passport to paradise and their mission from god? now there's a tough one. i wish we had him to help us think it through it. the malthusians are back but with a twist this time. i read as recently as last saturday's "wall street journal" that people who profited mightily from technological advance now worry we're stalling out, that scientific insight, breakthroughs in innovation may simply not be up to the task of continuing to lift living standards here and around the world. now herman is still with us, and in thinking about tonight, i went to the bookshelf and pulled down some of those volumes and it's just great stuff there, things i'd forgotten. i mean, from the coming boon, just try these two. in the context of arguing for

lower taxation and a lighter regulatory hand that would let innovation and initiative flower, herman wrote, one fully justifiable text would be on imported oil. any large importation of oil by the u.s. raises security problems. they are in effect external costs associated with importing oil that a tariff would internalize. . now, maybe that transgresses some philosophical viewpoint of yours, but to me that's an interesting point today. and just as valid as the day he wrote it. or he wrote, it would be most useful to redesign the tax system to discourage consumption and encourage savings and investment. one obvious possibility is the value added tax and the flat income tax with the only

exception being a low standard deduction. that might suit our current situation pretty well. it also might fit bill simon's line in the late 1970's that the nation should have a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose. [laughter] on the -- at the dawn of the boom that he had forecast. which went on with one hiccup for a quarter of a century. and i know that he would tell us today -- one thing i know for sure, he would tell us as he did then that it's important to preserve what he called an ideology of progress -- he said

ideology is a way of thinking about the past, a way of framing the future, are really important to achieving it. and if you believe the humankind is capable of meeting its challenges and of devising new and better ways of getting forward, it's more likely that will finally happen. and it seems to me in our day, the question is not whether humanity will continue to march upward, whether it will continue to device the inventions and new arrangements which lead to more progress for more people, higher standards just world. the question is whether the united states of america will whether someone else will. and in the long view of history , in the long view, in which

235 years is a blip, is a short moment, is not a given, that any one nation either will continue in leadership or even none of us is herman's equal but we're all his heirs if we choose to be, and if we think as he thought long term and skeptically about what is commonly accepted and practically open-mindedly, following the facts where this lead -- they lead, there's every reason to be optimistic not only about the result but our nation's role in it. and one other thing, when i think back through and read back through herman kahn's work, there is an affection there for his fellow citizens

that i hope we never lose sight of. those who would be friends of freedom and who believe that free institutions, free markets , froo competition of men and women -- free competition of men and women aspiring for a better life is the best motor to lift everyone. in fact, is the very best hope of those who enter life with the fewest advantages and opportunities than -- then i hope each such person would resist any temptation which i occasionally see, to engage in despair that occasionally creeps in -- i hear too many people who are headed the right direction say things like think how few people pay any taxes.

the government dole one way or another. think how our social morays , encourage and protect freedom and prosperity have eroded. yes, real issues. but, you know, herman, i believe, i don't presume to speak for him, but i just believe from my -- anything i've absorbed from him and those who are around him would never have given way to that sort of pessimism either. that should be heft to the statists. it fits them better, it fits their world view, it fits a view in which the average citizens of this country or out there and helpless victims incapable of dealing with the complex modern world who need the benevolent administration

of their betters. that is a failed -- that will prove to be a failed strategy as i think we have seen in recent days. and it must be countered not only with a different policy prescription but with a outlook that is more confidence about our fellow citizens, about the taxi drivers, about the people who raise bears as domestic pets. and if we place our faith in their capacity, not just as individuals, to make the decisions necessary in their own lives to live as free men and women of dignity, but also to make the collective decisions, the hard ones we're going to have to make, the ones the skeptics through the ages have said a democracy would finally not be able to make, to discipline itself, to defer

gratification, to think more about the future than the present. in short, to govern ourselves responsibly. the starting point of an ideology of progress in our day must be to believe in those people. i do. i bet you do. i know herman kahn would have. if we all do, and we follow us, then america twill boom again and the american project thank you for this honor and great night of fellowship. [applause]

>> as we wrap up this evening, we want to thank you for those inspiring remarks. i think we have three lessons to take away from this evening. one, never neuter a hibernating bear, two -- and i hope i have my job in the morning, the oldest meeting of individuals around the world is not the hudson institute board meeting. and three, that you're a worthy heir of herman kahn, his vision, and that our nation leads your leadership. on behalf of everyone here, my colleagues, vice president john swaulter, senior vice president herb libby, and i want to thank there abi, former vice you honoring us this evening and hope to see you again. thank you. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corps 2010] >> in his weekly address, president obama discusses his proposals for strengthening the job market by bringing tax breaks. he follows my pencil who calls for nancy pelosi to call congress back into session to pass the dissolution for tax rates enacted during the bush of administration.

after a decade of hardship for middle class families, and a recession that wiped away millions of jobs, we are in the middle of a tough fight to rebuild this economy and put folks back to work. winning this fight will not depend on government alone. it will depend on the innovation of american entrepreneurs, on the drive of american small business owners, on the skills and talents of american workers. these are the people who will help us grow our economy and create jobs. but government still has an important responsibility. and that's to create an environment in which someone can raise capital to start a new company, where a business can get a loan to expand, where ingenuity is prized and folks are rewarded for their hard work. that's why i fought so hard to pass a jobs bill to cut taxes and make more loans available for entrepreneurs. it eliminated the capital gains taxes for key investments in small businesses. it increased the deduction to defray the costs of starting a company. and it's freeing up credit for

folks who need it. in fact, in just the first two weeks since i signed the bill, thousands of business owners have been able to get new loans through the sba. but we need to do more. so i've proposed additional steps to grow the economy and spur hiring by businesses across america. now, one of the keys to job creation is to encourage companies to invest more in the united states. but for years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries. i want to close these tax loopholes. instead, i want to give every business in america a tax break so they can write off the cost of all new equipment they buy next year. that's going to make it easier for folks to expand and hire new people. i want to make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. because promoting new ideas and technologies is how we'll create jobs and retain our edge as the world's engine of

discovery and innovation. and i want to provide a tax cut for clean energy manufacturing right here in america. because that's how we'll lead the world in this growing industry. these are commonsense ideas. when more things are made in america, more families make it in america, more jobs are created in america, more businesses thrive in america. but republicans in washington have consistently fought to keep these corporate loopholes open. over the last four years alone, republicans in the house voted 11 times to continue rewarding corporations that create jobs and profits overseas a policy that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year. that doesn't make a lot sense. it doesn't make sense for american workers, american businesses, or america's economy. a lot of companies that do business internationally make an important contribution to our economy here at home. that's a good thing. but there is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas. instead, we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders. we should give tax breaks to

american small businesses and manufacturers. we should reward the people who are helping us lead in the industries of the future, like clean energy. that's how we'll ensure that american innovation and ingenuity are what drive the next century. that's how we'll put our people back to work a lead the global economy. and that's what i'll be fighting for in the coming months. thank you. indiana. these are difficult times in the life of this nation. families are hurting, american businesses are struggling. in the city and on the farm, the economic policies of this administration have failed. wherever i go, everyday americans tell me they're tired of runaway federal spending, bailouts and takeovers. and they tell me they're worried that everything they've worked for could someday be gone. this week, the world rejoiced as 33 miners emerged safely from months of dark captivity in a deep chilean mine. today, many americans feel trapped under the weight of historic spending and government mandates.

every day, they see washington putting our children and grandchildren deeper in a hole of historic debt. something has got to give. today, our national debt stands at more than $13 trillion that's more than $44,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in this country. the administration promised that if congress borrowed a trillion dollars from future generations, their 'stimulus' bill would keep unemployment below eight percent. today unemployment remains at a heartbreaking 9.6 percent, making this the longest period that unemployment has been at or above 9.5 percent since the great depression. in september, the economy lost another 95,000 jobs. more than 14 million americans are out of work and millions more have just quit looking for a job. the american people know more spending won't mean more jobs. but the president and democrats in congress just aren't listening. and to add insult to injury, they want to add a tax increase

to their failed economic plans. that's right. after months of deficit spending and government takeovers, democrats in washington want to raise taxes in the worst economy in decades. despite the fact that some in their party were willing to vote to prevent any tax increase, democrats in congress chose to leave washington to try and save their jobs without even allowing a vote to protect the jobs of millions of americans threatened by higher taxes. if congress fails to act, every american will see a tax increase in less than 100 days. 88 million taxpayers in the lowest bracket will face a minimum tax increase of $503. middle income families will face an average tax increase of $1,540. and small business owners will face higher taxes on income, capital gains and inheritance. you know, washington, dc, doesn't tax too little, washington, dc, spends too much. raising taxes on job creators

won't create jobs. no american should see a tax increase in january and republicans are determined to oppose any effort to raise taxes on any american in this difficult economy. uncertainty is the enemy of our prosperity. the american people should not have to wait one more day for congress to act to prevent one of the largest tax increases in american history from taking effect. speaker nancy pelosi should call congress back into session immediately and allow an up-or- down vote on preserving all current tax rates. the prosperity of the american people is more important than the political fortunes of any politician or any political party. this administration suggests that our choice is between the failed economic policies of the present and the failed economic policies of the past, but there is a better way. last month, i joined my house colleagues at a hardware store in virginia to unveil our pledge to america, a specific set of proposals that could be enacted today to start getting

federal spending under control and get this economy moving again. the pledge to america calls on congress to immediately cut spending back to pre-'stimulus,' pre-bailout levels, to refund unspent 'stimulus' funds and to preserve and promote the kind of tax relief that will create american jobs. we can get federal spending under control and reform congress. we can let the american people keep more of what they earn and create jobs. we can return our national government to the common sense and common values of the american people. you can read more about our agenda at pledge.gop.gov. we will build a stronger and better america. our best days are yet to come. thanks for listening. >> coming up next, a discussion on the possible ramifications of an upcoming nato some -- summit. then a look at the lives of children of immigrants in america and how their lives are different from that of their parents. after that, a discussion on

african-american voters and candidates in 2010. later, at 7:00 a.m., it is washington journal. topics include research on how to change state pension programs in key places in battleground states. >> sunday, on news bickers, chairman of the fdic on how the fdic handles the mortgage foreclosure situation. she also talked about the dog/frank financial -- financial law. watch newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> "q&a," sunday, justice stephen briar. it is sometimes hard to avoid your basic values and how you see the country and how you see the relationship between law and

the average person in this country. of those basic fundamental legal and political values i think are part of you and they will sometimes influence an approach where the question is very open and where it admits to that kind of thing. >> supreme court justice stephen briar and his new book, sunday night on c-span. >> next month, leaders of the nato nations are scheduled to meet in portugal to discuss a long-term strategic blueprint for the alliance. we will show you a conference hosted by the atlantic council that examines the ramifications the summit could have on plans for a transatlantic missile defense system. this is two hours. >> thank you very much for your

patience. we will get started now. good morning and welcome to the atlantic council. it is great to kick off what has become something of an annual tradition. this is the third annual conference on missile defense. it was not quite planned as an annual conference when we got started. i have been falling missile defense and when it was called star wars and ever since then, the science and politics have been intriguing and fast moving. many have not changed entirely. how does one come to terms with russia? it is a very different russia of course and one that wants to cooperate on this offense. how does one come to terms with allies and what are the

interests? that seems to change over time. many of the questions are very clear to us. the answer is less clear. just one year ago, the council posted a major conference in washington on a transatlantic missile defense in the aftermath of the obama administration's announcement of a phased adaptive approach to missile defense in europe. it replaced the original idea of a third site. we are hosting today's conference just two days before the joint nato foreign and defense summit in brussels and one month before nato heads of state meet in portugal for what alliance officials hope will be an historic summit. on the agenda are the issues of nato strategic concepts, command structure reform and afghanistan and another major item on the agenda will be

transatlantic missile defense. so, we are hosting this conference because transatlantic missile defense has become an increasingly volatile issue for no. and -- for nato. another reason we are holding this conference is to get an update on the status of missile defense one year following the announcement of face adaptable -- approach. we wanted to get a sense of the progress the administration has made in the implementation policy and the operational and budgetary issues. to discuss these issues, we have a great lineup of speakers and panelists. i can see by looking around the room that there are a great number of experts around the table as well. i would like to think in the advance edgar buckley, and

others for making the trip across the atlantic. i would particularly like to think raytheon for their longstanding support of the council's work in this area and the council in general. without further review, i would like to introduce our first speaker today, lieutenant general patrick o'reilly, director of the missile defense agency who has been with us for each of the three installments of this conference. he is no stranger to the atlantic council. he first talked to us in 2007 when he was deputy director. general o'reilly also spoke at summit.r's he served as a director of the missile defense agency since 2008. his directorship of nba caps a long and distinguished career including service in both command and staff officer positions and a variety of

operation positions including the first cavalry division third support command germany and is serving an interesting point considering what we are discussing. general, it is always a pleasure to have you with us and to hear your remarks. thank you for being with us. after his remarks, there will be a moderated discussion which will be led by atlantic council senior fellow. he joined the council prior -- and before that, he served seven years on the staff of the united states senate. he is still relatively new to the council. he started with us earlier this summer but he is off to a flying

start. i would say in his left a phased adaptive approach and more of an absolute targeted missile interceptor. i would like to think even for his assistance. general o'reilly, the floor is yours. [applause] >> my first challenge is at the screen is over here. i do not think the people on this side of the room can see. can use it to the podium please? >> i have a microphone, so, no. [laughter] i want to make sure that we can see the chart. the threat is unpredictable, but what is even more unpredictable

is washington d.c. traffic. i am sorry i am little late this morning. the first chart, -- or one to do it from up here? what i first want to talk about is that missile defense is a lot of science and politics. let me clarify. i think it is important the major -- to know what the major roles are in implementing the face adaptive approach. for the development capability and the acquisition of capability, that is what my agency does. for establishing the size of that capability, the quantities if you will, the inventories, that is a joint staff that works for the joint chiefs of staff. in the area of establishing the operational architecture is and the plans to execute --

architectures and the plans to execute, it is ucom that does that. for the diplomatic agreements and arrangements, that is obviously the department of state. the four major players in implementing the face of that approach, i will talk about the first one. the development and acquisition of the capability. first of all, there is a fundamental of missile defense that i want to go over. i say it in every brief because it is so true. to have an effective missile defense, you need more than one layer. you break out the layers of missile defense. short range missiles are highly inside the earth's atmosphere and most of their flight and the intercepts that urquhart are a different type of missile system than the upper tier which is right above the earth's atmosphere. the two are not interchangeable,

but they do work together. we have had patriot units for years and we have the sm2 navy system that is part of aegis. the upper tier is the newest version of aegis missiles that are in the upper atmosphere and a system that intercepts in the upper part of the earth's atmosphere into outer space. that is the upper tier and the phase adaptive approach is focused on that upper tier. it is shown in yellow up there. those are mainly effective against medium-range ballistic missiles and intermediate range ballistic missiles. and then the upper ring is intercontinental ballistic missiles and that is our highest year. we have been developing, for

over 25 years, three layers of missile defense. again, a phase adaptive approach is based on that -- is focused on the middle letter, there. [inaudible] it can defend part of a city but it is a smaller area of defense against air breathers and short- range ballistic missiles. that is where nato programs have been focused for quite some time on developing and integrating that capability. we look for the phase adaptive approach in interbreeding that upper tier with the theater ballistic missile defense program. in the middle of this decade, the two systems work together. also lays out the point that the allies can then determine how they want to contribute to that

the lower tier defense. we have the upper layer. they can effectively deploy the lower layer for an effective defense. that is critical, seeing it in those three letters. the face of that approach -- let me just remind you, it is phase one by 2011. the key word is the word "by." something will be deployed. we have a deployment plan as far as building capability and having it ready for deployment by these different dates. by 2011, we will have our initial capability in short range missiles, medium-range and intermediate range ballistic missiles. the missile defense capabilities exist today in the

aegis system. it is already deployed. what has not happened is a test where we have for based radars and working with the shift -- the ship with an injured ballistic missile. that will occur next summer. that is our key test in order to validate that all of these capabilities work together in order to have your initial substantiation of capability for the face of active approach. our command and control system has been under development for a decade. it is what links those two together. by phase two, 2015, we will then introduce aegis assure -- i sure -- ashore. it is the same capability that you have at sea, but it is land-

based, obviously. it allows a permanent presence. it can be moved in about four or five months. it is not a mobile system, but at the same time, it takes a few months to establish and have it operating. we have an upgrade to the aegis system that will occur by 2015 and that is a newer missile. the new missile has the same range as a current missile, but it has greater discrimination capability on board. we also have the other system for world wide deployment. as i said in my opening comments, the joint chiefs will make that determination. the determination of when those plans will affect. this allows us to operate more than one forward based radar in one theater.

those capabilities have been under development for at least seven, eight, or nine years in some cases. we have started to add some new capability for development. aegis ashore is an upgraded software from what has already been there, but we will tie in latest software for aegis in the sm32a missile. this work was started with the japanese in 2006. we have been developing get and planned to finish our cooperative development program by 2015. that was a 2006 agreement, so there is nothing new there. it will be deployable by 2018 and then it doubles the range that you can protect over the earlier versions of the aegis. we also have the precision

tracking stations. that decision was made in 2007. prior to the paa, but it adds significant capability for large sizes. if the paa helped in focusing the analysis for the department of defense, it was on not so much range, but being able to engage over 50 missiles at once. trapped hundreds of missiles at one time. that was the analysis that has been occurring over the past year. as you can see, the satellite system will have a significant contribution here. also, airborne in for bread -- infrared, we have made a lot of success. we are looking at advanced sensors and they can help was

the discrimination and handle very large sizes on unattended air vehicles or remotely piloted vehicles. we will be upgrading the system. at that point, the time line coincides with the plans for the active player missile defense a couple -- upper tier. the opportunity there is to make those to systems not only interoperable, but interacted with each other -- interactive with each other. phase four, that is a new start that came out of the phase adaptive approach. the primary reason we were focusing phase 4 was to get us to have another intercept opportunity.

we want to intercept those missiles as soon as possible after they have been launched. it makes it very difficult to deploy countermeasures in that area. also, degree management, trying to get it as close to the countries that are trying to launch, but you need a higher speed interceptor and you need a mobile launch system that can be in the right place at the right time. over the past year, we have been doing analysis and have determined a sufficient definition of the sm32b. it will be capable of backward -- being adaptable to the aegis of shore -- ashore. will give us the capability to intercept intermediate range ballistic missiles. you have another opportunity to hit in the upper tier. did you miss at that, you have another opportunity at the lower

tier. it is a very basic fundamental of missile defense. withet high into the '90s that type of missile. it does have capability because this missile is heading towards -- is trying to intercept any missile early in its flight for icbm capabilities. to the interceptor, it does not matter if it sees the missile being launched. if it is and then a couple thousand miles of the location where the interceptor has been launched, it has a very good opportunity to intercept icbm's. that is the phase adaptive approach. these capabilities that i've just described are best termed not in terms of time lines. we are on schedule for our time lines, but we focus on capability.

robust capability, and what we define by robust is multiple shot opportunities against the same threat by independent systems against srbm by 2015. early intercepted ability and capability against icbms by 2020. the next chart? i will just touch on this very lightly. there has been a significant amount of work done over the past couple of years to integrate our activities as we develop them. this chart here, and we will provide this for the website, it does indicate that we are, over the next decade, not only

increasing our capability for regional defense which is rd up there, but we are adding in capability for u.s. homeland of defense. the homeland defense system gets the benefit of the four were based radars and the architecture of command and control that i just described in the phase adaptive approach. we just finished our. interceptor being in place in alaska. we have significant upgrades and we are adding an early-warning radar in greenland during is operational now. in the next phase, clear radar, another early radar, it will be operational, adding to our network of sensors for homeland defense. we will then move onto the space systems by 2018.

what is key are those colored bars at the top. the defense agency would establish tests and run tests to make sure that everything is working together. what we have done is create a series a hardware look. it is the actual processors and actual software from multiple countries working together in a continuous laboratory and field environment up at the top. once we established the face adaptive approach capability for a certain phase, it will literally be up and operating for years so that the aerospace companies that are working with us and the commands that are working with us of the countries that are working with us, they have a laboratory environment to continue to test and develop

operational tactics, command- and-control tactics, things such as that. this is the environment that will have a significant payoff for us. i will just touch real quickly. i was here a year ago this week, giving this presentation. i would like to touch on what has happened in the last year. first of all, with aegis, we have delivered over 100 missiles in the past year. next year, we have about 20 more and then we have that mission that i was talking about next spring that integrates the foreign based radar with aegis. using the command and control system that we will deploy for phase one of the face of that approach. that is a critical test. -- of the phase adaptive approach.

the army will control and own it. the second battery has already been delivered and it is in testing. we will also have multiple simultaneous tests. as you will notice, the test program gets more and more aggressive against to targets, a short range and a medium range target. sensors, we have actually finished the sensor that we were using for testing, the four were based radar. a boy's body was going to go to europe. -- it was one to go to europe. it is already in refurbishment, getting ready for deployment next year in europe. we have testing going on with another system. combat command has been supporting ucom on a technical basis as they develop their plans for deploying the early

phases of the phased adaptive approach. there is a deliberate planning process that the u.s. has for approval for our operational plans. that is occurring right now. is on a time line that typically would be completed sometime in the spring. that effort has been going on. for homeland at the fans, the radar has been up and operating. we will work on the deployment of the other system. it does contribute to homeland defense. this is the part of the phased adaptive approach that is also part of the third site. if you go back to look at the presentations over the past three years, there has always been that we are in southeastern europe for homeland defense. it can give us a significant benefit and we retain at in this

phase of that approach. in phase two, the work that will be deployed by 2015, we have executed the software and several tests on the new ship operating software and it indicates that as we test our missile systems, we are also operating the next generation on a separate ship and that work has gone on very well aegis ashore is under contract with lockheed martin. the interceptor is getting ready for its first interception this fiscal year. we continue to integrate and test thad working with patriot so that thit does not interfere

with the lower tier. we go through that repeatedly an hour flight testing. as you can see, c2bmc is being developed now. and homeland defense is being upgraded. over the past year, for phase 3, we have made a significant modification to the software based on the analysis of the face of that approach. we are increasing -- of the face adaptive approach -- the phased adaptive approach. we have increased the number of systems we can launch by a factor of six. that is a tremendous increase in military capability. the reason that we do that is that we have the ability to show how we integrate the sensor network that is out there. that is so important. we put that into the ship's fire

control system. we used an aegis system, the sn31a. before the ship even saw the satellite, the nestle had already launched. -- the missile had already launched. that change has happened with lockheed martin and they are working on that. we have significant testing that has been going on with the airborne in for red -- infrared. they track missiles very accurately over 1,000 mi.. the capabilities of the predator

today is a tremendous capability and we are looking to advance it even greater to complement, supplement, and augment the sensors on the ground. again, we have to upgrade its that show how we are fusing together our tracks. finally, phase four in the past year, we went through extensive analysis over the past year looking at studies for the capability that we want on this muscle. the request for proposal went out two weeks ago. it was sent out to our industry to start bidding on this missile system. it will be three companies that will be chosen for the next 2.5 years based on their concepts and designs. one company will finish the development. that will happen in the 2013 timeframe.

the missile has been sized for is about a 27 in. missile. it has been reviewed by the navy for compatibility for both at sea and on shore. everything works well on that. this is the concept of the missile as you see it. it has reliability and other things that we have learned over the years that a missile should have. all that has been put in a request for proposal. that is the step we have taken this year is to determine exactly what the government's requirements will be. finally, i would like to close. we have an extensive number of tests that will continue on. flight testing and more importantly brown testing. -- round of testing. -- ground testing. we have been dealing with this

for a very long time. this is an extension of this. we have at it in our planning designs operational tests. these tests will coincide with the time frames of the face of active -- the face is the -- phazed adaptive approach. this will not be the first time we have ever demonstrated these capabilities because we do that in the test leading up to it. it will be completely run by soldiers, sailors and airmen. the agency does not operate these tests. the operational test agencies of the army air force and navy, overseen by the director of operation for the department of defense will run these tests. the first one occurs next fiscal

year, f y 12. we will watch to and ballistic missiles at the same time. we have a unit in the back that has four interceptors on it. we do not know which one aegis will hit. we are trying to set of realistic scenarios. if that mrs., we have patriot underneath it. -- is that mrs., we have a patriot underneath it. -- is that misses, we have a patriot underneath it. we have other ballistic missiles being launched at the same time in the pacific missile range in hawaii. then, in 2015, we have a test when we will scientifically test medium-range missiles and an icbm. this will all be at the same

time with the systems that you see there. this will be in hawaii where we have our test base for aegis ashore. all of these will be engaging at the same time. this will be emerging quickly with scenarios demonstrated by the command's themselves. this will be the final test for an operational assessment and it aligns with the phased adaptive approach. at that point, i would like to open it up to questions. [applause] >> thank you for such a comprehensive update on the face adaptive approach. it is interesting from those of us who are interested in the

trans-atlantic mission to see how this has become so robust and how -- i would add that you almost provided us with a remarkable calendar so that we can track progress. i would add that we are going to take his offer and put his slides up on the atlantic council website after the seminar today. we will also have transcript's available of this discussion and others. one thing that fred mentioned was timeliness of this briefing. we have the naples summit coming up in november. transatlantic defense will be one of the major deliverable. those of us that's the the relevance -- for those of us that see the relevance, missile defense is a key element. what struck me about your

briefing, and you did mention linkages to nato missile defense, you mentioned the link up with the active player with coordination with the control center. a layman like myself looks at that and i see largely u.s. efforts. i see a u.s. network of ships, a u.s. network of bases. what is the european contribution to transatlantic missile defense as we evolve? is this really transatlantic missile defense or is this an american umbrella? >> as i said in my opening comments, to be affected, you need layers of defense. where we are in our development, we have the capability to deport -- to deploy the middle layer of defense. not only for nato, but if you

lay out the basic requirement, we have a requirement to protect all deployed soldiers and their families overseas. to do that, we would have to have that upper tier umbrella any way to provide that and then our lower tier systems would be protected. the basic ability that i just described provides u.s. protection, but it also offers significant protection for the rest of nato. this is a contribution. what nato would be to provide is their own systems that they currently have and the willingness to integrate their system with our system for the mutual benefit of both. any missile defense system operating autonomously has a certain amount of defended area.

if you integrate with sensors that are geographically dispersed, you can triple the area that is covered without expending any more funds. so, ours is a contribution to nato of our capability, but we are designing it in a way that would benefit not only us, but any country's contributions. the decision by each individual country, that is their decision. they are all making their own independent decisions on what capability they will secure for that. no matter what they secure, when they integrate it they will have more of a robust capabilities.

>> let me push you on that point before i turn to our audience. what specific systems is the u.s. government encouraging the europeans to prepare to link into the paa? we are looking for territory to place our sm3 on the ground in southwestern europe, and perhaps a radar in turkey, but are we looking for a french missile defense or a german rate are? are we looking for europeans to contribute financially or contribute specific systems to this network? >> to provide effective defense in europe, what you really need is the willingness to integrate. we are not asking them to buy additional systems that the already have.

there is a significant capability that is being developed in europe. if we integrate those together, not only do you have greater coverage, but you have a metric that has come out. a key point is this size. how many missiles can you defend against? sensors are a significant contribution. so, there is a tremendous opportunity for marginal benefits to be added by every single asset, every additional node, not only just sensors. there are other systems out there. aegis is owned by several countries. the important thing is to

maximize their effectiveness. >> briefly identify who you are, who you are affiliated with and keep your question to no more than a minute. >> thank you, very much. my name is edgar. i used to be in nato. thank you general for your remarks. my concern is how we are going to link into what is going on in nato? the point that you did not mention it is that one system is designed to integrate with existing integrated air defense systems of nato. what nato is planning to provide is not a missile defense system, it is an air and missile defense system. you also mentioned that the allies will contribute the lower tier.

in the remarks you just made, you recognize that they also can contribute in the upper tier as well. the question is, how does this all fits together with the u.s. system which has its own system which is being put on contract soon. i do not think it is impossible, but it needs to be worked out. . .

press. today's conversation is long overdue with much talk about the growth of the latino population

and also the perception that latino and muslim youth are not socially integrating it is high time to see how the kids themselves see it and how much of their views differ from those their parents told. a.j., senior for what the urban institute, will a demographic portrait and show how heterogeneous this group is both ethically and socio-economic we. jim rockhind will discuss a survey of muslim youth and their parents. the aim of the study was to find out how likely they think they are to face discrimination in their lives. mark hugo lopez at the pew hispanic center will present results of a latino youth survey and talk about generational issues and educational achievements. finally, selcuk sirin on muslim

culture. our moderator today is tara bahrampour and she's and emigration writer for the washington post. she also writes for the new yorker and "the new york times." we are in good hands. she is very knowledgeable and i will turn it over to her. thank you conceded. >> for clarification i don't write for "the new york times" now. we are not allowed to write for both papers. i used to. [laughter] thank you so much for having us today. thank the urban institute and the public agenda. i think it's a really important debate to be having, and the children of immigrants is an often overlooked subject, so i think this is very timely. i've been a newspaper reporter and major urban cities for over a decade now and i must say that every area that i've covered, what it's been business or realistic of politics or

education especially has in some degree had to do with immigrants or involve immigrants or immigration, and the children of immigrants are really in a unique position. in some ways they have incredible advantages, and in some ways they have a very difficult disadvantages. often they grow up in homes where english is not spoken. they don't have the kind of built-in opportunities that children of english-speaking households have in terms of getting help with their homework in terms of their parents being aware of what kind of social services there are for them in terms of feeling integrated and at home here. at the same time, being the child of immigrants can be incredibly rich having doubled the language opportunities, having a culture that you know that's not mainstream american culture that can feel very welcoming and warm. can put you in a good position

and a great start in life children have unique issues they deal with that their parents aren't dealing with. in many ways they are a bridge between cultures for their families. many of them are the main trends leaders for their families, and many of them have trouble deciding who they are, figuring out where the fit and, and where they fit into america into the home country which they may or may not know very well so their perspective on the home country and the u.s. are very different than their parents. i want to too much time because i know a lot of our panelists of interesting material to offer how important this is especially in this time of immigration being such a hot topic and politics and american culture, so i hope that the children of immigrants will be given their

fair shakes and i think that this is a great place to start. so we are going to start with ajay. >> as calfee said i'm going to do a little bit of stage setting and a brief demographic overview with similar characteristics these are based on the more recent fact sheet data briefs that at the urban institute we started developing a year ago called children of immigrants is a series on children immigrants and the main facts out line today derive from the most recent publications you can find on the web site. i would like to basically present a few stylized facts supported by hand on the chair which you will see there is a few figures somewhere in here. they are black and white but you can still probably derive the most. there is basically for facts i'm going to highlight and then discuss each briefly.

one is the population of children have grown rapidly and spread all across the united states. second, the growth and children of immigrants accounts for most of the growth in the child population in the u.s. over the past 20 years. the third the children of immigrant population will likely continue to grow even absent further high rates of migration, which indeed the data has shown has ebbed over the last couple of years, and fourth and most significantly, u.s. immigrant families and their children have a very diverse origins and are very heterogeneous population. so, the first fact which figure one helps me to illustrate as i think most people know there's been a rapid growth of the foreign-born population in the united states the last 20 years growing from about to 30 million by 2008. the population of children of

immigrants grew rapidly for the country as well just about doubling over all between 1990 and 2008 and it grew at the fastest rate which in the color version of this is blue but it's a lower part of the darker version on your chart in the 1990's and children of immigrants are a growing share of the population as well growing from about 13% of the population in the 1923 were nearly one of four of all children in the u.s. today, and that is in some ways even not the full picture because that only includes what are second generation, first and second generation immigrants and one of the things in discussing the latino population i know mark is going to talk about is robust immigration proceeds 1990 and when you think about third generation, the country is even more diverse, and while they're continue to be robust growth in the traditional immigration

states, california, texas, new york, florida, illinois and new jersey, which already have very high immigrant population base is directly the continue to grow by nearly 80%, the main story is there was growth everywhere, and especially states and regions where there had been large immigrant presence historical including many at the southern and mountain rocky mountain states. so as you will see in this chart, we identify 22 of what we call high-growth states that overall saw the year between tripling and quadrupling of their immigrant population in this children of immigrant population during this period, and in six states, the population increased by more than fivefold including north carolina but had the highest rate of growth in this period, and an upcoming data base will be presenting in the series in the next few weeks shows disproportional growth across the u.s. in metropolitan areas.

this hadn't seen high levels of immigration historical. some of the metro areas with largest increase in the share of population also in the south and in the midwest. so overall, and in 2007 there are 17 metro areas where there are more than half a million immigrants living up from only a handful that have that level of concentration in 1990. so using this measure, what they're looking at states are metro areas the u.s. as a whole is becoming much more diverse and the effect of the immigration appeal the greatest in those places that experience the least historical and consequently the foreign-born are evenly distributed at the end of this period and at the beginning and at any of a point in the u.s. history. so the second point i had said was the growth in the children of immigrant account for most of the growth of the child population, while most of what i presented in terms of the growth of the immigrant population is

anything new to anyone who follows the numbers, what is not as well-known as children from immigrants come from a relatively large share, approximately 80% of the overall increase in the size of the child population in the u.s., and in fact the child population in the u.s. would have shrunk in the current decade were it not for children of immigrants. in the 1990's children accounted for the majority so as you can see in the first set of bars, what is blue online or is the first column they accounted for 5 million of the overall growth but nearly 9 million children in the u.s.. in the current decade with the child population, the growth slowed significantly. so as you can see the overall it is much smaller little growth level. the children of natives decline by about 2 million people, and that doesn't include the effect of the recent recession which the cdc numbers show the rates

declined even further in the last two years. such old enough immigrants account which there was increasing 3 million for the entire growth of children of immigrants. so, and this has huge implications, which we can discuss more in the q&a, but it would imply that without children of immigrants we perceive the declining size of the u.s. work force especially when considering other other major demographic changes in the u.s. exit the aging of the u.s. labor force and larger very large order coleworts of the baby boom generation leaving the work force from some children of immigrants are really the future workers of our economy. the next set of slides, which i will go through very quickly, shows that children of immigrants have a very diverse origins and set the stage for this discussion. overall, the growth in the number of children -- those of

mexican origin has increased the overall size of children of immigrants and make it a significant plurality. 42% of the large jump of the pie of children immigrants. but looking beyond the mexican origin families the immigrant origins are very diverse with every region of the world contributing to the urban mix of the united states and no region contributing more than 11% or one in nine of the 16.5 million children of immigrants. the next slide -- the next figure shows parental the education varies enormously across families and children of immigrant origins as seen a figure for with some immigrants having substantial high levels of education than is the average among the u.s. adult so you will see families from the middle east and south asia, families from europe, canada and austria have nearly twice the level of

college completion or greater. but they also are more common at the lower end of the education attainment skills so there are families that have not completed high school overall it is four times more likely for the parents with immigrant children, and in the case of mexico and central america southeast asia it's more than twice as likely. so, and then -- while the lower levels of parental vacation can prove to be a deficit for some families nearly all children of immigrants are more likely to live in the two-parent families which confer significant advantage and research so as you can see in figure five, and for all children of immigrants three-quarters of children of immigrants live in two-parent families compared to 62% of all

children what native-born parents and this is true of children from all regions of the world with in some groups being virtually all families being two-parent families, and then figure six and seven shows overall while there is somewhat higher poverty rates among immigrant families and immigrant families from different regions of origin, and somewhat more concentrated in the lower economic about this very somewhat, and most of the differences are accounted for bye differences -- earlier differences in terms of education level and skills immigrants bring with them, so for example, you will have families from south asia and east asia who make significantly more have higher levels of

education and make more while families from central america or mexico may make significantly less. finally, the last point i want to make in terms of setting the stage is that there is lots of theories in the social capital. these are some of the things, the fact that there is variation and income in variation in education is variation in family structure but there's lots of the creation and the size of people social networks, the size of their coleworts and so the impact their integration into their local immigrant communities and the broad communities and american life more broadly which is the subject of today's conversation. >> thank you so much, ajay. now we are going to go on to market. >> thank you. the was interesting, ajay. i'm going to talk about work we have that the few hispanic center looking at latino youth and of course when we talk about latino youths, among them there

is a significant share who are either the children of immigrants or are immigrants themselves but before i get into some of the results of that particular research and there is an executive summary of that report in your hand out, i want to tell a little bit about what the report, how we designed the report and we did with this particular report, so this was meant to look at young people ages 16 to 25, so we're looking at young latinos 16 to 25. i traveled around the country conducting focus groups with latinos and all different parts of the country of many different ethnic origins to ask them a series of questions how to deceive themselves, how do they identify themselves and where the issues of most importance to them. and i didn't want to say to them is the issue of teen pregnancy important to you? no, i wanted them to stand up and write up on the board the things they thought were most important without any guidance or direction and across the board the same issues kept coming up over and over again in each of the focus groups.

at the end of my presentation i want to share some comments from these young people and quotes from the focus groups because i think the help provide some insight into some of the numbers i am going to talk about with regard to the young latinos. what we find about young latinos? first some demographics. when you talk about them 16 to 25, they represent that 18% of all used in that particular age group. when you also look at their particular generation of characteristics, about one-third are foreign-born, about 30% for the children of immigrants, as they have at least one parent that is foreign born, and the remainder will be called a third generation or those who are u.s.-born with u.s.-born parents. what is striking is that in the 1980's, young latinos who were what we would call a third generation, that is u.s.-born with u.s. born parents, were the majority of young latinos at that time, but between then and

today there has been a huge change. so much so that when we talk about young latinos, while two-thirds are u.s.-born 40% of them have some connection to the and a good experience of their parents and another 30% are they themselves immigrants. so the immigrant experience looms large among other young latinos. that is what we called the report by the way between the two worlds because particularly for those young latinos who are the children of immigrants and many respects they reflect what is happening both with their immigrant roots, but also what's happening with their growing up here in the united states. so what did we find? we did a national survey and what we found were the following. first we find young latinos are very optimistic. they see the are satisfied with their lives and the large majority of them say that they expect to financial we do better than their parents. we also found that among young latinos but also latino adults, there is strong support for the

view that education is important. this fits in with a lot of public polling wisdom of the center which regularly shows when you ask about issues education is one of the top issues that hispanics .2. but we found that about three of four latinos said in order to get ahead in life one has to have a college degree so for success in life one must have a college degree and when we ask what did your parents say you should do after high school, the vast majority about seven of ten said my parents said i need to go to college. that's the number-one thing i needed to do. so education is seen as important. however, when we asked in focus groups about issues the highlighted several concerns, those were getting an education, teen pregnancy and crime and violence. those are the three things that popped up and what we found when we take a look as some of these are on the story of education, young latinos particularly those who are the children of immigrants seem to be getting

better. there are less likely to be high school dropouts for example, more likely to be enrolled in school, and they are more likely to be going to college in this particular age group. when it comes to teen pregnancy we also saw something very similar as well. while about one and four young latina us have had a child at the age of 19, what we do see is we see that those numbers are highest for immigrant young latinos, but there is the lowest for those young latinos who are the children themselves of immigrants. on the third finding with regard to crime and violence in the survey we asked about whether or not latinos knew somebody who was a member of a gang, and we found is among those who were u.s.-born there was more awareness or knowledge or connection to somebody who has been a member, 40% of them said that versus only 17% of immigrant young latinos in this age group is 16 to 25-year-olds. so, there are some very

interesting patterns and differences, where in some cases the native-born or doing a lot better than the foreign born, but in other cases it looks like the children of immigrants generally tb could genuinely are doing this among the three different groups of and a good young latinos, children of immigrant young latinos and young latinos were u.s. born with u.s.-born parents. so those are some of the key findings of this particular report looking at young latinos and what we see in terms of their average is a real connection to immigration. but i think some of the findings that are really interesting are about identity. how do the young latinas see themselves? we ask about the term the use to describe themselves and in the focus groups many things cannot and i will highlight those interesting little bit, but we asked about do you ever call yourself by the country of origin name of your family, like mexican or cubin or selwa torian? we ask have you ever called yourself hispanico latino and we

ask do you ever call yourself american, half of them in this age group said that they prefer to call themselves first by the turn of the country forage and their families. half of all young latinos. as you might guess if we talk about young latinos who are first generation, that is immigrants, 70% of them, 72% said they prefer the country of origin of their families but perhaps not expected but when you get second and third generation you see the following pattern. among the second generation the number that choose to use the country of origin of their family is the first tour falls of about 50% and then by the third generation or the u.s. born, children of u.s. foreign parents, you have about one third of them choosing the country of origin, their families as the first term they use and among last group call themselves american first so definitely as we look through this there is a strong identity with country of origin even

among u.s.-born children of u.s. foreign parents, but it seemed time you can see that this idea of identity is changing as we go across the generations and whether or not -- this is a cross section of whether or not there will be true as these young people age remains to be seen. nonetheless we see these patterns of identity. one other thing we ask about in this particular report is bs about whether or not -- we ask done what he knows whether or not they have a sense of shared culture or culture that is somewhat divided because latinas come from so many different cultures, and we found that for the most part young latinos see themselves as coming in the united states hispanic culture being one that is a culture that is actually gotten some commonality as opposed to differences. with regard to other results on language which is an important part of the story when we talk of immigration, on land which we

asked what language do you listen to music, what language do you watch television and we also asked to use the spanglish or use spanglish, and by the way it is a combination of english and spanish comic they wanted to see whether there would be some patterns. well, there definitely are. once again, em immigrant young latinos are likely to listen to music and watch tv in spanish. by the time to get to the second generation however, the children of immigrants there is a significant drop-off in the use of spanish but still a large number used spanish for music and television. by the third generation virtually everybody is doing television in english and a large number of majority of our doing music in english. what about spanglish? it's interesting because between the two worlds is the title of the report and what we found is that it was those young people the children of immigrants the ones in the middle who are the ones most likely to use spanglish, the ones most likely to engage in spanglish conversations my regular basis

with family and friends and the numbers were about three of for that say the use spanglish on a regular basis. i want to close by sharing focus group quote that kind of get some of the issues young what he doesn't focus groups are pointing to and this is one about language and i think it's an interesting one because it encapsulates a lot of what is said and with america in the changing diversity of america, but it also represents a sense of awareness among particular young latina. so this is somebody who is from new jersey and she said i was at 82 remax with my colombian friend and we were talking in spanish. and this white person said you're supposed to speak english and american. and i said of really? so you need to learn spanish because this is a changing country, get over it. and if you could imagine her saying that, she is a great person. the next quote is actually a very different quote and it's one that captures something very different about language.

my dad and his whole side of his family are die-hard cubans. my mom's family is pretty much white anglo-saxon and my dad never taught me or my sister spanish, as we go to family dinner ends like you can't even communicate with your family. and he felt for him the focus groups and it up being an opportunity for him to learn something about himself and also to express this because i don't think he ever expressed this point of view before. i'm going to stop there because i think my time is up, but of course there are many more. everything is in the report and i would be happy to talk about the report and to answer questions. thank you. >> we are going to move on now to john. >> i'm going to pull the camera back a little bit so to speak. and talk about immigrants as a whole, not just children of immigrants and not just hispanic immigrants, but about a study that we did that public agenda with support from the carnegie corporation. in 2009 called a place to call home. in this study, we interviewed

over even hundred immigrants around the country from all different countries of origin. we did a sample of saw patients and middle easterners, so we were able to corral people who identified themselves as muslim leader from the two regions or other immigrants who identify themselves as muslim. i will talk about that and also talk about the difference is that mexican immigrants had compared to the immigrants overall, and finally i will talk about parents of immigrants, too. but first conduct a study of public agenda -- can you hear me now? i'm going to be talking about a study the public agenda didn't doesn't mind when we interviewed immigrants across the country from all different countries of origin and break out if you subsamples here. this is a replay of the study that we did in 2002 so we are able to compare some trend data we had from questions we asked in 2002 and that we replayed in

to doesn't mind. and you should have for slides in front of you, for handouts but i am going to go over first. so first of, the reason why we call the study a place to call home as the majority of immigrants, seven of ten said they would move here again to the united states if the had the opportunity again, and seven of ten said that the united states would be their permanent home. when we ask about different aspects of life in america, the majority said on many indicators the united states is better than their birth country and that included robert kennedy, job opportunities, trust in the legal system, health care, education, raising children and being able to express themselves freely. we also found in discharge a high majority of immigrants, nearly nine of ten say they are happy here in the united states it was interesting not only that such a large number said they were happy, but the fact of the number changed when we first asked in 2002.

in her 2002, we saw a lot 96% said that they were happy but more importantly perhaps if we take a look at the extremely happy, we have a large difference, 55% in 2002 said they were extremely happy compared to only one-third in 2009. we are not sure why that is. we are going to talk about a few things immigrants are satisfied about in the united states, but we think the economy has something to do with this and we did this into doesn't mind. the recession was in full swing as people know it reflects everybody would affect some populations more than another and certainly the immigrants, people without college education and lots of people in the survey were adversely affected by this. and other survey findings with the general population the economy is the number one problem facing the country today. it is not a surprise to anybody i'm sure. another thing we found is that when we asked immigrants why

they wanted to become citizens and we replayed the questions we asked in 2002, we found that quite a few of the practical reasons, such as access to certain jobs, being able to travel freely but also qualifying for government programs like medicaid and food stamps were major reasons to become a citizen. reasons like being proud to be an american and being able to vote and have the legal opportunities that citizens have were still the main reasons in 2002 and in 2009 but we saw an increase in the practical reasons so to speak. if we go to chart number three, you will see a focus on the recent immigrants, those who came here in the past ten years. we compare recent immigrants, those who immigrate between 2000 and 2000 negative the recent immigrants from the study that emigrated in 1990 to 2000.

and you will see that our more recent immigrants are more likely to say they spend a lot of time with people from their country of origin that the talk to people back in the country they can from at least once a week more likely that this group is more likely to do that in recent immigrants of the past, and for those who came here knowing little or no english, they were likely to say they speak their native language at home, so those findings may indicate that immigrants tend to cluster around like people and keep ties to their birth country dwinell that may be true we still felt that majorities saying they felt comfortable where they live now in america that it is a less than five years you feel comfortable just about half say they only took two years before they felt comfortable in the united states. while the same time ties to their birth country may be growing stronger compared to previous waves of immigrants they are feeling comfortable in america and they are feeling as if they are part of america.

another interesting finding we have is about discrimination, which were questions that we asked in 2002 and played again in 2009 and we did not see much change at all. whether or not people saw there was a great deal or some discrimination against immigrants in the united states in general, you will see that six in tennessee that there is some. that is the exact number basically that we had in 2002. we also ask about immigrants from their country of origin, and you will see that we didn't ask that in 2010, but they said there was a lot or some, and one in four said that they personally experienced at least some discrimination to them personally because they are and immigrant. i don't know if one in four is a small number or a large number so to speak. to me it does seem a large even though it is one in four and not half or anything. what i found interesting is that that number was essentially

unchanged since 2002. as i mentioned earlier, we were able to break out and take a look at the mexican immigrants as well and so differences there. first of all, when it came to to say that they personally experienced some discrimination because they are an immigrant, they were more likely to say that there's discrimination towards immigrants overall, three-quarters of them said that. at the same time, they were more likely to save and other immigrants the united states is a good place to raise children, two-thirds of mexican said that compared to half of immigrants who did not come from mexico. more likely to see the united states is a great place to earn a living compared to mexico and when it comes to becoming a citizen they were also more focused on the practicalities, getting legal rights, not worrying about immigration status, getting certain jobs and being able to travel back to mexico were major reasons for becoming citizens.

we were able to look at muslim immigrants as well. we didn't know the sample there and find interesting findings, too. i know that selcuk sirin is going to talk about the numbers over all. in our example we it muslims who had been there for awhile and that the majority were here a while and were older, and we didn't have as many who emigrated after 2001. muslims overall were less likely than other immigrants to say there was a great deal or discrimination against immigrants in the country today. although they were just as likely again that one in four finding that to say that the experienced discrimination personally. when i did focus groups i was able to do one folk scriven deer bourn michigan if middle easterners, and when i brought up the issue of discrimination it was a very interesting response. at first, people said no, they can experience, then a couple started sharing stories, but when they got to the end of the

story, often there were two people i am remembering here. they made it a point of saying they were not sure if they were being discriminated against because the or muslim or middle easterner or just because. so for example one person said that he would often get into shouting matches with his neighbor over a shared parking space or in his opinion it shouldn't have been shared parking space, it was his parking space, and this person would use ethnic slurs when getting in the heat of the moment, but he then added it wouldn't have mattered if he wasn't muslim if he was catholic and things like that, so i am not sure why discrimination levels are the same for muslims as they are for other people according to the survey here or less in terms of whether or not there is discrimination in general, but i do think was interesting on like my other focus groups it took more time for them to talk about this, and the same time they were kind of backing up a little bit and saying they were not sure why they were getting into these altercations.

we also took a look at parents of immigrants course we didn't interview any children of immigrants because everybody was over 18 and we did find interesting difference is there, too. parents were more likely to say they are extremely happy in the united states. there are also more likely to say that education and health care, two things they certainly experienced a lot of, being parents of immigrants are better here than in their country of origin, and the across-the-board regardless of what the country of origin was. there are also more likely to see that the united states be their permanent home and more than three-quarters said it is unlikely their children will want to go back or if they are born overseas go back or if they are born here that their children will want to live in their native country. and the one thing that is particularly interesting when we take a look at parents of immigrants were the reasons why they wanted to become citizens. we ask everybody who was either a citizen or told us they were planning on becoming a citizen

what their main reason was for becoming a citizen. did they see it as something that was necessary? to the see it as something practical? to the see something that is a dream come true or did they not see it as something that was that important? just something they wanted to do? for immigrants overall, the fact that was practical was number one, necessary was number two, but for parents of immigrants, the number one reason why they wanted to be a citizen was as they said, it was a dream come true, and i wonder if that is a very different way of looking at citizenship and life in america than it is for immigrants who aren't parents. specs before. we finally turned to selchuk. >> i'm going to make three points and will be short. the first is to give you a picture of muslim americans in this country and second i am

going to talk a little about the role of discrimination and level of discrimination and finally immigration, social and cultural practices. the data that i am going to present comes from our research at the center with michelle fine and age as different as mentioned we studied the children and young adults. so basically to start with the word muslim american like all the other hyphenated terms. those historic identities keep talking about the identity of the social construct and if there is another example, if there is a better example to understand the social construct. 9/11 happened and all the seven pakistanis, turks, arabs all come together and are put together by others as muslim americans to the soviets important to recognize the differences within the population.

just to get an idea, people come here, iranians for the civil come here because of the fundamentalism that took place over there. but at the same time, there are many turks who came here to study because they couldn't cover their hair and turkey. so, and also there are gays who left, the muslims who came here. all of these people are now put in this category as a muslim american and pursued as such. with that said in order to have a conversation to talk about americans now we don't know the numbers, it is anywhere between 3 million to 6 million as we know do not collect any data the enemy study, supreme much it is between three and six. and we know a little bit more

about back background about one-third of the group pretty much a majority of which are african-american are not immigrants, but the majority is about six or 5% or second or third generation immigrants, and the population of arabs do not consist the largest group actually. it is the who migrated from -- most of sue migrated to this country at this point are not muslims during only one of of four arabs in the country are muslim. so the arab american have been used interchangeably in the media, but i think they are huge differences. despite all the variation, 9/11 i think changed the perception of the group, both internal and

from the outside. i think it created a dilemma for the muslims in this country because they were under attack like the rest of the country as americans, but also the has been pursued as if they are part of the group who attacked this country, so it is easier for adults, for us to understand and see the difference, but for younger children who experience this an early years was very difficult to understand because they were crying like classmates under attack but the same time on their way home they were getting all this other comments the didn't understand where this was coming from, and i think like jon was saying if you find the right way to approach kids, they start telling the stories. and all of those stories are in our book. i hope to pick up the book. i don't have enough time to go into this but i'm going to talk a little bit about the numbers.

.. wfl with that said, 84% of the younger cohort, and 88% of the other cohorts indicate that they've been mistreated because of their religion. and when we asked in more detail, about one in ten indicated that they experience discrimination every day. every day somebody treats them or mistreats them.

very high level of discrimination. most of my research is about urban kids. so we asked the same question to see if we are getting this level. we are not getting this level. this is a very high level of discrimination. when we tried to understand going beyond the survey numbers what kind of discrimination they experienced, most of the time it's in schools, because that's where they spend their time, and surprising number indicate that it was the teachers and the administrators, not as much as the peers. mination. most muslim women are pursued as uneducated, unsophisticated. most most muslim men indicate that others pursue them as aggressive, terrorists. the perceptions, the types also

indicate the coping mechanisms, which is very interesting. for women, it opens a dialogue. people typically come to them, ask them how they're doing. and then, from there, a dialogue starts. which then changes their environment and they have more control of the situation. so despite high levels of discrimination experienced by women, their responses are much more productive in terms of having dialogue. they are much more social. for men, nobody talks to them because we don't talk to the terrorists. right? so they have all these feelings, 12-year-old, 13-year-old boys, 25-year-old men, they have all these perceptions, but nobody comes and talks to them. and i think that is very interesting for those who want to understand gender differences for this population. when we look at the implications of discrimination, we found very disturbing

findings. in terms of anxiety and depression, for example, the correlation is almost 0.5, which is a very high correlation. for those who experience are about a quarter experience, 25% more likely to be depressed or anxious, which is one of the highest i've seen in terms of implications of discrimination. the last point that i want to make is that despite all this discrimination -- and this is the surprising part for me. despite all this discrimination, when we look at integration, and we do it in many different ways, we found that discrimination duh not affect them negatively, which is unusual because in all other groups here and in europe in particular, when there's high levels of discrimination, when the group or an immigrant group is not welcomed in the society, the whole society, they distance themselves going inward and identify more with

the home culture or whatever. it didn't work for this group. and i think john's report also indicates that if you look at john's report, there's a study of muslims here and in europe, and in our research as well, this is one of the highly integrated immigrant groups. perhaps the most intgratted immigrant group. and let me just give you a couple of data on that point. in terms of testing the clash hypothesis, clash of civilization, muslims are so different from us that there's no way that they can integrate into the vast and demographic culture, huntington's idea, we tested that in three different ways. and when we asked in our surveys, we asked them the degree to which they identify with their muslim communities

and then on a separate modification we asked the same question, the degree to which they identify with the mainstream u.s. society. and surprisingly, if the clash hypothesis is correct, you should see a negative correlation. if you identify with one group, you're less likely to identify with another group. we saw the opposite, actually, which is quite surprising. the degree to which they identify with their muslim background increased. they are likely to be identified with the mainstream u.s. society. so there was a positive correlation there. but more importantly, when we look at their practices, which is very similar to pew's method, we asked them all kinds of questions about the music, food, social networks, friends, et cetera. these are typically measures of a cult tur, we found that in

almost all of the areas, they are very highly integrated. they socialize with nonmuslims and muslims equally. they don't make a difference. the only one area that they made a difference was tv. they watch american tv shows way more than anything else. then finally we -- and i think you can see some of those map, we use this new method. we ask them particularly for reasons that john mentioned. it's very difficult for these kids to talk about their culture, their background. so we will let them draw their identity. and you see three or four of them here in your slides, so basically what we found that in the group, all the themes that emerge from there, about 60% of the participants indicate or drew something, an identity map, that indicated

integration, that indicated that they found a very creative way to identify with muslim and american backgrounds that they don't see a difference. so this idea that they are stuck suggests that there are two cultures that are so different from one another that you can only get stuck in between. what i'm suggesting is that our research indicates that there is something called . and you can stay there and be happy. thank you. >> thank you so much. this is very interesting. i am going to just start our question and answer session with a few questions of my own. i think -- and this has been a great combination of preptations, because in some ways the findings have converged and in other ways they seem to conflict with each other. so i want to ask about the implications of the identification with the home country. this could be because there's a

general trend in multiculturalism or kind of awareness of multiculturalism in the united states and also technology makes it more easy to be in touch with the home country. i'm wondering, this generation, is it more attuned to and in touch with the home country than previous generations have been? and, if so, what does that imply for the future of immigrants and kind of immigrant culture in the united states? i'm going to start with sulchik. >> john's report also has that. this is for muslim americans in particular. they don't want to go back to their country. in terms of percentage, i think that's the highest percentage group that indicated that they have no desire to leave this country. and in terms of home country orientation, it's surprising to me, too. european muslims and american muslims are very different in

that sense that in this country they are here to have roots, they have few clertacts with the home country, unlike the latino community or other communities, even other asian communities like chinese and indians. muslims, especially those where democracy is not there, they don't see anything there. so all their perceptions is that america is good. i think in other muslims and arabs you see that more often. i think that's part of the reason why they say there's no discrimination even if it is there because they are looking at their reference group is much different. there's also something interesting in terms of the home country affiliation and the role of it. if you look at, for example, pakistanis in the u.k. and the united states, the same ethnic background coming to different places, it's kind of an experiment if you could set up something like that, and you

see a huge difference in terms of their experiences. and i think one of the reasons is that how they are perceived over there and here is so different that over there in the u.k. they are almost forced to be even more affiliated with the home country because there's no room for them to be english. over here in the united states, it's still possible to be american. no matter where you come from. and that's such a blessing for immigrants, because they say, i mean, the turkish immigrant, after five years, he says i'm american. if you go to the u.k. after years they are still turks. >> what about in terms of latinos, what have you found in terms of what it means to feel connected to your home country? >> in this particular survey we didn't ask about connections to

the home country. but what we do see is that even among those young latinos who are a u.s. born with u.s. born parents, there's still a strong connection to an identity associated with those source countries that their families may be from. and that's something that i think, because of technology, i think because of the times of today, also because the latino population is so large, talking about 47 million people, 16% of the u.s. population, and there's a constant flow of new folks coming from outside the united states that continues to build this population, that it's possible to maintain those connections today much easier than it had been, say, in the early part of the 20 ds century, where if you made a decision to come to the united states from europe, while it's possible to communicate, it's no means easy to return, as easy to stay connected, as it is today. >> john. >> i'll just add that our

findings correlate exactly right with what they're saying. and that other immigrant populations, besides muslims and besides mexicans also feel connected to the united states, yet we see that they are more connected to their home country if not emotionally practically because they are talking to people from their home country more often, and they are associating with people here in the united states from their home country more often than they were ten years ago. but at the same time, they still see themselves as american, they're still happy to be here, and a high majority are saying this is where they want to stay and they're glad they came here. >> and i'll just add that i don't have -- i think when i saw the findings in the public gender report and the pew report and around the level of communication, i was shocked. some of it is technology, both

telecommunications and transportation. the cost of that have become significantly less to sort of occur. and i think some of it might have to do with what we were trying to show the cohort size overall. that can sort of cut two ways. one is you have a larger number of people from your home country living in the u.s. or living in the immediate area. it's much more acceptable to maintain ties and to maintain that, which could also sort of cut the other way as well, too, when you are a relatively small group in the u.s. maybe it becomes more important. and then it raises some questions for me about in which i don't know the answer to, which would be a good research question, is does chain migration vary between counter rizz. and to the degree that your immediate extended family is living with you in the u.s. does that sort of alter because some is around technology and resource sharing, and there's

constant money. we didn't talk about money flowing between countries so to the degree that more of your family is here, does that mean that you maintain ties. so that's another aspect of the discussion that we won't get to today, but just sort of raising. >> when you're talking about the trend for immigrants to kind of spread out into population areas where they didn't used to live, do you feel that this is also going to have an effect on the degree to which they are connected with the home countries both economically and culturally? >> again, i don't have any data on that. my speculation is it probably would. and part, because from what we do know about parents of migration, where particularly to the degree that i have colleagues that studied mexican migration, people from the same area of mexico tend to migrate to the same areas of the united states. so you'll have a large population from pueblo all

living in east harlem in new york, which is a place where we had done some research, and that sort of maintains those strong ties between hosts and sending communities in ways that are reinforced, which is what i think was cohort and concentration effects, in a way that all these countries that people are coming from are very large. so but, -- the other people that you're talking to also have family in this part of the country, you're much more likely to maintain ties. and i think that's sort of not the pattern that existed in the past when cohortsd were smaller. you were more likely to identify with other countries where you may not have associated with them in your home country, but you share the common national identity, but now people even share more

common regional identities when they come from the u.s. >> they're from the same block. >> yeah. >> and then you both had such vastly differing results in terms of muslims feeling discrimination, i thought we should address that a little more. and i know their different age groups. but we are looking at some of these earlier numbers and we see that people from the middle east have a very high education level. do you think that could have been a factor in their feeling less discriminated against because they felt there are more opportunities? and did you feel that perhaps the fact that the people you talked to were younger and maybe hadn't kind of found their place in society could also -- and i think both of you could address this. those. >> i don't think and i'm very curious what you think, but i don't think our findings contradict each other in any way. i think they're two separate >> we spoke to muslims of all

different ages born here. we have to make her particular question. do you personally say that there is a lots, some, little or no discrimination at all to you personally because you are a democrat. and it's the same question you wanted to keep the same wording so we could make a comparison. and again, we saw no change so we thought it was interesting. we asked whether or not you thought discrimination as an immigrant, not as a muslim, not as an american, but as an immigrant. and i thought that was very different thing than asking about discrimination because of your religion or because of anything else for that matter here. and again, the majority of muslims that we spoke to democratically happen to be older. in fact, in terms of the different populations that we looked at in middle easterners and south asians tend to have immigrated at least an rcmp are

attended to to have emigrated to the united states earlier in 2000, while our mexican population, for example and our american population -- more then. i don't think it was the majority, but more have integrated after 2000. so that may have something to do with it as well. >> selcuk. >> i agree. and i think if you asked them, you know, because of religion versus because of immigration, you're likely to get to from results. that's part of it. and age is another part. we are studying a much younger group and john studied arab think we have to recognize how difficult it is to express discrimination. if it happens to you, it's not easy. you just don't know if it's because of a legitimate dispute with your neighbor about a parking spot or they have something against you. and there's also an interesting

point here. a lot of muslims in this country have huge social capital before 9/11. this is one of the highest educated groups in terms of income, perhaps the highest income group if there is a beach to look at all the religions. this is from a report again. so they have everything to be american, for american troops, which is again a difference between muslims in this country and muslims in europe. then 9/11 happened. and then there is shock, you know, this couldn't be happening to us because we did everything right and then all of a sudden this is happening. so i think our persons are telling us that there's huge dispute at home between generations. the older that they are, the less likely that they want to recognize discrimination because there is no culture there to deal with it, you know, brian hughes a colleague of mine studies kitchen table for them

african-americans to understand discrimination to prepare them to deal with discrimination. well, that's not happening in muslim households today because the parents are clueless. in fact was happening with what we call parenting appearance, keep on parenting appearance. kids are the ones who protect their parents from discrimination. so i think all of the interesting thing is happening there. and it's very interesting i think see how this is going to work out in the future. i think that the level of discrimination is there. and so it will be hard for me to suggest that the integration of a finding which is very hopeful to me will be there for the next generation. i think it's a ridiculous effect. >> thank you. okay, we're going to open up the floor for questions. and if you could just -- are going up to microphones going around. if he could stay your name and affiliation and whether your

question is for the panel in general or if you have a question for a specific person or persons on the panel. and we'll start with you. >> thank you. >> your name and affiliation. >> oralia puente friend gw center and school. a number of you mentioned the health and education as sort of reasons why people have migrated to this country as well as what continues to maybe try their satisfaction or happiness of being here. i'm curious whether any of you or all of you would maybe make one recommendation for how you would hope, health and education systems or institutions would utilize your findings? what could they -- how could they use this to make adaptations to what were doing in health education in order to influence the sort of care -- the quality of that care. >> selcuk. >> you know, dealing with here

in dealing with a grant from the foundation for child and the research that they are funding is about were falling 200 kids, which is what i presented here. we were following 200 citizens. all the immigrants attending schools and were asking their teachers and parents the same question about the child. so what we're trying to understand his cultural continuity of fact? perception of immigrants and their culture, how does it affect teachers expectation, which we know as a huge shock your period and we are that when teachers perceive the parents much different from themselves in terms of value, we call that body differences. when that happens, the expectation drops. and this happens even when to measure independent of the child's actual achievement level. and a six-year-old cognitive

skills test. despite the fact that the teacher knows this is a good kid doing everything right, they still expect less if they feel like the parents are not sharing their values. so there are huge implication in terms of future training. we have all these numbers coming in, immigrants coming into school systems and there's not enough in terms of preparing our teachers, school professionals, psychologists to work with this population. >> by mike echo bacher added to that a little bit. again, if you were thinking about the schools part of it than the health part of it. and where we've been engaged in a project with multiple support for child development around looking at the implications for young english language learners or dual burners. i think what a product about the sort of changing demographic and how it's spreading across the country is huge immigrations. this is like new york or chicago, ime, the type large

immigrant populations, you know, going back centuries now and has had that as part of their education system or may be equipped to do it and maybe have the personnel. pivotal to speak the language as well. i mean, there's a big divide who are young people are in the other generation are. but then part of is dealing with the new immigrant destinations. and so what is happening in the charlotte, you know, i have no idea what's happening in charlotte. i'm taking this as an example. is this gigantic change in the last 20 years and in other places coming in no, and what's happening as we said this is a large heterogeneous population for non-latinos in many of these areas. you know, there's the march refugee populations in recent years and the buffer we can to be done on that. i think the same is true for health care, but i haven't looked at health care, so it often enough as anything on health care.

>> i would just as that's exactly right. we do a lot of research on education and a lot of focus groups in the midwest of educators and there are refugee populations. they're also the main immigrant populations in general. and i would say one of the main things that administrators tell us when we ask what is the one that would help improve your schools is to be able to higher educators don't look like our class, that know the new people that are coming in. there very often briefed about and they're often concerned the schools of education are not training people for multicultural education. he assumption is that the midwest looks today like it did yesterday in 10 years ago and so on. and educators know that's not the case. >> thank you. back there. >> dillon, american association. mr. chaundry touched on this and

you both said the education rates and financial are higher for both asian and muslim populations, but not as much with the latino populations. i was just wondering why a site and if anybody could chime in on this to see why that is there any data you found relating to that. >> thank you. >> so as i point to in my remarks, it mostly follows from parental education and parental skill level. and there's just -- it's to the immigrants are. for the immigrants coming from asia are very highly educated. i mean, more highly educated than the u.s. population on average. it's almost 80% are college graduates and so the equivalent of what u.s. grads -- may earn close to what the u.s. college graduates do. so it's a different population. all from central america and mexico, were educational

attainment levels are not as high and those who are migrating -- a larger proportion have lasted 12 years education and therefore have earnings equivalent to that. and so that is probably the largest factor, but there's certainly others. >> the immigration policy -- you know, those that come from asia can only come here in most cases for educational purposes or if they are professionals, they're coming for them. so it's again going back to pakistanis, for example. those who migrate to the united states from pakistan. those who migrate from england, the u.k., two different populations altogether. those that come here come there for education, highly educated or barely speak english. those who migrate to england -- i keep seeing the u.k. they come from villages mostly.

>> okay, in the back. >> hide, wendy cervantes with first focus. i've two questions. for john, i was curious to whether undocumented immigrants were like that specifically in it so if you think there would be changing levels of satisfaction or discrimination. that doesn't be curious to see what the effects of 2010 in terms of anti-immigrant policy would have almost levels. and also to mark, you mentioned education and the importance of that to the youth said she talked to. i'm wondering if you could speak to the importance of the possible importance of the dream act to immigrant who would endocytic tonight on legislation as well as the impacts would have money than their u.s. citizens younger siblings. >> we did look at undocumented immigrants thanks to hispanics gave guidance on how to ask the question. their questions in such a way to get answers here.

and by and large, the majority of undocumented immigrants we sampled were mexican -- and their views did skewed by and large lot with other mexican. so they did seem or discrimination overall. they were not more likely to say they the experience to personally, yet again i think is very interesting. and i'm sure that is demographically they were likely to be of lower income of course not to have a job. and more likely -- some of them are more likely trying to remember their mark likely to want to be citizen or not to legal residents. i seem to remember the answer is yes but i have to take a look. as to how things have changed since we've got her start in 2009 in 2010 with what's going on, i'm dying to find out the answer to that, but i don't know. i would love to be able to do this for the agency. >> on the dream act though, we haven't done anything with

directly how many young people would be impacted, et cetera. at the one things we did do recently as produce a report about unauthorized immigrants in the united states. and they're one of the things we found is for example there are 4 million gallons -- young people in the united states were born with one undocumented. there's also an additional 1.1 million young people who are themselves unauthorized immigrants. how many artifact they -- how many would qualify for the dream act or all of those folks going to be college-bound and perhaps benefit from it or military bound and perhaps benefit from something like a dream act, i don't know. as for the whole age range of zero to 18. with regards to education, to a tee across all these groups of latinos, we see very, very strong support for college education is important. if you want to be successful in life, this is what you've got to

do. when we asked latino son at school when they weren't in school, the number one reason was they needed to support their families. and i was actually the reason that was the dominant reason. second most common was my english skills are not where they need to be. but those are the two dominant reason for latinas such was they were not in school. of course the entire population of 16 to 25 are not going to be necessarily impacted by the dream act. >> appear in the front. >> hide, nigel smith from aarp. as you look at country versions, state of versions, who are the happiest immigrants in the u.s. right now? >> we were -- we are able not to do by country of origin, but we did do it by region of the world here. and middle easterners and

accordingly with muslims here tended to be the happiest out of our different groups that we looked at. so that's a very salvationcommittee station, mexicans and central south americans. >> appear in the front. >> hi, my name is zara atani from the uptime institute which is a public health nonprofit institute. i have a question for selcuk. thank you to you and all the panelists. sort of following on the happiness question in a surprising answer from john. why, selcuk, do you think you're finding you see a high-level demonstration reported and anxiety and depression, yet a member of your respondents saying discrimination has not affected my ability to

integrate. or i feel american. from a public-health standpoint i would beg to differ. we, and i would be in your sample although a little older are killing ourselves inside to fit in and away. what do you think there's that disconnected those answers? and what is your professional opinion about that? >> selcuk. >> it's a tough question. i mean, you don't see it as another group. and i've been struggling with that idea myself. it shouldn't be happening, in other words. you know, if they're such high level of discrimination. if you talk to them in her interviews and a hero kinds of stories. but yet, somehow they differentiate from their american identity. and i think, you know, some of the findings from john's report validate the point i'm about to make, which is they have no other place to go. above the groups they studied,

you know, this is the group. this is my home, there's nowhere else to go. it's also to keep in mind that the reference point is probably a place for there's not enough democracy. in terms of religious freedom, this is still the place for they can practice their religion. other people -- a lot of muslims in this country are actually coming from groups that are discriminated in the muslim community, in their home countries. that's a little fact. for example, minorities in turkey, where i'm from, there's a high she is community who's not very well received by the rest of the community in turkey. they're the ones who migrated the first. so there are a lot of internal dynamics as well. and a lot of the groups that i studied, you know, 95% is in

spite -- in terms of rates, this is a very highly -- it may be one of the highest again according to zogby report. so they see themselves as american. and they see the discrimination is unacceptable. so they somehow find a way to differentiate those sort of things. my american identity is mine and only mine. guess i could experienced discrimination, but those two things somehow even for a 12-year-old are two different things. so you know, it's not an easy answer, but -- >> okay, appear in the front. >> i'm at the national council of nebraska here in d.c. my question was a question or ajay and mark. so i'm curious a little bit. i like to break and you did with

rapidly growing populations. and i checked the local legislation and i couldn't help but notice that the state that are most likely to pass arizona like legislation are the ones with 500 to 200% immigrant population growth, which is not surprising to me. so i'm wondering mostly about, mark, you're finding from what young people perceive as being the biggest issues. and i was surprised not to see immigration. because i've known a lot of those states, least my experience has been a lot of the youth are concerned about that. i was wondering if he could talk may be about if you did a great down and what those states did say about immigration enforcement, especially newly emerging areas where they're really cracking down on the local level. >> so in this latino youth report, because the sympathizer not large enough to be able to do a state-by-state analysis, we interviewed 1200 young people. it's difficult for us to do something with that.

so going to the focus groups and ask him attain us to talk about issues that are most important to them, immigration did come out. sometimes the dream act would come up specifically. usually with groups of young latinos who are college going or were -- i just finished college. when we went to places where there wasn't a large number of latinos in college where we were looking at a high school group of kids, immigration issues kind of came up here but with most on the minds of these young latinos were issues of teen pregnancy, crime and dealing with the police. now that also turn into discussion of discrimination. and just education generally, just the challenges of school. not that it never did come out. it did come up in some respects for example of one of the focus groups one of the young man was actually from all fall the door and his parents were from el salvador's. and the father and mother have lost their jobs and are about to

return to el salvador and he was going to have to go back. and he was unsure about going back. he just didn't want to leave the united days. fatah was one of the discussions they got close to in some respects issues about the immigration experience. regards to crime and dealing with the police, a lot of it seemed to revolve around the tuna was feeling like males were being singled out. now whether or not that's true, we didn't get a sense of that in our particular report because we did not direct questions about that. but in the focus groups that did. >> okay, up here in the middle. >> i.e. on an issue mouth lincoln cloud in the d.c. area. no one has spoken about african and african diaspora. could you give your comments?

>> anybody done any studies particularly on the diaspora? ajay. >> we haven't actually. i think i can say that my colleagues and migration institute are just beginning the research study on people of african descent living in -- a recent african descent living in the united states. you know, it's a large and growing group. and so some of our work -- one of the fact sheet that just came out with about young children, birth to age, the fastest growing group of children immigrants of any group in the united states. i can say that much. and they represent 8% as you'd see in figure three from our documents of all children of immigrants. and they are -- again, all these are very large regions.

this great heterogeneity of different levels of education and other aspects of social capital within to the united states. but we haven't done africa specific research. >> is there any kind of break down a super africa they're coming from? >> well, and some of our work comments of our field work, this display specific. we see a lot of smaller refugees. so that's been something that we've done quite a bit. or really, africans coming from all over the united states. obviously thursday large population in this immediate area, the washington d.c. natural area and in this area they are mostly from east africa. >> did you all address africa at all? >> would've liked to but our sample was too small. i'm very curious myself.

>> hold on one second. let's get you a microphone. >> and with the economic institute. a colleague of mine is doing a paper coming up shortly. i'm not sure what the findings are, but its imprint on negative blacks are doing compared to black immigrants. >> okay, back there. >> the way immigrant families are defined for research purposes as i know ajay's is reports as foreign-born. have you seen any different in a child outcome anything about where both or one parent is foreign-born? >> ajay. >> we haven't. a couple of our reports now try to give you the break down. i think the last report my colleague and i did, how many

are in families that have to foreign-born parents versus one foreign-born parent to give you a demographic outlook on that. but i don't. we haven't looked at the outcomes, though i think that probably is very important to look at, especially for many of the integration things like language spoken at home, other fact there's fat or important integrations. so i hope all of us would do a bit more of that. we haven't done any outcomes work on that. >> we have time for one more question right here. >> first, thank you for taking my question. i've been holding my hand up. thank you. my name is oralia puente and i worked with the county for educational development. and with that i worked with the migrant head start program across the country, which are a program a population that's highly neglected.

probably about 97% of our population is mexican, undocumented, earning less than $20,000 for a family of four, migrating every month to those people that put the food, the vegetables on our table. and it's a population that we have seen very little attention. you're pro-transit of been on tv, but very little attention in terms of research and data. just beginning now. we have to prove because we're head start program, more scrutiny like everybody else that we are producing and other evidence to do that, but the research is not there. and so, the population, the children, 92% are american citizens, parents are not -- so they don't get any health services. and now states are beginning to put pressure and not get it. ..

has that population been studied? was that included in your study? because that would bring the numbers, like income numbers and other things down. has that been studied? >> it's a population we have not looked closely at the pew hispanic center and on this study on young latinos while they are undoubtedly migrant -- children of migrant workers in

this particular report it's not something that we looked at specifically. even so, i would fear this amplifies this might be too small to be able to say something with some certainty. however i agree these are all very, very interesting questions, and in past reports we've done at the center where we've asked about things such as have you been stopped by the police and asked about your immigration status and 90% of latinos in tackles and eight said that happened to them in the previous year and there was no difference between the native born and foreign-born in saying good. those are questions we have looked at but not specifically on a migrant worker population more broadly latinos native-born or foreign-born but we have done work looking at their experiences with law enforcement. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. you certainly reestablished issues worth

>> here's a look at our schedule. next, a discussion on african american voters and candidates in 2010. then, it's washington journal.

topics include research on how to change state pension programs and key mid-term political races in battleground states. then, after that on "newsmakers," chairman of the federal deposit insurance corporation, sheila bair on how the fdic views the nation's mortgage situation. tonight, c-span's campaign 2010 coverage continues with a live debate between democrat john parkway and republican rand paul vying for the seat from retiring jim bunning. later on, another live debate between washington senate candidates, patty murray and republican challenger deano rossy face off in their second debate. senator murray is running for a fourth term. mr. rossy is a former nominee for washington governor but lost in 2004 and 2008. the debate is courtesy komotv

in seattle. see it live at 10:00 eastern tonight at c-span. >> c-span's annual video documentary competition, $50,000 in prizes. this year's theme, washington,

d.c. through my lens. for complete rules and information on how to upload your video, go to student cam.org. >> now, a discussion on african american voters and candidates in 2010. the joint center for political and economic studies hosted this event. we'll hear about the results of a new study they conducted that looks at the role african americans could play in the mid-term. this is a little more than an hour. (j1 given the extensive polling and

election analysis we do from year to year, we have lock been a leading authority on the black electorate voting experience of african americans and their views. so today we want to bring some of our expertise to bear as americans prepare to go to the polls to vote in the mid-term elections. much has been said and written about the 2010 campaign season and about the prospects of the democrats holding on to its majority in the house and the senate. we will hear from observations from two experts in voting patterns who will give us some insight into how african americans and hispanic voters might affect key races as well as the overall outcome of this year's elections. we have dr. ruse, a senior fellow at the center for american progress. he is one of the companies in the country. he will offer his perspective on how key voting blocks will

impact the outcome. and we have our senior political analyst at the joint center. he will present his pre-election analysis, black voters and candidates in the 2010 mid-term election which focuses on where and how the african american vote has the potential to affect election outcomes. anyone wishing to have a copy of the analysis, there are can also get it off of our website. i welcome beth of you here today. >> good morning. first, i would like to say a word about ron walters. many of you know of ron

walters. he was a remarkable man, a true idealist, many of us when we attended his funeral didn't even have a clue of how many things he had done and accomplished in his lifetime. ron and i didn't always agree about the way things were or how things worked, but ron and i always agreed on the way things should end. and we're going to miss ron very much here at the joint center, and i'm going to miss him personally. at events like this, i could expect ron to walk in maybe a few minutes late and afterwards have a spirited discussion with him about what my research meant. so we're going to miss ron very much here. ok. the upcoming elections. there's no getting around it, it's going to be a bad year for

the democrats. for two election cycles in a row the democrats have won about as much as they possibly could, in federal elections, and on top of it the economy is very bad right now. it's improved from a year, year and a half ago, but it's still very, very bad. the democrats control washington and when one party controls washington and the economy is in the dumps, the voters usually look to throw the ins out. and right now the democrats are the ins. so it's going to be a tough year for the democrats. how tough a year it's going to be for the democrats is very much going to depend upon their base. and there is no part of their base that is more important than the african american vote. it's the most loyal voters for the democrats in the last