the greatest security threat, a nuclear attack. does she not realize that her vote to go to war with iraq, a country that has no arms -- she voted to go to war with iraq. as a result of 4000 americans who died and over 100 thousands iraqis and muslim people have been dislocated and died. does she not realize that this might be considered a terrorist attack by americans, and somebody may retaliate? vote, as lincoln chafee pointed out, was the worst decision in american history. guest: bernie sanders made the same point as well. saw in the debate, they use her vote repeatedly to sort of question her judgment and whether she had what it takes to be commander in chief. i thought her response to that was pretty interesting.

.he said, i regret that vote i have been saying that was the wrong decision. we were misled. there was false intelligence about wmds. she said i had dozens of debates with candidate obama in 2008, where he really hammered me on this vote. after that, he chose me as his secretary of state. after that, i was in the situation room when they were deciding whether they would go after osama bin laden. so she essentially said, i have learned from some of the mistakes i have made but my records show my judgment when it comes to foreign policy. the american voter will decide whether they take that to be true. guest tendon molly o'toole from defense 11. thank you for the time and information. been mollyt has o'toole from defense one. we will be back tomorrow as we

are every day, 7:00 eastern time, for more "washington journal." have a great day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] looking at our live coverage on the c-span networks, coming up in about one hour, the heritage foundation hosting a discussion on birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment, live at 11:00 eastern. the white house coverage today. hillary clinton is on the road, town hall meeting in machine, new hampshire. c-span2, president obama

and the president of south korea will hold a joint news conference following their white house meeting today. that is scheduled to start at 1:40 eastern. tonight, former defense undersecretary michele flournoy speaks at a conference for women and foreign policy. she talks about the growing number of women holding positions at the pentagon. my first tour in the pentagon back in the 1990's in the clinton administration, i was womanf lonely being a leader at that time, so i said let's have a lunch for all of the senior women leaders in the pentagon. table.at one it was either eight or 10. for weeks afterwards, there was a conspiracy very that the women got together and had lunch. what were they plotting, what was going on?

i was in least when the pentagon in 2012, i would say if you invited all the women leaders in the pentagon, you would overflow the executive dining room. , it isthe highest levels -- i was often the only woman in .he room, for many meetings i think it is improving at the agency but still, women are still definitely the minority. progress since the 1990's. definitely better now than it was. but more progress to be made. >> more from that conference on women and foreign policy posted by the bush school of texas a&m university. publishedine recently a series called reimagining infrastructure, looking at the state and future of america's infrastructure including transportation, community power, and guerrilla urban is on.

a discussion on that with a former housing and development official who led efforts in washington, d.c. to make that city more livable and walkable. it is hosted by the commonwealth club of california. >> as we all know, american infrastructure is crumbling. this includes congested airports, dusted water mains, and our roads are further examples of the way -- busted water mains, and our roads are further examples of the way that american infrastructure is crumbling. the gift problem lies not with this condition, but with the outdated philosophy that underlies it. much of the physical structure that we live with was imagined

and built in an era when economic growth was assumed to be a god-given right, natural resources seemed limitless, and no one had ever heard of climate change. today, that philosophy has manifested in the absence of meaningful mass transportation, water management systems, and designers had never considered that water would become scarce. also in food production systems with factory farms and the use of refrigerated trucks to carry foods across the country. resources grow scarcer and the concentration of carbon dioxide increases upwards and that philosophy has been revealed to be faulty. but more and more people are in place the -- are embracing a new philosophy, one that is hopeful and realistic. citizens, organizations, and

communities all across the country are beginning to understand the critical need to reimagine our critical infrastructure and the opportunity that such reimagining presents for a new philosophy to be put into practice. they are not talking about repairs or retrofits. that is not sufficient. they are talking about something completely different. the magazine of which i am editor has been publishing a series of articles called "reimagining infrastructure." we have identified infrastructure as an aspect of american life were people felt that they could make the most difference. as part of a partnership, we published 12 articles over the course of two years that showcased projects from around the country and we are setting a new bar for how we think about infrastructure. these articles describe the way in which we look at public and private enterprises,

communities, and grassroots groups that are coming together to create infrastructure that is created on sustainability, community engagement, and innovation. to see all of these articles and to learn more about the projects, you are welcome to go to our website at orionmagazine.org/infrastructure . i would like to turn this over to our experts, harriet is at the office of community planning at the u.s. department of housing and urban development. she has extensive experience on the local, state, and national levels in these communities and works on helping these economies. harriet worked to make washington, d.c. a walkable, likable, livable city, redefining the city's zoning code for the first time into -- first time in 50 years.

my next guest currently leads a master plan for the ocean beaches in california. he has but -- has developed an exhibition of a historical survey of san francisco. he is a lecturer and an instructor of the graduate program of urban and regional planning at san jose and has taught at the san francisco art institute. ginger is the author of three books and has published at they -- published essays in "harpers," "the new york times," and "orion." she has just completed her last article on infrastructure about burlington, vermont's decision to take control of its own power supply. ginger has received grants for

the arts and the eisenhower foundation as well as residency groups and the center for land use interpretation and she lives in new york city. harriet, let's begin with you. harriet: great, thank you, chip. i am granted talk a little bit about transportation and what i am going to tell you about my experience in the district of columbia demonstrates a little bit about what chip is talking about -- thank you -- about how infrastructure can help a place be more sustainable. it can help engage the community and could actually demonstrate innovation. so infrastructure in the deficits that we had in the category are not good to be met overnight or remedied overnight.

we need to also think about our infrastructure in a different sort of way. we did that in washington, d.c. where we had comparative advantages. we had the metro system, we had a bus system, so we had both rail and buses. we had a great network of walkable streets, right really wonderful -- right? really wonderful street networks but that does not mean that we had a lot of people writing the buses and trains or people walking on the streets. one of things that became clear to us was with these competitive advantages, having these assets, we could really do a lot more with them. we really began to see chance rotation -- began to see transportation and the choices we could bring to the city as an even greater's source -- greater source of comparative advantages.

i have a number of graduate students and the audiences and i heard them talking before our program began about how rough it is to graduate from college with so much college debt. we have a dozen colleges and universities in washington and for us, the strategy in d.c. was to see what we could do to retain the students who got educated in the cities of -- city and what we could do to attract more college students to be there? we thought if we could make transportation really inexpensive and so that people could it around and meet every daily need, that that could be another source of comparative advantage. indeed, that crushing college debt really prevents people from being able to make a start on the rest of their lives. so giving people the chance to pay down that debt without having to make a car payment or pay for the maintenance of their automobile seemed like a really great thing. we knew that that strategy was working in d.c. where he saw a

national ranking that said that we had the highest amount of college debt in the city, so we were winning, and the lowest amount of default rate it we also had the lowest amount -- highest a lot of talent and we had businesses looking for knowledge to workers coming to the district of columbia, so it was a successful strategy in that sense. transportation is a form of affordability. having transportation choices mean that the second-biggest household expense after housing could be much, much less. in fact, if you put those two expenses together, none of us have a housing bank account at a transportation bank account, i mean, you could really make another more expensive city a lot more affordable because you could just increase transportation. that helps people a lot at every income level in the district of columbia. so it turns out the

transportation is about the source of resilience. do you remember that little event that we had in 2008 called the great recession? in the desert of columbia, we had something happening very odd in 2008. hundreds of cars started dropping out of the vehicle registration rolls. we asked, what was going on? people were dialing down their transportation costs because they could've because they were concerned about the economy. they might have lost a job or someone in their household had a cut in their hours, and they were trying to manage it the best they could to weather the financial storms. what happened is that we had very little mortgage defaults in the district of columbia, very little bankruptcy and foreclosure, compared to the rest of the region to be at we had the same jobs and housing markets and that was based on whether people could dial down the transportation costs. another example of transportation choices providing

resilience is that on august of 2011, we had a very rare he -- very rare event in the district, we had an earthquake. they had no idea what was going on. 10 minutes after the earthquake, the office of personnel management, in their infinite wisdom, let every single federal worker go at the same a second. so we had a massive traffic jam. 10 minutes after that, every single like share bike in the downtown was gone -- bike share bike in the downtown was gone. if you are like me, you have a totally and utterly monday and commute home and you could sail past people, but if you were in a car, you were in that car for 2-3 hours trying to get home. so those transportation choices, using those spaces on the street and sidewalk meant that we could

evacuate a lot of people from the center of the city without having to build any new infrastructure to do it. transportation choices can be a source of health. at this point, more than half of the trips in the district are taken by walk or bike bike or by transit. so -- or by bike or by transit. so our poorest people are still much healthier than the average poor people in the country because they have a way of getting daily exercise. transportation can be a source of neighborhood safety and vitality. the more you can get people to walk and bike, literally the more eyes you have on the street and a safer it is for people to be out. you get a different sort of traffic when it comes to retail and other establishments. that lower costs that you have for transportation also means that you have more disposable income to spend locally, because

if you have auto mobility as your main way of getting around, and if you use it that goes out of the local economy, but that is not so if you use a bike or you walk or use mass transit. presentation choices are an enormous source of access to jobs and to opportunity. i mean, imagine if you live in a place where an automobile is the necessary prerequisite to even a first step on the run of economic opportunity -- rung of economic opportunity. it is a huge source of economic mobility in the district of columbia. and finally, i will say that transportation is also an enormous source of transport -- source of innovation. you live in a city that is like the district of columbia and it has experienced a lot of

innovation. about car to go and zip car and uber and lyft and all of these other choices. they are taking advantage of things that shows the millennial generation that automobiles, as it turns out is something that is used 5% of the time and is parked 95% of the time. so millennial's were smart enough to realize that they didn't want to use that on-demand service and it has really spurred a lot of -- they didn't want to use those cars but instead use on-demand service and at has really spurred a lot of innovation.

a lot of these services can be called in an instant using a smart phone. it is kind of ironic that it is so radically reshaping transportation when in fact in the early 20th century, the disruptive technology was actually the automobile. human pattern was basically the same way -- travel patterns were basically the same way for the last 6000 years, and it was only after we embraced the automobile that we changed the infrastructure and the very form of our city to accommodate that technology. i think one of the things that we have learned as humans, we like walkable neighborhoods. everything about her quality of life is enhanced by -- our quality of life isn't has by the quality of choices and in cities like washington and separate cisco, we get to see that on a daily basis. -- washington and san francisco, we get to see that on a daily basis. and with that i will turn it to my colleagues. >> good evening, i had a great pleasure last week of visiting

hoover dam, which is in many ways, the apotheosis of a previous generation's iteration of infrastructure. we may all have concerns about that philosophy today, but it is extraordinary work of civic if the structural art at a beautiful, pitiful thing to see. -- beautiful, beautiful thing to say. -- see. so the urbanization of the west would not have been possible if not for the hoover dam and civil projects. it is very much on my mind as we reflect tonight on the meaning of infrastructure and how that meaning is changing. i am going to talk primarily about projects here in san francisco, especially the ocean beach master plan, which is an attempt to create a long-term plan for the adaptation of san francisco's specific coast, which is facing severe erosion

from coastal storms, which is likely to worsen as the levels rise. it is really a story of a complex of traditional, fixed infrastructure that is placed there to protect coastal water and sewage infrastructure. and that traditional, fixed infrastructure is facing a very uncertain and dynamic future. and so the story of coming to terms with that and trying to plan for that ends up touching a lot of sort of key themes about infrastructure how -- how infrastructure is changing and what we can do to fix that. there is three miles of very -- three miles of beach subjected to very heavy and intense surf. it is a recreational area and it

is a national park and part of a system of national, local, and regional parks that are very popular throughout the region and it is where we go on the rare occasion where san francisco is hot. the ocean beaches is thronged with people and it is a beloved landscape all of the time. the complex of the infrastructure that i was referring to was built to get san francisco to comply to the clean water act of the 1970's, and san francisco had a combined sewer and water storm systems, which means that the storm graves go to the same place that toilets and sinks go to read that you can then treat the stormwater water, but it is a disadvantage that the system can become overwhelmed in a wet weather system. so from that infrastructure, they were able to reduced the number of issues to about 70 per year and now there are about

seven per year. most are unaware that that is the case. unfortunately, the system is located immediately adjacent to the coast were this is taking place, and the city's response has been very dramatic. there has been ad hoc place of boulders and they do a good job of protecting against erosion, but also compromise the quality of the beach by covering it up, it narrows the beach by degrading both the safety and access to the water and also the ascetics -- aesthetics to the beach. this also got them in hot water with the california coastal commission. so that is the landscape that my organization came to, requested

by some community-led task forces led by grants by the california coastal conservancy, the separate cisco utility commission, and the national parks service. -- the san francisco utility commission, and the national parks service. there is something that is political deadlock about that and there is a sense of either/or, so we initiated a two and a half your process in which we tried to really convey the technical challenges that we were facing with the current infrastructure system, the way the coastal dynamic shapes the beach and drives that erosion, the user issues, and we tried to get all of the stakeholders to understand how many different things this place had to solve for, and find a way forward.

so through that process, we came up with the ocean beach master plan. fundamentally, it includes many recommendations, but the core of the plan is to incrementally close a stretch of our coastal roads, the highway, over a period of decades, and use the space that you pick up by doing that to create a much more flexible approach to the problem, and going from a kind of either or -- either/or mode to total management. and beach nursemaid was at the place where it is being dredged for application purposes, and low-profile structural protection and it is much less intrusive than the armory

solution, and since that time, we've been working with the agencies to implement various pieces of the plan. there is a lot involved, not only with the protection of the coast, but the way to make that possible. so i think that this story sort of touches on a number of different important themes. one is the idea that we need to be designing for change at this point. the future is not going to look like the past. in some ways, we have an advantage at ocean beaches because we can already see erosion happening. it is not an abstract, someday problem. this was a problem that was already taking place. that kind of adept of management approach is something we need to be thinking about, not one of fixed solution, but a series of solutions over time and by how the landscape changes. the second is the idea of a

multi-objective approach -- multipronged approach. my use in my imperative to win out here means that we like to the good about this as the city is bringing to planning to be mostly the process of scientists and engineers and academics. the group of city planners looks at multiple systems and how they interact and finding the most optimal solution as quickly as possible. another way of thinking about that at ocean beaches that we were talking about is the interaction of several different infrastructures, some of which are somewhat more novel to think of in that way, so opposite of sewer infrastructure is also the roads, also the beach itself in the ecosystem services that that provides in terms of habitat, in

terms of recreation and so forth, and then also the system itself, the pre-existing situations and a new approach to a less obtrusive structure. thinking about how these different kind of imperatives present themselves with a big part of what we are doing. finally, just the importance of water, both fresh and salt, as we contemplate the severe drought that we are facing here in california. so many of these issues relate to water in terms of managing the combined sewer and stormwater flow of the system and also dealing with coastal erosion and damage caused by ocean water, so i will hold it there and we will look forward to more discussion. ann: this is an clark of the commonwealth club of california,

and we have the principal deputy and assistant secretary from the office of community planning and development at hud. ginger is a journalist and historian and you just heard from benjamin grant, who is an urgent -- urban design policy advocate here in san francisco. our next speaker will be ginger. ginger: so i am a writer, not a planner, so i don't have the same deep level of expertise is my fellow panelists. i did write a book about niagara falls, which i sometimes described as a giant piece of infrastructure disguised as a natural wonder. then i subsequently wrote a book about the interstate highway system, which i came to see as a giant natural wonder disguised as a piece of infrastructure. [laughter] ginger: which i suppose that is why "orion" suggests i write a

piece on community power and reimagining infrastructure, the series of sparked tonight's panel. reporting kind of gives you a sense of the big picture, so i thought i would just kind of i thought i would just share some of the big picture ideas, and also some things that i learned in writing about community power, specifically focusing on burlington, vermont, but looking at other community power projects across the nation. a number of things were surprising about this. the first the variety of projects that were happening, and the variety of places where they were happening. to me, it did not seem surprising that burlington, , the npr listening, our seasonal chocolate making -- artesanal chocolate making town

decided to make a biomass plant ownnd generating their power in the 1980's. when they made a contract with the wind producer, they were then able to store 100% of their renewably,otably -- and also locally, being the first major city to do that. of course they are vermont s largest city. s built aachusette wind turbine, and it was so successful, they built the second one. i was a bit more surprised when

the same thing happen in minnesota, and counts as far as utah where creating solar projects. town, that i was not able to go to, but i wish i would have gone, another community power town purchased an old mining plants and rehabbed it, and started generating their own power. the range of the project , and the types of communities but decided to get involved doing this. the question is why did these communities do this. the was also surprising, variety of reasons the places decided to develop their own power. theirgton has rescued municipal utility, in the hands

of a private company, and they did it because of money. the rates were too high. not surprising. still, a reason that many towns are trying to get in on it. community power can be a source of revenue for the town. , actuallyc power public power consumers pay significantly less on average than private power consumers. some towns wanted to develop green power. boulder, colorado recently did not renew the contract with their private power producer because they were tired of the company dragging its feet on developing green power. the citizens, great, we will do it ourselves. another reason is to get more responsiveness from your power company. winter garden, florida needed a series of a legible upgrades, providerrivate

would not do it. you're in intermunicipal utility. they invested them money, some taxpayer dollars, and i needed upgrades. now, they are actually paying less for their power than they were before. another common reason is the typical buy local reason that we think of when we think of our food systems, often. some towns are thinking this way when it comes to power, buying power, they would like to buy it locally and it keeps jobs in the community, profits in the community. howard, south dakota even used it as a means of rural economic development. tractored out of work drivers, and use them to drive a total economic redevelopment for the town.

the price number three for me is that all of these towns are part of a larger movement, a movement you may have heard of, towards distributive power. one of the things i think all of us have been thinking about is infrastructure being more .istributed in the new century in 20th century will electrical engineering was for electrical generation to be centralized, vertically integrated, and scaled up. big, huge power plants out in the pucker brush, as described by one of my sources. the 21st century seems to be largely about reversing the trend. a little aside, this is also , the often makes it more controversial, and not less. surprisingly, you might need people squawking more about the , rather than a huge

coal plant, because they do not see that is it is often the brush.cker i get is useful to the infrastructure, and when we can see it, and when we don't. surprise them are five was no surprise really at all which the end, it became clear to me that we are not going to rebuild our entire turbineal grade one win at a time, as much as we would like to do that. we're not going back to the 19th entry when every farm had its own windmill, and every factory had its own dam. the great value in what these communities, who are developing down power -- the great power they are providing is giving us a chance to rethink our structure, and how it works.

it is aging in two ways, and i think we will be probably talking a lot more about this. it is old-fashioned, it has been around a long time, certainly are electrical infrastructure has not changed much in the way it works since thomas edison wired a mansion in new york. it is pretty much the same system. it is also old-school. it is based on an old model of thinking about other just the, and how it should work. that is optimized for those, centralized power plants way out in the pucker brush. in developing our own power, communities are thinking about what our new power grid a look like. they are thinking about a grid scale,cludes these small local, and frequently renewable sources, instead of a system that for much of its history was virtually, or

literally, a monopoly. that does not mean the utilities will go away. they will be more critical than ever. the will have to enable distribution of green power, they will have to get smarter, and interface with what is being called the internet of things, possibly with our electrical cars, phones, appliances. it will have to get more sophisticated about pricing so that consumers are rewarded or .or using less power the utilities are going to have to become a partner in increasing efficiency and developing more green power, which means, unfortunately, i think i think, we will all have to get involved in inking about the boring, nitty-gritty of rewriting our pricing system so that utilities, instead of being rewarded for increasing demand, are rewarded for decreasing usage.

thinkingot of fun about electricity. i guess i'm kind of an infrastructure geek, but the piece tied into a central theme in my work, and i think, in thinking generally around the reimagining infrastructure series, which is that we tend to think of infrastructure as this vague saying,big, that it is sadly how things are, the status quo. it is this huge, giant ship, you can't turn it around. at the same time, we are aware that we need to rethink a number of our very critical systems, certainly in electrical infrastructure, power grid, the has basically function as a hand, tipping the scale for a century. we have to think of how to

remake that towards more renewable sources of power. harriet mentioned transportation infrastructure. i'm sure we are all interested in inking about rethinking and infrastructure -- an infrastructure that has encouraged sprawl. then mentioned hoover dam, which we might also feel critically at this time, certainly with his audience, that it is time to rethink a federal system of water and taliban -- entitlement. news that i took away from working on this piece is it .s not impossible we are always changing it. dismantled0 years we complicated system

of rail, and replaced it with auto mobility. byt change was driven incentives, regulation, and desire. can apply those same things to energy, determination, and the same level of desire to reimagining our same infrastructure, and change the way the world works. [applause] ann: thank you, ginger, very much. this is the commonwealth club of california. fight is on the internet. -- find us on the internet. ann clark. we have come to the point in the program where we have questions from our audience.

first of all, i would like to far. our speakers so harriet of the office of community planning. benjamin grant, who is the urban in sanpolicy director francisco, and ginger, whom you just heard from, a journalist, environmentalists, writer, an historian. now we turn to our moderator, editor in chief of orion and executive director of the orion society. you have the chart now to ask the audience questions, and have our panel discuss them. we have a number of great questions here from the audience. the first one will go to you, harriet, because it makes reference to the federal government, and you are representative of the federal government. fromuestion is, shifting

auto used to other forms of transportation, how can we get the federal government to shift loads?es to non-auto harriet: you might make the argument of the federal government is already doing that by refusing to be authorized a gasoline tax, which basically bees states and localities more or less on their own for transportation. in some ways, that really favors evenking, walking, and transit over costly highway expansions, when we can basically paid to not maintain the things we are to have. was aas -- maybe it slightly facetious answer, but i think, in general, ginger talks about desire, i think

acrosse are seeing the country, they see these transportation choices being important parts of their economy and competitive future. more importantly the is are investing in transit, with or without the benefit of the federal partnership or significant federal funding. as many of you know, the federal overies have favored roads transit, just the terms of the share that the federal government is willing to pay. the fact that there is less money for all of those things is probably more of a disadvantage for roadbuilding been transit, or the other modes. that because of the use,g links between land and the value of land around , 86% of all the office

construction is underway in the entire region is literally a quarter-mile or less from transit. it is on top of transit. , if you're not developing on transit, you're not selling or leasing any office space. i think that is increasingly what cities are experiencing. i don't think you are getting that kind of payback from new road expansions. >> giving expansion in the bay can walkifornia, how

ability and likability be increased? ben: this is something that spur is working on quite a bit in san jose. we started working in that city very deliberately partly because it is the largest area in the bay area far as population, but much morese it looks like the problems of urbanism, rather than the problems of san francisco, which is an odd hothouse, as compared to other areas. it turned out to be a very difficult problem to achieve oft we call the retrofitting suburbia. if you build a place around the car, you don't just build the place around the car, you build

mobility,ound auto regulations, zoning, and codes. you build lending assumptions, a whole host of factors that go into shaping the environment. if you are going to turn it disdainit takes a real engagement on all of those fronts. weaknesses of the traditional planning and design is to show a picture of what a good, walkable neighborhood looks like, and say, i showed you what it looks like, why are you not building it? it turns out to be a more challenging of the battle then you may have first imagine. it is worth it is starting to bear fruit. there is very much interest, not only in san jose, but suburban communities all around the country to create these neighborhoods. our affordable, more livable,

and better in terms of public health outcomes. >> can i jump in? i will respectfully doe disagree and say that the rethinking of the strets, whether it be public cafes, bike lanes, or narrower roadways is the subject of a lot of guerrilla activity -- guerrilla ,rbanism across the country showing people what it is like, sometimes doing it overnight, often with the tacit approval of government officials, never the explicit approval. in some ways, the street itself thing,nderfully mutable and how wide and narrow it is is sometimes a matter of street furniture, and also will.

the street might be easier to remake them lots of other things great i will just say, we have an example in our region of the place that was on the cover of "books," tysons corner, which now has light rail. all of those parking lots are being made with a greater network of streets -- gridded network of streets. .hey are adding urban amenities it will not happen overnight, but in 25 years, you know, it will look like a real city. that is a pretty amazing thing. they dropped the "corner" from the name, and their aspirations are urban. ginger: that is a really interesting model to look at. in cities, versus remaking the

urban landscape, new york has been quite successful in a number of these shifting streets out of car usage, and particularly out of our last transportation commissioner, who was really dedicated to moving .- putting more bike lanes in they found that when they close a large part of times square and turned it into cafes and tables, it became a highly functional public place. traffic improved. there are these interesting models of things like that. tysons, iser, or even more interesting to me because it was always held up as the worst possible example of a sprout created -- sprawl created community. to respond to

what harriet said because i agree with your disagreement of me, but it points to a number of issues. a lot of those examples of guerrilla urbanism are illegal influential, which pokes at our assumptions of how we use public space. have an incredibly influential, and that touches on a whole large set of themes and infrastructure today, which our tactical and temporary approaches, which we have reducedin this era of budget resources and also constraints that a great way to try things out is on a temporary basis. most people will tolerate most anything for a short period of time if they know it is going away. >> i wonder if you can keep going in that vein and talk

about work that you have done using the arts, film, as a way of increasing people's awareness of themselves as users of infrastructure, and the way that the arts can help people understand better how much infrastructure impacts their lives? that is so much what the orion project has been about, not only in its soaring telly, but also examples of how the arts can help people think differently. ben: sure. i think the genesis of that question is that i was involved in an organization called city space, interventions and public , and about film festivals events like that. this was 10 years or so ago. there is and is german's hunger for lori the idea of what the city is.

to conduct that exultation in urban space is a very engaging and exciting thing to do. we would have a festival of short films about cities, for example. we would do it in an empty lot, and get a large number of people interested in exploring these questions. much broaderof a movement in this country to take the country not as a piece of practical interest for sure, but also as a set of the units is a russian about how we interact with one another. what is the nature of our democratic society? had we lived along with one another in public space? questions to achieve economic policy, community development, and so forth. i think that is part of our broader urban moment of getting

over the latter half of the 20th injury, and embracing our cities again. part of that is trying to figure out how to tell that story to one another. >> part of what we learned in the orion project was getting a sense of just exactly how broken our american infrastructure is, and how much needs to be changed, and how expensive it is not just to maintain and retrofit, but fundamentally reimagine how infrastructure works. the next question for the audience is very germane to publicow do we finance partner -- public-private partnerships? ginger, this is something that you may be looked at in burlington, how were they able to afford that, and what sort of partnerships were at play? i can speak briefly.

i think harry as a lot more defamatory. with hurling to electric district, which -- with the burlington electric district, and symptoms were essential in their shift to green power. they were able to make their utility profitable by generating renewable power, selling credits, selling renewable power credits. they actually generate more renewable energy than they need, and some the credits to other there, which, when i sat and talk to them about it, he gave me a headache eventually. it was so collocated. a reasonablegiving sense of how public you the whole structure was. it may be realize that there is a fine balance of working with private developers who develop some of these power resources, working with state and federal

incentives in order to make the whole thing make financial sense. i really want to defer to harriet. harriet: what i would say goes back to something that was mentioned at the beginning. our infrastructure crisis is not just a question of having aging infrastructure. betterhat we need infrastructure. we need infrastructure that is place making, like ben described, that is multi-purpose, adaptable, resilient to a changing climate. that is part of the reason that sit on theestments sidelines. i think this is a moment where, in every major infrastructure transportation, water, sewer, telecommunications -- we are at a major inflection point. the straight line we used to be able to draw from 40 years in

the past of 40 years in the future for demand -- we cannot do that anymore. technology and climate, changing demand, all of these things are making it impossible for us to forecast, and it makes it was the first somebody to invest in projects like that. we need to do more to future proof our infrastructure, and do more commuting case rent, scenario planning, think about weather, andsevere other climate related impacts. i think that is part of the reason, in the federal government, at hud, and with the white house, the treasury, and half a dozen other federal cies, we have developed an initiative called "build america," to get more

private investment in our infrastructure, and also deliver better infrastructure for those investments. that means more free development, more planning, and more infrastructure that performs in the way that i think a lot of the panel has discussed , more distributive cut adaptable. there is a famous quote attributed to winston churchill. he said, gentelman, we are out of money, now we have to think. [laughter] that is exactly where we are. that is probably a very good thing for us. it is sobering to realize how far along other countries are ahead of us in thinking about sustainability, infrastructure, and how that is often encoded into law. the question from the audience is a variant on that. see resilient

infrastructure be adopted internationally, particularly for countries and cities most threatened by climate change? en: i will take a bite of a small piece of that. we have had a fair amount of ineraction with the dutch thinking about coastal thegement, certainly in northeast. the dutch, of course, have an 800 year history of managing their coast. s, there'stain lengt something very troubling about landscape that is the .utch coast on the other hand, we can increasingly no longer attend that nature is out there as this

pristine wilderness, and our job is to be as small as we can be -- our virtue lies in being as small as we can be, and let the wilderness happened. increasingly, we are in a situation where our foot is on a , and ourale necessities for managing necessities have to meet that challenge. the traditional, philosophical boundary between the city and nature is breaking down. in that sense, the dutch have become much more ecologically conscious than they once were. i think american environmentalists are increasingly becoming aware of the fact that we need to figure out how to manage these processes, and we need to let cities and m nature have a symbioic relationship, rather than keep them separate.

those are bunch of different ideas, but a set of l lessons that i learned from the international context. i would at one thing to that and that is scale. we have a very fragmented structure in our city, and a lot of power is given to different units of government, and cooperation is unnatural. in many other parts of the world, it is a little easier sometimes have there is less -- because there is less democracy. i'm not advocating that, but governments make it easier for things to happen at the level of european, country, and union, a much large-scale. that is actually the scale at which natural disasters occur. i know that is one advantage that other countries have that we need to learn from.

ann: business an -- this is ann clark. i want to thank our panel tonight who has been with us, and the wonderful information, suggestions, and discussion we have had. harriet, who is principal deputy for the office of community planning and development at huf. ginger, who i an environmentalist, historian, and writer, and benjamin grant -- >> we will break away from the last few minutes of this with a reminder that you can find it on c-span.org. we will go over to washington for a discussion on the 14th amendment and birthright andzenship with james ho john eastman talking about

birthright citizenship. just getting underway now at the heritage foundation. >> i would ask you in-house to check that cell phones have been silence, as we prepare to begin. of course, we will post the program on the heritage home page for everyone's future reference. fault, is anthis opportunity to announce the heritage of the foundation reference. we have copies available if you would be interested. for those on the twitter world, we of course have our ution as we continue through today's discussion, for those who want to make direct comments on the program.

discussion is john malcolm. please join me in welcoming john malcolm. [applause] i want to welcome you all to the face in our seven part series. i hope to see most of you next tuesday for our lecture hosted nth circuitf the nigh court of appeals. then, we will have a debate on whether the supreme court should re-examine and reinvigorate the clause. today, we will hear a debate about a very written a timely topic. does the constitution of the united states guarantee

citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in this country? this has become an importantly -- increasingly important topic in our country given the problems with illegal immigration. u.s. citizenship grant substantial benefits, and many think that birthright citizenship is a powerful magnet that attracts many people to unite states. if birthright citizenship is not guaranteed, congress thld simply outlaw practice. while outline the practice would not be an easy undertaking in today's highly politicized climate, it would certainly be much more easy than amending the closet to ship. we are fortunate to have with us today to very distinguished speakers who will now receive an instruction by me that is way too short, and far shorter that

each one of them deserves, by want to make sure we get right to it. our first speaker will be am ho, up partner in dallas law group. he received his law degree from the receipt of chicago. after graduate from law school, he served on the fifth circuit of appeals, and for clarence thomas on the united states supreme court. before going to dallas, he had a distinguished career in public service, serving for senator and serving on the constitution of immigration. he also served in the civil rights division at the department of justice. most recently, jim served as texasare general in where he is considered one of the top appellate lawyers in the country, and received three

awards from the national sensation of attorneys general -- national association of attorneys general. the national law journal named him of the upper echelons of the supreme court practice and one of the top minority lawyers in the nation, though i think they could have said he was one of the top lawyers in the nation, period. john eastman is professor of law at chapman university school of law. he is also director of a public service law firm. he received his law degree from the rest of dallas. he received a phd and masters .rom claremont he earned his law degree from the rest of chicago -- the university of chicago. he served on the fourth circuit court of appeals and also

clerked for clarence thomas on the u.s. supreme court. during the reagan administration, john's third at the united states commission on civil rights. without further do, jim, the floor is yours. first, pardon me if my voice starts to go out, i'm recovering from a cold. thank you, john -- what can i say about the introduction. alannk it was all greec greenspan who said, exacerbate exuberant. i'm honored by and privilege should be your friend. it is frankly great to be back with the other john here, professor eastman, another dear friend. how may times have we debated this issue? dozens. iten are similar resumes,

almost feels like a family thanksgiving that we come back to squabble again. it is great to be back with you. i'm honestly honored to be here at the heritage foundation to discuss the constitution, and in rule of law, and particular, we're here today to debate, i think, one of ourmost emotional issues in country when it comes to the constitution and rule of law. that is the challenge that illegal immigration present to the rule of law. many people of good faith, i might add, are deeply concerned that birthright citizenship presents some significant challenges to the rule of law. i'm certainly not here to world with thosequarrel deeply held good faith concerns. what i am here today to do is hopefully try to bring some consensus to this discussion. for example, i hope we can all , if you want to

change the law, you must go through the process that is set .orth in our constitution for example, when president obama issued his executive order consideri concerning immigratio. faith,ople of good including the public leaders of my home state of texas, were deeply concerned that the president was attempting to unilaterally rewrite the law in circumvention of congress , and congress's powers in the constitution. of course we know that congress sets forth our process of setting the laws of the night states. case can a president unilaterally repeal of federal statute. the constitution sets forth our process for amending the constitution. it typically requires two thirds

of both houses of congress, plus verification of a percentage of the states. if there is any part of the constitution that we may not like, and want to get rid of, we would nevertheless have to agree that we could not just pass a statute to repeal it, any more than a president can issue an executive order repealing a statute that he does not like. even if you believe that birthright citizenship is for family wrong, and should not -- is profoundly wrong, and should not be the law of the land, i hope we could agree on the following principle. if i could do miss you that birthright citizenship is part of our constitution, you and i may not like that, by hope that we can agree that the only way you could do something about that, the only way you can repeal a provision of the constitution, is to amend the constitution. that is all i really asking of

the people today. i do believe that income is each and every one of you that citizenship is part of the clusters o the constitution. indeed, i do not think it is a close call. constitutional analysis points in the same direction. we can look at the texas constitution, congressional history, supreme court precedent, and executive branch interpretation. all say the same thing. they all point of in the same direction which is birthright citizenship applies to everyone born in the united states, and subject to the laws of the united states. that is everyone who is required to follow the laws of the united states. just a brief history. birthright citizenship is a ule of theold r english common law, one that preexisted the 14th the mimic, and our constitution. some people have said that

birthright citizenship seems to be an obsolete concept, in an era of easy interstate and international transportation and travel, where you were born does not have the same weight that it may be used to. but of course, just because a provision of the cuts to obsolete does not mean we can ignore. slavery should have been obsolete from the outset of our constitution, but the original constitution expressly institution te of slavery, that states could enforce it. it is a terrible stain on our nation, of course, but even that took a constitutional amendment to get rid of. so too with birthright citizenship. birthright citizenship was added to the constitution as part of our direct response to the institution of slavery. let's begin with the text.

the 14th of mimic, and the very first sentence says, "all naturalized or in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction of the united states are citizens of the united states." it is a two-part test, if you will. if you are born in the u.s. and subject to the jurisdiction of the u.s., you are a citizen of the u.s.. we all know what it means to be born in the u.s.. the question we are debating today is what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the u.s.? if wewhat does it mean are just begin cashing, what does the need for a government have jurisdiction over somebody? i think it's ugly means that the government has power over somebody. we are talking up whether you are subject to the power of the united states, where the laws of the united states. if i were to to you that company is subject to the jurisdiction of the sec, what are we saying?

i think what we're saying is that the company is required to obey the laws and regulations of the sec. if i would tell you that a person is subject to the jurisdiction of a particular court, or committee of congress, i think what we're saying is that person is required to obey the laws and orders of the court or congressional committee. now, the phrase "subject to jurisdiction," it is in the constitution, it has to mean something. that means, it has to exclude somebody from this guarantee of birthright citizenship. it absolutely does. is the people who do not have to obey u.s. law. the best example of this is the principle of diplomatic immunity. foreign diplomats, people representing a foreign country, do not have to obey u.s. law. we can kick them out if they break our laws, but we can't

actually enforce our laws against them. they enjoyed diplomatic immunity under the long-established principle of international law. if you are a foreign diplomat, the united states to represent your nation, and happened to give birth to a child what you are in the united states, your child would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the u.s. they would not be required to obey u.s. law. therefore, they would not be guaranteed u.s. citizenship under the 14th amendment. if you are born here, you do not have any kind of immunity like diplomatic immunity, and have to obey u.s., then the constitution provides the you are a u.s. citizen. note what does not matter under amendment. this it does not matter if you do not have a good track record of complying with our laws. indeed, it is precisely because you are subject to our laws that we can enforce these laws against you in the first place, and of course, punish you if you

do not obey them. it is not matter if your parents are not citizens. just think, it would have been so much easier for the 14th amendment drafters to say, we are only giving birthright citizenship to citizens of united states. it does not say that. it is not matter if your parents are for nationals who may have sworn allegiance to another country, the constitution does not require allegiance. it requires jurisdiction. now, usually, when the text is so clear, as i would submit it as here, you could theoretically and analysis at this point. the history of the 14th amendment also happens to confirm what we read from the text. i think i noted earlier that birthright citizenship is a principle from the english common law. this doctrine provided for birthright citizenship for everyone born on british soil, even those born to foreigners, foreignexception for

diplomats. in common law was imported, much like many aspects of english common law, through early colonial practice and state practice, and then came along the dred scott case. the u.s. supreme court held in that case that us-born children of slaves would not be entitled to this doctrine -- the common-law doctrine. congress and the 14th amendment precisely to ratify and constitutionalize the a-list, -- the english common law doctrine to overthrow dred scott. both the sponsors and opponents citizenship clause agree on what the meeting of s clause does. as i will try to go through, the

legislative history demonstrates to fundamental understandings -- two fundamental understandings. first, we are extending birthright citizenship to foreign-born nationals like that chinese, and it excludes indian tribes, due to the unique issues and tell by tribal sovereignty -- entailed by tribal sovereignty. senator howard introduces it, and explains that the purpose of the citizenship cause amendment is to simply declare what he believes to already be the law of the land, at least before .us dred scott he said, it will not include persons born in the united states to foreigners, aliens,

ambassadors, and foreign ministers, but will include every other class of persons. senator colin of pennsylvania stands up, very upset, opposes this late would strenuously, and opposes this amendment precisely because he despises the idea of giving citizenship to us-born children of chinese and others, we the u.s. no allegiance and pretend to owe none." a senator of california agrees that that is what this would do, it would extend citizenship to foreign nationals. he agrees with that result. that is action what he wants, unlike senator cowan. there was a consensus in congress about the meeting of this amendment. i mention there was also a

second discussion in this debate about the status of indians, and unique tribal sovereignty issues that they present. during that discussion, you see the word "allegiance," and i think there are some opponents e upon the word allegiance. i do not think this discussion helps either cause. describes,trumbull "indian tribes are not subject to our jurisdiction, for it is only those persons who, completely with our jurisdiction who are subject to our laws that we think of making citizens." he refers to allegiance, but ."so "subject to our laws in any event, we are trying but the kind of foreign nationals that is the topic of today's debate. have over a we also century of supreme court t that tracks this as

well. famous cases from 1898, a child was born in the united , ands to chinese nationals was, as the court held, guaranteed birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. this is a case involving lawful residents, not illegal aliens. that does not seem to be a big deal to the court, but i should make that clear. later, supreme court cases to address the constitutional status of us-born children of illegal aliens. doe holdster versus that my state of texas could not education toc undocumented shoulder. because the court is split, 5-4, on the issue of public education, all nine justices agreed with the basic goals that

the equal protection clause legalts illegal and i aliens alie. it applies to persons in a jurisdiction of the state. the formery invokes who to say that people entered the united states illegally are within the jurisdiction of the state if they are in the state's boundaries and subject to its laws. the dissent agrees with that the 14th and that amendment applies to illegal aliens who are physically within the jurisdiction of the state. in a 1985 case, the supreme court unanimously notes that and is legal alien who has given birth to a child, born in

the night states, was a citizen of this country. plurality ofcorralled serv -- the plurality of fighterhat a taliban was born in the united states. there are opponents of birthright citizenship who claim that there is contrary language in two earlier cases. i will confess that slaughterhouse has some contradictory language. it is basically a single sentence. it occurs in a case that does not involve these issues at all, and does not provide backup. the supreme court points this out later. i'm even less concerned about the wilkins case, about the unique status of indian tribes.

it is written by the same anotherwho later wrote case. either he isgray, being schizophrenic, or reflecting the same dichotomy that we see in debates -- for nationals are covered, indian tribes are not. birthright citizenship has been a consistent opinion of the executive branch. i will focus on just one example, what the reagan administration set on this issue and what it told the u.s. supreme court. in a brief signed by one or two of the most noted conservatives to have served in the reagan justice department, solicitor lee, and bradford reynolds. the reagan administration said, "all aliens, even those whose presence in the country is

unlawful, are protected by the clauses of the 14th at the 15th amendment. this conclusion is not altered by the fact that the clause refers to any person within the ."ate's jurisdiction i will conclude where i began. many americans have sincere objections to illegal immigration, and sincere concerns about the challenges it presents to the role of law -- rule of law. frankly, so do i, but there are many tools available to combat illegal immigration. withoute can do so

defending the constitution and rule of law ourselves. thank you. [applause] john e.: thank you to the heritage foundation for hosting us on this important debate. i want to start with the points of agreement. jim and i both went to your mercy of chicago, we both .lerked for clarence thomas where we disagree here, and disagree rather strongly, is what the intent of that clause meant. i thought it was very telling that jim said in his first's of this, that all were subject to citizens. he then later went back to the actual language, where it said, "subject to the jurisdiction,"

not "subject to the laws." he claims that the supreme court president and executive branch position is that that is synonymous to law. and that the only people intended to be excluded from the second element of the citizenship guarantee are those who are children of ambassadors. i would add, because he did not add it, but children of invading armies. there is one other category, children born on a ship while docked in u.s. port. the question for us is is that all that the citizenship clause was intended to convey? on every one of these points, i think the argument is exactly the opposite of what jim has laid out. for the people who drafted the 14th of mimic, after those that ratified it, there was agreement .

that is subject to the jurisdiction of the time. they had two different meanings. what they call partial or territorial jurisdiction. other thing, what they called complete or allegiance owing jurisdiction, something more profound than the president in our borders, and therefore subject to our laws while you are here. the question that is which of the two meetings did the drafters of the 14th amendment and tend to codify as the constitutional floor for automatic citizenship? i think we cannot read the anythingo think other than that they intended to codify the complete allegiance jurisdiction, not just territorial one. where does the debate come from? thethe whole point of the amendt was to institutionalize civil rights act.

they wanted to do that for one of two reasons. some were concerned in the 1866 civil rights act may have extended beyond congress' powers under the 13th amendment. the second is, even if it was a valid exercise that the lawmaking power of congress already had, they wanted to lock it into the power of congress. this is true of the entire 1866 civil rights act, including the citizenship clause. here's what he citizenship clause in the 1866 says. "all persons born in the united states and not subject to excluding indians not taxed, is a citizen of the united states." those not bornt here or those who had continued allegiance to a foreign power,

work nearwho temporary sojourners" here, or those who were here aren't -- those who were here on a tourist visa or work visa. subject to a foreign power and a load your allegiance someplace else, mere birth of your children on u.s. soil was clearly not a guarantee of automatic citizenship. you continued to own your allegiance to the nation of your parents' allegiance. you might say the constitution language is different. not subject to any foreign power "thefferent to jurisdiction thereof" and maybe they intended a broader grant in the 14th amendment. there is nothing in the amendment to suggest that. int they are confronting

that language is the peculiar problem of indians, who while were separate sovereigns were not foreign. they were domestic sovereigns. the change in the language is to reconcile the language with the backs on the ground in that particular circumstance. it was not expected to waive the .ircumstance to put it in context, let me give a modern example. suppose you are a tourist from great britain. in great britain, they have this crazy idea of driving on the left side of the road. when they come here, they have to follow the law and drive on the right side of the road. they are subject to that jurisdiction like not subject to the allegiance by being here on worker visa.guest they cannot be prosecuted for treason. they cannot be drafted into our army.

and the debate, i think, and the 14th amendment confirm this. we do not have a debate specifically. i will agree with jim. anyuse we did not have restrictions on immigration, they did not confront the precise issues we are looking at today. we are both trying to extrapolate the principles from the debates they did have. the only good -- the only debate they had is whether indians would be automatic citizens. they were deemed to not be automatic citizens, not because they were born in a foreign territory, but because they were born to a different sovereign. owed allegiance to that sovereign and not the united states. that is interesting, because many of the tribes by that time, owed allegiance to the tribe but the tribe was a domestic dependent to the united states, so there was an indirect

allegiance to the united states. still, that was not sufficient. so the leading sponsors of the bill, senator howard, the author of this precise language, were asked this very thing. when pressed whether indians living on reservations would be are mostit says "they clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military." to ourstion is subject territorial jurisdiction idea. here is how trumball responded. subject to jurisdiction means subject to complete jurisdiction. to borrow the language jim relied on, he says it means the "full and complete jurisdiction." intersection as applies to every citizen of the united states now. that was under the 1866 at. which says "not owing allegiance to any foreign power."

by senatort doolittle of wisconsin to specifically include indians not taxed was rejected as redundant, because of this idea of company jurisdiction, allegiance owing jurisdiction, was already subject to the owing jurisdiction clause. this was immediately recognized in the first time this agreement course look at the issue in the slaughterhouse cases. which jim did acknowledge. that it says "subject to the jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, councils. "andhe went on and said subjects of foreign states born in the united states." , both ine justices majority and dissent, agreed with that proposition. i do not think of the questions

can putns is a thing we to the side. it goes to the heart of the principle they were trying to address. the principle was if you do not go allegiance to the united states but to some other sovereign, domestic sovereign in the case of indians or former sovereigns in the case of temporary sojourners, you are automaticteed citizenship. language they use, the principle they adopt, applies. this is not just the supreme court in the early days. thomas cooley, who everyone recognizes as the leading expert on interpretation of the 14th amendment. published in the 1870's, he says the same thing. "subject to the jurisdiction" means all and complete jurisdiction to which citizens

are subject. he is not limiting that to the other government being the indian tribe. it is broad. any other government. if you are a temporary sojourners here, certainly if you were illegally, you do not have this right to automatic citizenship guaranteed by the 14th amendment. extend ans free to offer citizenship under its power of naturalization, but there is nothing in the cause of two should that requires it. jim also says this is the consistent view of the executive branch. i will take issue with his treatment of the brief filed in the reagan administration. they are talking about the due process clause. just as the supreme court was talking about the equal protection clause. both of those clauses used the word "persons" as distinguished from the immunity clause, which uses the term "citizen."

"subject tonot use the jurisdiction" they use the within the jurisdiction," a territorial aspect. differentramatically than persons subject to our jurisdiction becoming automatic citizens. here's what the attorney general in 1873 had to say. attorney general williams. section one of the 14th amendment declares that all persons born and subject to the jurisdictions are citizens. but the word "jurisdiction" should be known to mean complete jurisdiction. aliens, among who are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the

jurisdiction of the united states only two were limited extent. clinical and military rights and duties do not pertain to that in there for the 14th amendment does not confer automatic citizenship on those children. jim is right in the supreme court in the wong kim ark case says they children of chinese immigrants were automatic citizens. the language they use is the adoption of the broad law of jus soli, that were ever you -- whenever you're born on the ang's soil, you are forever citizen -- we fundamentally reject our doctrine in our declaration of independence. it is one of the most eloquent rejections of that doctrine penned in human history. this people separated our ties and renounced our allegiance to our prior connections. we could not have done that if as doctrine of jus soli,

said in english common-law, would have remained in place. you owed perpetual duty. this fight over who owed actual duty not only gives rise to the original war against great britain but the 1812 war as well. english navy continue to recognize our sailors as still british subjects on the high seas and pressed them into service. we reject that notion in the declaration of independence. wong kim ark, the majority opinion, relies on that. aboute broad dicta adoption of that rule of jus soli has to be treated as dicta. because the facts of the case involved someone in the country lawfully. the only reason the parents of wong kim ark were not u.s. citizens because -- is because

we had entered into an area treaty with the emperor of china that refused the right for them to renounce their allegiance to the old emperor. the thing we claim is a natural right in the declaration of independence. in those circumstances, a child born to lawfully permanent domicile the residence of the united states who had done everything they could to allegiance,ir new that child was treated as a citizen of the united states. its holding is therefore narrow. the language is much broader. ta turns out to be 1898, one would expect a lot of children born in the united states passed that point were deemed automatic citizens. that is not true for about three quarters of a century. actuallyim ark is to say anybody born on u.s. soil,

no matter what the circumstances, then that holding would have applied to indians. yet native americans born on off thel, or not reservation, were continued to be treated as noncitizens until the indian civil rights and services than -- and citizenship act. in the 1960's, there was a guest worker program. and when the great depression hits, many of those peoples were returned. there was a documentary home talking about the re-peach ration. up to 2 million mexican guest workers who were returned to between 4000 5000 children who were born while here, were returned as well. was not aledge, there single claim made in the 1930's while that process was going on that those children were citizens and therefore could not be returned. the same is true in the 1960's. a massive guestworker program when it ended, there was a lot

of u.s. -- there was a lot of children born on u.s. soil during the course of that program -- no one claimed those children were u.s. citizens. so whether they were here amporarily, on tourist or student or guestworker visas, and certainly whether they were here illegally. 1938, the official documents for statest that the united state department put out. you had to be a citizen. on the form, you have to say which the and state you were born in. this was for people born in the united states. but in order to be a citizen, you had to say the allegiance of the parents. that was a separate item on the form. if you are citizens and -- when did that change? the year after the 1965 immigration act.

i can imagine how that happened. some bureaucratic convenience changed the rule. it was never that way before. let me close with this. agree thatcan both the precise question, whether the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to notmatic citizenship was confronted by the congress in 1868, when they were debating the language of the 14th amendment. it was not on the horizon. at the time, immigration was encouraged. view istion is which supported by the principles that they did articulate. let me shift it -- because i do not even think of that matters. if it was not a draft. if it was not clear that the constitution mandated , the notion that we

are taking away such a profound policy judgment matter from congress by silence, without anybody saying this is what we intend to do, without anyone ratifying that that is what we intend to do, it seems to me a dramatic change on our thoughts on powers in congress. i think of the silence on the precise issue actually goes strongly in my direction. laste close with one piece. this extraordinary exchange jimeen senators cohen that relied on. senator cohen said this will give citizenship to the gypsies treat them, and will better than we treat me as a journalist. implicit in his distinction is

what i am implying. in the other senator says i failed to see the relevance of what you're saying to the 14th amendment. and chinese gypsies were here lawfully and permanently. connis response to toyou will give citizenship people not white or european. he says anyone here lawfully and permanently and owes allegiance which united states, applies to the gypsies, that is not the kind of allegiance we're talking about here. both we chinese and gypsies were here lawfully and permanently, and we were not want to make race taste distinctions on who to give citizenship to. that exchange says nothing about the question of whether mere temporary sojourners, and clearly says nothing about

people here unlawfully in the first place, with are going to to citizenship by this cause. i agree with jim that the language and the supreme court and executive branch ought to help with this, but -- not this thing called mere partial or territorial jurisdiction as applied to temporary sojourners in the united states. [applause] i want to make sure we have time to get to at least a couple questions. i want to give jim a moment to respond to any points. mr. ho: i am happy to -- >> then we can go to questions. i would say this. when you are recognized, we will hand you a microphone. please say so you are, any affiliation you might have, in

and i would ask that you keep your question short and with -- and end with a question mark. thank you. i am on the federation for american immigration reform board of advisors, speak for myself and not the organization. havess the question i arelves to how jurisdictions actually done? witches who has five votes on the supreme court? -- which is who has five votes on the supreme court? theh is a little bit of original intent, a little of what the rules actually say, and did they really mean that, and what is the proper this now. i would like the speakers to address the question of why they think of their view is likely to get five votes.

because there are two things they did not address. which the amendment may have been trying to get at. one is the dred scott decision, which said slaves could never be sold, therefore there had to be an amendment to get around dred scott. and the other wine -- and the other one is the way our laws tend to evolve, has the supreme court, by mandating that the children of illegal immigrants have the right to an education, anectively backed into implicit interpretation of the 14th amendment? >> let me take you through that. unless be surprised, congress weighed in as well,

with its understanding, that the 14th amendment did not curtail its naturalization powers beyond the four overturning dred scott and the people asked the children of people here lawfully and permanently. the court is not likely going to adopt my views of the 14th amendment. that hasan inertia built up for at least 50 years. that i reject the notion it has already decided this question. language implied, and it is not even a really sustained argument in the opinion itself, clause that dealt with the citizenship class. he was making a comparison to the citizenship clause in his erroneous understanding of it, thoset a footnote of what meant in the jurisdiction

clause. they have not settled list. i think they recognize that. the question is when they are confronted with this, where will they go? thisngress acquiesces with notion that anybody born on u.s. soil is all you need, they may well say that is what the constitution requires. but if congress weighed in vigorously, and there have been several bills introduced back to the 1990's that attempted to clarify their understanding that before the constitution mandates, i think the court would you more likely to take that into account. and as a result, there may be five votes that go my way. i agree the issue has not been formally as cited by the supreme court. i agree that justice run in is not an originalist. [laughter] we will start there. i think where we disagree is that i do think that pl cases likeylor and other authorities

as out was a principal. a clear principle that supreme have --stices seem to on. what is the rule we are establishing. you have a rule in the constitution and a fact pattern not presented to the court. that you still have a rule. i will use this as an opportunity to fuel the discussion about what the raking and ministration brief has anything to say this that -- to say about this. one is that plylor was about eagle protection clause. -- you have two textual eagle protection says "persons" whereas the privilege and immunities clause says "citizens." but we are talking about the citizenship clause. that clause says all "persons."

but the equal protection clause says if you are saying that it matters the word persons rather than citizens, that favors me. because the citizenship clause says "persons. thing -- ink the real jurisdiction within the state. jurisdiction clause says "subject to the jurisdiction." my point there is all of these case,ities, the plylor reagan demonstration brief uses these interchangeably. it is focusing on those people subject to our laws. i think everyone is using the language interchangeably. here.lcolm: let's go over

can you get it over there? excuse me. mr. malcolm: i think they are recording this for posterity. somebody with real power is here to talk. question is for professor eastman. what i understood to be your account of the distinction drawn in the constitution, this sort of strong form jurisdiction which includes allegiance, does not seem to turn very much at all on whether someone is legally you're in the country or illegally here. you talked about temporary guest workers and folks like that who are here legally, but who should not be included. but the distinction you draw, or the way you contrast the wong kim ark case, sounded to me like

you are relying on that distinction. orther someone was illegal an illegal immigrant. when you discussed how we know whether someone meets this allegiance jurisdiction test, you kept using "lawful and permanent" and i immediately thought of lawful, permanent residents. who are not citizens, cannot vote -- i guess they could float -- i guess they could serve in the military, but they cannot vote. i wonder how you reconcile your and the on wong kim ark distinction you have drawn between legal and illegal immigrants and how they are treated. and you're more general position on what because means. mr. eastman: good question. i think it is arguable that wong kim ark, under the original understanding, is wrongly decided. but i also think there is a credible argument to be made that, on its narrow holding, it decided area that is

because we refuse to recognize the ability of the chinese immigrants to renounce their prior allegiance. that is a rejection of our own. of our declaration. we refuse to recognize for them the very thing we claimed as a human rights entitlement in our decoration -- declaration. look at the notion they would have taken as many steps as they would have allowed to demonstrate allegiance to this country means something hererent from those temporarily on a tourist, student, or guestworker visa. and certainly different from those here illegally, without any consent to being here. holdingt to accept the of wong kim ark, i can do that coherently, i think. but all of the rest of it that flows from the dcicta of wong km ark undercuts the notion of consent.

if i have never consented to have you here in the first place, the category of folks here illegally or who have overstayed their temporary visitor status, then the notion of consent is the basis of citizenship, which is what our declaration clearly sets out. oftead, this feudal notion you are born on this soil and are forever our subject and are you the response in kind, we have turned upside down the principle we established in the declaration. i am willing to accept the holding in wong kim ark and draw the line a little further than i think the 14th amendment drafters actually did, but all off soother dicta throws much theory in our american founding that i cannot accept that. mr. ho: that is a great question, because it isolates eastmanwhat professor is arguing. he is making what i call the --

the troops substitute decision thosedrawing is between who pledge allegiance and those who do not. it means the distinction is between u.s. citizens and noncitizens. that is the substantive distinction being drawn. he is also making a strategic distinction between legal and illegal. i think that is your way of slicing and dicing presidents. the argument you are drawing from principle is foreign versus citizen. on that point, what i think we heard today was an acknowledgment that there are two band different ways of consuming the term "jurisdiction." under one way, i am right. under the other way, he is right. there are reasonable interpretations on both sides. if we agree "jurisdiction" is ambiguous. that we do not know based on text alone what the framers

meant, this is a classic situation where lawyers and jurists go to legislative history. when you look at the debates, the whole point of justice -- en's fiery in anger toward is that he did not once them to be citizens. we had the exact same debate in the 1866 civil rights votes. i will direct you to the language in the 1866 act could be construed in a different way. but the debates in the 1866 civil rights act was people who hated the language precisely because they did not want u.s. foreign children to have status. and the fact that the declaration of independence projected -- rejected the english common law in terms of

feudalism and all of that, i do not see why that bears upon this discussion. havein america, we do not a tradition of mandatory allegiance, unlike written, where you are not allowed to renounce your british citizenship. we have the notion that if you want to, you can renounce your u.s. citizen and become a citizen of another country. all we are talking about our exit rights. this date is about angie writes. so i am not sure how 1 -- mr. eastman: they are both grounded on consent rather than the feudal doctrine. the ability to renounce your allegiance does not give you the right to demand participation in another body of politics. it is a bilateral consent. the problem with mandatory birth right citizenship as it has lately been interpreted, is you have a lot of people here who do not even consent to be here, much less become