Podcasts about Immigration Act

Florida has become a national leader in immigration enforcement, and this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features an in-depth conversation with Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier on the state's high-profile role.Attorney General Uthmeier discusses Florida's measures to enforce immigration law, protect public safety, and collaborate with federal agencies. Highlights include:Detention Capacity: Florida has three times the immigration detention capacity as the next state, with additional space opening.A repurposed facility recently opened, Deportation Depot.Florida is actively challenging the lawsuit aimed at blocking detention at Alligator Alcatraz. (Host Mark Krikorian follows up after the pre-recorded interview with an update on the state's recent victory in court.)Law Enforcement Authority: Florida is the first state with all officers certified under Section 287(g), empowering them to assist ICE.Public Safety Threats: From illegal alien truck drivers involved in deadly accidents to child predator stings, the AG underscores the risks of unchecked illegal immigration and shares Florida's responses.Maritime Enforcement: With between 12,000 and 15,000 interdictions in state waters, Florida deploys the National Guard, troopers, and local law enforcement to stop illegal arrivals before they reach shore.Illegal Presence in Florida Is a State Offense: State law prohibits an illegal alien from entering the state; the law is being challenged.No Sanctuary: State law prohibits sanctuary cities and empowers the state to hold jurisdictions accountable by levying civil fines and removing people from office.The episode concludes with commentary from the Center's executive director Mark Krikorian, who provides an update on litigation surrounding “Alligator Alcatraz” and the illegal alien trucker and his employer responsible for three deaths in Florida. He also highlights Jobs.now, a new website that uncovers legally required but often hidden job postings—creating a jobs clearinghouse for Americans and making it harder for employers to convert H-1B visa holders into green card applicants.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJames Uthmeier is the Attorney General of the State of Florida.RelatedPodcast: The Role of Immigration DetentionIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features Elizabeth Jacobs, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, discussing USCIS's updated guidance on discretion in immigration benefits.Key Points:Beyond “Not a Criminal”: New USCIS policy updates require officers to engage in a more holistic analysis of whether naturalization applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” a requirement for naturalization that has been a part of U.S. immigration law since the beginning. In addition, the agency is now asking officers to consider any anti-American, antisemetic, or terrorist activity as “overwhelmingly negative” factors when evaluating whether an applicant warrants a positive grant of discretion.Discretionary Benefits: Many immigration benefits under the INA — including asylum, national interest waivers under EB-2, and naturalization — are discretionary. Even if eligibility requirements are met, USCIS officers may deny them.Good Moral Character Assessments:Traditionally treated as a checklist; now assessed holistically.Focuses on demonstrating positive attributes and rehabilitation, not just the absence of misconduct.Negative Factors for Discretionary Denials: Officers are instructed to treat support for anti-American ideologies, antisemitism, and terrorism as “overwhelmingly negative factors” when exercising discretion on discretionary immigration benefit requests.Expanded Use of Vetting Tools:Increased use of social media screening, fraud detection, and neighborhood/personal investigations.Previous policies often waived these investigations; the update clarifies they are a standard part of discretion.Balancing Efficiency and Vetting: With millions of applications annually, USCIS must balance rigorous vetting with timely processing. The agency is shifting culture to prioritize serving the American people, not just applicants.Cultural Shift: USCIS is shifting emphasis from serving as a “service agency” to serving as a vetting agency, using the discretion granted by Congress to protect national security and uphold American values — a departure from prior policies favoring mass approvals.Immigration Newsmaker Interview: USCIS Director Joe Edlow will be featured today in an Immigration Newsmaker conversation hosted by CIS at the National Press Club. The video will be available at cis.org.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestElizabeth Jacobs is the Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedUSCIS to Consider Anti-Americanism, Antisemitism, and Terrorist Activity When Adjudicating Certain Immigration Benefit RequestsCIS National Security Vetting Failures DatabaseIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast features Director of Litigation Julie Axelrod discussing the current status of the Center's landmark National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) lawsuit, a new CIS case filed in Texas, and the recent “Alligator Alcatraz” litigation.Axelrod explains how the Trump administration is handling the remedy phase of Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. Department of Homeland Security, where CIS successfully argued that the Biden administration violated NEPA when it dismantled border controls allowing in millions of people without doing any environmental impact analysis. NEPA, enacted in 1970, was intended to address environmental impacts of population growth – yet it has rarely been applied to immigration, despite its obvious relevance.Axelrod argues that applying NEPA consistently would protect the environment, provide transparency, and serve as an insurance policy to prevent future administrations from bypassing environmental review when expanding immigration.Highlights from the discussion with the Center's Executive Director Mark Krikorian include:CIS's Successful Lawsuit: The court found that the Biden administration had violated NEPA. The remedy phase could force DHS to conduct the environmental analysis that should have preceded both the Biden DHS's termination of the “Remain in Mexico” policy and halt in construction of the border wall, and/or could ensure that if a future administration repeats such actions, it would have to do environmental analysis, providing transparency and an opportunity for public input.Trump Administration on the Remedy: The Trump administration's immigration agenda, which largely focuses on reduction, not expansion, of immigration, would not be blocked if the administration were to embrace the idea that increases in immigration should be analyzed under NEPA prior to implementation. Such an embrace would also serve to make the Trump immigration agenda harder for a future administration to undo, as the Biden administration did to the first Trump administration's policies. Furthermore, as the Alligator Alcatraz case shows, whether the Trump administration embraces NEPA for immigration expansion or not, open-borders groups will continue challenging enforcement actions in court under NEPA.New Texas Lawsuit: A coalition of Texas plaintiffs seeks to apply NEPA to Biden-era policies, including the end of “Remain in Mexico,” expansive asylum rules, regulatory expansions to our work programs, and taxpayer-funded NGO programs.Alligator Alcatraz Case: Anti-enforcement groups are trying to use NEPA to block expansion of the Florida detention facility, highlighting a double standard – enforcement actions designed to reduce illegal immigration trigger environmental analysis, but policies that increase immigration do not (yet).Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJulie Axelrod is the Director of Litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedCIS Prevails in Challenge to Biden-Harris Immigration ActionsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features a wide-ranging conversation with recently retired Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens, who served for 30 years and led the agency during the worst border crisis in history. Owens speaks with the Center's Executive Director Mark Krikorian about the evolution of the Border Patrol over its 100-year history, past lessons learned, and future challenges. Key points include:Career and History: Owens joined in 1996 as the Border Patrol was adopting national strategies like Operation Hold the Line and Operation Gatekeeper, shifting from chasing illegal crossers to preventing entry.Border Crisis Leadership: As chief, Owens navigated record flows, low morale, and shifting political directives, often focusing on “damage control” to preserve the agency's mission.Barriers and Technology: Physical barriers serve as a “force multiplier” when deployed strategically, buying agents time to detect, respond, and apprehend.Future Challenges:Smuggling potentially shifting to new routesAliens continuing to exploit loopholes, such as asylum.Need for AI and translation tools to handle migrants from a large number of diverse countries.Border Patrol Growth: Owens stresses that expansion must be gradual, maintaining high standards and adequate training to avoid weakening the force. In his closing commentary, Krikorian highlights a widely reported Center study showing a 2.2 million decline in the immigrant population, including 1.6 million illegal immigrants, in the first half of 2025. Critics argued the drop might be artificial, caused by non-response to the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) due to fear of enforcement. But Krikorian noted response rates have been falling steadily for years, with no sharper decline under recent enforcement policies, suggesting the measured reduction is real – and that new policies have been successful in reducing illegal immigration.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJason Owens is former Chief of the Border Patrol.RelatedOverall Foreign-Born Population Down 2.2 Million January to JulyIs the Apparent Decline in the Immigrant Population Real?Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In the latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast, Executive Director Mark Krikorian speaks with Scott Mechkowski, retired Deputy Field Office Director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations in New York. With experience at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Mechkowski offers an inside view of how immigration enforcement has changed over time.From his early days as a deportation officer to leading seven Fugitive Operations Teams targeting dangerous criminal aliens, Mechkowski recounts arrests, post-9/11 operations, and the gradual breakdown of cooperation between ICE and New York City authorities under sanctuary policies. He contrasts the first Trump administration's aggressive enforcement approach — led by then-ICE Acting Director Tom Homan — with the Biden administration's politicization of the agency under DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.Mechkowski also discusses operational challenges, the role of E-Verify, detention space needs, and the realities behind having arrest targets. His reflections reveal how enforcement priorities, local politics, and national leadership shape ICE's ability to remove those who should not be in the country.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestScott Mechkowski is a retired Deputy Field Office Director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations in New YorkRelatedNational Immigration Center for EnforcementIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A Mozambican traditional healer has appeared before the Ga-Rankuwa Magistrates Court on charges of kidnapping, murder, violation and defiling a corpse, as well as contravention of Section 49(1) of the Immigration Act. SABC reporter, Nontsikelelo Mthabela has more....

Hello Interactors,It's been awhile as I've been enjoying summer — including getting in my kayak to paddle over to a park to water plants. Time on the water also gets me thinking. Lately, it's been about what belongs here, what doesn't, and who decides? This week's essay follows my trail of thought from ivy-covered fences to international borders. I trace how science, politics, and even physics shape our ideas of what's “native” and what's “invasive.”INVASION, IVY, AND ICEAs I was contemplating this essay in my car at a stop light, a fireweed seedling floated through the sunroof. Fireweed is considered “native” by the U.S. Government, but when researching this opportunistic plant — which thrives in disturbed areas (hence it's name) — I learned it can be found across the entire Northern Hemisphere. It's “native” to Japan, China, Korea, Siberia, Mongolia, Russia, and all of Northern Europe. Because its primary dispersal is through the wind, it's impossible to know where exactly it originated and when. And unlike humans, it doesn't have to worry about borders.So long as a species arrives on its own accord through wind, wings, currents, or chance — without a human hand guiding it — it's often granted the status of “native.” Never mind whether the journey took decades or millennia, or if the ecosystem has since changed. What matters is that it got there on its own, as if nature somehow stamped its passport.As long time Interactors may recall, I spend the summer helping water “native” baby plants into maturity in a local public green space. A bordering homeowner had planted an “invasive species”, English Ivy, years ago and it climbed the fence engulfing the Sword Ferns, Vine Maples, and towering Douglas Fir trees common in Pacific Northwest woodlands. A nearby concerned environmentalist volunteered to remove the “alien” ivy and plant “native” species through a city program called Green Kirkland. Some of the first Firs he planted are now taller than he is! Meanwhile, on the ground you see remnants of English Ivy still trying to muster a comeback. The stuff is tenacious.This is also the time of year in the Seattle area when Himalayan Black Berries are ripening. These sprawls of arching spikey vines are as pernicious as they are delicious. Nativist defenders try squelching these invaders too. But unlike English Ivy, these “aliens” come with a sugary prize. You'll see people walking along the side of roads with buckets and step stools trying their darnedest to pluck a plump prize — taking care not to get poked or pierced by their prickly spurs.This framing of “invasive” versus “native” has given me pause like never before, especially as I witness armed, masked raids on homes and businesses carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. These government officials, who are also concerned and deeply committed citizens, see themselves as removing what they label “invasive aliens” — individuals they fear might overwhelm the so-called “native” population. As part of the Department of Homeland Security, they work to secure the “Homeland” from what is perceived as an invasion by unwanted human movement. In reflecting on this, I ask myself: how different am I from an ICE agent when I labor to eradicate plants I have been taught to call “invasive” while nurturing so-called “native” species back to health? Both of us are acting within a worldview that categorizes beings as either threats or treasures. At what cost, and with what consequences?According to a couple other U.S. agencies (like the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture) species are considered native if they were present before European colonization (i.e., pre-1492). The idea that a species is “native” if it was present before 1492 obviously reflects less a scientific ecological reality than a political opinion of convenience. Framing nativity through the lens of settler history rather than ecological process ignores not only millennia of Indigenous land stewardship, but prehistoric human introductions and natural migrations shaped by climate and geology. Trying pin down what is “native” is like picking up a squirming earthworm.These little critters, which have profoundly altered soil ecosystems in postglacial North America, are often labeled “naturalized” rather than “native” because their arrival followed European colonization. Yet this classification ignores the fact that northern North America had no earthworms at all for thousands of years after the glaciers retreated. There were scraped away with the topsoil. What native species may exist in North America are confined to the unglaciated South.What's disturbing isn't just the worms' historical presence but the simplistic persistent narrative that ecosystems were somehow stable until 1492. How is it possible that so many people still insist it was colonial contact that supposedly flipped some ecological switch? In truth, landscapes have always been in motion. They've been shaped and reshaped by earth's systems — especially human systems — long before borders were drawn. Defining nativity by a colonial decree doesn't just flatten ecological complexity, it overwrites a deep history of entangled alteration.MIGRATION, MOVEMENT, AND MEANINGIf a monarch butterfly flutters across the U.S. border from Mexico, no one demands its papers. There are no butterfly checkpoints in Laredo or Yuma. It rides the wind northward, tracing ancient pathways across Texas, the Midwest, all the way to southern Canada. The return trip happens generations later — back to the oyamel forests in the state of Michoacán. This movement is a marvel. It's so essential we feel compelled to watch it, map it, and even plant milkweed to help it along. But when human beings try to make a similar journey on the ground — fleeing drought, violence, or economic collapse — we call it a crisis, build walls, and question their right to belong.This double standard starts to unravel when you look closely at the natural world. Species are constantly on the move. Some of the most astonishing feats of endurance on Earth are migratory: the Arctic tern flies from pole to pole each year; caribou migrate thousands of miles across melting tundra and newly paved roads. GPS data compiled in Where the Animals Go shows lions slipping through suburban gardens and wolves threading through farmland, using hedgerows and railways like interstates. Animal movement isn't the exception; it's the ecological norm.And it's not just animals. Plants, too, are masters of mobility. A single seed can cross oceans, whether on the back of a bird, in a gust of wind, or tucked into a canoe by a human hand. In one famous case, researchers once proposed that a tree found on a remote Pacific Island must have arrived via floating debris. But later genetic and archaeological evidence suggested a different story: it may have arrived with early Polynesian voyagers — people whose seafaring knowledge shaped entire ecosystems across the Pacific.DNA evidence and phylogeographic studies (how historical processes shape the geographic distribution of genetic lineages within species) now support the idea that Polynesians carried plants such as paper mulberry, sweet potato, taro, and even some trees across vast ocean distances well before the Europeans showed up. What was once considered improbable — human-mediated dispersal to incredibly beautiful and remote islands — is now understood as a core part of Pacific ecological and cultural history.Either way, that plant didn't ask to be there. It simply was. And with no obvious harm done, it was allowed to stay. We humans can also often conflate our inability to perceive harm with the idea that a species “belongs.” We tend to assume that if we can't see, measure, or immediately notice any negative impact a species is having, then it must not be causing harm — and therefore it “belongs” in the ecosystem. But belonging is contextual. It can be slow to reveal and is rarely absolute. British ecologist and writer Ken Thompson has spent much of his career challenging our tidy categories of “native” and “invasive.” In his book Where Do Camels Belong?, he reminds us that the “belonging” question is less about biology than bureaucracy. Camels originated in North America and left via the Bering land bridge around 3–5 million years ago. They eventually domesticated in the Middle East about ~3,000–4,000 years ago to be used for transportation, milk, and meat. Then, in the 19th century, British colonists brought camels to Australia to help explore and settle the arid interior. Australia is now home to the largest population of feral camels in the world. So where, exactly, do they “belong”? Our ecological borders, like our political ones, often make more sense on a map than they do in the field.Even the language we use is steeped in militaristic and xenophobic overtones. Scottish geographer Charles Warren has written extensively on how conservation debates are shaped by the words we choose. In a 2007 paper, he argues that terms like invasive, alien, and non-native don't just describe, but pass judgment. They carrying moral and political weight into what should be an ecological conversation. They conjure feelings of threat, disorder, and contamination. When applied to plants, they frame restoration as a battle. With people, they prepare the ground for exclusion.Which is why I now hesitate when I yank ivy or judge a blackberry bramble. I still do it because I believe in fostering ecological resilience and am sensitive to slowing or stopping overly aggressive and harmful plants (and animals). But now I do it more humbly, more questioningly. What makes something a threat, and who gets to decide? What if the real harm lies not in movement of species, but in the stories we tell about it?MIGRATION, MYTHS, AND MATTERThe impulse to define who belongs and who doesn't isn't limited to the forest floor. It echoes in immigration policy, in the architecture of the border wall, and in the sterile vocabulary of "population control." Historians of science Sebastian Normandin and Sean Valles have examined how science, politics, and social movements intersect. In a 2015 paper, they show that many conservation policies we take for granted today — ostensibly about protecting ecosystems — emerged from the same ideological soil that nourished eugenics programs and early anti-immigration campaigns. What began as a concern for environmental balance often mutated into a desire for demographic purity.We see this convergence in the early 1900s, when the U.S. Dillingham Commission launched an exhaustive effort to classify immigrants by race, culture, and supposed “fitness” for American life. Historian Robert Zeidel, in his 2004 account of U.S. immigration politics, details how the Dillingham Commission's findings hardened the notion that certain groups — like certain species — are inherently better suited to thrive in the nation's “ecological” and cultural landscape. Their conclusions fueled the 1924 Immigration Act, one of the most restrictive in U.S. history, and laid groundwork for a century of racialized immigration policy.These ideas didn't stay in the realm of policy. They seeped into science. Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, built racial categories into the very fabric of biological classification. Historian of science Lisbet Koerner, in her 1999 study of Carl Linnaeus, shows how his taxonomy reflected and reinforced 18th-century European ideals of empire and control. His system sorted not only plants and animals, but people. Nature, under his framework, was not only to be known but to be ordered. As Linneaus often said, "God created, Linnaeus organized." Brad observes that Carl also spoke in the third person.The Linnaeus legacy lingers. Legal scholar and sociologist Dorothy Roberts and anthropologist Robert Sussman both argue that modern science has quietly resurrected racial categories in genetic research, often under the guise of ancestry testing or precision medicine. But race, like “nativity,” is not a biological fact — it's a social construct. Anthropologist Jonathan Marks and geneticist David Reich reach the same conclusion from different directions: the human genome tells a story not of fixed, isolated groups, but of constant migration, mixing, and adaptation.This is why defining species as “native” or “invasive” based on a colonial timestamp like 1492 is more than just a scientific shortcut. It's a worldview that imagines a pristine past disrupted by foreign intrusion. This myth is mirrored in nationalist movements around the globe — including the troubling MAGA blueprint: Project 2025.When we talk about securing borders, protecting bloodlines, or restoring purity, we're often echoing the same flawed logic that labels blackberry and ivy as existential threats, while ignoring the systems that truly destabilize ecosystems — like extractive capitalism, industrial agriculture, and global trade. But even these forces may not be purely ideological. As complexity theorist Yaneer Bar-Yam, founder of the New England Complex Systems Institute, has argued, large-scale societal and ecological patterns often emerge not through top-down intent, but through the bottom-up dynamics of complex systems under stress.These dynamics are shaped by entropy — not in the popular sense of disorder, but as the tendency of energy and influence to disperse across systems in unpredictable ways as complexity increases. In this view, what we experience as exploitation or collapse may also be the inevitable result of a world growing too intricate to govern by simple, centralized rules.Consider those early Polynesians. Perhaps we best think of them as complex, intelligent, tool-bearing animals who crossed vast oceans long before Europe entered the story. They didn't defy nature, they expressed it. They simply scaled up the same dispersal seen in wind-blown seeds or migratory birds. Their movement, like that of camels, fireweed, or monarchs, reminds us that life is always pushing outward, but because it can. This outward motion follows physics.Even in an open system like Earth, the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds sway. Energy flows in and life finds ever more complex ways to move it along. A sunbeam warms a rock, releasing energy into the air above. That warmth lifts air, forming wind. The wind carries seeds across fields and fence lines, scattering the future wherever friction allows. Seeds take root, drawing in sunlight, water, and minerals. They build structure to move energy forward. Muscles twitch as animals rise to consume that energy then follow warmth, water, or instinct. Wings of the bird lift so it may fly. Herds of the plain press so they may migrate. These patterns stretch across microseconds, minutes, and millennia — creeks, crevices, and continents. And eventually, humans launch canoes in the ocean tracing the same thermodynamic pull, riding currents of wind, wave, desire, and need. None of it defies nature. It is nature. It can be seen as different forms of energy dispersing through motion, life, and relationship at different scales.One of the first scientists to recognize this was a Belgian chemist in the 1970s who saw something radical in the chaos of fluctuations and energy flows in nonequilibrium chemical systems: that complexity could arise not despite entropy, but because of it. Ilya Prigogine called these emergent forms dissipative structures — systems that spontaneously self-organize to transform and disperse energy more efficiently. A familiar example is a snowflake, which forms highly ordered crystal structures as water vapor crystallizes under just the right conditions. This beautiful pattern represents order emerging directly from the molecular chaos of a winter storm.Extending this idea, we might begin to see migration, dispersal, and adaptation not as disruptions or disturbances, but as natural expressions of complex systems tirelessly working toward order. These processes are ways in which living systems unfold, expand, and improvise — dynamically responding to the flows of energy they must transform to sustain themselves and their environments.To call such movement unnatural is to forget that we, too, are part of nature's restless patterning. The real challenge isn't to freeze the world in place, but to understand these flows so we might shape them with care, rather than react to them with fear.To be clear: not all movement is benign. Some species — like kudzu or cane toads — have caused undeniable ecological damage. But the danger lies not in movement itself, but in the conditions of arrival and the systems of control. Climate change, habitat destruction, and globalization create the disturbances that opportunistic species exploit. They don't “invade” so much as arrive when the door is already open.And entropy doesn't mean indifferent inevitability, and complexity doesn't mean plodding passivity. Living systems are capable of generating counter-forces like cooperative networks, defensive alliances, and feedback loops. This form of collective actions resists domination and reasserts balance. Forests shade out overzealous colonizers, coral fish guard polyps from overgrazers, microbial webs starve out pathogens. Agency, be it a fungus or a human community, operates within the same flow of energy, shaping it toward persistence, resilience, and sometimes justice.So, when I pull ivy or water a fern, I do it with a different awareness now. I see myself not as a border guard, but as one actor in a much older drama — a participant in the ceaseless give-and-take through which living systems maintain their balance. My hands are not outside the flow, but in it, nudging here, ceding there, trying to tip the scales toward diversity, reciprocity, and resilience. It's not purity I'm after, but possibility: a landscape, human and more-than-human, capable of adapting to what comes next. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new podcast examining the findings of a recent report, The Foreign-Born Population at the State and Regional Level, 1850 to 2025. The report shows that the foreign-born population – defined as anyone not a U.S. citizen at birth – has reached record levels at the state and regional levels. While the Center regularly highlights national-level immigration trends, this new analysis offers a unique look at state-by-state growth and its implications on schools, wages, healthcare, and working-class Americans. Steven Camarota, lead author of the report and the Center's director of research, discusses the following findings with host Mark Krikorian:Since 1980, the foreign-born population has grown 578 percent in the South and increased 10-fold or more in four states: Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Tennessee. It increased at least seven-fold in five other states: South Carolina, Arizona, Utah, Texas, and Alabama. In an additional 17 states it increased more than four-fold.The foreign-born share of the population has hit historic highs in 14 states and reached a numerical record in 31 states and D.C.From 1980 to 2025, the foreign-born population grew eight times faster than the U.S.-born population nationwide – and 20 times faster in 17 states. In today's commentary, Krikorian highlights a new E-Verify report from the Center that examines enforcement challenges. The core problem, the report notes, is not the system itself but identity theft. One key reform: Congress should require states to grant DHS access to driver's license photos to strengthen verification efforts.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestSteven Camarota is the Director of Research of the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Foreign-Born Population at the State and Regional Level, 1850 to 2025E-Verify and the Invasion of the Identity SnatchersIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Nearly 1,000 suspected zama-zamas mostly undocumented foreign nationals have been arrested at Sheba Gold Mine in Barberton, Mpumalanga. The raid, part of Operation Vala Umgodi involving SAPS and the SANDF, forced the miners to surface after food supplies ran dry. Police say those arrested face charges under the Immigration Act and for illegal mining. Authorities have vowed to dismantle criminal mining networks in the province. Bongiwe Zwane spoke to Brigadier Donald Mdluli, Mpumalanga provincial police spokesperson

The Center for Immigration Studies is proud to release the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, featuring the opening statements from our 2025 congressional testimony. Since January, CIS experts have testified seven times before the U.S. House and Senate, appearing before committees on Homeland Security, Oversight, and Judiciary. These opening statements reflect the breadth of CIS expertise on border enforcement, parole policy, visa integrity, NGO influence, detention operations, and more.Highlights include:Biden's Border Betrayal: Criminal Aliens in America — U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security & Immigration (Andrew R. Arthur, July 22)The Fiscal Consequences of Parole During the Biden Administration — House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee (Steven A. Camarota, July 15)Restoring Integrity and Security to the Visa Process — House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee (Jessica M. Vaughan, June 25)Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild — House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Efficiency (Mark Krikorian, June 4)Examining Threats to ICE Operations — House Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee (Andrew R. Arthur, May 20)Restoring Immigration Enforcement in America — House Judiciary Committee (Jessica M. Vaughan, January 22)Remain in Mexico — Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee (Andrew R. Arthur, January 16)HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestCenter staff testimony.RelatedCenter testimony pageIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the Center for Immigration Studies' podcast, delves into the role of immigration detention in U.S. enforcement efforts. Hosted by Mark Krikorian, the discussion features insights from Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy, who stresses that detention is required to ensure integrity of the immigration system.Highlights:Purpose of Detention: Detention serves administrative functions, ensuring individuals appear for hearings and are available for removal if ordered.Failure to Appear: 34 percent of alien respondents in immigration court fail to appear at some point during the removal proceeding process. Respondents in detention must appear in court whether they want to or not, so the no-show rate is effectively zero, which skews the overall rate of what are termed “in absentia” cases.Legal Mandates under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Detention of aliens subject to removal proceedings is mandatory under various provisions of the INA, including individuals apprehended entering illegally, criminal aliens post-incarceration, and those under final removal orders.Detention Capacity: The lack of detention space is causing a bottleneck in enforcement. The “Big Beautiful Bill” expands detention capacity. potentially increasing bed space by 80,000.Detention Standards: ICE follows the Performance-Based National Detention Standards – the gold standard of care and higher than conventional jail standards.State and Local Roles: States can assist by providing facilities, with federal reimbursement, to support detention efforts. Examples include Alligator Alcatraz in Florida and soft-sided facilities on military bases in New Jersey and Indiana.In today's commentary, Mark Krikorian, podcast host and executive director of the Center, highlights The Dignity Act, introduced by Representative Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.). The bill handcuffs immigration enforcement in many ways, amnesties millions, and increases legal immigration, reminding us that the open borders, pro amnesty advocates will never stop pushing their agenda.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Role of Immigration Detention and Why It is NeededThe ‘Dignity Act': Amnesty for 12 million now plus more than five million extra immigrants over the next decadeThe Price of “Dignity”Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In the latest episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, host and the Center's executive director Mark Krikorian sits down with Gaby Pacheco, an Ecuador-born “Dreamer” and President and CEO of TheDream.US.Krikorian, a long-time critic of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and Pacheco, now an American citizen, discuss the history and politics of the Dream Act and DACA.Opportunity Lost: Despite holding 60 Senate seats during the first year of the Obama administration, Democrats chose not to move a legislative amnesty for Dreamers – illegal aliens who entered the United States at a young age.What is DACA?: Having failed to pass an amnesty for Dreamers, President Obama bypassed Congress in 2012 and through executive action created DACA, which provides some of the benefits of the Dream Act, including protection from deportation and employment authorization, to certain illegal aliens who entered the U.S. before age 16. Its legality has been the subject of litigation.Origins of the Idea for DACA: Pacheco recounts how, having failed to pass the Dream Act through Congress, the administrative approach of DACA was inspired by a 2003 private bill by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, which provides “temporary” protection from deportation and work authorization eligibility for nationals in the U.S. of countries that have experienced natural disaster or civil strife.Trump's 2018 offer: The Trump administration proposed a legislative package that would have given proper legal status to DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, covering perhaps as many as 2 million people, in exchange for key reforms in the legal immigration system. It failed in the House.Looking ahead: Will Congress address DACA?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGaby Pacheco is the President and CEO of TheDream.US.RelatedTheDream.USIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Lord Alf Dubs is a Labour peer and former MP. He came to the UK from Prague in 1939 on one of the Kindertransport trains organised by Sir Nicholas Winton which rescued mostly Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia.Alf was born in Prague in 1932. His father was from a Jewish background and was brought up in what was then Northern Bohemia while his mother came from Austria. His father left Prague for London as soon as the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939. In June, when he was six-years-old, Alf was put on a Kindertransport train, arriving at Liverpool Street station two days later where he was met by his father. His mother eventually joined them in London the day before war broke out. Alf studied Politics and Economics at the London School of Economics and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Battersea South in May 1979. He lost his seat in 1987 and the following year he was appointed director of the Refugee Council, becoming the first refugee to head up the charity.In March 2016 Alf tabled an amendment to the 2016 Immigration Act (known as the Dubs Amendment) which asked the Government to accept 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children into the UK. The amendment passed but the Government closed the scheme the following year after accepting 480 children.In 2016 Alf received the Humanist of the Year award by Humanists UK of which he is also a patron. In 2021 his Czech citizenship was restored making him the first Czech-British member of the House of Lords.DISC ONE: It's Easy To Remember (Take 4) - John Coltrane Quartet DISC TWO: Smetana: Má Vlast, JB1:112: 2. Vltava. Performed by Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Jiří Bělohlávek DISC THREE: She's Leaving Home - The Beatles DISC FOUR: Bandiera Rossa - Canzoniere del Lame DISC FIVE: Mozart: Horn Concerto No. 1 in D Major, K. 412: I. Allegro. Performed by Barry Tuckwell (French horn), Academy of Saint Martin in the Fields, conducted by Neville Marriner DISC SIX: Danny Boy - Daniel O'Donnell DISC SEVEN: Take This Waltz - Leonard Cohen DISC EIGHT: Ode to Joy. Composed by Ludwig van Beethoven and performed by Gewandhausorchester Leipzig, conducted by Herbert BlomstedtBOOK CHOICE: Germinal by Émile Zola LUXURY ITEM: Walking boots CASTAWAY'S FAVOURITE: It's Easy To Remember (Take 4) - John Coltrane Quartet Presenter Lauren Laverne Producer Paula McGinley

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jessica Vaughan, the Center's Director of Policy Studies, expands on her recent testimony before the U.S. House immigration subcommittee on “Restoring Integrity and Security to the Visa Process”.Under the Biden administration, the number of visa applications and issuances increased significantly, which created difficulties for vetting and greater opportunity for visa fraud. Along with host and Center Executive Director Mark Krikorian, Vaughan explores various actions that can be taken by Congress or the Trump administration to address these risks.Vaughan identifies several possible changes that could be made administratively.Change the culture of customer service at USCIS and State Department that encourages adjudicators to “get to yes”Require mandatory interviews of all visa applicantsNarrow the default authorized duration of stay for short-term tourist and business visas to 30 days instead of an automatic six monthsVaughan also discusses visa categories that she believes should be reviewed by Congress to decide if they need to be managed more closely, cut back, or eliminated altogether, including:Diversity LotteryU and T visasSpecial Immigrant Juvenile visasOptional Practical TrainingJ visasIn his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian looks inside the “Big Beautiful Bill” and what its enactment means for immigration policy.HostMark Krikorian in the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJessica Vaughan is a Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedJessica Vaughan's oral and written statementsVideo of the full hearing, plus all written witness statementsOverview of Immigration Provisions in H.R.1, the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act'Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Aubrey converses with Tevin Ramalu, Lawyer & Associate at DLA Piper, about the contradiction in our constitution and Immigration Act regarding foreign nationals being granted access to our health system. The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast explores a topic rarely covered in the media: marriage fraud. Guest host Marguerite Telford, the Center's Director of Communications, sits down with Richard Lee, a former USCIS Immigration Officer and author, to discuss how sham marriages are orchestrated to gain a green card—and eventually citizenship—often then bringing extended family members through chain migration. They also examine how existing U.S. laws and loopholes make it easier for bad actors to exploit the system, in part, by sharing real-life stories.Key topics:What is marriage fraud? A marriage entered with the primary intention of securing immigration benefits—green cards, citizenship, and eventual chain migration.Types of marriage fraudSingle scheme marriage (friendship marriages)Single scheme one sided marriage (U.S. citizen used and defrauded)Arranged marriage (a paid broker is used and includes fraud rings)Cases of marriage fraudThe Numbers: Rich Lee draws on his USCIS experience in Atlanta, where he uncovered approximately 3,000 marriage-fraud cases over three years, primarily involving immigrant communities common to the region – the two most common foreign nationals involved were from Nigeria and Ghana.Where do brokers find the U.S. citizens to exploit?Lee discusses how homeless people are preyed upon.VAWA fraudAliens exploit the Violence Against Women Act, a federal law that provides protection for victims of domestic violence. The law provides an easy pathway to a green card due to a huge bias towards the alien, who can claim abuse and then self-petition for a green card, all without any in-person interview. This claim of abuse often takes place without the alleged abuser's knowledge. No evidence or information can be taken from the alleged abuser or his family.Telford questions whether it would be a good idea to amend the law so abuse can be contested – maybe adding an adversarial proceeding before an immigration judge.Lee believes that VAWA cases should be taken away from the Vermont Service Center.Lee also believes that in-person interviews should be required to safeguard against fraudulent misuse.USCIS cultureLee explains that he experienced a shift in the agency's culture during his time as an immigration officer. USCIS is now focused almost exclusively on serving immigrants with little support provided to U.S. citizens.Victims are encouraged to report fraud on the ICE tipline:1-866-DHS-2-ICE or ICE.gov/tiplineHostMarguerite Telford is the Director of Communications at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestRichard Lee is a former USCIS Immigration Officer and author.RelatedAfter the Border: 42 Eye-Opening, Shocking, Crazy, Happy & Fun Stories from a Retired U.S. Immigration OfficerIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast delves into the Insurrection Act, its historical uses, and whether it could legally authorize the use of the military to assist in the arrest and removal of illegal aliens.The Insurrection Act allows presidents to deploy federal troops not only in cases of insurrection but also when federal law can't practicably be enforced through conventional means. The Posse Comitatus Act, which many point to as preventing such a use of troops, is not the obstacle many assume it is.President Trump so far has only tasked troops with protection of federal facilities and agents, but, if he chooses to exercise it, he does have authority under the Insurrection Act to put them to work actually enforcing immigration law.“The Insurrection Act has been invoked by leaders of both parties to protect civil rights and to enforce federal law. President Trump would have ample justification to use the Insurrection Act to allow the U.S. military to assist with large-scale deportation efforts,” said podcast guest George Fishman, Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and former Deputy General Counsel at DHS.Historical precedent:Over the past more than 200 years, presidents have relied on the Insurrection Act to deal with some 30 crises.Presidents of both parties have relied on the Insurrection Act: Grant to suppress the early KKK, Cleveland to protect Chinese immigrants, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson to enforce civil rights for African Americans, Bush to restore order during the 1992 LA riots.Misconceptions about the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA):The PCA does not apply where Congress has explicitly authorized military use — such as under the Insurrection Act.Immigration enforcement today:More than 15 million illegal aliens are in the U.S.3.6 million backlog in immigration court.1.4 million aliens have final removal orders, yet remain at large. Millions of removable aliens were released by the Biden administration, and ICE has no knowledge of their location.ICE has only 6,000 officers to manage enforcement nationwide.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestGeorge Fishman is the Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedDon't Fear the Insurrection ActPresident Trump Doesn't Need to Invoke the Insurrection Act — He Already HasIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, joins Parsing Immigration Policy for a wide-ranging discussion of immigration enforcement, voter integrity, and state-federal cooperation.A key national voice on immigration issues, Kobach shares with host Mark Krikorian insights into the practical and legal efforts that states like Kansas are taking to combat illegal immigration.Highlights include:Illegal Population in KansasAn estimated 90,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens reside in Kansas, many working in industries like construction.State-Federal Law Enforcement CooperationKansas was among the first two states to sign 287(g) cooperation agreements with ICE.ICE has only 15,000 agents for interior enforcement – insufficient for mass removals. Kobach emphasized that under 287(g) the daily “net” cast by local officers provides the eyes and ears for federals agents.Legal Advocacy & LitigationDACA Challenge: Kobach represented ICE agents in early litigation against President Obama's DACA program.Obamacare Benefits Case: Led a multi-state coalition to stop illegal aliens from receiving Affordable Care Act benefits and received a victory from the 8th Circuit.Census Litigation: Currently leading a multi-state effort to exclude illegal aliens from the census for purposes of congressional apportionment. Including illegal aliens and those here on temporary visas causes “all kinds of constitutional problems.”Election IntegrityFormer vice chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity under the first Trump administration.As Secretary State of the State of Kansas, Kobach implemented strict voter ID laws, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.Warns that illegal immigrants voting dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens.E-VerifyPrivate businesses in Kansas are not required to use E-Verify, but the agencies and contractors under the Attorney General are mandated to use it for new hires.Broader E-Verify bills have not been enacted due to a strong business lobby in the state.NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System)This was a post-9/11 system designed by Kobach when he was at the U.S. Department of Justice to stop the terrorist threat posed by the ease of getting a temporary visa and overstaying that visa.Whenever an alien from a high-risk terrorist country overstayed a temporary visa, he was flagged so that local law enforcement across the country could arrest him during any routine stop.The INS system led to 1,500 arrests of Pakistani illegal aliens, and caused the self-deportation of an estimated 15,000 more.Went into effect in 2002, but President Obama cancelled the program. If it were still in effect, the recent attack by a visa overstayer in Colorado might have been stopped.In today's commentary, Krikorian, the Center's executive director, highlights a corporate-backed push – championed by Agriculture Secretary Rollins – to exempt certain sectors from immigration enforcement. President Trump briefly embraced it, triggering swift backlash from the base and within the administration. The move was quickly reversed, but serves as a reminder that pro-unlimited immigration forces remain active, even within the GOP. Eternal vigilance is essential to ensure that immigration policy forces employers to hustle for workers – not the other way around. A tight labor market is in the national interest.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestKansas Attorney General Kris Kobach.Related287(g) Program: A Force Multiplier for Immigration EnforcementA Preventable Terrorist Attack: NSEERS never should have been cancelledAttorney General of Kansas WebsiteKris Kobach personal websiteThat Was FastIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Center for Immigration Studies releases a new podcast episode focusing on the 287(g) program, an ICE initiative that empowers and trains local law enforcement to help identify and detain illegal aliens involved in criminal activity. The Center's director of policy studies Jessica Vaughan joins host Mark Krikorian to explain how the program works, why it matters, and what's next.Highlights include:What is 287(g)?A federal program established in 1996 that deputizes state and local law enforcement officers to perform certain ICE functions under ICE supervision.The Three Models:Jail Enforcement Model – Officers in the jail have access to DHS databases to investigate the immigration status of inmates, conduct interviews, and even start the deportation process by issuing charging documents.Warrant Service Officer Model – Officers serve ICE warrants and can detain and transport aliens to ICE custody.Task Force/Street Model – Officers can identify and detain aliens encountered during routine police work. In addition, agencies can address specific crime problems related to illegal immigration, such as drug or human trafficking, gangs, or identity theft, but this model has not yet been reinstated by the Trump administration.Training & Oversight:Officers receive ICE training in immigration law and civil rights protections. Agreements are regularly audited to prevent abuse of authority.Policy Shifts:Under Biden: No new agreements accepted, funding cut, most existing agreements terminated; at the end of his term only 43 active agreements were still in effect.Under Trump & Post-2024: Program rapidly expanding – now 635 agreements in 40 states, with Texas and Florida mandating statewide participation.Why It Matters:287(g) is a force multiplier that helps areas underserved by ICE or in areas where the criminal alien caseload exceeds ICE's resources, ensuring criminal aliens don't slip through the cracks.In today's commentary, host Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, highlights the return of the “Maryland man,” Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to face federal prosecution. What can be learned from the legal battle and the coverage and reaction to the case?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedLearn more about 287(g) program at ICE.govThe 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and HomelandBiden Administration Changes ICE's 287(g) Page and Admits There is a Hold on ProgramWe Are All Less Safe: Biden Targets ICE Law Enforcement ProgramKilmar Abrego Garcia Is Back — to Face Federal Prosecution: Key takeaways from the grand jury indictment and the AG's press conferenceIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

With foreign student visas at Harvard and elsewhere in the news, today's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features Andrew Arthur, the Center for Immigration Studies fellow in law and policy, providing a crash course on the subject. He explains the foreign student admissions process, the responsibilities of schools certified to enroll foreign students, and recent policy issues. With over one million foreign students studying (and working) in America, this episode covers the national security implications of not having proper knowledge of who is being brought in and what they are doing while in the U.S.Key topics covered:Admissions OverviewThe role of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)Student's Application to SEVP-certified institutions.Issuance of Form I-20 upon acceptance.Visa application at U.S. consulates.Which branch controls visa issuance?Role of Designated School Officials (DSOs)A DSO plays the role of a "deputized immigration officer."Monitoring student status via SEVIS.Reporting changes in enrollment or course of study.Conflict of interest? Balancing institutional responsibilities with immigration compliance.Optional Practical Training (OPT)Students working under the OPT program are still on student visas.Will these students lose their ability to be employed as cheap labor?Policy ChallengesWhy did the Trump administration revoke Harvard University's SEVP certification?Potential impact/lack of impact of the District Court's temporary restraining order (TRO).Impact on other schools.In today's commentary, Mark Krikorian, podcast host and executive director of the Center, highlights today's main illegal immigration challenge: visa overstays. He cites the recent Colorado attack committed by a visa overstayer as an example of the importance of action and describes some of the solutions which are in the reconciliation bill.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestAndrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow of Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedDHS Pulls Harvard's Student-Visa Certification Authority Controversial DHS Program Allows Foreign Students to Train in Sensitive Fields There Are 1.5 Million Foreign Students in the United States (and Over a Third Have Work Authorization) Not all illegal-alien criminals are border-jumpersIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Show Notes: Dan Tabak, a lawyer and treasurer of Harvard Hillel, spent three years at Columbia Law School, he then worked as a litigator at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, but took a year off to clerk for a federal judge in Brooklyn. He went back to work at Simpson Thacher before moving on to his current firm, Cohen & Gresser which operates primarily in New York City but has offices in London, Paris, Dubai, and Washington, D.C. He currently lives in Scarsdale, New York with his wife and two kids. On the Board of Harvard Hillel Dan joined the board of Harvard Hillel during the pandemic, which allowed him to participate more actively. He explains why he joined the board and supporting the Jewish community was an important part of his decision. In response to the fact that Harvard has been in the news in connection with  anti-semitism, Dan states that the board has a diverse board with diverse viewpoints. He also mentions a 311 page study on anti-semitism at Harvard and notes that there are problems at Harvard that were different from what his class perceived, and that students today interact differently than when Dan was a student, specifically the inability to disagree with civility and respect for diversity of opinions.  The Decline of Jewish Students at HarvardDan discusses the decline in Jewish students at Harvard and similar institutions, noting that he believes it has not emerged from a top-down decision, but traces back to the Immigration Act of 1965. He notes that there was a high likelihood of having a Jewish roommate or blockmate in the class of 1992 and a lower chance now, which has led to fewer people understanding Jews and Jewish life at these institutions. He attributes the decline to the emphasis on more diversity on identities within admissions and how students feel a responsibility to represent their specific background as well as the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened doors to different communities, particularly immigrant families, who tend to value education highly and are now more represented at Harvard.  A Career in Law and Improving the Public School Systems Dan talks about his career at Simpson Thacher, one of the world's largest firms. His senior thesis in college involved a school funding decision in New Jersey. From his first week as a summer associate at Simpson Thacher to his departure years later, he worked with a group bringing a similar case in New York, Campaign For Fiscal Equity against the state of New York. The case involved school kids in New York City suing the state for a sound basic education under the New York State Constitution. The trial went nine months, and the students won the trial.  He summarizes the process from determining there is a right to finding the remedy.  The remedy involved resources and money, and the case went through another set of hearings to determine the appropriate resolution. Dan also discusses what the research revealed about class sizes, funding, and how the family situation impacts the education of a student.  A Focus on Financial Service CompaniesThe conversation turns to Dan's legal work, focusing on commercial litigation, with a focus on financial services companies, and bankruptcy and bankruptcy-related litigation. He talks about his involvement in a case involving Terry Bollea, also known as Hulk Hogan, in the bankruptcy of Gawker and Gawker's founder. He also touches on how this case helped lead to a change in how the public views the publication of sex tapes. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the legal landscape and the impact of cases like this on the legal landscape. Skills and Superpowers in LawDan believes that his strengths in law are the strategizing of how to get from here to there, listening to the client, and having a goal in mind. He also mentions being a good writer, which helps convey his thoughts. He initially was less strong at oral arguments but has since improved his skills and persuaded judges to change course and decide for his clients. One example of a successful legal strategy involves listening to clients and helping them figure out what they really want. For example, he has worked with pro bono clients who are more interested in justice than achieving a result. They often get a settlement offer and he explains the consequences if they don't take it. He explains that the lawyer must work through the emotional aspects and consider the implications of suing them and going to court. With corporate clients, Dan emphasizes the importance of listening to clients' goals and working relationships with the other party. A settlement can be a win-win situation for everyone involved, as long as they can continue doing business together. This is a different function of listening to what the client is trying to get out of the case. The Limitations of  Legal EducationDan believes that a course he took from Roger Fisher with the Harvard Negotiation project was more helpful in negotiation and negotiation strategy than anything he learned in law school. He also mentions that law school was more about hearing the cases and understanding the law, rather than emotional intelligence and negotiating strategies. He also mentions that law schools did not teach how to manage junior attorneys and paralegals, which he believes is essential for success in law firms. He talks about the many small inflection points in a lawyer's career, such as meeting the right people and introducing them to potential clients that change or shape direction and offer opportunities. Influential Harvard Professors and CoursesDan mentions the Negotiation course and a Constitutional Law class with H.W. Perry, where he learned how to read legal cases and understand constitutional law. Dan shares a memorable experience while he was taking the Constitutional Law course where he argued a case in front of classmates, including "Chief Justice" Ketanji Brown Jackson, and also mentions learning in an Intro to Psychology course about the concept of idiosyncrasy credits.  

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Senior Legal Fellow George Fishman explains that verifying Social Security numbers could be the solution to two issues: States' need for tools to help identify those eligible to vote in the United States and DHS's need for tools to uncover employers who are knowingly employing illegal aliens.Voter Eligibility VerificationExecutive Order: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced that it will be giving states and localities the ability to check SSNs of individuals registering to vote and those already on the voter rolls to verify citizenship.History: Fishman reflects on his role in proposing this idea nearly three decades ago as part of the 1997 Voter Eligibility Verification Act. How it will work: State and local governments will be given access to federal databases through an upgrade of USCIS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system to confirm citizenship.Employment Eligibility VerificationNo-Match Letters: Although the administration has not announced any action on re-instating “no-match” letters, the SSA could revive the practice of notifying employers when a worker's Social Security number doesn't match the name listed in the SSA's database.History: The episode covers the history of no-match letters, including their origins, past implementations, and abandonment by the Obama and Biden administrations. Policy Recommendations: Fishman recommends that SSA resume issuing no-match letters and DHS reissue its regulations instructing employers that they may be found to know that they are employing illegal aliens if they don't take certain actions upon receipt of no-match letters.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestGeorge Fishman is the Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Trump Administration is Empowering States to Verify Voters Citizenship“Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”Reviving No-Match Letters: A powerful tool against illegal employmentIs the Harvard TRO Likely to be Effective?DHS Pulls Harvard's Student-Visa Certification AuthorityIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Todd Bensman, the Center's Texas-based Senior National Security Fellow, discusses his experiences at the Center as he prepares to depart for a new role working with Border Czar Tom Homan. Bensman and host Mark Krikorian reflect on his nearly seven-year tenure at the Center, focusing on his firsthand experiences with border issues, extensively documented in two books authored while at the Center.Growing out of field research for the Center in Latin America and his graduate studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, Bensman's first book, America's Covert Border War, addressed the national security challenges of the border, specifically focusing on “special interest aliens” – i.e. illegal border-crossers from countries where jihadist terror groups operate.Bensman's second book, Overrun, is a history of the Biden border crisis, based also on numerous visits to Mexico and Central and South America, where he interviewed hundreds of migrants, officials, aid workers, and others. Bensman uncovered the CBP One program during its pilot phase, prior to its public disclosure, shed light on UN funding for illegal immigration, and provided on-the-ground reporting during significant events such as the Del Rio migrant crisis and the lead-up to the end of Title 42.In his closing commentary, Krikorian weighed in on the recent admission of several dozen Afrikaners from South Africa into the United States as refugees, highlighting facets of the issue not addressed in most media coverage.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestTodd Bensman is the (soon to be former) Senior National Security Fellow.RelatedBenman's Author PageBensman's Video PlaylistAmerica's Covert Border War: The Untold Story of the Nation's Battle to Prevent Jihadist InfiltrationOverrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. HistoryAfrikaners: Persecuted Refugees or White-Privileged Aliens?Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy focuses on the re-opening of ICE's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office. Originally established by the Trump administration in 2017 to provide critical support to victims and families affected by crimes linked to illegal immigration, the VOICE office was shut down by the Biden administration, but has been reinstated by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.ImageGuest host Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, is joined by two parents who lost their children to crimes committed by illegal aliens. They share their personal stories and experiences, highlighting how the VOICE office provided them with support and resources.Don Rosenberg, President of Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), whose son Drew was killed by an unlicensed illegal immigrant in a hit-and-run crash.Tammy Nobles, mother of Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old autistic woman who was raped and murdered by an MS-13 gang member illegally present in the U.S.Vaughan then highlights Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's warning to federal highway fund recipients: comply with federal immigration law or risk losing funding. On his list of public safety concerns: states that issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia presently issue licenses to this population.Rosenburg, the president of AVIAC and an activist focused on unlicensed drivers and road safety, discusses his research into the impact of this policy, stating that there is no evidence that providing driver's licenses to illegal aliens improves road safety. In fact, he shares data showing that fatal crashes rise, as do hit-and-runs, in the first few years after such a policy is implemented.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsDon Rosenberg, President of Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), whose son Drew was killed by an unlicensed illegal immigrant in a hit-and-run crash.Tammy Nobles, mother of Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old autistic woman who was raped and murdered by an MS-13 gang member illegally present in the U.S.RelatedVictims and Their Families Finally Get a VOICESilencing VOICE: Despite being shuttered by Biden, the need for ICE's victim-assistance office is greater than everVOICE websiteAVIAC: Advocates For Victims of Illegal Alien CrimeIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Today on The Midday Report, host Tshidi Madia – standing in for Mandy Wiener – unpacks the major stories making headlines. Forty-nine white Afrikaners, now classified as refugees, are en route to the United States as part of Washington’s resettlement programme. The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, is set to brief the media on South Africa’s G20 Presidency. In the courts, controversial televangelist Timothy Omotoso faces charges under the Immigration Act, while the sexual harassment inquiry into Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge resumes today. All this and more. Listen live - The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is broadcast weekdays from noon to 1pm on 702 and CapeTalk.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This year marks 60 years since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 legislation changed who could come to America.Now, local leaders gathered in Indianapolis to celebrate its impact, especially on Indiana's growing Asian American and Pacific Islander population.Before 1965, immigration from Asia was almost entirely banned, but during the civil rights era, the new Act replaced a quota system and opened the door for families to build their lives in Indiana.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, guest host Jessica Vaughan, the Center's director of policy studies, discusses the intersection of immigration policy and municipal finance with Ed Grebeck, a veteran credit market risk expert. About one-third of all municipal bonds issued in 2024 and outstanding through 2024 are from sanctuary jurisdictions, concentrated in large cities and states, such as California, New York, and Massachusetts.Vaughan and Grebeck explore the fiscal implications of sanctuary policies and the need for comprehensive risk assessment in municipal finance. The absence of truly objective bond ratings or comprehensive risk assessments for sanctuary jurisdictions may place investors, particularly individual investors, who own a significant share of this market, at a disadvantage. Sanctuary policies can impose significant burdens on taxpayers, potentially affecting a municipality's fiscal health and its ability to meet financial obligations. Key discussion points include:Why are credit ratings important?Do sanctuary policies compromise a city's creditworthiness?Why might credit rating agencies overlook political risks associated with sanctuary jurisdictions?How does the influx of illegal immigrants strain public resources and affect taxpayers?Would legislative measures, like Rep. Nancy Mace's "No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act", address these concerns?In the closing commentary, Vaughan presents the findings from her most recent report on sanctuary jurisdictions, identifying the states and localities that have the most egregious non-cooperation policies leading to the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestEd Grebeck is a veteran credit market risk expert.RelatedSanctuary MapWhich Sanctuary Jurisdictions Have Released the Most CriminalsNo Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities ActContact Details for Ed GrebeckIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features a discussion of a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which reveals that both immigrant and U.S.-born women are having fewer children than they did 15 years ago. Based on data from the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS), collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, the report finds that although immigrant women continue to have somewhat higher fertility rates than their U.S.-born counterparts, the gap is small.Guest Steven Camarota, the Center's Research Director and co-author of the report, highlights a critical reality: Immigration, while adding to population growth, does not significantly slow the aging of the population or reverse declining birth rates.The podcast's second guest, Center Resident Scholar Jason Richwine, provides some evidence that immigration may actually reduce the fertility of the U.S.-born, reducing or potentially erasing immigration's small positive impact on overall U.S. fertility.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.Jason Richwine is a Resident Scholar at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Fertility of Immigrants and Natives in the United States, 2023Jobs Americans Will Do: Just About All of ThemImmigration in Trump's First 100 DaysIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The Center for Immigration Studies hosted a panel discussion examining how immigration is used as a political, economic, and strategic tool by governments, non-state, and sub-state actors worldwide. Whether through mass migration crises, policy-driven border surges, or the manipulation of refugee flows, immigration has become a powerful geopolitical weapon and a means of waging hybrid warfare. Examples have included Cuba's use of the Mariel boatlift in 1980 or the more recent efforts by Belarus to coordinate illegal immigration to the EU.This panel explored the concept of immigration warfare – how immigration is leveraged to gain political leverage; influence legislation, elections, and the economy; shape public opinion; and even destabilize a country. Discussion also covered how nations can respond to this growing challenge. The discussion is an activity of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR), a collaboration among independent policy organizations on three continents sharing the perspective that each sovereign nation has the right to pursue its chosen immigration policies.Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, moderates this rebroadcast of the Center's panel.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsViktor Marsai is the Director of the Migration Research Institute in Budapest.Phillip Linderman is a Retired senior Foreign Service officer from the State Department and a Board Member of the Center for Immigration Studies.Eric Ruark is the Director of Research of Numbers USA.RelatedPanel Press ReleasePanel VideoPanel TranscriptC-Span CoverageIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Former Czech President Václav Klaus joins the Center for Immigration Studies podcast to discuss migration, national identity, and the importance of the nation-state. An economist and longtime advocate for national sovereignty, President Klaus challenges prevailing European views on immigration, multiculturalism, and the European Union.Key highlights:Reconciling free market economics with the necessity of limited immigration and secure borders.Differentiating between individual migration and mass migration.Arguing that low birthrates do not justify increased migration.Explaining mass migration as being demand-driven, caused by politics and social policies.Critiquing labor importation as a policy failure that undermines citizens' motivation to work.Emphasizing the importance of national borders and criticizing the Schengen Agreement.Distinguishing between migrants and legitimate refugees as opposed to distinguishing between legal and illegal migrants.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestFormer Czech President Václav KlausRelated"Europe All Inclusive: Understanding the Current Migration Crisis"Václav Klaus' personal websiteIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, National Review's Andy McCarthy and guest host Andrew Arthur, the Center's fellow in law and policy, examine the erosion of legal norms – from immigration enforcement to judicial power – and what this means for how our system of government is supposed to work under the Constitution.Prosecutorial Discretion:McCarthy traces how the Obama and Biden administrations transformed prosecutorial discretion from a tool used on a case-by-case basis into a broad and categorical policy of declining to enforce immigration laws. What was once a resource-based allocation judgment has become, in his view, an unconstitutional end-run around Congress.The Courts as a Political Battleground:With Congress “not doing its job,” McCarthy highlights how activist groups race to friendly judges for nationwide injunctions. He warns the resulting judicial overreach allows unelected judges, often handpicked by advocacy groups, to override elected officials and block policies nationally, replacing democratic accountability with judicial activism. SCOTUS's large emergency docket caseload is a symptom of the resulting dysfunction.The Rise of Progressive Lawyering:McCarthy contrasts originalism, which examines and respects the Constitution's original meaning, with progressive lawyering, which he sees as driven by social outcomes rather than legal process. This shift, he contends, threatens democratic governance.Deportation and Due Process:The two legal experts address Trump-era deportation efforts using both the foreign policy grounds for removal and the Alien Enemies Act. McCarthy, who supports broad executive authority, explains that even aliens have constitutional protections.HostAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew McCarthy is a Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute and Contributing Editor at National Review.RelatedAndrew McCarthy articles at National ReviewSupremes Uphold Due Process While Handling Trump Win in Venezuelan Deportations CaseWhat is 'Shocking' to J.D. Vance Should Shock - and Anger - You, TooTrump Admin Wins First Alien Enemies Act Skirmish before SCOTUS - or Did ItSCOTUS Chief Stays District Order for Alien Deported Due to 'Administrative Error'Tren de Aragua, Alien Enemies Act, and 'State Secrets Privilege'Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy discusses the Trump Administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a rarely-used provision in U.S. law passed in 1798 that gives the president the authority to swiftly remove citizens of countries of wartime foes or countries who have made a “predatory incursion” into our territory. Last month, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the AEA to apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove certain documented members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).Guest host and CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan interviews George Fishman, CIS Senior Legal Fellow, who has been writing about the possible use of the AEA since 2023. Three main questions are highlighted during the podcast:How are individuals identified for deportations via the AEA?What legal protections do those targeted for deportation via the AEA have?Who determines whether the administration has met the statutory requirements for the AEA's use?In her closing commentary, Vaughan discusses the recent statewide implementation of the 287(g) partnership program for immigration enforcement in Florida.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGeorge Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedTrump Deploys the Alien Enemies Act Against Venezuela and Tren De AraguaTren de Aragua, the Alien Enemies Act, and the ‘State Secrets Privilege'Alien Enemy Validation GuideThe 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Town and HomelandIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Center for Immigration Studies analysts discuss the legal and policy implications of the Mahmoud Khalil case.Khalil, a Palestinian/Syrian/Algerian green card holder, was involved in pro-Hamas protests when a graduate student on a nonimmigrant visa at Columbia University. DHS charged Khalil under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which renders deportable any noncitizen “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”CIS's Andrew Arthur and George Fishman review the facts of the case, analyze the constitutional and legal questions of what they predict will be a potential test for future efforts to remove noncitizens who support terrorism, and offer predictions. Four main questions are highlighted:Is this a free speech case? Can a noncitizen be removed for speech or action supporting a terrorist organization?Is this a foreign policy case? How does the government define “serious adverse foreign policy consequences”?What are the judicial precedents? How will courts balance foreign policy concerns against constitutional rights?Will this case set clearer lines on what a non-citizen can and cannot do? There is a need for the law to settle the spectrum of rights that apply to a spectrum of status. Will this be the case that will provide legal clarity?As the case moves through immigration court and on to federal district court and beyond, the Center for Immigration Studies will continue providing expert analysis on its broader implications for immigration enforcement and national security.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsAndrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.George Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedFor more analysis, see our topic page: The Case of Mahmoud KhalilIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Fieldwork undertaken by the Center for Immigration Studies reveals a border now under control, offering clear evidence that the border crisis was never an unstoppable force but rather the result of policy decisions.Last week the Center sent analysts to the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector and across the border to Tijuana, and to the El Paso Sector and across the border to Juarez. These two border sectors had some of the heaviest migrant traffic over the last few years, but now the numbers have plummeted.Center researchers Andrew Arthur and Todd Bensman join Parsing Immigration Policy to discuss what they saw and what policies are making the difference, and three tools in particular:Infrastructure – Expanded fencing and additional concertina wire have been added.Manpower – Border Patrol agents are forward-deployed, no longer being pulled off the line for processing migrants.Criminal Prosecutions – Not only are apprehended migrants no longer being released, but illegal entry is increasingly being handled as a criminal offense, with first-time illegal-crossers facing up to six months in a federal penitentiary.In his closing commentary, host Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, explains the Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, which is now in the headlines due to the Trump administration using it as the basis for the swift deportation of a group of Venezuelan gang members. The law can only be triggered by a declared war, an invasion, or a predatory incursion by a foreign nation or government. Its application faces legal challenges and will likely reach the Supreme Court.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsAndrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.Todd Bensman is a Senior National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedA Border 'Peace Dividend'Eye-Popping February CBP Numbers Show How the Border Has Changed under TrumpThe 225-year-old 'Alien Enemies Act' Needs to Come Out of RetirementTrump Prepares to Use of the Alien Enemies ActIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast series features a discussion between guest host Marguerite Telford, the Center's Director of Communications, and Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research. Camarota's interview highlights a recently released analysis that examines the size and growth of the foreign-born population in the January Current Population Survey, the first government survey to be adjusted to better reflect the recent surge in illegal immigrants. The analysis finds that the foreign-born or immigrant population (legal and illegal together) hit 53.3 million and 15.8 percent of the total U.S. population in January 2025 — both new record highs. Telford and Camarota continue the discussion, hitting topics both in the analysis and those effected by immigration stock and flow, including population projections, employment, education levels, assimilation, and more.HostMarguerite Telford is the Director of Communications at the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedForeign-Born Number and Share of U.S. Population at All-Time Highs in January 2025The Declining Education Level of Newly Arrived ImmigrantsWorking-Age, but Not Working, 1960 to 2024Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy reminds listeners of the threats that made President Trump's recent Executive Order, "Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," necessary. The Center for Immigration Studies maintains a comprehensive database detailing examples of preventable federal government vetting failures which resulted in the entry of individuals who posed a threat to national security. Todd Bensman, the Center's national security fellow, has recently added new cases into the database, highlighting the need for the improvement of U.S. vetting processes. “The Center's database offers valuable insights for preventing future threats,” said Bensman. “I hope this crucial tool for understanding past failures will be useful to the Trump administration's renewed robust security vetting efforts.”Key Highlights:Purpose: The database identifies fail points in the complex immigration security screening system, providing insights for homeland security agencies and congressional overseers to strengthen future vetting processes.Analysis: Each entry includes an after-action report detailing what went wrong, offering lessons to improve future vetting procedures. Users can access all primary research materials used in the analyses.Notable Cases Highlighted: The database contains over 50 entries revealing the entry of foreign threat actors, including a Brazilian ex-police officer who had committed mass murder; a Bosnian war criminal who ran prison camps and was involved in brutal interrogations, torturing, and the killing of inmates; and an Egyptian student who was involved in a plot to bomb the Israeli embassy.Historical Context: The 9/11 attacks prompted a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration vetting processes. The year 2008 was chosen as the starting date for collecting vetting failure cases on the assumption that the first series of 9/11 visa vetting reforms would have fully vested by then and because significant new process improvements were implemented that year.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host, highlights President Trump's success in securing the border, achieving the lowest level of apprehensions recorded in history. Will this administration and future administrations stay vigilant?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestTodd Bensman is a National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedDatabase: National Security Vetting FailuresEgyptian Student Added to CIS National Security Vetting Failures DatabaseAfghan Evacuee Added to CIS National Security Vetting DatabaseBrazilian Mass Murderer Who Slipped through U.S. Vetting Three Times Is Added to CIS DatabasePanel: A New Database of Vetting FailuresCommonplace: They Said It Couldn't Be DoneThe Greatest Mass MIgration Border Crisis in U.S. History Is OverIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast series features guest host Senior National Security Fellow Todd Bensman in conversation with Jaeson Jones, a leading expert on Mexican cartels and a border correspondent.This timely discussion highlights the recent designation of six Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) by the Trump administration and the multifaceted approach by all levels of government that this permits, allowing the U.S. to combat the cartels in sync with the Mexican government.Key topics covered include:Evolution of Mexican Cartels: Exploration of how Mexican cartels, now in 65 countries around the world, have transitioned from organized crime syndicates to parallel governments in Mexico, exhibiting extreme violence and governmental infiltration.Advocacy for FTO Designation: Discussion on Jones' rationale for advocating for the FTO designation, emphasizing the need for enhanced legal frameworks to effectively combat the rapid and violent operations of cartels.Strategic Framework Post-Designation: Analysis of the comprehensive approach required to dismantle cartel networks, underscoring the necessity for coordinated efforts across all branches of government.Implications of FTO Status: Examination of the potential outcomes of the FTO designation, including:Revocation of visas for individuals associated with designated cartels.Inclusion of cartel affiliates on no-fly lists.Enhanced capabilities to target and seize financial assets linked to cartel operations.Addressing Fentanyl Trafficking: Strategies to combat the smuggling of fentanyl, focusing on disrupting supply chains originating from countries such as China, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, and addressing the corruption within Mexico that facilitates these operations.Game Changer: Prediction by Jones – With the FTO designation, the number of lives we can now save is unprecedented.In his closing commentary, Bensman highlights the recent agreement between Mexico and the United States, in which Mexico will deploy 10,000 additional troops to the border, and the United States will assist in intercepting American guns that end up in cartel hands. However, Bensman notes a lack of reliable evidence supporting the claim that most of the cartels' firearms come from U.S. gun stores. The cartels have, for years, equipped themselves with military-grade weapons from Mexico's own corrupt military and from the armories of corrupt officials in Central American and South American nations.HostTodd Bensman is a National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJaeson Jones is an expert on Mexican cartels and a border correspondent.RelatedJaeson Jones WebsiteJaeson Jones on XAmerican Guns Are Not to Blame for Mexico's Cartel ProblemIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Victor Davis Hanson, a Hoover Institution fellow, discusses the changes in U.S. immigration policy under President Trump with Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies' executive director. The discussion begins with acknowledging how the political landscape for Trump 2.0 differs greatly from the first Trump administration, giving President Trump maneuvering room to make major immigration policy changes.Key topics include:Border Enforcement & Deportation:A comparison of President Trump's 2021 and 2025 immigration policies.The wisdom of Trump's “worst first” deportation strategy.Over the last four years the composition of the illegal immigration population has changed to include a larger number of nationalities besides Mexicans. Will this weaken the cohesive lobbying effort to fight deportations?Birthright Citizenship & Legal Challenges:Trump's executive order addressing birthright citizenship.Predictions on the potential Supreme Court battle and legislative efforts.U.S.-Mexico Relations & Economic Impact:Mexico's shifting stance on immigration.Mexican public opinion turns against mass migration.Trump's potential tariff and remittance restrictions as leverage.Immigration & Fertility Rates:Declining U.S. birth rates and state-level trends.Can immigration raise the national fertility rate and achieve replacement level?Immigration's impact on native fertility.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the podcast host, highlights a new Center report, The Declining Education Level of Newly Arrived Immigrants, which finds a decline in the education level of newly arrived (the past three years) immigrants. The decline, which added greatly to the low-income population, is in stark contrast to the steady improvement in the education level in the years prior to the border surge.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestVictor Davis Hanson is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution.RelatedVictorHanson.comTrump Issues Birthright Citizenship Executive OrderThe Declining Education Level of Newly Arrived ImmigrantsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy highlights the diplomatic initiatives supporting U.S. border security that have been undertaken by the Trump administration. Phillip Linderman, a retired State Department senior Foreign Service Officer and a Center for Immigration Studies board member, discusses actions recently taken by President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that promote structured and lawful migration and seek to put an end to the global migration chaos.Key points:International Cooperation on Deportations – Countries such as Colombia, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Mexico have agreed to accept the return of their citizens, signaling a shift in regional migration policies.Changing U.S. Policy – The U.S. has fundamentally changed its stance, no longer encouraging unchecked migration but instead promoting legal and orderly processes.Diplomatic Leverage – The threat of tariffs and the use of tools such as Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows the U.S. to suspend visas for countries refusing to accept deportees, has proven effective in securing cooperation.Mexico's Role – Mexico has agreed to deploy 10,000 Mexican National Guard troops to combat human trafficking and drug smuggling at the border.El Salvador's Role – Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has offered to accept U.S. deportees of any nationality.Gitmo's Role – Trump will open Guantanamo Bay to alien detainees.Economic & Political Factors – Countries reliant on remittances, such as El Salvador and Venezuela, are having to balance economic interests with security cooperation.Global Implications – The discussion explores the idea of an international migration summit and the need for updated legal frameworks outside traditional organizations like the UN.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestPhillip Linderman is a retired State Department senior Foreign Service Officer and a Center for Immigration Studies board member.RelatedEl Salvador, Guatemala deals key to Trump deportation promisesTrump Tariffs and Border SecurityMigrants Sent to Gitmo, India, and Potentially VenezuelaColombia's President Tests Trump on Migrant Returns, Quickly Backs DownTrump Dares to Send Criminal Aliens Back to Their New Home, Down by the (Guantanamo) BayState Department Can Lead on Fighting Illegal Immigration and Promoting Border SecurityIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of “Parsing Immigration Policy” highlights skilled immigration policies, their impact, and ways to improve the legal immigration programs. Featuring Dr. Norman Matloff, emeritus professor at UC Davis and a leading expert on the H-1B visa program, this episode breaks down how current policies are reshaping the U.S. labor market, undercutting American workers, and benefiting major tech companies at the expense of bringing the true “best and brightest” to the U.S.Key topics covered:The H-1B Visa System: Why America's leading tech companies, like Intel and Google, are more harmful than the “body shops” that contract out cheap foreign labor.The Green Card Process: The green card process is badly flawed. How sponsorship by big tech artificially expands the workforce, limiting opportunities and lowering wages for Americans.The Myth of “Best and Brightest”: The reality behind claims that H-1B visa holders are exceptional talents—and how companies game the system. How can true talent be identified.Age Discrimination & Wage Suppression: How H-1B policies favor entry-level workers, leading to lost expertise and lower salaries in STEM fields.Foreign Students & Green Cards: Are we admitting too many? How universities exploit foreign student labor and what changes are needed.Fixing the System: Ideas for reform, options explored include limiting green cards to top PhDs, implementing merit-based testing, numerical caps on studentsHostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestNorm Matloff is an emeritus professor at UC Davis.RelatedHow the H-1B System Undercuts American WorkersNorman Matloff on the H-1B Program and Related IssuesWhy Legal Immigration Numbers MatterDoes America Need More Foreign Tech Workers, NoTo Get the ‘Best and Brightest' H-1B Workers, the US Must Reform the ProgramMusk Is Right About H-1BsA Look Behind the Curtain at One H-1B Body ShopIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Immigration was a defining issue in Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and within his first week in office, he took swift action to fulfill his promises. In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Center for Immigration Studies experts analyze the nine immigration-related Executive Orders issued in his first week in office, shaping the direction of U.S. immigration policy.Andrew Arthur, Fellow in Law and Policy, and Elizabeth Jacobs, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy, provide an in-depth breakdown and analysis of these executive actions and their broader impact on immigration policy.As the administration continues to roll out new immigration policies, the Center for Immigration Studies will provide ongoing expert analysis and updates.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.Elizabeth Jacobs is the Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedBullet summaries of the nine executive ordersAdditional CIS research and analysis on these policiesIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this captivating episode of Dave Does History on Bill Mick Live, Dave Bowman takes us on a thought-provoking journey through the legal, historical, and cultural ramifications of birthright citizenship. This discussion dives into the heart of the 14th Amendment, unpacking its revolutionary impact on defining citizenship in the United States, while tracing its origins back to the Reconstruction Era. With his signature mix of wit and analytical insight, Dave explains the challenges and controversies surrounding the interpretation of the citizenship clause. From its role in overturning the infamous Dred Scott decision to its enduring implications in modern debates on immigration, the episode lays bare the struggles of a nation reconciling its foundational ideals with its ever-evolving demographics. Bowman also highlights key moments in the legal battles, including the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which cemented the principle of jus soli—citizenship by birthright. Listeners are treated to an engaging exploration of the broader cultural and geopolitical impacts of U.S. immigration policy, such as the exclusionary Immigration Act of 1924 and its unintended consequences, including strained international relations with Japan. Bowman challenges listeners to consider the long-term implications of revisiting this issue, raising essential questions about the balance between legal precedent, constitutional interpretation, and the nation's values. This episode isn't just a lesson in history—it's a masterclass in connecting the past to the present, reminding us why understanding history is crucial for navigating today's challenges. Whether you're a history enthusiast or just curious about the roots of today's debates, this discussion offers a fresh and insightful take that shouldn't be missed.

As President Donald Trump and Border Czar Tom Homan begin their promised deportations, the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy discusses immigration detention - a key element in immigration enforcement. Andrew Arthur, the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy and a former immigration judge, details the purpose, history, and availability of immigration detention resources.Key Points:Civil, Not Criminal: Immigration detention is not a punishment but is instead a safeguard to ensure that aliens appear in court and for removal.Historical Context: Detention provisions trace back to at least the Immigration Act of 1903, steadily expanding from inadmissible aliens being detained at the ports of entry to include those entering illegally as well as for criminal aliens.Growing Need: With over 1.4 million individuals awaiting removal and a 34% no-show rate in immigration court, expanding detention capacity will become crucial to President Trump's immigration-enforcement efforts.Detention Options: ICE facilities, private contractors, and state prisons and county jails can all house detainees. The episode examines Biden-era restrictions aimed at restricting detention space.Alternative Space: From utilizing military bases to reinstituting “Remain in Mexico” policies, the new administration should not have a problem finding adequate detention space. HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedGAO: One-Third of Immigration Court Aliens are No-ShowsU.S. Senate Testimony: Remain in MexicoIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this episode of our Cross-Border Catch-Up podcast series, Patty Shapiro (shareholder, San Diego) and Kate Thompson (associate, Stamford) discuss recent updates to employment laws in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Kate kicks off the episode by highlighting amendments to Norway's Working Environment Act, which went into effect on July 1, 2024. These amendments enhance employee rights and require detailed employment contracts. Patty and Kate also review changes to Denmark's Posting of Workers Act and the Immigration Act, which will impact foreign service providers. These changes require new documentation uploads to the Danish register by 2025 and 2026. The episode concludes with a discussion about Sweden, where the new EU Blue Card Directive, effective January 1, 2025, aims to attract highly qualified workers by offering flexible employment and residency options.

As our centennial series continues, Madeline Hsu, professor of history and director of the Center for Global Migration Studies at the University of Maryland, and an editor of the 2-volume Cambridge History of Global Migrations (Cambridge University Press, 2023), A Nation of Immigrants Reconsidered: U.S. Society in an Age of Restriction, 1924-1965 (University of Illinois Press, 2019), and the author of Asian American History: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2016), examines U.S. law and policies from The Immigration Act of 1924 to the present.

A Harvard historian discusses how the impact of the Immigration Act of 1965 continues to reverberate in American society, and in particular what the US gained in becoming far more welcoming to Asian immigrants than ever before. And tour guides from Hungary, Poland, and Portugal update us on some of the profound political issues under debate in their countries, and what we Americans might learn from their experiences. For more information on Travel with Rick Steves - including episode descriptions, program archives and related details - visit www.ricksteves.com.

Medicare, Pell Grants and the Immigration Act of 1965 were all passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Several important government agencies were formed too. In fact, some historians argue that LBJ’s Great Society agenda was the last major shift in the relationship between the executive branch and the U.S. economy. In this episode, how does legislation passed under President Joe Biden compare?

Medicare, Pell Grants and the Immigration Act of 1965 were all passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Several important government agencies were formed too. In fact, some historians argue that LBJ’s Great Society agenda was the last major shift in the relationship between the executive branch and the U.S. economy. In this episode, how does legislation passed under President Joe Biden compare?