we all know that irca was only partially successful. it was only successful on the legalization side than on the enforcement side. that is a starting point. it was insufficient to meet the demands of enforcement during the past 25 years. the next important development has been legislation that passed in 1996. two pieces of legislation, but we think of them as the 1996 loss. they added strong step towards powers to the enforcement regime and strengthened enforcement through statutory changes. they included many mandates, which you will hear more about. many of the mandates they did include became important only more recently in the last 10 years rather than right after expeditedosaws, exclusion and many others date from that time. 9/11 was the next pivotal event. 9/11 is still because it embedded national security into every aspect of immigration enforcement. it led to the creation of dhs and the breakup of ins into three enforcement agencies. it generated the idea of create -- of connecting the dots regarding information and a generatin

irca is the starting point. although there is always border enforcement, irca wasn't ever for the first time to try to create a systemic response to the issue of illegal immigration . and that systemic response was to attempt to strengthen border enforcement, combine that with employer sanctions. to create employer accountability, and that, of course, was balanced by organizatorganizat ional programs. we all know that irca was only partially successful and it was more successful on the legalization side that was on the enforcement side. it was an efficient to meet demands over the past 25 years. the next development was 1996. we think of them as the 1996 loss. and they added statutory powers to the enforcement regimes they included many mandates which you will hear more about. but many of the mandates that they did include loss that require expedited conclusion and many from that time. 9/11 was the next pivotal event. 9/11 is pivotal because it has embedded national security. it led to the creation of dhs and th

so dexter irca the youngest is just an infant during this period. this is a period when dr. king is most political, in the sense that in the early your workout in the parting of the waters come he's getting drawn into other people's movements because he's an orator, and he would go help out. the bus boycott wasn't his idea. the freedom rides and the sit-ins certainly weren't his idea to give he would get called in to these meetings. but by 1963 where we start here, he's right and that the south is hardened against segregation and that the moment in history might fit without implementing something into history that will resist that recession, that retrograde trend. and he takes a huge risk to the he says i'm going to have my own movement. i'm going to risk everything. first in birmingham to try to crack segregation and then later in selma, where we ending 65, after the long year of 64 where he is lobbying and submitting to jail when st. augustine to try to keep pressure on to pass the '64 civil rights act. then he goes straight from there to sell much of another huge risk for

laughter irca the answer is due less, leave more space, more breathing room for the civil society, for what de tocqueville marvil debt that we are still capable of which is this astonishing combustion of voluntary association. if i used in my remarks the analogy of which smaller things cannot grow and that is the danger of an excess of state. >> but how can we get the government -- if you can't see it get them to stop, how can we get them to take the law out? >> when some elections. [applause] >> raise your questions together and then respond if you wish. >> you mentioned in the speech tell you were raised in the secular -- >> say that again you sit in your speech raised in a secular household. i assume that position as because intellectual used to believe it is the acquisition and you also mention in your speech about the benefits of religion. it's interesting sort of how the paradox where everyone tells of the position that you do, we would lose the benefit of religion, and how do you reconcile that? >> i don't. you are right, it is an empirical question, not a question of logic, it