Tim Caspar: Good morning, welcome. Good morning and welcome. My name is Timothy Caspar, I
serve at Hillsdale College as associate vice president for external affairs. I'm also deputy
editor of Imprimis. I have the privilege of teaching in the college's, politics department.
I'm a graduate of the college, which was way back in 1994.
That's starting to seem like a long time ago. I'll be your emcee for today's program. Welcome
again to this national leadership seminar. The constitution and current politics. As
president Arnn stated so eloquently last night, there is an important public debate going
on over the meaning of our constitution. On the one side of the debate, are those who
seek a return to the kind of limited constitutional of the American founders. I think maybe there
are some of those in this room. On the other side of the debate, we can place the president,
I hasten to add add of America not of Hillsdale. The president and his fellow progressive have
seen no limits to the size of government, and to what it might accomplish. By the way,
that will take money lots of it. The conservative news service noted a few days ago that the
federal government has raked in over $1,000,000,000,000. 1,000,000,000,000 of your tax dollars in the
current budget year and still manage to go 200,000,000,000 over budget in the same period.
These progressives are the sorts of folks that one of my political heroes Ronald Reagan
had in mind, when he joked, that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are,
"Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Reagan was joking as he so often
did, but he was also making a serious point as he so often did.
Americans then and now face the choice between limited, and unlimited government. As Reagan
put it in his first inaugural or choices between self-rules were ruled by the so-called experts
of the administrative state. It's in this political context that we convene this national
leadership seminar. Our first speaker today is Heather Mac Donald.
Mrs. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing
editor of City Journal. She earned her J.D. at Stanford University Law School and describes
herself as a non-practicing lawyer, I think we call that a recovering lawyer.
She writes about a range of topics including Homeland Security, Policing and Racial Profiling,
Educational policy and immigration which is her topic today. Her excellent work has won
her numerous awards, including a 2005 Bradley Prize. She testifies frequently before congress
appears quite often on television and writes from many other publications in addition to
City Journals such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, National Review, The New
Criterion and many others. Her book titles include, Are Cops Racist?
How the War Against the Police Harms Black Americans, and The Immigration Solution. A
better plan than today's which is co-authored with Hillsdale College distinguish fellow
Victor Davis Hanson, and Steven Malanga. Her lecture title today is Practical Thoughts
on Immigration. Please welcome Heather Mac Donald.
Heather Mac Donald: Thank you so much this is an extraordinary honor, and pleasure
to be at the national leadership seminar. To be out of New York where we're experiencing
a little global cooling this winter. Especially living in New York, you often forget that
there is people still in America who actually believe that the founders did a pretty good
job in drafting the constitution and creating the framework for this country.
To see so many of you here today is quite heartening and I'm going to bring this memory
back with me when I go back to the bastion of the New York Times. President Arnn last
night spoke very dramatically and powerfully about the constitutional crisis, as he deemed
it, facing conservatives today. This morning I'm going to speak about one
particular crisis. The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness
breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or government decides to normalize one form of
law breaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself
is in jeopardy. Last July when I accepted Mr. Bell's kind invitation to speak to the Hillsdale
National Leadership Seminar, I had long been tracking various immigration related assaults
on the rule of law. I did not foresee that a constitutional crisis
was just on the horizon. President Obama has decided that because congress has not granted
amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the United States. He will do so himself.
Let us ponder for a moment, just how shameless this assertion of power is.
Article 2 section 3 of the constitution says that, "The President shall take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed." That provision assumes that there is a law for the president
to execute. In this case, the alleged problem that Obama is reporting to fix, is the absence
of a law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Obama is not executing a law, he's making one up all by himself. Arrogating to himself
a function that the constitution explicitly allocates to congress. Should this outrageous
and blatantly unconstitutional power grab stand we will have moved very far in the direction
of rule by a dictator-Pace Obama. the absence of a congressional law granting
amnesty is not evidence of a political failure that he must somehow correct by unilateral
executive action. It is evidence of the lack of a popular consensus regarding amnesty.
There has been no amnesty statute because the political will for such an amnesty is
lacking. Now fortunately on late Monday. A federal district judge in Texas acknowledged
this obvious fact, and in a bracing opinion struck down or put on hold for the moment.
Obama's executive amnesty acknowledging the arguments of half of the states in the country
that this would impose enormous fiscal burdens on them, but more profoundly that Obama had
violated the constitution. It's not the end of the story unfortunately.
This will undoubtedly be appealed to the Fifth Circuit of appeals in Texas which has recently
been busily contorting itself into knots, trying to justify under the constitution racial
preferences, in admissions at the University of Texas.
This is not a slam dunk that we have a court here, that we'll be willing to uphold the
constitution and the congress's prerogative over immigration matters. For the moment,
at least this amnesty is on hold. Now Democrats are assiduously pretending that the Obama
executive amnesty is merely an innocuous exercise of prosecutorial discretion. If it is ultimately
upheld by either the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court,
they will rue the day that they exceeded to this travesty, when a Republican president
decides say to privatize social security because Congress has failed to do so. Now Obama's
executive amnesty is the most public and egregious example of immigration lawlessness to date.
Beneath the radar screen has been an equally telling saga of cascading lawlessness that
is arguably as consequential for our country's future.
I am referring to the attack on the secure communities program, and on deportation more
generally. I hope to convince you this morning that because of this attack, the rallying
cry of so many well-meaning conservatives that we must quote secure the borders is a
naïve and meaningless delusion. The secure communities program is a common-
sensical response to illegal alien criminality. Whenever an illegal alien is booked into a
local jail for a crime, an alert is automatically sent to the federal immigration authorities
in the Immigration and Customs of Enforcement agency or ICE.
ICE agents can then ask that the jail or prison briefly hold the illegal alien after
he has served his jail or prison time, rather than releasing him back into the community,
so that ICE can pick him up to begin deportation proceedings against him. This is known as
a detainer. You would think that such a program would be wholly uncontroversial.
An alien who crosses into the country illegally already has no claim to undisturbed presence
here. He is already voluntarily assumed the risk of deportation. An illegal alien who
then goes on to break other laws, has even less claim to protection from deportation.
Yet, secure communities has been the target of incessant protest from illegal alien advocates
since its inception. They make the astonishing claim that it is
unfair to remove an illegal alien who commits other crimes. Even more astonishing, over
300 jurisdictions including New York state, New York City, California, Chicago, and Los
Angeles agree. They have openly refused to honor ICE's request for detainers, but instead
have released tens of thousands of criminals back to the streets, where they easily evade ICE detection.
Not that ICE would even think of trying to pick them up. Indeed the irony regarding secure
communities is that ICE rarely uses its power under the program. In 2012, the last year
for which we have complete records. The agency was notified of over 400,000 illegal alien
jail detainees but removed only 19% of those. The removal rate was on track to be even lower
in 2013. About 50% of those criminal illegal aliens whom ICE chooses not to deport reoffend
upon release. There are 2 aspects of the campaign against secure communities, that bare particular
notice. First the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration and the advocates.
Second the hypocrisy of big city police chiefs. In 2012, Arizona became the target of universal
contempt among the country's elites for passing a law that encourage local law enforcement
officers to assist ICE with immigration enforcement. According to illegal alien advocates and the
Obama Administration, this law known as SB1070 was an unconstitutional state usurpation of
the federal government's plenary under the constitution over immigration matters that
includes both congress and the executive branch. The Obama Administration sued Arizona for
allegedly interfering with federal authority over immigration and won in injunction, against
SB1070. It's subsequently been basically gutted. Yet now, those same advocates are successfully
urging states and localities to defy the federal government’s request for immigration assistance.
Resulting in the creation of local sanctuary zones where federal immigration authority
cannot reach. If ever there were a lawless usurpation of the federal government's power
over immigration. The open revolt against secure communities is it. Yet the Obama Administration
rather than hauling these recalcitrant jurisdictions to court, has lain supine and is chastely
looking the other way. Late last year, it threw in the towel completely
and dismantled the secure communities program agreeing with the activist that it was unfair
to illegal alien criminals to put them under any worry that they may face the risk of deportation.
There is another camp aspect of the campaign against secure communities that shows how
corrosive this tolerance of immigration lawlessness is.
Major police chiefs and immigration jurisdictions are under enormous political pressure, to
protect illegal aliens. That has meant tossing aside everything that they know about public
safety and policing. One of the great insights of policing over the last 2 decades, was the
realization that low level misdemeanor offenses like graffiti, turnstile, jumping, drunk driving,
and drug sales. Have an outsize impact on a communities perceptions
of public safety and on the actual reality of crime. Criminals are rarely scrupulous
about obeying the law, enforcing misdemeanor offenses is an effective way of incapacitating
more serious criminals. Even when an offender just not go on to commit more violent felonies.
Such allegedly minor offenses, a shop lifting, and illegal street vending create a lawlessness
and disorder that breaks down the fabric of the community.
Police chiefs like New York William Bratton, and Los Angeles Charles know this. Yet they
have fiercely opposed cooperating with the federal government on secure communities on
the ground that misdemeanor offenses are really too trivial to worry about and should not
subject in illegal alien to deportation. This is pure hypocrisy.
The result of the enormous pressures of demographic change on our principles. The ultimate goal
of the secure communities program is to de-illegitimate deportation entirely as a response to illegal
immigration. If it is morally unacceptable to deport even a convicted illegal alien criminal,
then it is all the more unacceptable to deport someone who is merely cross the border illegally.
The undermining of deportation is behind those constant protest demanding in the words of
the protesters to end deportations now. It is behind the claim that it is Americans who
are to blame for separating families, rather than the alien annoyingly came into the country
in violation of our immigration laws, and assume the risk of being sent home.
The campaign against deportation does not name itself as such, but it is been highly
successful. Despite the false rhetoric of the Obama Administration. Deportation has
basically disappeared from the interior of the country. The removal rate in 2014, for
illegal aliens who are not explicit ICE priorities was .05%.
What's the consequence of eliminating deportation as a response to illegal immigration. If someone
cannot be removed for illegal entry, then there is no more immigration law. Deportation
is the only remedy for illegal entry that actually corrects and deters the original
law-breaking. For that reason, Mexico, and every other country
on earth practices it. Even if the activist would accept a fine as a penalty for illegal
entry and that's not at all clear. That fine simply becomes the cost of entering. Lose
deportation as we're doing, and the United States will formally ceded control of its
immigration policy to people living outside the borders. National sovereignty will become
meaningless, and formal immigration policy a nullity.
The de-legitimization of deportation is why the conservative rallying cry to secure the
borders is so naïve. An utterly secure border is impossible, people will always find a way
to cross, but if once they cross nothing can be done to them, then we may as well not have
any borders at all. That's why the advocates have spent all their
energy fighting deportation rather than fighting increase border security because they know
that eradicating the former, is far more important. Now the erosion of the rule is bad enough,
but the social consequence of these mass illegal immigration is equally troubling.
We were importing poverty and educational failure. If you want to see America's future,
look no further than my home state of California which is a generation ahead of the rest of
the country and experiencing the effects of unchecked immigration from the South. Nearly
50% of all California births are now Hispanic. The state Hispanic population is now almost
equal to the white population and it's school population is vastly majority Hispanic. The
consequences of this demographic shift have been profound. In the 1950s and 1960s California
led in educational achievement. Today with majority Hispanic K-12 population.
The largest concentration of English language learners in the country. California is at
the bottom of the educational HEAP. Barely distinguishable in its national test scores
from such economic backwaters as Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. Over a third of California
8th graders lack even the most rudimentary Math skills.
28% are equally deficient in reading. The mathematics performance gap between Hispanic
and white 8th graders is not budge since 1990. The reading gap has improved only slightly
since 1998. California is at the epicenter of a disturbing phenomenon known as long term
English Language Learners. You would think that an English Learner would
be somebody who grew up in a foreign country, speaking a foreign language who came to the
US only later in life. In fact the vast majority of designated English learners are born here.
Their cognitive and language skills are so low that they're deemed non-native English
speakers. Nationally 30% of all English Language Learners are 3rd generation Americans.
There's a problem of a simulation going on. In 2013, California governor Jerry Brown push
through a controversial law to try to close the achievement gap in California. Between
California's growing Hispanic population and it's Anglo and Asian populations. That law
redistributes tax dollars from successful schools to those with high proportions of
English learners and low income students. It remains to be seen whether these latest
effort to raise the education outcomes of these children of low skilled immigrants will
prove more effective than its predecessors working against that possibility is Hispanic's
high dropout rate, the highest of any group in the nation, and they're equally unmatched
teen pregnancy rate. To be sure many illegal Hispanics who come
here possess admirable work ethic, one that American should emulate. Some have turned
around very troubled in our city communities like South Central LA or at least have started
them on an upward trajectory. Thanks to their lack of social capital.
Many of their children and grandchildren are getting sacked up into underclass culture.
The Hispanic out of wedlock birth rate in California and the US is 53%. Twice what it
was when the black population in 1965. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his present
warning about the catastrophe of black family breakdown.
In 65 it was 23% for blacks, and as Larry Kudlow said last night, Moynihan was travestied
as a racist but he was utterly farseeing in his observation that a 23% illegitimacy rate
was probab- Hispanics are now up to 53% twice as much. The incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans
in California shoots up 8 times between the first and second generation to equal the black
incarceration rate. Gang involvement is endemic in barrio schools,
I wish I could take some of my fellow open borders conservatives to the Berrendo Middle
School, in Pico Rivera in Los Angeles where I've spent time. They would see a massive
social service bureaucracy of anti-gang councilors serving the children of single mothers.
This social service bureaucracies in barrio schools is just the tip of the iceberg. Welfare
use among immigrants in their progeny is high, the highest in the country. Their poverty
rates remain so stubbornly low. Hispanics are the highest uses of government healthcare,
and they are the biggest supporters of Obamacare. They favor big government and the higher taxes
necessary to pay for it. The claim by open borders conservatives like low skill denigration
is an economic boon to the country is not true. It fails to taken to account, the government
services consumed by low skilled immigrants and their children. Such as education, healthcare
and prison cost and it ignores the fact that low skilled workers pay no income taxes but
instead received tax credits. What should be done, first of all resort the
primacy of the rule of law. That means at the very least, rehabilitating deportation
as a response to illegal immigration and ceasing to normalize illegal immigration with our
huge array of sanctuary policies. I fear however that, that battle is lost.
I expect Liberals to be in different to the erosion of law. It stuns me that so many of
my conservative colleagues are willing wink, at immigration law breaking and their eagerness
to placate what they believe I think a little naively to be a Republican voting bloc in
waiting. I would not offer an amnesty to those adult immigrants who voluntarily entered the
country on their own. Since every amnesty in the US and Europe,
has acted as a magnet for more illegal immigration. People who come into the country illegally,
or overstay their Visa do so knowingly. They assumed the risk of illegal status, it is
not our responsibility to wipe it away. Their children if they're born here are already
American citizens. Thanks to the misguided policy of birthright
citizenship. The illegal status of their parents is a problem that will eventually fade away,
as that first generation dies out. As importantly I would reorient our legal immigration system
towards high skilled immigrants like the parents of Sergey Brinn, the founder of Google.
Open border types consistently conflate low skilled and high skilled immigration. It's
a very effective rhetorical trope, that say "Look at Sergey Brinn. Look at the billions
of value is created to the American economy." Look at the millions of people he's employed,
absolutely right. That's very different than people who come from a culture that value,
that things third grade education is as much as one should attain and the results speak
for themselves. Immigration policy should be forge with one
consideration in mind. What is in the country’s economic self-interest. Emigration is not
a service we provide to the rest of the world To be sure we are a nation of immigrants,
and we continue to be the most generous nation on earth towards people who want to come to
this country legally, and join the American dream.
Rewarding illegal immigration does an injustice to the many legal immigrants who played by
the rules to get here. We owe it to them, and to ourselves to adhere to the law. Thank
you very much. Do you have questions? Yeah I love to.
Heather Mac Donald: Okay I'd be happy to take questions if anybody disagrees that would
be even more interesting. I can't think that's really possible.
Speaker 4: All right, please raise your hands and we will bring the microphones to you.
Doug: I have heard definition of deportation, and it certainly is affecting our borders.
I know the explanation I've been given Heather Mac Donald: An
explanation for the change in deportation? Doug: The explanation of the definition. Does
that make sense? Heather Mac Donald: Do I have an explanation
for the definition of deportation? Doug: To change the definition.
Heather Mac Donald: Well I think it's still being defined as removing somebody from this
country to return to his native country. There's various category certainly. I mean what the
Obama administration is doing, they go around claiming that deportations are at the highest
level ever. What they're counting is people that they catch right at the border and send
them back immediately. That's not what a deportation is. A deportation
is when you enter the country and take residence here, and then removed. Removals at the border
are not what deportation is. Is that ... Am I understanding you correctly?
Doug: Got a little bit different explanation in Arizona from the locals who are affected
by this, but that's essentially it. I wanted you to say that there is a change so that
Obama can challenge and say that he has done a magnificent ...
Heather Mac Donald: Exactly right, that's what it is. He is counting when border patrol
agents are on the border, and they spot somebody literally crossing and pick that person up.
There is usually an expedited removal. Of course as we saw this summer with the flood
of juveniles, who were coming across juveniles being usually across 18 year old, and sometimes
much older. The press was, pretending that this was like
a bunch of 5 year old fleeing gang violence in Guatemala that simply was not the case.
We saw, we had a little advanced picture of what amnesties do, and this juvenile border
search was inspired by the earlier Obama amnesty for the so-called dreamers, the children of
illegal aliens. There too, even though they were being apprehended
at the border, the advocates were pushing and pushing to get them in, get them into
detention centers and they've been spread throughout the country. There were no real
deportations there, they come in and many communities are having a very hard time providing
the education and healthcare cost of those families.
You're right, at the border, deportation has been redefined in order to give Obama this
talking point about him having been so resolute with deportation that now we get an amnesty.
I got a cold. Let me just have a coughing moment. It’ll past. Wow, thank God for water.
Man I got sick in New York and I haven't been in Florida long enough to get better yet.
Someone has the problem. Okay I'm ready, I apologize.
Speaker 6: Last summer, my wife and I were in Poland.
Heather Mac Donald: You were here? Speaker 6: We were in Poland in Europe. One
of the ... More than one person remarked how difficult it is for a Polish citizen to get
a Visa to come to the United States and stay in work. The immigration policy of this administration
is extremely selective. There are groups that are being targeted that as you said would
support politically the rules of this administration and the progressives. I'd like to have you
have comment on that. Then also I would like to disagree with you,
when you said that the single question to be address is the economic interest of the
nation relative to our immigration policy. I think also there is a moral interest of
the nation, as you articulated in this business of adhering to a rule of law.
Heather Mac Donald: I agree, but I think that the economic interest are not sufficiently
attended to. The assumption is, is that we owe this to the rest of the country. Really
we have to be I think unapologetically aware of what is going to keep us competitive with
the rest of the country, the rest of the world rather.
America is falling further and further behind educationally, there's arising proportion
of our students who are low income now it's way over 50% of American K-12 students are
eligible for free federally subsidized lunches. This is largely because of mass illegal immigration.
It's not in our economic, and I just completely agree with you it's a moral imperative as
well. Yes, there's sort of emerging theory going
out there about the 1965 immigration law that radically revised the traditional sources
of immigration away from the European countries, Canada, towards 3rd world countries. Some
people are arguing that was farsighted on the part of Democrats who saw over the long
term what they were going to be bringing in was a Democratic voting bloc, and that certainly
what has been happening. It's very frustrating that people from places
that have a different tradition, have such a hard time getting them in here. This re-categorization
goes on again and again we have something called the diversity lottery as if our immigration
flows are not diverse enough which is totally arbitrating a random system that just hands
out Visa's on a random basis to people. Again this is the opposite of what we should
be doing, which is being very precised about what we want. This is not some new idea, Canada,
Australia they give points for levels of education, and language skills there's a very good proposals
in congress now. The Democrats are always saying, "The Republicans have nothing to say.
They've got no proposals." No they have a series of very targeted specific laws one
of which would basically as they say stamp a green card on every PhD.
Because our own education skills are getting so low, our graduate schools in science depend
on foreign students.Without people from China, and India I hate to say it. Our medical technology
would disappeared. We should make sure that graduate students who come here ... Men it's
sticky stuff. Who come here, and take advantage of our still brilliant medical faculties,
science faculties, and it's the one good thing about the university that is still intact
but it is so under assault. I cannot tell you the feminist are coming,
there's not a single engineering school in this country that is not under massive pressure
to hire faculty and admit students on the basis of gender quotas. I have a fri0end that
the engineering, electrical engineering department at UC San Diego.
The last 8 candidates that they were ... That they interviewed for a job, were all female.
I can tell you that is not an accident. That was created by their dean. Before that, they
had a position that had opened up which is a very rare thing in the university of California,
because it's so physically challenge. Thanks to the States huge physical cost from
in large part, but not exclusively unions have a large part to do that as well from
mass immigration. They got the opportunity to hire somebody, and they found the 3 top
candidates in the world who all sadly happen to be male. Now they were not only white males.
In the feminist universe now in Academia. Being a person of color male doesn't count.
Their dean told them, "These 3 top candidates aren't good enough." Demanded that they interview
a subpar female. They voted her down, the dean demanded a second vote. By secret ballot,
voted her down again. What did the faculty ... What did the administration
do? They then create excellence positions an extraordinarily Orwellian term for diversity
candidates who can't get hired on their qualifications. In any case, as much as I value our American
Science faculties, and they are a magnet to universities for alumni donors who are a little
bit clueless about the defamation of the humanities and the ... In the tragic destruction of the
legacy of western civilization that is being propagated by our university system.
Don't think that the sciences are safe. In any case, they do depend on foreign graduate
students. They should be sent through the system as quickly as possible, and encourage
to become American residents and American citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 7: You mentioned the argument of prosecution discretion. Could you elaborate on that a
little? Heather Mac Donald: Prosecutorial discretion
is just that. It tends to be on a case by case basis. That's not what Obama is doing.
He is deciding to legalize 5,000,000 illegals on this extraordinary bootstrap argument that
they've got children here. Now if ever there's an incentive, to cross the border and have
a child, that's it. Sometimes local prosecutors will act more
categorically and say, in general, let's say marijuana offenses I think this is mistake,
but it's not going to be our top priority in deciding what cases to prosecute and take
to court. There is still have the flexibility to look at it as an individual on an individual
basis. Obama himself, I mean the shamelessness. We've
heard like Kudlow mention last night the Jonathan Gruber quote that was caught about the stupidity
of the American public. That was not an accidental quote. That's what this people believe. Obama,
thinks that we're so stupid that before the election he was quite explicit in saying,
I'm not going to pass my executive amnesty now because it's so unpopular. It would result
in too many Democrats losing their seats. That happened anyway."
He actually said I'm going to do it afterwards when it's not going to matter. He thinks we're
not going to notice this, but he's also said several years ago that he wouldn't do this
because it's so blatantly so unconstitutional. Well it was, until it wasn't I guess. Things
changed that's what a living constitution is.
It lived another year, and they decided he has the power to grant to basically create
a law himself. All right I better get to this quick, it's on a slope.
Hollie: Hi Heather. Heather Mac Donald: Hi.
Hollie: I'm Hollie Strom from Los Angeles. Of course I agree with everything you said
about California, and I was hoping that you could comment about the recent, well a couple
of things. I don't know what the Hispanic recent precinct population with the percentages
in California. I expect it's pretty high, and how is that early release program from
the prisons, the breaking of certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and the emptying
out of the jails in prisons. How does that impacting crime in California?
Heather Mac Donald: Well the Hispanic population in California especially in Los Angeles is
about 20% illegal aliens. Which is higher, disproportionately involved in felony crime.
It tends to be about overall somewhat proportionate to their population because Blacks are ... When
you compare it to the entire alien population it's a higher rate. It's much higher than
whites. The rule of thumb for black and Hispanic and
white crime rates is that the black crime rate is about 7 times higher than the white
rate. The Hispanic rate is about 3 to 4 times higher than the white rate. That means this
is interesting ... If Hispanics are moving to a predominantly black neighborhood as they
did in South Central Los Angeles. The crime rate actually goes down somewhat.
If they move into a predominantly white neighborhood as we saw when the vast migration of Hispanics
across the country started happening into Virginia, West Virginia. Crime rates start
shooting up and you see gang activity the MS13 started coming to East coast cities that
had never been there before. They're sort of in the middle of criminality,
but as I say one name that you hear a lot from advocate is that immigrants have a much
lower rate of criminality than natives. That's hard to say because the federal government
does a such a good job of not asking status when they can. What is has been documented
as between the first and second generation as I say the crime rates shots way up because
we are creating a second under class culture. Our questioner ask a very complicated question
there, say, "Program going on in California that Jerry Brown instigated in response to
a long standing litigation between the prison advocates and the state about the conditions
in California's prisons." Jerry Brown to his credit fought this thing.
He has been pouring billions, billions into California prison medical care. It's now gold
plated, it's better than the federal government provides. Yet the advocates are still claiming
that it's unconstitutional. My judge that I clerked for in Los Angeles, Judge Stephen
Reinhardt who's probably the most left wing judge in the country. This is when I was still
a Liberal, a Liberal by default is what it is.
Unless you think your way out of the received wisdom in this country. I clerked for him
after law school. Alas he's on this federal panel that has been California responsible
for putting more and more billions of dollars in the healthcare. Brown to his credit, fought
this thing for a long time. What they started doing, is sending mis- Re-categorizing
felonies, as misdemeanors and shipping people who ordinarily would have gone to prison to
jails, it's known as realignment. It's very ... One of these semantic switches, you're
no longer a felon, you're a misdemeanor, you've committed a theft, you've engaged in very
high level drug dealing. Now you're just a misdemeanor. You're going to go to county
jail ... Guess what? The county jails are bursting, they're releasing people early,
the jail sheriffs have the possibility of early releases and people ... Sex offenders
are cutting off their GPS bracelets with impunity because they know that the jails are so full
that they're not going to go back. This is a massive shift in the California
criminal justice landscape and is resulting in a rise in crime. Certain Southern California
localities like Pomona, San Bernardino, Riverside have had huge increases in robbery and other
felonies. It's sort of under the public awareness radar screen, but you're obviously very, an
astute observer of the criminal justice system in California.
I'm sure there's an immigration component to that as well, because the absolute number
of offender sin California are Hispanic, and of course the gang situation in this prisons
is just extraordinary. I went to the Chino prison which is in the inland empire East
of Orange County. It's the usual situation where the Hispanics played basketball at one
time, and if a black or a white goes on the court, there's going to be a fight, there's
going to be violence. They bring that mentality with them from the
streets but they come back with an even worst. Nobody has an idea really how to break that
down. It's a very disturbing situation. We very used to in this country talking about
white racism and we forget that blacks and Hispanics have a lot of racism towards each
other and towards whites. Speaker 9: Can you help us Heather. Thanks
for suffering through your cold. Help us with the motivation here, I can't call our president
annoyed traitor, I can't call him stupid. He went to Harvard Law School, he read the
law review there. We say in the law this is all about money, power, and glory.
I did hear you say, that in the 60s there was an effort to try to log in a Democratic voting class. What is the
motivation? What is behind this. Because everything you say is self-evident to me. It should be
obvious to everybody as a citizen of this country, and yet expect for unusual venues
like this, even in a place like North Dakota where I come from. You can't say a thing.
Diversity is a wonderful thing, we can't be mean. I just got done reading Voegeli's book
called The Pity Party. He says that it's all a matter of feeling good, a self-fulfilling
feeling from pitying people and helping people. It doesn't get me all the way either. I'm
sure you thought about this. If we can identify what the motivation is
here, that way, give us a clue as to how we go forward. What is your attitude, what is
your best guess about what the motivation of these people are.
Heather Mac Donald: That's a great questions, and there's so many answers to it. There is
obviously crass political self-interest. Hispanics and again when we talk about mass illegal
immigration. That's is let's be honest that is what we're talking about. What we have
today is unlike what the law did immigration history of this country was a turn of the
20th century when you had different countries, different languages, sending an equal parts,
immigrants. That did not have a predominant culture and
then we had in the 1920s an immigration pause we basically close the borders because people
were saying, "We don't have a simulation going on." They were right, and that allowed people
overtime to in fact join American culture. What we have now is very different. Mexicans
alone are way over 50% of all legal immigrants. When you talk about illegal immigration it's
way even more so taken up by central America and Mexico.
I think there's a political calculation going on because these immigrants are just resolutely
Democratic voters. Larry Kudlow spoke so importantly last night about family breakdown. I could
not agree more it is a social catastrophe, and it is the biggest problem, social problem
facing this country. Single mothers are the frequent fliers of
government programs. Because they are so inevitably poor, that they are the overwhelming consumers
of poverty programs, and with the Hispanic out of wedlock birth rate, and when you hear
conservatives talking about Hispanic family values, I laugh.
Extended family yes, but the nuclear family is not there. Democrats see this, and they
know that what they have is many generations of welfare consumers and ways of expanding
the state. Years ago I was on the O'Reilly radio show, on Fox. He asked me back then,
if there was another motivation which was a innate hostility to western civilization
the rule of law, and a certain tradition of Anglo American, and European culture and civilization.
Back then, I hedged and I wasn't willing. Because that's a very provocative statement
and I just fudged a little bit. I hope this isn't on Twitter. There's a part of me that
actually now agrees with that, that I think the diversity ideology is not just a positive
statement, it's a negative one as well. It is targeted at what this country has been,
and is determined to destroy that. We are losing as I say the universities it
breaks my heart, because there is nothing that is more important to me than the preservation
of the humanities and Western civilization. We should be down on our knees, before these
creations of Mozart’s and Bach, and Escalus, and Tiepolo and it is all being trashed now
in the universities. You people probably know it, but I am astounded
by how many Americans are still clueless, and the universities are obviously the primary
engines of the diversity ideology. It's about race, but it's also about gender. The feminist
have taken over the university. They're also why it's so darn hard, going to be so hard
to reconstitute the 2 parent, biological family because of the preposterous feminist idea
that women can do it all and that means raising children.
Actually men and women bring complimentary skills in raising children and boys need their
fathers. That is becoming impossible to say no, mostly because of feminism but also because
of gay marriage. Because I predict there's going to come a moment when Father's day is
declared a hate crime. Because it means that you're dissing that child in the classroom
with 2 lesbian mothers. Things are getting very complicated and very
difficult. Speaker 10: This will be our final question.
Heather Mac Donald: Okay which is? Jodie: Good morning, thank you so much for
your comment. Heather Mac Donald: My pleasure.
Jodie: I'm Jodie from Wisconsin. I agree with everything, I have studied the constitution
and made my students outline it. That time is passed for me. My question is what can
we do? We have already raised ... My sister made 4 sons who adhere to our values and they
are raising grandchildren, but what else can we do?
Heather Mac Donald: That's such a heartbreaking question, and Larry Kudlow is an optimist
as he said last night. It's really a genetic thing. I'm not ... I tend towards pessimism.
Obviously I see the world as lot of empirical validation for that. Let me try to be an optimistic,
and say people like you who so understand the preciousness of this civilization and
it's legacy. If you can keep telling your friends that it's at risk and continue to
fight for schools and for an education that asks only one thing, is this a work of beauty?
I was, I was an undergraduate at a time when this crazy literally theory known as deconstruction
was taking over the humanities in the 1970s. I was at Yale which was the bastion of it.
I view myself as very fortunate. Because I went to school at a time when nobody asked
what's the gender or race of this author. I was allowed to read Milton and Chaucer and
Spenser and Wordsworth, and Shakespeare, without anybody complaining. That's not possible anymore.
We have to start fighting for the primacy of genius and beauty and save it, race and
gender does not matter. It doesn't ... I could not care less about
reading female authors. All I want to know is am I reading somebody that could possesses
language and cease the truth of human existence. Now that view is viewed as blind, and insufficiently
narcissistic. We have a culture of narcissism now where every students just want to study
himself. If he's gay, you want to study gayness, if he's female, he wants to study female,
if he's a black, he wants to study black. No education is about moving outside yourself.
Outside of your petty narrow conceptions to Shakespeare actually knew something more than
we did. Let's acknowledge that. All I can say is we fight the battle. Sometimes you
feel like you're not losing, you're not winning but you got to go down fighting at least.