Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: "Practical Thoughts on Immigration" - Heather Mac Donald

Difficulty: 0

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 governments 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 countrys 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. Itll 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 Mozarts 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.

The Description of "Practical Thoughts on Immigration" - Heather Mac Donald