a truly national population.

reduced out migration while leaving migration unchanged while double, created a population of 11 people undocumented u.s. residents, 60% of whom are méxico canned -- 60% of mexicans are undocumented and two-thirds of central americans undocumented. all while attempting to end flow that would have ended on own accord after2000 because demographic transition in méxico. the ferity till from méxico seven children to 2, 2.3 children today. méxico has become an aging society and rates of labor force growth are negative and average rage is steadily risen and now about 28 years, the average age

in méxico is 28 years. if you look at any migration curve has characteristic pattern, it's flat and 15 or 16 goes up, peaks 21, 22 year's old and flatten out again over age 30. if you don't migrate between the ages of 15 and 30, you're likely not to my grat at all. the point it is now zero and has been for the last eight years, negative turns for méxico alone. so that's the current méxico-u.s. border. my back is to the pacific ocean. i'm standing on a hill. the right is -- is tijuana and just for a second the comparison, this is the korean demilitarized zone.

[applause] >> we are all set. i would like to thank alex and i am going to talk about legal immigration on the southern border and why have they changed. i want to talk about disclaimers today on my personal views and do not necessarily reflect those of the u.s. government or any office in it. i'm trying to understand what actually happened in 2015. i am not making any evaluations or recommendations on what should have happened in the future. i apologize i have a lot of slides to go through. i'm going to go through them quickly. the topics are a, what do americans believe about illegal immigration, b, what border enforcement measures need to be

reported, c, what are estimates of these measures for the southern border, d, why has legal migration across the southern border changed and e, what challenges exist with respect to measuring and recording outcomes related to these phenomena. first, what do americans believe about illegal immigration? increased in recent years, 2015 poll, the most recent national poll as your best guest do you think the number of immigrant coming illegaly, that holds true with political affiliation, any other sociodemographic data. i shows the large majority of americans that believe that border is insecure, quote, unquote insecure and the u.s. is

not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration across its borders. these are the exceptions. b, what border enforcement measures need to be reported? i have argued with my colleagues john and ted that the following three measures are really the core measures. the first and the most important is the number of successful illegal entries. that's really what immigration enforcement is designed to prevent and two other measures should be reported, the probability of apprehension which is the average chance that someone would be caught when attempting illegal entry and the probability about the border deterrence which is if you're caught and subjected to any legal consequence and your return to your home country, what is the chance that you try again? number one, is the strategic outcome that is the first order of importance and number two and

three are key outputs of border law enforcement and we have argued that all of the measures should be reported in a we are formance management framework. the scope of estimates that could be developed for illegal immigration are broad, borders are complexed, they include land, sea and air borders, there are two very long borders, southern and northern, the southern gets all the attention. there are also different entry come apes, ports of entry and between ports of entry and it's my view that the u.s. government should develop estimates of all of the key flows and stocks related to legal immigration, the focus today is going to be on the southern border between ports of entry. that's where most legal immigration in the u.s. is believed to have taken place. there's a map of the border. not as dramatic as doug's photos but it shows that the border is 2000 miles long and punk waited at various points with ports of

entry where people can legal i will go back and forth between the two countries are very long stretches of terrain that can be completely empty and depopulated or can be somewhat populated with some rural areas or small towns. what are estimates that we have for these measures? well, this is the measure that dhs and predecessor organization that is traditionally reported which are apprehensions. 1925 to 2015 and doug has already talked about this data but i think this graph is interesting in that it shows that recently there's been a very, very big structural change in that the number of apprehension of mexican national has fallen quite a bit and the number of apprehensions of nonmexican nationals has risen quite a bit. but aprehepcións are not a good

measure, not a measure at all of the key strategic outcome which is successful illegal entries. what has the government done to go beyond that? a series of measures were published and withdrawn and abandoned. current effort center on known flow data which is collected by the u.s. border patrol, three distinct types of data, apprehensions u which include those who were caught, not necessarily trying to evade, apprehensions are of people who were trying to evade, there are also of people not trying to evade and that's an important point. turnbacks, the border patrol makes estimates of those observed to enter the u.s. and then leave back into méxico, perhaps because they felt they were seen by border patrol and

they wanted to get back without being caught. got aways, got aways are estimated on the basis of a variety of evidence that border patrol systemically collects and processes. dhs reports performance measure the ier, what is it, my equation was altered to be aligned. the ratio of apprehensions plus turnbacks to apprehensions plus turnbacks plus got aways. simple ratio. it is intend today suggest what the probability of apprehension is. border principals estimate of got aways are estimate of successful legal entries. unfortunately it is my view that these measures based on flow data are not credible.

got away systemically underestimate the true number of successful legal entries for well understood reasons. they're going to be successful entries by people that you observe no evidence for whatsoever. also the effective rate is fundamentally fraud, in clear interpretation as measure, it does not measure the probability of apprehension. it includes apprehension of people not trying to evade border patrol, asylum seekers who are turning themselves into border patrol and tushbacks. any measure that combines data on evaders or nonevaders are going to be fundamentally flawed. although the data is used for purposes, it should not be use today keep data measures. an approach that has been extendively used since 1990's,

process of illegal entry. migrant comes to the border and attempts the legal entry f they're caught, they are return today méxico where their home country after application of any consequence and decide whether or not to try again and to seize and return home or live in the border region. this model has been used to measure successful border entries and that was published in a book in 1990, foundational book. it was used by doug and audrey and they used data from the survey to estimate these two measures and more recently it's been used by joe chang in a study using apprehension records which has not been publicly released fbi department of homeland security. backup slides to the presentation will be publicly available provided more technical explanation of the model.

there are a lot of potential data sources to estimate these measures using the repeat trials and phenomena of myselfgration from méxico to the united states. a lot of this research, i guess the color, does it show? okay, sorry. was really the only source of data and generated immense literature and a lot of insights into the nature of migration from méxico to the u.s. i'm going to present research that is based on two other sources, first the ema survey, sorry, the red is not appearing, this is a survey conducted by a méxico research and they survey, they do extensive surveying of people in the border region including those who were caught

by law enforcement authorities and returned and also u.s. border apprehension records. there's an excellent study in 2012 that reviews all the many surveys that could potentially be used and if you're interested i highly recommend it. it's very thorough. recent estimates, defense analysis to make estimates of the three measures for the between ports on the southern border, the at ports in the southern border and in the maritime domain, people trying to come in by boat the data was dhs internal m records as well as my grant survey, this report hasn't been available to the public. so i can't present its results today. what i can present are results based on publicly available data, the ema survey and apprehension data that dhs publishes on its website.

i -- these estimates are not as high quality as the study estimates but i can't present them. this charge shows estimated successful illegal entries between ports of entry on the southern border, all nationality exclude asylum seeking apprehensions who i believe largely turn themselves into enforcement authorizes once they arrive at the border and that shows estimated legal entries from 2005 to 2015 and 95% drop. this is an estimate of deterrence rate. if you're caught and returned to méxico, what is the chance that you will give up trying to reenter and go home or make alternative arrangements and not attempt to to illegal entry. from 2005 to 2010 that

probability was at a fairly low levels, 15%, maybe 20%. that's consistent with what doug showed earlier, but after 2010 it has risen dramatically, a real structural change in behavior at the border and plausible explanation is that it's driven by consequences that border patrol is -- has been institution uiling on a large scale since 2010. finally the estimated probability of apprehension, chan you're going to get caught on average and that is estimated using the publicly available data, it's risen from 20% to 30% through 2010 to about a little over 50% today. illegal migration from méxico is influenced by economic

conditions in the u.s., economic conditions in the u.s., law enforcement efforts, the ease of migranting, demographics, all factors that doug talked about incorporating. this is based on both 12 unpublished research that was updated by ida this year. i unfortunately don't have a paper available on it yet, i also can only show results that are based on publicly-available data. it's possible to do research using dhs administrative internal records. the results are going to be higher quality if that's done but i'm showing what what i can present on publicly available data. national representative survey on a quarterly basis and the survey when surveys households, when somebody leaves the

household to migrate abroad, it does not identify legal verses illegal. we are also going to restrict our sample with post secondary education. that's the group that has the highest propensity to legally migrate. our variables are going to be the u.s. unemployment rate and mexican wage rate, enforcement variables include border patrol and law enforcement by the number of agents and consequences. we use many control variables, we also control enforcement based on budgetary process. the backup slides go extensively into the methodology. i will say, we are identifying impacts of economic by taking

advantage of geographic variation across border and mexican communities where enoe is implemented and across the united states. the research is different from previous research both in terms of the data that it's using and the methodlogical and show that is we have had a economic recovery afterwards and reflected in higher, hirings and job openings. there has been a recovery in job openings in the sectors as well as hires. this is the variable we use for mexican economic conditions, it's the expected income that a person in the enoe survey can

expect to receive in méxico. their expected way multiplied by probability of getting a job and this graph shows that that is has not actually ris nn the enoe sample over the last ten years. finally this shows prosecution of border crosser, misdemeanor and felony. part of border enforcement intensification over the last decade. the preliminary results based on publicly-available data suggests that enforce men has had a significant impact on the decision of people who are migrating illegally. it also suggests that whereas misdemeanor prosecutions had no significant impact, felony prosecutions have had significant impact, that's consistent with that rise in

border that i showed earlier and finally that u.s. -- u.s. economic conditions are marginally significant and the mexican expected income variable is highly significant. i can't believe i've gotten this far. [laughter] >> i didn't so well in my practice this morning. we take these regression results and we predict historical levels of aggregate illegal immigration of this population from méxico. so we basically do a historical prediction using actual historical values of variables and then we simulate counterfactual scenarios, what would happen if variables remained constant at the 2005 level. we pulled enforcement variables both agents and consequences and economic variables and demographics should be captured

because of the enoe survey which are capturing the demographic change. here are the results, the blue shows the historical prediction of the regression model using actual values, then when we hold constant consequence values of 2005 level, you can see that if that enforcement build-up hadn't taken place -- suggests that there would have been a rise in the flow and finally the economy variables, that's the red, we can see that that as the great recession started it had impact on decision of individuals but as the recovery took place that impact lessoned over time and what the counterfactual graph is really saying is that in the absence of enforcement we would have expected recovery in the flow of people from méxico to the u.s.

enforcement has introduced a disconnect between u.s. business cycle and illegal migration from méxico. positive analysis. a new flow, asylum seekers, this has been an important phenomena that has developed since 2012. a new flow of migrants has emerged, asylum seekers from central american countries, dynamics of this flow requires separate analysis. i think many in the room will remember the debate that broke out in 2014 over whether this flow is affected primarily such as crime and poverty or u.s. policies actual or perceived. i don't think these explanations are mutually exclusive and but they cannot explain the dieb amics of flow over time.

finally, what challenges exist with respect to measuring and reporting outcomes related to legal immigration i would argue this today it's overridden by concern, bureaucratic obstruction and analytical capabilities. congress has had to specify in detail over time. that's been ignored in the past and dhs can change as evidence by instability and reported measures. it may be congress and public might have confidence in third-party conducting or outsourcing to an institution can be considered. two, can the executive branch create information. it's simply not enough. dhs is going to earn credibility by showing data, methods and results.

it needs to establish a partner with the research community. that partnership was present in the 1980's, this must be done on a playing field. many agencies routinely share data with researchers, bureau of the census has done this for a long time, there's ways to share data private school protecting confidentiality. finally technical challenges, it goes without saying measuring flows that are seeking to escape analytical challenging, research today shows that it's possible to credibly do this. research can always be improved. if the government gets series process of improvement would take place and as an economist i would simply note that all of the economic estimates produced by the government are subjected to uncertainties and biases that have been debated yet the

government measures and reports price inflation, so some conclusions, successful illegal entries have fell over the decade. but also application of consequences, a new flow of asylum seekers from central america has emerged. u.s. government faces challenges in establishing credibility in this area. i would like to thank the following people, secretary jay johnson, secretary michael and the people who work for them

both secretaries who have been supported and enabled good research and there's very fine people in that group. john whitley in the research team, retired chief of u.s. border patrol michael fisher, tedd who is here, theresa brown who is also here, gordon and economist at the university of california of san diego and scott employed by dhs who played a key role in the research that led to counterchart and all the people who have informed issue over many decades, robert, doug, jorge durán, frank and many others, i could write out 70 names. i have no time to go through them. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much to both of you. i found this to be fascinating

discussion with two very well-crafted models. we want to dig in. to me the key question comes down to this, doug as you framed it would unauthorized migration have stopped from méxico on its own accord at least 2000 without border security and how much weight do we assign to demographic and economic explanations both in the u.s. and méxico? and how much do we assign to things like enforcement and consequences in particular? so i will put that both to you to summarize, where do you fall in those? >> just a reflection on what we have seen here to frame it, actually my analysis goes from 1965-2010 and during that period of time our analysis are pretty much consistent with one another. there's not much of a

difference. i don't -- my data -- i do the analysis after 2010 and which is when he starts picking up these effects. it's true that the number of success entries has plummeted over time but the main reason at least in 2010 very few people are trying to get in from méxico, successful entries and the number of people trying that's dropped to very, very low levels, historic low levels. we haven't seen for really four to five decades. the only -- my skepticism was post 2010 numbers because post 2010 there were very mu mexicans trying to get into the united states. i said that in my presentation. it's really hard to come up with a stable estimate of the probability of apprehension when

you've got 5 people attempting as your sample on a given year. they've got larger samples in apprehensions but the number of mexicans attempt to go enter the united states by all measures are at record lows, the number of mexican apprehensions haven't been this low since early 1960's and early 1970's and net is negative and mexican migration is basically over, illegal migration is over and it was over by 2010 and that was largelyily attributable to demographic shift in méxico. we could debate about deteernt effect ofover border endorsement today. i don't have information either way.

back in the day, almost every mexican who got apprehended was given a voluntary departure and exited, left to go back home, ushered back to the border and tried again and now a lot end up in the immigration detention system and could have serious effects, whatever the effects are it's hardly moved. most of the people apprehended along the border according to the data that i've seen from including are people who have been previously deported because they have families and lives on the u.s. side. before 1910 i think our data is pretty consistent that enforcement had little effect, it was largely driven by economic fundamentals and after 2010, it's -- it's hard to say because so few mexicans are trying to migrate into the united states and one thing that neither of us mentioned at this point that quietly without anybody really paying much

attention there's been huge revival in temporary worker migration from méxico and according to -- it's hard to detail because of technical reasons, the way dhs presents, captures crossings now, but it looks like around 350,000 mexicans enter the united states on temporary work visa and 150 to 2 million enter on permanent residence visa. our data which picks up a large number of the people, shows that these people are circulating back and forth. of course, people temporary workers do it, growing number of the legal immigrant are circulating back and forth even though they have the right to remain in the united states. and so you have the ironic situation where you have 11 million undocumented migrants because they can't circulate. so we are kind of back to status quo of the late 1950's except

now we have 11 million people living in the united states out of status which is causing huge political problems domestically. >> so i should note that i'm one of those people in dhs who -- i got my start in all of this using the mnp data and i became aware of the nature of how data is collected and it is a survey that doesn't capture that much information on a legal trips made in recent years and as doug said that's fallen to the effectively zero over the last five years. the data that we are using, enoe survey, it's like the american community survey, it's capturing number of migrations. it's still a relatively rare event in the enoe data but

there's enough that you can make stable estimates. the ema survey is capturing data on 1500 migrants who have been returned to méxico every year, so that's a pretty large sample. it's directly going to the border, crossing points and it's interviewing mexicans as they're being repatriated. so we have the advantage of having a significantly larger samples but i completely agree that bringing into the analysis the expansion of the use of temporary worker visas in recent years is important and that's -- i think require data on temporary workforce visa at the individual level and that's another data source that the department of homeland security has that needs to be brought

into the research mix. it needs to be made available to researchers so that they can use that data, i have not been able to do it yet, so a final point i would say is about the economic factors. the economic data from 1870 to now does not show any evidence of income levels of standards of living in méxico and the u.s. are converging. this came as a big surprise to me a few years ago when i started looking at the data on this but that is apparently the impercal reality, if you look at per capita gdp levels in real pp dollars to now, the ratio is hovered between 3 and 4 for 150 years. longer, maybe. when you look at comarson of wage rates using household

survey data in both countries, there's really no sign of convergence. a study was done in early 20000s to try to evaluate the impacts of nafta and one couldceps there was a great hope among researchers. what they found evidence was conditional convergence, in the long run, u.s. and mexican income levels would converge to a permanent gap about 2.7 which means that really the economic gap is -- seems to be something of a very long-run structural feature. maybe that one day will change. it will always be there as an inducement, potential stimulus to migrate. >> i mean, just to push that a little bit. i know we don't have that much time. what about the demographic arguments that doug is making, where does that fit in?

>> that definitely will diminish, the flow over time. >> okay. >> i think a lot of the flow is ending up in the legal streams now. >> in the what? >> the flow is using temporary worker visa and permanent visas. >> in the late 1950's that was how it was managed. >> yeah. >> you mentioned operation wetback. >> eisenhower carried operation mojado but also more than doubled the size of the bracesro quota. the best history of the bracero program and the bracero program

was use today manage illegal migration and, in fact, the biggest defender of the bracero was the border control and the biggest omp oant was the department of labor. now i know the bracero has a very bad reachation -- reputation leading to human right abuses and things of that nature, but there's a lesson that one has to consider, the legal migration programs both in terms of positive analysis and normative analysis. >> all right, i know we are getting in between all of you and lunch. why don't we leave it there. it's been a fascinating session. [applause] the lunch will be held in the

second floor, just up the staircase and the restrooms are on the second floor on the way to lunch, look for the yellow wall. [inaudible conversations] >> president obama remains on his ten-day overseas trip. he visited laos, becoming the first sitting u.s. to visit the south east asian country. the new york times is writing about the country, the united states dropped 2 million tons, more than it dropped on germany and japan on world war ii and

made the most heavily bombed country in human history. here is more of what the president had to say earlier. >> many of the bombs were never exploded. over the years thousands have be killed or injured, farmers tended their fields, children playing, the wombs, a missing leg or arm last a lifetime and that's why as president i dramatically increase the fund to go help remove the unexploded bombs. as a result laos is clearing more bombs and together we are saving lives, but there's still much more work to do, so today i'm proud to announce a historic increase in the efforts. the united states will double annual funding to $90 million to help laos expand its work. [applause]

>> this will help laos expand work to remove bombs, allow to farm more land and increase support for victims. i will bare witness to this work together when i meet with survivors. given our history here, i believe that the united states has a moral obligation to help laos heal and even as we continue to deal with the past, our new partnership is focused on the future. >> and back here on the nation's capitol, congress is returning today after their 7 weeks summer recess as we look at video from the senate subway, senators prepare to gavel in about ten minutes or so from now for work on the military construction spending bill that includes funding for zika virus research. until senators gavel in, i will show you conversation on competitive races from today's washington journal.

>> national journal hotline, she's a senate correspondent and talking about campaign 2016 with a look at senate races, good morning. >> good morning. >> as it stands right now, what is the potential of the senate changing political hands? >> pretty darn good.t: it's a tough map for republicans.it is a toug a lot of opportunities for democrat to take back the senate. >> as far as numbers are concerned, how many seats have to be given up in order for that change to happen? >> well, assuming that hillary clinton wins the white house, democrats need four seats, so that is the big question. how many can they get on top of that if they make it to four, they have a good chance that illinois and wisconsin, from there is anybody's game to what the third or fourth seats are. >> overall to make the change happening? >> yes. it's a tough year for republicans. the map is in favor of democrats. those are seat that is are held by people who won in 2010.

for a lot of the states like ohio, entirely different state by the time you come to a presidential year. you expect double the turnout when rob portman won his seat in 2010. >> as far as the specific races, what's the top -- if you have to name one, top of the list specific race that you're most interested in watching. >> ohio takes the cake. >> why so? >> it's trending and rob portman is -- all of the guys are concerned about what the top ticket will do for election. we are seeing somebody in a state where hillary clinton is winning. >> as far as senator portman is concerned, what's his strategy to hold onto this? >> one a very localized race. it's how can you prove your independence from party, pick up moderates and independents who are going to come around the

last time when you were elected. >> how does he factor? gu >> kind of a game of gymnastics for rob porter for sure. donald trump turned out a new republicans who they had never seen before. he also needs moderates and independents who may have shown to vote for john kasich, peoplen who rejected donald trump in their state's presidential primary. he needs all across the board people who don't like donald trump, that's the issue right now, how can you court your entire base while make up the ground in presidential year. >> our guest joining us to talk about the senate races, we will talk about others, but if you have questions about specific races, what might happen come november when it comes to the power of the senate, here is how you can give us a call. (202)748-8000, (202)748-8001 ana

20027488002 for independents. what are they doing, how much money they spending and what are they concentrating on in. >> well, the committees have shelled out for the ads this fall. if you have that money in the bank and you can put that money in june to make your fall ad reservations you're going to get a better price come november an. act -- so the committees are doing anything they can to define challengers, they are defending a lot of seats against some fairly well known andth lessor known democrats. >> you said senator rob portman of ohio, sensitive seat. turn to go new hampshire, what's happening with kelly? >> some folks would say that's

the number three pick of opportunity for democrats because it's new hampshire and a presidential year. she's popular, well known andd she's up against equally popular sitting governor, the possible recruit. >> we have an ad from senator aod is called solutions, talksro approach to washington. watch the ad and get your thoughts on it. >> i don't assume one party hass all the answers, you know where i find common sense ideas, right here in new hampshire where i'm fighting for good-paying job that is strengthen our economy. i work to make child care for affordable and easier to save for college. together we are making new hampshire an america stronger. i'm kelly and i prove this message. >> affordable college, social

programs, very approachablepp ideas. >> this is what you have seen from the republicans across the board in competitive swing t states, how can you proveta independents in your party and win independents from the moderates. this is textbook. her first ad both featured kids in their ad, running as moms, running as new hampshire residents, they are not talking about the presidential race atin all.l. >> that's what you mean by independents of your party, are there other factors? >> that's important. for kelly, all of the swing state republicans have some issues that they crossed the aisle on, for her the clean power plan. energy issues in new hampshire. >> we will leave this discussion to go live to the u.s. senate, lawmakers are returning from their summer recess to debate military construction and va programs. also a bill funding zika.

live now to the senate floor. the se. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious father, fill our senators with your truth and peace. let your truth bring them freedom from anxiety, fear,