vernon, but i think also intellectually, perhaps build on an idea that was born there. >> couldn't be better said. thank you so much for joining us today and for participating in this conference to make a more perfect union. thank you brad. coming up on c-span three's american history tv, an american history professor discusses the history of immigration. that is. next after that will take a tour of dallas island immigration museum in new york city. and later a conversation about the book, i'm minding and irresistible tides which examines the revolution of u.s. policy something migration active 1924.

alan, you have spent your professional career as a historian studying u.s. immigration. many americans look to the statue of liberty's famous poem that says it give me your tired, your, poor your huddled masses yearning to breathe free as the embodiment of the way that we think of this country and immigration. as you look across the history of this nation, does a truck with the reality of how we have

thought and treated immigrants? >> the history of immigration in the united states does not truck at all with emma lazarus is wonderful quotation. in fact, it has been a very much of a love hate relationship, in the 19th century there was a popular immigrant saying, america beckons but americans repel. in many ways, that much more accurately embodies what our relationship long term has been with immigration to the united states. in fact, one of the great ironies is that kamala's wrote that poem in 1883, and one year before she wrote it in 1880, to the united states past the chinese exclusion law, excluding chinese laborers from coming to the united states. it would pass in the years after, that increasingly restrictive legislation. so we want immigrants to come, we beckoned them with opportunity, we back in them to take jobs as skilled, semi

skilled, unskilled labor to help build our country, to construct our economy. and, yet after they get, here very frequently, they are the objects of scorn, they are discriminated against, they suffer some of the worst acts of prejudice imaginable. and so this is a very, very complicated relationship that america has with the foreign born. >> when there are large waves of immigration such as this country has been experiencing over the past 20 years, when there are backlashes in society what are they caused by? what triggers people? >> the backlashes are caused by a precipitating factor like an economic downturn, or the sudden spike in the size of the migration. or the identity of who is coming at a particular moment. and so there are lots of different things that can cause an outbreak of the kind of

nativism that we have seen quite recently. on the american scene. it is hard to identify one single thing. but we certainly know that it operates cyclical. there are moments when the united states is more welcoming, and moments when the united states is not welcoming at all. so we watch this with great interest, and try to identify the moments when these things are happening. >> is the current period of turmoil and debate over immigration different in any important way from the past times this country has gone through? >> i would argue that the current weave of nativism, of anti immigrant sentiment, of xenophobia is not different from what we have seen the past. while it seems to us to be peppered with acts of violence, and ferocity, many other acts of violence, anti-immigrant

riots. anti immigrant riots in the 18 eighties. there have been a lot of moments in american history when the anti immigrant sentiment has been translated into true ugliness. and has brought great harm to the foreign born. so i would argue that the current wave, as unpleasant and off putting as it is, is not that unusual in the history of our country. >> what causes congress to ultimately act during these periods? >> congress acts most frequently when there is enormous pressure from one sector of the population to have revision. for example, the chinese exclusion of 1882 was passed very largely because of pressure coming from the west coast of the united states. workers who feared chinese

competition, anti chinese racism, all of that pressure kind of built up during the 18 eighties, in the late 18 seventies and early eighties, and by 1882 you have the chinese exclusion law. in the case of one of the most restrictive immigration laws, that of 1924, what went on was the united states had had its fill of foreign born labor. our industries were being fueled by foreign born labor. we had a peak period of immigration between 1890 and the 1920s. and at the end of the first world war there was a red scare, red scare of 1919. so by the early 19 twenties, there was a lot of time to -- sentiment within congress, bipartisan sentiment to shut the door. and to do so with a kind of law that would limit the arrival of

those immigrants who were the least popular. that includes southern italians, eastern european jews, russians and so on. the law was structured to get those -- to keep those groups out. >> starting from the 18 eighties to the present day, can you identify either meter party with one stance or the other? >> i think the republicans over the course of time have been the party at least sympathetic to immigration. but there were also a significant element within the democratic party that was anti-immigration as well. for, example the labor union movement in the early 20th century, in order to keep up the wages of the american worker is anti immigrant sentiment. and the southern democrats, though they encounter fewer dumb immigrants than the democrats of the north have their racial prejudices and

don't want large numbers of eastern european and southern italians coming to the united states either. so both parties have roots within it that are anti immigration, and they coalesce at certain times, and they become part of a anti immigrant lock that is effective enough to pass anti immigration legislation. >> -- in the 1880s, was the country basically open borders before that? how was immigration law handled? >> in the period before the civil war immigration was a state matter. federal government has nothing to do with immigration. each state has its own quarantine laws of immigrants who might be sick upon arrival. but they also have inspection procedures in place. the busiest port on the east coast is new york. and in 1855, castle garden is open as the u.s. state

immigration depot. it's there at that new york state immigration officers interrogate newcomers. it's there that volunteer physicians examine newcomers to see that they are not bringing disease to the united states, and that they will be sufficiently robust and able to support themselves. so it's strictly a state matter until the law of 1882. at that point, the treasury department takes over immigration, but does business with the states. in fact, contracts with the states to enforce american immigration law and restriction. >> the different laws were and workable. >> so let's get a snapshot of the waves of immigration before federal laws. first of, all we have to acknowledge quite a large contingent of people who work in voluntary the african americans who were brought and

through slavery. so what percentage of the population where they prior to the civil war? >> prior to the civil war, there are four and a half million sleeves in the united states. now by virtue of the compromise of the institutional -- the slave trade was ended in 1908 but there was plenty of smuggling. plenty of replenishment of the slave population. so i have a problem of calling them heavy migrants, they were slaves. a special and distant category. not the same thing as indentured servants or any other category that we would recognize. the first real mass immigration in the united states in the post revolutionary period obviously in the 18 forties and

18 fifties. that's the great migration of irish and germans and scandinavian's coming into the united states. four and a half million people between 1840 and 1860. >> what would that be as a percentage of the existing population? >> the time of the first sentence in 1790, there were under 4 million people in the united states. >> so it was essentially doubling the population of the united states. >> it was in that direction. it's extraordinary. >> this is the importance of context of history. when we talk about the current time as the period of the greatest immigration into the united states, the history does not seem to bear that out. >> right. right. so the history of the united states bears out that this is a country that is constantly hungry for newcomers. why? because our own population

simply will not sustain what we need to settle the land and to produce prosperity. once of course we enter the industrial revolution in the post war period the need for a low cost labor is essential to our capital selection. where are we going to get the capital from? we are going to get it from abroad. even prior to the civil war the begin to see the irish who are very very often the source of low cost labor. we see the germans who were escaping the avoided -- in the gererererer states who ae coming with their skills and their crafts. we see the scandinavian's who are going to be forming the land in the northern part of the american middle west. this is an extraordinary movement of people on to the north american continent. and it's good to have dramatic

economic and cultural repercussions. at the same, time on the west coast the first wave of chinese immigrants were brought over. what's brought them? >> they were coming from a northern province called jewish young province and they are coming because of the gold rush. they have heard that gold was discovered in california. they are coming to make their fortune. of course most of them do not discover gold, but they do find jobs. they find jobs working on, railroads they find jobs working in. minds overseeing the working communities that are. they're so they are cooks, doing laundry, but they are also doing mining and railroad building. by the time of the chinese exclusion law in 1880, two there were 300,000 chinese in the united states. >> mostly in northern california? >> mostly on the west coast,

some of them are going north and end up in wyoming and a variety of different places. >> before we get into the details of the chinese exclusion act, i want to learn a little bit more about. you so how did you end up having this as your academic specialty? >> i started out my academic life as a civil war historian. i was trained in the civil war in the antebellum period. by the time that i left graduate school i realized that i had an increasing interest in how immigrant voters were casting their ballots with respect to issues like slavery and many other issues as well. i was trained in voting behavior, and keep at it from that angle. increasingly, i knew that i really want to work in immigration. and that would require, since i was done with my phd, it would

require retreating on my own. so i did a lot of reading and a lot of teaching of a pulmonary immigration course, and so on. and i published my first book in the early 19 eighties called the huddled masses, the image gretchen in in american society 1880 to 1920. that launched me into immigration history. later in my career, i discovered that i was interested nativism that was particularly medical and content. the accusation that newcomers brought to cease to the united states. but i had no background in the history of medicine. as disease partners. i'll many >> on the books evident so far? >> well if you include the edited and covert of books, nine. >> and one immigration related topics?

>> except for one which is to the anti slavery movement, political anti slavery but the rest all deal with immigration one where another. the travelers, germs, jeans and the immigrant in venice which i published in the mid 90s. squarely addresses the issue of health, disease and immigration. >> some of the interesting seeing seven noted on your biography included your long tenure on the statue of liberty advisory board and ultimately chairing, it's what was the mission of that? >> well, back in the early 19 eighties, you're young representative of the partisans visited me in the office, hernia mice heather hike and she had read huddled masses as a graduate student at the media university of minnesota. and she asked me if i'd like to be part of a group of historians and designers and architects who are all gathering in west virginia to talk about help is to -- talk about the possibility of a

museum and the restoration of ellis island. now, i said of course. absolutely. and i was fortunate enough to be part of an advisory committee that was formed historians, who basically were a creature of the statue of liberty ellis island foundation. the organization that raised them honey for the restoration of the statue of liberty between 1984 1986 and then the creation of an ellis island museum and the restoration of part of ellis island so it could be a sight for visitors to come and learn about the immigrant experience. and then in 2003, i was appointed chair of that history advisory committee and i was serving that capacity in ever since and i are most the recent victory is the opening of a new statue of liberty museum on

liberty island at the opposite end of the island from the statue of liberty, which tells the story of the statue, it's construction, its role as a political and commercial icon a graphic figure. we think it's very exciting. >> you've also served as a consultant to a lot of contemporary media organizations that have been telling various stories about american immigration. how do you think the american media dies by telling immigration starry? >> i think the media does a good job in telling the immigration story when they take the trouble to talk to people who can put it into a larger context. whether it's historians or sociologists or cultural anthropologists. the immigration story is a complicated one and it's deeply intertwined with a larger american story. when people ask, what do i do for a living? i say write the history of the great republic.

but i write part of that history more than any other and that's the part dealing with the people ling of america. if you want to understand the people of america, that has to be contextualized. and so, for me, i like to serve the media, i believe that historians should do the same thing, it's too important a story and two critical to our country to get it along. >> let's return to our narrative that the 1882 chinese exclusion, i want to start with a piece of video that we have in our library, we did a series on the supreme court cases and of course this act made its way to the supreme court. let's show you a bit of an interview we did on the chinese exclusion act. >> they were very much the subject of discriminatory activities, i'm kind of reminded of the case of --

which is 1854, very early california supreme court case in which several chinese witnesses saw murder, they testified honestly what they saw, it was convicted as a clever defense attorney appealed the case that the california king court and there is a law in california that's indians and blacks cannot testify against the white man and there's only three classes of people in the world, whites, blacks and mongolian. indians included chinese and chinese were mongolian india, the indians were mongolian's and the california supreme court bought that argument. and if we let them testify against a white man, next thing you know they'd be sitting on a

jury box, they'd run for legislature, they'd vote, they might even become judges, what a terrible thing that would be. and very racist decision. and so, it set the tone of california history for the first hundred years. >> and the actor actually did go to the supreme court in the case of -- how did the supreme court treat this case? >> i think the supreme court treated it badly. in the sense that the chinese exclusion law lasted all the way until 1943. and it is only in 1943 that we finally abandoned our efforts to keep chinese out of the united states and from becoming citizens of the united states. and that was a great injustice. and it speaks to another team,

which is very important for us to explore and that is of course the theme of racism within american immigration policy. there are plenty of reasons why americans reject particular emigrate groups. sometimes, it's on the basis of religion, anti-catalyst-ism, antisemitism at different times. but always on the basis of color, on the basis of prevailing racism within the american consciousness. that governs the way we approach these things. and the first dramatic example of that is of course, the 1880 to chinese exclusion law. the fact that it took from 1880 to all the way until 1943, until the chinese are who our allies in the second world war for that finally to abate. >> so during this time period, you made reference to the 1882 chinese exclusion act, same

year that it migration and act and 1890, benjamin harrison, president as he's almost about to leave office to establish his ellis island. so overall, what's happening in the country that necessitate it will all of these changes? >> immigration is a matter of pushes and pulls. that is those who are going to be on the move are pushed by certain circumstances in their home countries by poverty, by oppression, by religious discrimination and told by the promise of freedom, pulled by the promise of economic opportunity and so on. and if we think of these pushes and pulls, that's what's pushed the irish and pushed folks in the german states and pushed scandinavian's out of their countries and their pre-civil war period and pulled them toward the united states.

the promise of opportunity, of greater freedom and so on. those forces were moving east. into southern and eastern europe. the flow of migration to the united states was beginning to change in the 18 eighties and while it was still germans coming and's to still folks from central europe coming, the wrist folks from coming from eastern europe where we had never gotten significant migration flow from before. there was a lot of fear, a lot of anxiety about what that would mean. where the states up to processing all these newcomers? they they have the power, the organizational capacity, to handle what was on the horizon? and the federal government says no. and so, it became a matter of making immigration a federal issue, a matter that would be

handled by federal officers at federal immigration depots and even the medical inspection would be handled by the offices of the u.s. marine hospital service. the tracing its roots back to 17 seven 90, eight bill signed by john adams, but there will be uniform physicians of what would later be called the public health service. and so this entire mechanism, this federal mechanism was created to deal with the issue of immigration. so how did americans deal with immigration in the late 19th century? with feelings ig, and at the same time the expectation. the expectation was that the newcomers would provide labor of his america industrialized, the feelings already was, you know who, are these people? where are they coming from? how do they affect the texture

of american culture in society, but are we gonna do with them all? where are they going to settle? where are they going to be? what's the implication? and so, this is a very dramatic and dynamic period in the people-ing over merica, this period roughly between the late 18 eighties and the 1920s when respect drive legislation has passed? >> about how many people came into the united states during that period? >> 23 and half million. >> 23 and half, million again as a percentage of a population? >> significant. >> and during this period of some of the people in years turn europe, including eastern european jews were fleeing religious persecution, worms does the concept of refugees or asylum from persecution stack up in the -- >> the word refugee is not used with any precision during this period. people -- there's a great confusion of who is an immigrant and who is

a refugee. and we don't get any clarity to the term refugee into hull well into the 20th century. and so yes, juice especially after the quarrel -- are fleeing persecution and russia, there are for all intensive purposes refugees. but there's a definition of that, so they are part of the larger immigration experience. and so you have all kinds of migration going on during this period. you have a seasonal labor migration of southern italians, they come in march or april, they prefer outdoor work. they build the skyscrapers of manhattan, the federal triangle in washington d.c.. there stonecutters are experts. they are in great demand and they go back during the winter months and then in the spring,

they come again. and so it's this back and forth, the federal immigration officers refer to them as birds of passage. but they were true labor migration. coming at different times during the year to take part in those jobs which they liked best. they liked it better than indoor work. the eastern european jews, the second largest group, second to the italians during this period have no intention of going back because they've come in part, not just for economic opportunity but in-flight of persecution. they're not going back to the saw, they're not going back to that world and so for them, it's a permanent one-way migration, at least that's how they look at it. and so you have other groups here to, you have polls sense loves and greeks and so many different groups coming for a variety of reasons. that it is a big job for the federal government to process

all these newcomers and to inspect them and to all the things that are necessary to make their country safe, as the federal government understands it at that time. in >> 1917, the government imposed a reading test for immigrants at the age of 16, but was that intended to do? >> there was an inclination on the part of some in congress to try and improve the quality of immigration and to exclude those groups who are notoriously in a view of congress, illiterate undereducated and so one. and so as the first thrust in terms of real restrictions, there is an effort to pass the literacy test. they tried in 1996, it fails, they tried in 1913, it fails, they try to 1915 it fails, they try to 1917, twice woodrow wilson vetoed the literacy test and when it was finally passed,

it was passed over a presidential veto. and then there was a tremendous amount of negotiation that went on before it was actually instituted. but constituted a language in which you could be illiterate? was yiddish a language? well, it had written form. it was a peculiar kind of merger of other languages. but the lobbying for yiddish just, use that is an example of west such that it made the literacy test possible by many of those who were coming. if a woman was married to a man -- so that cut down on the number of people who could be excluded. so the literacy test was an exclusionary implement, as a restrictive element, a failure,

a tremendous failure. >> so after this big wave, 23 million people coming into the country. 1922, two immigration acts passed. the emergency quota act, national origin quota system in 1924. whatever the kinds of quotas? what were they based on? >> the 1921 emergency national origins could act was passed in 1922 and 1920. three it went this way. every country was entitled to bring into the united states 30% of those already here according to the 1910 census. now the problem with that is that by the 1910, a lot of the southern italians and eastern european jews, who many americans want to exclude were already here.

in 1920, four in the8jkykycu■ immigration act, the most restrictive piece of legislation up until that point in american history, they used the 1890 census as a base. i think before i said 30%, i met 3%. in 1924 it went down to 2% of those who were here in 1890. so, calculate how many eastern european jews were here in 1890? how many southern italians were here in 1890? take 2% of that and that is the annual quota. it took between 1924 and 1929 to argue about this, and figure out every countries quota. >> we are all that numbers coming from? alice island? is that where the statistics were being kept? >> the statistics were being kept that every american immigration port, and then compiled. >> i wanted to move from the european migration and actually

the asian migration to talk about the southern border for a bit. it is interesting when you look at the 1930s, and we were talking about this before we began, there was the deportation of as many as 400,000 mexicans and mexican americans. then in the 1940s, we began something called the -- program, and then you referenced, earlier in 1954, something called operation wet, back a terrible name, rounding up people and sending them back to their native country, most often mexico. i'm going to show a video that is from a documentary produced at the time that talks about the program. help us understand the americans ying and yang on the amir -- immigration issue. let's watch. >> the term is also applied to many of the toughest and least desirable farm jobs. for example, no stooping here

because citrus trees are thrown, -y more difficult to pick that other fruits, most farm workers avoided this kind of job. all such farm jobs are tough, 30, and unpleasant are generally referred to as stoop labor. understandably, then this is the only area in which labour is supplemented by mexican citizens, sometimes called nationals or mexican nationals. the term most commonly used is brasaros. in spanish this means a man who works with his arms and his hands. they are a tiny fraction of the labor used on our farms, yet some americans feel even this tiny fraction should not be used. a typical dialog pinpoints the issues. >> with americans on relief rules, why bring in foreigners to work on our farms? it makes no sense.

>> it makes sense to the farmers though. these brasaros work for less pay. but doesn't he realize he is cutting down on our living standard? why doesn't somebody do something about it? >> mexican labor and the united states has a long and rich history. first of, all we have to understand that mexicans did not migrate to the united states at first. they were engulfed in the 18 forties, after the mexican war, in the treaty of guadeloupe, which was 1848. that is when those mexicans in the southwest become a part of the united states of america. their children become citizens of the united states of america. there was in the first, in the most restrictive immigration laws of the 1920s, no bar on those within the hemisphere. so mexicans are moving back and

forth across the borders easily. there is no barrier for them. during the world war ii period, it is clear that with so many americans going off to war there is a need for extra labor. there's a need for planting, harvesting, and so there is a program called the brasaros program which as the film said he is working with ones arms and once body. it goes from 1842 to 1964. in general, there were about 200,000 workers per year, moving back and forth during the entire period. approximately it 0.4 billion. they performed critical functions in the american economy in terms of our

agricultural cycle. they have other jobs as well. the reaction to brasaros is not wonderful on the part of many americans who really resent them because they seem to be taking jobs away from native born americans, though they are not really during this period. and for all kinds of racial reasons that have nothing at all to do with the economy, they have a lot to do with attitudes, american anglo attitudes towards the mexicans. once they have served their purpose, many in the united states want them to leave. and what we see happening is the deportation of mexicans, and it actually begins after the second world war, and picks up during the 19 fifties, and the 1960s were getting them out of the united states. many americans will remember a

song produced by willie guthrie, and saying beautifully by joan called deportee. it was about a terrible plane crash that occurred in 1948. in which a number of mexicans being deported were killed. there were 30 to people on the flight. 28 of them were mexicans. what impressed when he guthrie was that the newspapers only reported the names of white pilots, and so on who were on the plane. but everybody else was referred to as a deportee. not named in the reports. in some ways, it dramatized what was going on. we had taken this, labor we were using the sleeper and that we need to get rid of the sleeper. by the middle of the 19 fifties, during the eisenhower administration, there was an operation called most

unfortunately, operation wet back which was designed to dump even more mexicans out of the united states and across the border. almost over 1 million were deported during operation wet back. but this is the kind of love hate relationship with labor from abroad that america had had for a long, long time. here it was with respect to our southern neighbor. we wanted them when we wanted them because we need their labor. when we did not need their labor anymore we want them to go home. by 1964, the formal agreement between the two governments is, ended and that is the end of the brasaros program. but it's not the end of migration across the border by any means. mexican labor is simply too important to american growers. in addition to, that it helps

the american growers to keep the price of their produce low. they are working these mexican laborers for way below what you would have to pay american workers to do the same job. >> that was 1960. for our next piece of video is 1955. this is alice island, statue of liberty, -- let's watch. those who can contribute most to this country, to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit will be the first who are admitted to this land. the fairness of this standard is so self evident, that we may well wonder that it has not always been applied. the fact is that for over for decades, the immigration policy of the united states has been twisted and distorted by the harsh injustice of a national

origins quota system. under that system, the ability of new immigrants to come to america depended upon the country of their birth. only three countries were allowed to supply 70% of all the immigrants. families were kept apart because a husband or wife or child had been born in the wrong place. men of skill and talent were denied entrance because they came from southern or eastern europe. or from one of the developing countries. this system violated the basic principle of american democracy. the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man.

>> i think we have a chart that we want to add to the discussion here that looks at the american legislation post the 1965 legislation. overall, you can see what happened here fermented 55, when the act passed, all the way through the projected population, the foreign born population would grow from nine points expect them to 45 million in 2015 and ultimately to 78 million. so the three major aspects of the legislation as president johnson was talking about, families be kept, together skills-based system, and repealing that quota that you talked about. which had the most impact on the numbers changing? >> certainly family reunification has a tremendous impact, as it is described in the legislation. but also the skills-based as. well the idea was to get rid of

a system that had been very, very ethnocentric and ugly. that was the national origins quota system. the idea for reforming immigration policy came out of the kennedy administration. john kennedy wrote a book about immigration, and was pushing very hard for. it it's doubtful that kennedy would be able to get it through congress but lyndon johnson did get it through congress. and at the same time, in the same time period, he was getting three pieces of civil rights legislation through, he was also getting through this, very very important act of 1965 called the heart cellar act after senator philip of michigan and manual of new york. this acts got rid of the national origins section and

quoted hemispheric -- hundred 70,000 for the eastern hemisphere. it changed the immigration flow to the united states very significantly. instead of the flow coming from europe it really opened the door to many more people coming out of asia, ultimately asia and other parts of the world. it also imposed a quote on the western hemisphere, that meant the movement of latin americans, especially americans who had once been on encumbered was now subject to a quota system as well? by the early 1970s, the world was a very different place in terms of migration. there's great economic hardship and political turmoil in latin america. the end of the vietnam war brings southeast asian and

greater numbers to the united states including ethnic chinese that had been in vietnam, cambodia, and laos, who also want to come to the united states, and it is a moment in which our current dilemma over undocumented or unauthorized immigration is really borne big-time. there had always been undocumented immigration to the united states. ever since there was documented in mission, but now it was growing in numbers because there were so many from central america and so many from mexico who wanted to come into the united states and moreover, there were folks in the united states who were anxious to hire them for their low wages and so on. and so the entire immigration scene, if you will, the policy scene changes after 1965.

in one part of this the peach, lyndon johnson says the legislation doesn't change very much but he couldn't have been wrong or. in fact, it changed everything. and it opened the door for folks who had been unable to get to the united states before and it changed the flow of immigration to the united states and created the current problem that we talk about a great deal about how do we treat and how should we envelop all of those who are unauthorized and our midst? >> so the policy debate, really from 84 focuses on undocumented or illegal immigrants. >> it is certainly one of the major issues of confrontation and engagement in the policy world, no question about it. well, >> >> >> well, let's move to 1986 when ronald reagan and the congress try to create legislation that would address some of the issues surrounding that. this was the so-called simpson

-- alan simpson of wyoming and ms. ole, a congressman from kentucky, so let's watch. >> this bill, the immigration reform and control act of 1986 that i will sign in a few minutes is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration clause since 1952. it is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of the last three congress is. further, it's an excellent example of a truly successful bipartisan effort. the administration and the allies of immigration reform on both sides of the capital on both sides of the aisle work together to accomplish these critically important reforms to control illegal immigration. in 1981, this administration asked the congress to pass a comprehensive legislation package including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws and

legalization. the act provides these three essential components. distance is not discouraged illegal immigration to united states from all around the globe. the problem of illegal immigration should not therefore be seen as a problem before the united states and its neighbors. our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, quarterly and secure system of immigration in this country are not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. >> we hear a lot of criticism of the legislation with the word amnesty tag to it and saying that in fact it encouraged additional waves of migration from the southern hemisphere it, mexico after this. >> the reality is, there were so many millions, estimates between eight and a half or 9 million, 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the united states, some who i'd lived here for a long time,

raise their children here, where citizens by birth rate of the united states, ronald reagan did something very pragmatic. that is he issued an amnesty to some of those folks in order to quiet the problem before the rest of the legislation address the problem. and the legislation tried to shift the illness from those who were trying to cross our borders to those who were feasting on their labor and exploiting them terribly. from the migrant to those who hired and knowingly hired unauthorized immigrants in the united states. and there were raids and there were efforts to do this in a systematic kind of way. it never succeeded in the way that those who crafted the legislation envisioned. in part because it became very

unpopular, from a political perspective to prosecute small business owners. but big business owners. and so the government did not selflessly pursue those who are hiring undocumented immigrants, and the emphasis continue to be on trying to police the borders and send people back when you intercepted them and one way or another. the coast guard operating off the coast of cuba, intercepting haitian immigrants at different times, searching for people who would overstay their student visas or work visas. in short, the legislation did not do the job that it had been intended to do and in an effective way and that's one of the reasons we continue to debate immigration policy and continue to feel very badly about the problem we have,

which is good people who want opportunity for their children, safety for themselves and their children who crossed our borders but in doing so, to do break our laws. how shall we treat that? we are a nation of laws. on the one hand, our inclination is to enforce our laws. on the other hand, there is a humanitarian perspective that can be denied or ignored. how should we treat this? we continue to debated, we desperately need a solution. one of the things her i do in washington, aside from teaching american university, i'm a nonresident fell over the immigration policy institute. and one of the things that npr does and other thing tanks are engaged in this as well, it's debate what a good immigration policy would be. who would look like? well, one possibility is it would involve advanced planning. one of the country's economic means going forward? would we create a five year plan, a ten-year plan for who

we would like to invite into our country? but kind of skills where they have? how would our concern about the skills of incoming immigrants mesh with our desire to be humanitarian and to accept the relatives of those who are already here. the family reunification element, have previous legislation. tremendous number of questions, very hard questions for our country to answer. and clearly, they were meshed in a ferocious debate which because of the contemporaries period nativism and xenophobia has become very embittered and very angry. americans are furious about this issue and in many of the polls that have been addicted would americans were asked, wants to boost important issue for you in the next election, a multiple number saying immigration. >> what's the reality in the 40 years since ronald reagan signed that legislation?

how many illegal, undocumented, whatever the proper term is have come from this southern border into the united states? >> well, because we can count him, we can't know with any great precision how many people are in the united states in undocumented or unauthorized fashion and any given moment. we know that during the period of the recession, after 19 -- after 2008, the number went down. we believe it went from approximately 11 million, down to below 9 million. and then hit his bounced devoid back up again as the economy has improved. i mean, one of the things about migration is, it's not a casual decision. it's a very serious decision that people are making to put their lives at risk to try and go to another country and break that countries laws by entering backcountry.

and during a period when the united states is in the economic doldrums, if you will, you are less willing to take that risk then in the periods where jobs are plentiful, where you can get a job and you construction, you can get a job working on people's lawns, you can get a more skilled position, depending on their own education and skill set. and so, it's not surprising in the least to see that as the economy has recovered, the number of undocumented has increased. in addition to that, we're now living in a world with a lot of political chaos in various parts of the world. whether we're talking about the refugees who are coming out of the middle east or we're talking about people who are coming -- fleeing gang violence in guatemala and el salvador. people want to move. >> and increased fears about terrorism in the united states post 9/11. >> right.

immigration and refugee policy are national security issues. this is not the first time in american history this has been regarded as a national security issue. who is regarded as that in the thirties in the forties many times. but it is now certainly, since 9/11, migration is a national security issue and that cannot be ignored either. >> very quick, just to get it on the record, has not top of the current debate we're having this country. this is nancy pelosi, speaker of the house and president on trump. >> every president in recent memory, democratic and republican has understood the value of immigration to our nation. in his last speech as the president of the united states, president ronald reagan said, have a proportion message to communicate to the country i love. he went on to say, thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity where

nations where every young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. this quality is vital to our future as a nation. president reagan went on to say, if we are close the door to new americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost. >> our country is doing great, unemployment is very low, we just came out with 224,000 new jobs. the numbers are unbelievable. and that's bringing people up, like they've never come up. border patrol and i.c.e. have got done a great job. now, people are being removed from the country. we're moving them. we're starting with the ms 13, we've taken out thousands of them as gangs. but we've never had an onslaught and the reason they come up is because -- they come up is because the country is doing well, they want jobs. >> a tenor of much of the

discussion we've been hearing in this country. so during the nineties and the 2000s, it seems that all of the immigration laws were incremental, all of the politicians that you hearsay, we need an overhaul. a fundamental revisiting of immigration law. so let's kind of finish with what we started. what will it take in this country to enact a holistic revision or looking at our immigration policy and what we wanted to be have issued? >> single support factor would be a return to a kind of cooperative bipartisanship. to agree that immigration is an important part of our country, has been, is, will be in the future and then it be who's everyone involved to put aside the pettiness and the anger that's underpinning the current debate and to try and act constructively and creating a new policy.

will there be a sudden moment, a precipitating factor, a moment of elimination? i doubt that very much. but several times during recent decades, whether it's the mccain kennedy discussions or the discussions by other politicians who are willing to cross party lines that are been constructive debates about a wider rational immigration policy would be. i would like to see many -- a return to that kind of across the aisle bipartisan discussion, in order to create a rational immigration policy, whether takes the form of an immigration commission, with representatives of labour, manufacturing, different i think communities, creating five or ten-year migration plans. there are lots of different proposals out there, but the one thing that's absolutely crucial is that we not continue

with the current chaos of american policy. and so, i wait for that moment. i anxiously wait for that moment as many others do as well and there will be a moment of elimination and politicians on both sides of the aisle will step forward and say, this is too serious a problem not to solve with policy discussion. >> allen crowd of american university historian of american immigration, thank you for the conversation. >> thank you. >> i'll qanon programs are available nor website or a podcast at c-span.org.