 The panelists will take about 15 to 20 minutes each. All of the topics are about race and immigration law. And I'll try to suggest at the end that they're also going to form a policy. Professor Villasor comes to us from Hofstra. Professor Hernandez is from Chattin. And Professor Johnson comes to us for DCS. So, Professor White. So, are you filming, White? Pardon me. You have to go to the ceiling. I think it's all high. It's just like, what? Is this a lie? The room is so fancy. And it's the problem. It's talented. It's like immigration law. It's too fancy. Can't make sense of it. Conspirations. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you so much for inviting me to be here. A special thank you to Steven Lee for this amazing and well-organized conference. For my presentation, I will use the conference theme of puzzles as a framework for talking about four areas of law, immigration, citizenship, military, and war rights legislation to discuss how the federal government regulated interracial marriages between non-citizens and citizens, specifically Japanese war rights and American soldiers during the U.S. occupation of Japan. As I argue in the paper, through the convergence of these laws, the federal government helped to shape the racial and gender makeup of our nation. This history, though, has gotten lost in the traditional narrative of anti-miscegenation regulation. Exploring this history is important not only to deepen our understanding of our racial past, but to also more deeply understand the role of immigration and citizenship laws in constructing the American family. Moreover, this overlooked federal involvement in restricting marriage and denying the privileges and benefits of marriage during the 1940s and 1950s and offer important lessons for contemporary divacity in marriage equality cases. Before I continue, I'd like to begin with a story, and it goes all the way back to 1946. On May 9th, 1946, Helina Mielbouise, a half-German, half-Japanese woman, and her husband, John Blum, an American soldier, arrived in Seattle, Washington, aboard a military ship. The two were newlyweds, having been married just days before by the captain of the ship before they landed in Seattle. Their decision to marry prior to coming to the United States was significant. Six months prior to their wedding, Congress had just passed the War Rights Act of 1945, which conferred to persons who were serving or who had served in the military the ability to petition an extradited admission of their spouses, their non-citizens spouses to the United States. Thus, Helina's marriage to John had recently honored the discharged soldier providing the basis for Helina's entry to the United States. For so they thought. Upon arriving in Seattle, Helina was refused admission to the country. Immigration officers cited a provision of immigration law that bar persons who were not eligible to become citizens from entering the United States. At the time, citizenship law prohibited Japanese from acquiring citizenship by naturalization. Thus, as a Japanese woman, Helina was inadmissible despite her status as a war bride. John challenged Helina's exclusion from the country to no avail. Although the district court agreed that Helina should have been admitted because she was a war bride, the Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed and held Helina's removal in Bona versus Louise. The case never reached the Supreme Court. At first glance, Louise might appear to be a simple immigration case that was representative of the period in history in which Congress barred Japanese as well as most Asians from immigrating to the United States. But I argued in the paper that Louise was more than just a case about the exclusion of a non-citizen. Upon closer examination, Louise illuminates an underexpored part of our nation's anti-miscegenation story. John, a white man, and Helina, a Japanese woman were among the thousands of racially mixed couples between 1942 and 1952 who faced discriminatory barriers to getting married and enjoying the privileges and benefits of marriage. The Louise's story shows that there's a gap in history. The traditional narrative of anti-miscegenation history has generally focused on state laws that restricted interracial marriages. In the paper, I argued that this conventional account is incomplete because it has failed to acknowledge the ways in which the federal government primarily through immigration law also actively restricted interracial relationships and marriages. And it did this not only through immigration law but through the combination of immigration, citizenship, military laws as well as the War Rights Act. I argued during the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II through this convergence of laws and regulations there was a federal regulatory anti-miscegenation scheme that ultimately prohibited U.S. citizen soldiers from marrying non-citizen local Japanese because they were considered racially inadmissible to the United States. This scheme also prevented U.S. citizen and Japanese citizen married couples from being together in the United States. Ultimately, by exploring the interlocking relationships between these laws, we gain a deeper understanding of the public regulation of marriage along racial lines. Additionally, the integration dimension reveals harms and problems that interracial couples face that have been overlooked in our state-centered analysis of anti-miscegenation regulation. So let me tell you a little bit about these four laws. And this is where the conference themes of puzzling puzzles really help to frame the conversation. As I mentioned, there were four different pieces that ultimately glued together to form this federal anti-miscegenation regulation. I'll first talk about military regulations and then immigration, followed by citizenship, and then round it out by discussion of the War Rights Act. And then after that, I'll talk about how they ultimately interlock to then form this puzzle of anti-miscegenation regulation. So first, the military. In 1942, the Department of Defense adopted Circular 179, which provided that quote, no military personnel on duty in any foreign country or possession may marry without the approval of a commanding officer of the United States. This was the first time of restriction on marriage imposed on military soldiers. Prior to 1942, the military did not have regulations that required officer approval of marriages. According to military regulations, adopted after 179, the circular was adopted to protect the quote, individual from the possible disastrous effects of an impetuous marriage. It was also adopted in order to duplicate the wholesome influence of the whole family and community. The adoption of restrictions on marriage of soldiers post-World War II was indeed important. As Nancy Ota has argued, it was no coincidence that the military began to regulate marriage as American presence in countries populated by people of color increased. So the next set, the next piece of the puzzle has actually both of them together, immigration and citizenship. Immigration and invisibility based on eligibility for citizenship and race-based citizenship laws are perhaps familiar to many in the room. Beginning in 1875, Congress began prohibiting Chinese from entering the United States. It subsequently expanded the Chinese exclusion to include all Asians through the Asian Exclusion Act. Japanese were not explicitly barred from admission to the U.S. because of the gentleman's agreement, but ultimately in 1924, Congress passed an act that barred from the United States persons who were considered to be ineligible for citizenship. That then leads to the third piece of the puzzle, citizenship law, that helped lead to restrictions on interracial marriages under federal regulations. Between 1790 and 1943, only persons who were white or persons of African ancestry were eligible to naturalize. Through cases such as Ozawa versus United States and then versus United States, the Supreme Court solidified the meaning of whiteness for purposes of naturalization, including the prescription that Japanese were not white. In 1943, Congress ultimately allowed Chinese to naturalize, as well as Filipinos and Indians, South Asian Indians, but it didn't lift race restrictions for citizenship purposes until 1952. Thus, by 1943, at the beginning of the U.S. occupation of Japan, Japanese were considered racially ineligible for citizenship. Because they were racially ineligible for citizenship, they were then in the similar supporter. So we talked about military, immigration, and then citizenship. So now, finally, the War Rights Act. The War Rights Act passed in December 1945, enabled American soldiers to petition their spouses, mainly wives, to enter the United States. It was an important piece of legislation at the time, because considering that in 1945 between 75,000 and 100,000 military personnel had already married abroad. And many of them wanted to bring their spouses to the United States. There were a lot of complaints about the significant delays that soldiers faced in bringing in their wives to the U.S. As a result, Congress passed the War Rights Act to essentially confer them with non-quota visas. This was during the time when there were still national origins quotas, and so it was important to recognize the non-quota visas, to enable them to immediately obtain visas to come to the United States. So that's step one. And then second, they were also, the Congress decided to waive certain documentary requirements as well as other types of requirements, except for disability restrictions, and of course, not very important requirements needed to be mentioned. So ultimately, the War Rights Act was designed to reunify soldiers with their spouses with the idea, and the idea that they had in mind was to enable European wives, in particular, to immigrate to the United States. The War Rights Act facilitated a significant increase of immigration of women during the 1940s and 1950s. Prior to 1940, about 56% of immigrants to the U.S. were women. In 1946, the year after the War Rights Act was passed, it went up to almost 75%. So we have these four independent pieces. How do they lead to what I argue as the puzzle of interracial marriage regulation? Although these laws did not express the bar interracial marriages, together they function like anti-missed nation regulation. Like states that actively police marriages along racial lines and discriminated against interracial couples, the federal government through military immigration officers similarly engaged in first regulating who may marry, and second, limited the privileges and benefits of marriage. Moreover, they helped to, they did so in order to promote white supremacy. So let me go through these three points really quickly. First, anti-missed nation regulation, the federal anti-missed nation regulation led to restrictions in marriage. The military adopted regulations that required commanding officers to reject marriage applications filed by American soldiers who wanted to marry Japanese women. In June 1945, General Douglas MacArthur, who was the supreme commander of the Allied Forces at the time, issued a circular that required commanding officers to take into account quote, exclusion of immigration to the U.S. of persons not having a preponderance of white African or Chinese blood before determining whether or not to approve a marriage must be considered. The military subsequently adopted special regulations that explicitly required military officers to take into account rights and restrictions imposed by federal immigration laws prior to making a decision about a soldier's application for marriage. Importantly, the regulations provided that that the screening of applications for permission to marry by the commander must be substantially similar to the processing of requests for entry of alien whites. Moreover, lack of command approval to marry is essentially indicative of probable unfavorable action by the commissioner of immigration and naturalization. So here we see three puzzles, immigrant pieces, immigration, citizenship, and military combining to per-marriage through inadmissible non-citizens, many American soldiers and Japanese women reported that they faced significant obstacles of obtaining approval for the marriage applications. Reports in the period indicate that hundreds of applications were rejected. Many others were subjected to rigorous scrutiny and had to undergo several counseling and interviews before the marriage was approved, signaling to them as well as many others that such applications were strongly disfavored. Moreover, many soldiers often had to seek approval for marriage. As a result, some chose to marry their girlfriends only under civil Japanese ceremony without updating the recognition and approval of the military, which put them in the position of being court-martialed. Others chose to comply with the regulations which cause others to break off the relationships with their girlfriends or to leave their lives behind. Others complied with the regulations by maintaining their relationship but without marriage with women. Overall, through the combination of immigration citizenship and military regulations, the combination of these three influence of private lives of American citizens soldiers to form their to be with their Japanese partners. In addition to restricting marriages between American soldiers and Japanese women, the federal government also discriminated against citizen non-citizen couples. Many of them were white male Japanese women by failing to recognize their marriage for purposes of immigration benefits tied to marriage. In particular, despite a war-brize marriage to a U.S. citizen, which should have enabled her to immigrate to the U.S. again under the War Rights Act. The couple was unable to enjoy the privilege of using the husband citizenship as a basis for the wife's immigration to the U.S. Even those couples who were married and there were others as I mentioned who were able to choose to get married despite the military's disapproval based on the problem of the wife's inadmissibility to the U.S. The majority of spouses who entered under the War Rights Act were European women from Germany and Great Britain. Between 1946 to 1950 more than 114,000 war brides entering the United States about 84,000 of them were from Europe. By contrast there were only about 9,000 Asians who were able to enter which included 770 Japanese war brides. So how is that possible? How did these 770 war brides able to enter despite the fact that there were these racial restrictions against their entry? Well Congress passed two amendments to the War Rights Act in order to allow some of them to enter the United States. And it did so with very specific time limitations. In 1947 after much pressure from different soldiers and Japanese American the Japanese American community Congress passed an amendment that said if they are married married within 30 days of the passage of this act then they are in. And as a result of that about 800 couples were able to officially get recognized get married by the military and they went to the proper channels and some of them were able to enter the United States. Since 1940 between 1947 and 1950 not a single approval of a marriage to a Japanese woman was allowed. Again in 1950 Congress decided to pass another amendment to the War Rights Act. This sign placed a six month restriction saying that as long as you were married within or before within six months of the passage of this act you will be able to enter the United States. Those are the only conditions in which Japanese were allowed to enter. Many others were so were unable to get married as a result of the severe restrictions. It's important to know that Congress actually knew what was going on. They knew that the military was permitting and discouraging their soldiers from marrying Japanese. In fact the legislative history shows that we need to put these sign restrictions according to Congress in order not to quote encourage such marriages between American citizens and racially inadmissible aliens. There are, I think, at least three criticisms to my claim that the convergence of these laws functioned as a federal anti-miscegenation regulation. And I'll just briefly mention what I think at least what I've heard before. People say to me and we can talk about it at the UNA. So first is the argument that none of these laws explicitly barred into racial marriage. Unlike state anti-miscegenation laws that were very explicit about marriage based on race, none of these laws said that. In fact one can arguably one might say that they were racially neutral with respect to marriage in the first instance. One then has to go through the intent of immigration and citizenship of law in maintaining trying to promote a wide dependency of white nations and interlock those set of laws with military regulations in order to establish a regulation of interracial marriages. It's important why do I think this is an important part of history why have I pursued this project. I just wanted to highlight at least what has been overlooked in our state center review or analysis of anti-miscegenation regulations. So what is that as a result of immigration and citizenship law and the military the United States was able to expand domestic norms against racial foreign land. And remember in the United States not there were states that had state anti-miscegenation laws but there were many others also that there are others that did not. The military decided to expand these state anti-miscegenation laws beyond the borders of the United States and imposed in Japan. In a different way I'm looking into how the state the federal government actually did specifically impose state anti-miscegenation laws in Germany when they tried when they barred the marriage of German wives. That's another subject. So a second harm citizenship or a second different perspective the dimension that this history tells us citizenship was used as a basis for challenging exclusion. Equal protection clause was not used in order to try to invalidate these restrictions and the mission or interracial marriages because it did not have worked under under Supreme Court jurisprudence particularly Che-Chang Ping and then all the other cases after that equal protection clause would have been too difficult intermissible obstacle to bring again the federal government for race discrimination. And so husbands tried to use their rights of citizenship in order to to bring in their wives in the United States and they have largely failed in the courts. The final dimension that this history shows us is the abandonment of wives and children in Japan. According to different reports there are about 10,000 women who were abandoned by the military and between 5 and 15,000 mixed-race children 90% of whom had white fathers who were left behind as a result of the inability of the military personnel to marry their wives. It's also important to know that these mixed-race children were unable to gain citizenship even though their fathers are in the United States because they did not have enough preponderance of white blood under immigration law for purposes of admission. So in closing I'd like to argue that it's important for us to examine this history much more closely for at least two reasons. One is the complete of record. We need to have a deeper understanding of our racial past. There's more to anti- miscegenation. The different means shows us that the narrative of our racial history is missing some important pieces. Much of what we know about anti- miscegenation history has spoken from black white relationships. When we apply an intersectionality approach such as gender and citizenship we see how immigration law shaped the racial contemporary discussion. There has been an ongoing debate about what is said and what is what is and should be the role of the federal government in domestic relations. Indeed that's part of the federalism argument in DOMA. This is not about DOMA. The paper I'm not trying to expand or argue whether DOMA where DOMA should go but overall I think the history that I'm trying to paint here shows us that there's more that we actually are much more involved in shaping the American family which would then allow us to focus more on the question of how to limit what the federal government can or cannot do with respect to domestic relations. Overall my project allows us or helps me anywhere to explore our racial history and examine various laws that enable the help to create the American nation that we know today. Thank you. Thank you everyone for coming up here. I probably had a far larger life. Can't be like in 20 minutes which was nice because I'm from Chapman but I start this talk with kind of an analogy of puzzles where they come from puzzles come in boxes and it reminds me of if you ever see The Simpsons when they go on the field trip their kids are all excited we're going on a field trip great they're like where to the box factory what is the box factory some of them close you very slowly the box factory decided to do this and so my analogy is that immigration law is a box factory the box may be involving family the box may be involving race the box may be involving only high-tech individuals who pay law firms or the box may be an individual who's from a western region of China that their government represents them and we are anti-immigrant here and have habeas problems and thus we have people stuck in Guantanamo so immigration law is a box factory and so when we think about that puzzle think about what brought us that puzzle so this talk here is a topic of mind which is how you ask presents in Guantanamo not our fancy constitution or detailed habeas or our intricate statutes that isn't what affects what Guantanamo is about what Guantanamo is affected about is our presence on Cuban soil since 1898 one small part of this project deals with this case referred to as Kiyamba B. Obama which deals with two individuals five individuals of Turkey Muslim background were detained there indefinitely and a Supreme Court Ritzer petition has been filed and the government has responded to it last week but they've been detained for at least eight and a half years approaching nine they're not enemy combatants even the Bush administration admitted that and they're not detained thanks to what the Obama administration says they're housed on the island but they can't leave the island and so the question for me becomes this case is very complex most people are habeas doctrine and it is a habeas issue but the the DC circuit justifies their detention mostly based on immigration law there's complications involving habeas there's complications that probably won't be resolved involving habeas but when they decide why these individuals can be housed on Guantanamo they rely back on immigration law so this presentation has two main points one is that the Kiyamba B. Obama cases rely on immigration law and it's a fallback the plenary powers doctrine in the two Kiyamba cases that the DC circuits dealt with rely on immigration law if there's fancy con law and there's the Bumi Gen decision and Congress is cooperating and Bush is cooperating and Obama is cooperating never mind immigration law can detain these people if we need to and unfortunately for these five men that's what's been going on the second big argument of this paper is that this is explained not just by immigration law it's not all about immigration law a good deal of this has to deal with the transnational complex of what it means to be a Uyghur from the western region of China in an extraterritorial base the United States has a very complex war not just about the war on terror not just on the war on judicial review but also a war for resources in central Asia most importantly being the Xi'an Jin I'm sorry if I mispronounced that region of China which is where the Uyghurs are from but it's very close to Afghanistan Pakistan, India, Kashmir Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and the ever growing influence of a Chinese government that's going westward so if the Uyghurs are detaining Guantanamo they came from a much tougher neighborhood and somehow ended up here why did they end up here because the US government paid a bounty in Pakistan for them and forced them to migrate to Guantanamo so the question here very simply of this paper is twofold one, how does immigration law do this? how is it that immigration law in the QIIMA 1, 2 and 3 cases is so similar to the cases we read in immigration law classes and second, what created this context? what is it in China? what is it globally? what is it in the US that has created this context? and so what we start with is this idea that the Bumidian case from 2008 justified constitutional hate discourse in Guantanamo it's said essentially in a 5-4 decision that aliens are protected by constitutional hate discourse in Guantanamo that alienage is not a bar to this that even wartime combatants have this access to this constitutional hate discourse and this was decided at a point when there was 500 detainees in Guantanamo now there's 173 and from this this was decided 6.5 years after the first detention occurred in January of 2002 and so what we came up with this case was this idea that most of us who study empire or constitutional law is the constitution goes beyond our borders it's an extraterritorial constitution the interesting thing for an immigrant scholar is what does that mean for the plenary power doctrine which says the constitution doesn't always apply on this territory for certain people and so if we have a constitution that goes as far as Guantanamo and if we have a constitution that doesn't even protect all our citizens in this country what does that mean well it means that five individuals in the Kiempa cases are stuck in housing or detention for the indefinite future and so what we're left with doctrinally in the Bumidien case is a functional test for when habeas corpus actually does apply territorially the important thing about this test is it decreases the importance of alienage it says that alien status but only in terms of detaining citizenship along with their status as a combatant and how this status was determined the Bushman's administration had very flawed status on how this was determined but that's just one factor the second factor involves the nature of the apprehension and detention of these individuals and lastly what are the practical obstacles for these individuals receiving habeas corpus so in doctrinally terms the alien issue the citizenship issue is a lot less significant for five members of our court on the Supreme Court one of them has retired has been replaced by Elena Kagan who can't decide these issues because she as a solicitor general had prosecuted them as well so we're kind of stuck with a 4-4 and hopefully we can convince Alito, good luck or Kennedy hopefully we need him or Roberts why this issue whether it's habeas or whether it's extraterritorial constitutionality or alien status permits these individuals to be released from detention and so what we're left with here is essentially sovereignty is not a bar to extraterritorial constitutionality alienage is not a bar to extraterritorial constitutionality but don't worry we have all school immigration law that can detain these individuals if we need to and that's what the Obama administration and the Bush administration have been doing what we're dealing with here are Uyghurs Uyghurs are Turkic Muslims from the western region of China 22 were detained in Guantanamo in June of 2002 17 have been resettled either to Albania or Switzerland or to Palau Palau if you don't know is an island actually United States control sovereignty over and some people like myself would call that still part of the US empire and so a good chunk of the detainees who are Uyghurs who have been relocated have been put on another imperial location in the Pacific and so what we're left with now is five individuals who refuse to accept the resettlement offers which are expected to be from either Palau or from Switzerland and you know this stuff is secretive it's sealed it's not very clear to those of us who study in the news but some of the suggestions are that they do not want to relocate to these places for issues that I consider second generation human rights or actually issues of membership they claim that they do not want to go to Bermuda or Palau because they're not giving passports because they're not giving access to citizenship and sometimes there's even an issue if there's no Uyghur community there or likewise there's a lack of psychological services for these individuals who have suffered quite a bit since they've been relocated from China and not to Guantanamo and so what we're left with is here this idea that they're not consenting to being relocated they definitely didn't consent to be forcefully migrated to Guantanamo but the subtext that no one ever talks about is the United States doesn't want to accept them we can easily accept them China won't accept them and we often talk about that but what we're left with is court decisions that essentially use US immigration law to justify their intention even though in 2008 Judge Corbina whose picture is right there ordered them to be released as soon as possible to be released into the United States our DC Circuit Court of Appeals has argued that they cannot be released in the United States a lot of this is habeas but a good chunk of it is also immigration law there's a second case called Kiemba II which is outbound plenary power analysis it argues that if these individuals please tell us if you're going to take us to a country that will torture us our law does not permit them notice to worry about whether they're going to be tortured and so there's Kiemba I which deals with inbound Uighur detainees in the United States and then we have outbound Uighur detainees going to other countries plenary power analysis justifies why they don't receive habeas more importantly immigration law justifies why they can't be detained and what we were left with was in 2010 the Supreme Court denied cert on these two cases even though it had been granted initially it was granted initially because of the idea that they had were indefinitely detained but now there's this concept that they themselves are not accepting their resettlement options so it's their reason why they're still in detention so what we're left with is essentially this impacts a right of habeas corpus but no release detention but you're housed on the base and can't leave there's these anomalies between the jurisdiction and what's non citizenship inclusion but this fits very nicely with their plenary powers doctor that's existed since the Chinese exclusion case if we defer issues to political branches because they deal with immigrants or territorial status abroad if we say aliens don't have certain rights because they're aliens if we say aliens don't have rights because they're located somewhere else this fits very neatly why we can justify them being detained even though they may have a habeas claim which may or may not get resolved and so this issue is argued by both the Obama administration and the Bush administration by all the dissents in the Bumidian cases and most importantly argued by the DC circuit in Kiemba 1 and Kiemba 2 and so what we're left with in Kiemba 1 and then it's reinstatement Kiemba 3 and then Kiemba 2 is just you know it's littered with plenary power analysis Kiemba 1 starts with the idea that it's since Roman times the nation state cannot the nation state can exclude any foreigners it wants Kiemba 1 has 16 presidents says without exception from 1889 to 2003 is the exclusive power of the political branch to decide which aliens may or may not be present in the United States and it's these branches decision on what terms they could be permitted even though so far as the state that if they don't have presidents in the United States they do not have any access to due process rights for habeas corpus and even though so far as to go through a detailed analysis of statutory reasons in immigration law the DC circuit on why these individuals aren't permitted to re-enter the LPR status it goes through an analysis of parole status it might as well tell them if you want to come to the United States buy a visa like everyone else and if you do that please fill out your G28 on a blue piece of paper and your I-94 is really the date on when you're permitted to be here not your approval from the CIS they don't necessarily say that but they might as well say stand in line with everyone else they're excluded so are you and so Kiemba 3 looks at it from even more complex here all they're asking for is please tell us if we're going to be relocated to a country that will torture us here the argument is we can't second-guess the efforts of our diplomacy and these issues are about international comity and we can't have the courts involved and so what we're left with essentially here in my paper is making sense of why does this exist it exists because the law has very detailed assumptions about avanage very detailed assumptions about de facto discrimination I argue that there's national nationality discrimination on Guantanamo if you look to see of the 779 detainees that have been there most of them are from Afghanistan, Pakistan Saudi Arabia again but a large number of them are from China they're in the second tier Algeria and China are the country China had 22 all of the Uyghurs detainees so it's not an accident when we compare them to the countries that had 10 or 20 detainees and there's even more countries that only had one or two so the Chinese who were detained there wasn't by accident it wasn't an aberration and so my analysis here looks a bit more towards the conference why are these individuals being detained here why are they excluded from protections that may exist in con law or immigration law and so my analysis hinges here on transnational perspectives let's look at what's going on internationally between China the Zhejiang province and Guantanamo let's look to see what's going on in China and let's look to see what's going on in the United States because that may explain why this war on terror has resulted in these individuals essentially not receiving the protection that immigration law would provide and so if we look at the Chinese context here we see that the Zhejiang province is where China is expanding to it's a region that has a great deal of oil a great deal of natural resources that's very close to a neighborhood that is littered with central Asian conflicts most of them would argue are geopolitical on the USN we see a judicial review process that's limited left and right independent of the war on terror and so when the detainees showed up on Guantanamo they had been in a series of tough neighborhoods but here it was one where there was in courts and the government knows that how much longer Guantanamo could exist today or yesterday Panetta argued that if we were to catch Osama Bin Laden we may want to detain them in Guantanamo a translation for those of you who are worried about the Uyghur case we still need Guantanamo so let's not let the Uyghurs leave or let's not let law let the Uyghurs leave because we need Guantanamo for another reason and if we see this from across border context the idea here is what type of ideologies foment uncertainty what type of anomalous legal territory can avoid legal checks and when is it that individuals are leaving persecution or seeking refuge and so the complex here that we're left with is making sense of why immigration law so relevant to the Uyghurs is extremely relevant because it just provides attention but this resolution will not happen by law this resolution will happen with bigger issues involving U.S. China U.S. immigration U.S. law and judicial review or maybe China in not torturing or not seeking to detain individuals from a Turkic Muslim minority so in conclusion what we're left with here is an idea that immigration law is central to the justification for why these individuals are detained but it's within a larger complex of U.S. foreign policy and assumptions on alienage, detainee de facto discrimination and the war on terror. Thank you. Great to be at UC Irvine I'm happy to see all friends and make some new ones I want to especially thank Associate Dean Jacome for inviting me to be here and I want to thank Stephen Lee for his role in getting me here today and Stephen deserves special videos because he was so on top of things that his daily emails made me create a binder to make sure that I checked up with this over time and I thank him for that and I want to thank and congratulate the UC Irvine Law Review which I hope will publish my paper but we'll see that I'm sure he's out on that one of many sort of pieces of paper that I got emails I got from Stephen included sort of a draft symposium schedule and the initial title of this panel was social identities in immigration sort of vague and ambiguous not controversial and it was changed and now it's called race and immigration law tends to be a little more contentious a little more controversial so I kind of feel I grew up not that far from here in San Diego Valley and every birthday we'd have a piñata for me and I kind of feel like the race and immigration law panel is sort of the piñata of this conference because we can take some hits I imagine if they may well take some hits I trust coming to Southern California we're a little safer than the last time I gave a talk in Texas where the first question the audience was coming from a fellow in camouflage fatigues who asked me what part of illegal didn't I understand so I'm hoping for more generosity here today and I've been working out a puzzle consistent with the theme of the conference the puzzle is this and thinking about the discussion debate national debate it's been ongoing for a number of years why is it so contentious why is it so controversial to have a meaningful dialogue on these issues and I remember with the view that immigration is not a simple issue it is not one that's resolvable through simple solutions I don't see it necessarily as a blue state, red state issue, Democratic Republican issue I think I am more in common with the immigration position of President Bush than President Clinton for example but it's a very difficult issue and if I had to classify myself politically I may call myself an undocumented conservative on this point it's a volume for less regulation of our immigration laws than some would call for but I've been thinking about the debate over immigration and I thought quite carefully about why can't we have a meaningful dialogue about it and if you look at the current debate over immigration you see a number of things you see talk about immigration laws that are color blind facially neutral but have very stark dispirational impacts you can look at who's in detention who's being deported and you'll see that there are particular impacts on working class Latinos in the United States and to add to that the way that the immigration laws work and the debate about immigration works allows us to have coded discussions about race in civil rights without even mentioning race in civil rights and squarely avoiding what Angela Harris and L.A. Spinoza have referred to as the sticky mess of race but as I lived to a second ago when we think about immigration enforcement it's hard to say that whether we like it or not there aren't dispirational impacts on people of color both inside and outside of the United States indeed immigration law by permitting the unfavorable treatment of non-citizens provides these dispirational impacts without the need to rely on express and delegitimizing racial distinctions we can have immigration results but not rely on race and that's what I look at at this paper I look at how the debate about race allows for the debate about immigration laws for coded discussions about race in the United States and how proponents of immigration restrictions often will say we're not racist we are just for enforcing the immigration laws we're just for obedience to the law and the legitimacy of the law but we're not racist at all you can look at SB 1070 which I think would have if you look carefully or not even that carefully would have racial impacts one color blind defense of SB 1070 was well it bans racial profiling so it can't be racist so shut up what part of the bill do you have to understand well that's not exactly right if you look at it carefully but even if you do the way it would be enforced would have disparate racial impacts another color blind defense is well SB 1070 simply mirrors federal law and what part of the legal don't you understand well that's not exactly right it was well beyond federal law it was mirroring federal law you still have to recognize the federal immigration law does have disparate racial impacts so what I do in this article is I look first at Arizona's SB 1070 and I look at sort of the the entire sort of what's going on in Arizona you have SB 1070 you have a tax on ethnic studies you have a tax on birthright citizenship you have a series of things that are said these aren't racist but large members of certain communities particularly Latinos in Arizona say these things are racist the second part of the article looks a little more carefully it comprehensive immigration reform and how racially disparate impacts are going to result by the passage or failure of comprehensive immigration reform and I'll talk a little bit about that in a minute the problem is the question really is why is it that when we're talking about immigration why is it that race even though it's so clear to some particularly Latinos why it's so clearly involved with race why race is so often buried in the debate about immigration the answer I think is somewhat simple times have changed even if they haven't changed as much as some would say with the election of the black president but they have changed unlike the heyday of Jim Crow people in flight company today rarely contend that racial discrimination the immigration laws or in law generally can be justified by the inferiority of people of color the demise of Jim Crow is contributed to the most blatant forms of racial discrimination from the US immigration laws the problem is that racism still exists still can be seen in the way the immigration laws operate and at a minimum there are racially disparate impacts by the way the immigration laws operate now it sometimes is argued by folks like the proponents of propositional of SB 1070 as well as people who support the proposition 187 that illegal aliens with that in quotes warrant discriminatory treatment punishment in little sympathy because they're illegals it's not about race it's about the fact that they are here without the imprimatur of the law we just want to quote enforce the law and secure the borders at the same time even if you believe in the legitimacy of the law and are committed to its enforcement you have to realize that the way immigrants are treated they do have racial impacts it's not an answer to say what part of illegal don't you understand we just want to enforce the law we just want to secure the borders rather you have to recognize that there are impacts on particular communities by these laws what do I sort of gather from all this my gather in part is that in modern United States part of what the immigration debate is about is allowing for a legitimate place to vent racial intensity and frustrations whether it's about new groups of people moving the neighborhood changing population demographics in the region or the state like in Arizona the fact that language is other than English or spoken in public places the decline in economy the poor quality of the public schools the health care reform the fact that workers congregate in street corners virtually anything and anything you want to complain about let me focus briefly on comprehensive immigration reform there's three parts of comprehensive immigration reform that are parts of most proposals anyway that all would have disparate racial impacts if they were in place the first part in the part that's most popular among the public is more immigration enforcement probably is the least controversial but probably has the biggest disparate racial impacts more deportations more tensions more disparate effects on the Latino community particularly working class just to give you an example in the Postville ILO a couple of years ago of a meat poultry processing plant in Postville ILO about 98% of the people arrested were from Maxwell or Guatemala actually not just arrested many of them were charged with crimes and after they were hurted and I use that word visibly hurted into a cattle corral the county fairgrounds were convicted of crimes before district court judge there but more enforcement with deaths along the border becoming more commonplace since the implementation of various border enforcement operations began in the 1990s so increased enforcement had disparate racial impacts another part of comprehensive immigration reform that's often discussed is some kind of guest worker program and other incremental changes the immigration laws that would help address U.S. labor needs that would have some positive impacts perhaps for people from Mexico and Central America so often affected by the current immigration laws the current immigration laws offer very few avenues for legal migration for people of low or moderate skills to come to the United States in fact for many low moderate school workers who don't have family members in the United States there's no line for them to wait in so it's an illusion is some restrictionist claim they they should wait in line like anybody else has to but some liberalization of the labor provisions of the immigration laws might positively affect Latinos in particular third and probably this is the most controversial and the most debated many comprehensive immigration reform proposals include some kind of legalization or amnesty that has become a bad word it wasn't in 1986 when the immigration reform and control act included an amnesty program which was signed into law by President Reagan but it is a bad word today unlike done amnesties tax amnesties, parking ticket amnesties and many other kinds of amnesties but the amnesty for undocumented immigrants is bad words so now we call things like immigration or some kind of regularization of status programs and since about 60% of undocumented immigrants in the United States today 60% of the 11 to 12 million are Latinos actually even more probably that's just the number from Mexico a legalization program of some sort would have a disparately positive impact for many Latinos because of those impacts because of the disparate racial impacts of immigration reform that's why you have so much support from Latino advocacy groups for some kind of immigration reform that's why you see newspaper articles like you saw the other day claiming and I don't know if it's true but the polls show Latino support for Obama administration plunges it's because Latinos view immigration reform as having a positive racial impact and then as a group and the flip side of it the lack of passage of comprehensive immigration reform will have a negative impact on Latinos or maintain the status quo as it is today and there are many parts of the current system that could talk about contributing to negative civil rights impacts on immigrant and Latino communities I could talk about racial profiling I could talk about the fact that the Obama administration has reported more people in last year than any administration in the United States history I could talk about how in 1990 we reported about 30,000 people and in 2008 we reported about 358,000 people I could talk about how there's a huge detention industry that exists today I could talk about how there's a brown collar workplaces where it's coined where undocumented immigrant workers particularly Latinos are exploited without wage and labor protections I could talk about the deaths on the border, which I've already alluded to I could talk about deportation of long term residents under 1996 immigration reforms I could talk about the Dream Act students undocumented students whose families were up in here many years ago and are longing to improve their status I could talk about racial profiling and immigration enforcement which is a problem particularly in states like Arizona but a problem all across the country I could talk about hate crimes against Latinos including beatings to death in places like Shenandoah, Pennsylvania and Long Island New York and other places as well but I guess the ultimate point that I want to make is that if we want to have a meaningful debate discussion about immigration enforcement is raised by SB 1070 in comprehensive immigration enforcement we have to recognize that we have to address the fact that there are racial consequences of enactment of something like SB 1070 or not enacting comprehensive immigration enforcement we can't resort to slogans like what part of your legal dump you understand we can't resort to saying that you're just racist that's why you support immigration enforcement rather what we need to do is come up with some way of engaging in dialogue on these issues which I think are incredibly important and until we do that we're going to be where we are today where we are unable to have a rational discussion rational dialogue about immigration enforcement and the consequences on communities that are horribly affected in the United States thanks very much so I'm the moderator and I gave myself about five minutes to comment and I read all three papers last week and then reviewed them again this week and they're really great I mean they're a 30 page I think yours is 40 pages long you know I mean Professor Johnson I think writes faster than most of this reading a lot of work yeah but they were excellent papers and I haven't been in a law school campus or a law school in a little while so I teach at UC Santa Barbara we don't have a law school so coming here really does take me back and I'm happy for the invitation thank you very much coming back here and thinking about what I would say and thinking in light of the three presentations I thought the most fundamental puzzle was that puzzle that I learned in my first year of law school what is the constitution what is the constitution coming from a background of political theory the idea is is the constitution essentially a social contract yeah so that it's an agreement among members and the protections and the benefits accrue primarily to members only yeah and everyone else is just out of the picture another way of looking at the constitution is to think of it as a statement of principles of a higher order set of rules certain things that state actors and citizens should not do wherever so to contrast these two let's say Steven at this conference beats up Professor Johnson so that he cannot give his talk I think and he did that because he didn't like the content of what Professor Johnson was going to say I think all of us would agree that that's a first amendment violation he violated your free speech they got an assault but what if Steven were a spy for the CIA and went to Korea and then beat up a Korean law professor giving a talk at Seoul National University would he have violated the first amendment I think most federal courts would say no that you may have violated certain laws in Korea you may have committed an assault that violated a first amendment constitutional principle and I think there's something wrong with that as an American citizen if you went to Korea and did such a thing I would want you to disappoint punished as violating a core principle that all Americans should share that you should just go around infringing people's rights I think for better or for worse immigration law has hinged on that first conception of law as agreement law as social contract and that is why in large part it can so easily screw people who are not members and I think in Ernesto's paper he did a much more thorough job of explaining where plenary powers come from and how it's rooted in the federal government's dealings with Native Americans these people are not members they're domestic dependenations they don't have constitutional rights and protections later in that same century when the Chinese come you hear exactly the same kind of justification and if anything our commitment to that first conception of the constitution as agreement is what warps our law in our morality and our ethic and our way of dealing with these kinds of problems to give you another example Rose's paper is about the right to marry and it's set in Asia however statistically most Asian women who married American servicemen were at least initially in sex work they were in prostitution ever since the United States arrived in the Philippines at the turn of the century through the operation of Japan, South Korea and Vietnam but the United States has condoned and sometimes where it's military has encouraged there's a lot of commercial sex and much of that commercial sex does lead to marriage but I think we should think about those two together there's something odd about the American military not giving it just doesn't care who American soldiers have sex with it's only when they marry and want to bring that person back to the United States then it's a big issue then we have to discourage this kind of practice from occurring and it's almost impossible to imagine that in the inverse so imagine if the Chinese army became really powerful and they had a base in Irvine and there was a lot of commercial sex where Chinese soldiers were having lots of sex with cute girls in Orange County I mean would we ever tolerate such a thing is that even conceivable yeah in that sense the idea of holding citizens indefinitely as in Ernesto's paper about Guantanamo again I think that also has foreign policy legacies and foreign policy roots again in this century those roots would be primarily in Asia the torture, the detention the long term holding these are things that the United States government and its military have done in times of war and even in times of peace in other countries and in other places yeah and it's never spoken of as a constitution or legal violation of the American law and I think there's just something fundamentally wrong with that whether the foreigners are coming here or going to deal with the foreigners there is a way in which to move beyond the language of the Constitution as agreement to think about how it embodies these higher order principles that should restrain all Americans especially state actors wherever they are and whomever they deal with the whole idea like in your paper to say that just because you are a non-citizen you're not entitled to due process I think there's something wrong with that I mean there's something fundamentally flawed and then to take them to Guantanamo and do whatever I mean that's just like again as American citizens I think there has to be some mechanism where we can appeal to the Constitution and tell the government actors you violated that principle this is not how America should be and in terms of Professor Johnson's talk I think in essence I think I pretty much read everything well I've read a lot of what you've written but a lot of the paper that you're doing now is tied to the opening of floodgates it's about why we should have open borders and Professor Johnson makes a very good argument to argue that American immigration law at least in terms of its mission is just wholly its class discrimination in terms of foreign policy in the immigration law what we do in our immigration law is tell poor people don't come just don't come even if you have family members here you really want to come to the United States you want to look for economic opportunities just don't come and this is the very clear message that the United States has sent the rest of the world since 1965 and definitely after 1990 on the other hand because I'm an Asian American studies what I look at is the other message that the United States sends through its immigration law is that if you have skills and you have money please come at the same time that the United States is deporting about 400,000 persons per year the United States is admitting about 400,000 people from Asia every year that's a lot of babies being inside of California I'm sure all of you see every day the demographic consequences of that you can't swing your arm but I think I'm an Asian kid here the fact that all these highly skilled Asians are coming that they are unproblematic at least for me, I teach studies in Asia that's a remarkable thing we're talking 400,000 Asians every year at the height of the Chinese exclusion period there were only 120,000 Asians in the entire country so the class race shift in immigration law is quite striking it has the race-based consequences it's not just in admissions but it's also in enforcement so if we talk about people who are out of status a substantial chunk of people who are out of status are people who overstated visas and they're primarily non-immigrant workers but last I heard there's no discussion of a workplace raid at Microsoft or Intel and reporting them right away we just don't care those kinds of differences in the way we treat certain groups of people who are even themselves all out of status is quite striking and I think that would send a great deal of weight to the argument yeah, overall I think it's the impossibility of that one of the lessons of the rule of law is not to command the impossibility and as is the legal theory the rule of law and philosophy of law the idea is that law should not command the impossibility our immigration rules that tell poor people not to come that criminalize them that remove them that detain them it's just impossible it's just not workable and we have to begin thinking past that and my last point is just a story about illegality I had a ten-year-old and two years ago it was Black History Month and she came home with a picture of Harriet Tubman and she said she learned about Harriet Tubman today it was great America helped people escape slavery and she was a wonderful person and off the top of my head I'm not really thinking about these things but people wanted Harriet Tubman arrested or killed and what she was doing was illegal and my daughter had really quiet and then she asked her mother if I was telling the truth but that moment in reply to the guy who says what part of her legal don't you understand I think what we need to think about especially in immigration context there are a lot of things that American law has done that were legal that we now find appalling I think in 200 years when we look at our immigration rules we might find it other generations of Americans and what we're doing and find it just as troubling as my daughter found slavery I'm going to stop there comments, questions yes I have a question for Professor and I just heard her talk because I'm always on my head around why there weren't any Japanese war rights but the 1952 immigration act which kind of lists the restrictions for Korean war rights to start coming in it occurs after President Sharn but still 15 years before Logan Baker doing it but there's still now that since 1952 the ability to for white service them to marry Korean war rights so there is that presence of these immigration marriages there's a particular policy shift or something that goes on in 1952 that's still, you know, we're not ready to deal with and loving the community with Korean rights and same thing too with war rights by after 1952 then thousands of that's when thousands more of the Japanese war rights had married military soldiers years before able to finally go back to the United States but at the time the so one way to respond to your question was the federal of valor the approval of these marriages between Korean war brides and Japanese war brides to primarily white male soldiers was that the federal validation or recognition of interracial marriages at the time, right? There are, it wasn't if we think about it from the way we normally understand interracial relations. There was at the time, of course, there's a lot of litigation there's a shot and in other places LDF is finally starting to come around to try to challenge these to try to participate in the dating again state anti-missage but it wasn't they still weren't as involved not so much much later so JCL was that part of the push to recognize what was going on in the military context was part of this shift towards recognizing more interracial relationships but the United States and states as a government and then states were not ready yet to acknowledge how the shift that this represented some shift or some recognition of interracial marriages but it's more of, if I could add it's more of foreign policy response so Mary Dootsie ad in her work argues that the United States after World War II does not want to be perceived as a racist place certainly not when the Chinese and the Soviets have been telling third world countries all along that the United States is a racist place and federal officials who are abroad have a hard time with that one because when other countries say is it true that you're racist what are we going to say you know what I mean so it's in that sense policymakers especially in foreign countries want to make friends and want to change the perception of the United States and the world it sounds sir yes this is for next up first a quick comment and then a suggestion, sort of a suggestion of the way out of that first Xinjiang and the Uyghurs in the Chinese context I think you you get an adequate attention in your anti-imperialist context so speaking 60 speak if this is a conflict between China and the United States see China as a great power and this is just a great power conflict U.S. foreign policy for example human rights and the Uyghurs as an example is always unbelievably selective as to which countries we want to encourage human rights we have to say the least our foreign policy has a mixed record so the caveat is in the context that you're presenting the Uyghurs and the role of American effort or regime change or destruction of China in the context of Tibet and Xinjiang and the North West is the U.S. foreign policy position is complex that's a comment to be cautious about that my suggestion and trying to piece through the various questions of constitutional authority and power that you were looking at is to suggest that you look at constitutional power in an hierarchical or creating a taxonomy and it's to say what seems to be going on and you describe some of this is that if you look at the various federal constitutional powers they end up being a pecking order so you've got at the top your notion of extraterritorial power which is a mix of military authority and foreign policy power that is in the exercise of those two you've got which seems to then be below that sometimes Trump sometimes doesn't and below that is federal power over immigration which can sometimes be Trump or not Trump or somewhere in the military but then below that is racial authority or equal protection and new process but race groups is completely in this context your ability to raise those issues so if you see federal power and authority as cheered not as unitary and not as sort of mixed but rather no the federal there is a an implicit federal power there may be a possibility of being able to better sort some of those into some of the power decisions that are going on thank you for those comments on the foreign policy I didn't have time to mention it in the talk but the way I see these five detainees is first of all let me say something positive this isn't at least in the law this isn't the same thing as med-sea this isn't necessarily the same things as something before Zadibas or Clark V. Martinez the government is actually saying we want to not send them to a place although the military which is better than saying or sending them to China we don't care or there is the power of addition and other things like that and that might things a little better more importantly like you said I think they're a bargaining chip they're sadly they're being not only in a puzzle but the United States and China play a game which is I respect you, you respect me but we only push each other what we really need to and one way to push China is you have a lot of our debt please don't get in Central Asia but we're going to keep these five people that you really want which by the way also helps us because we don't want traditional review in Guantanamo these detainees because it's not just the weakers there's also a discussion about what's going to happen with the Yemenis and every time there's more of a protest in Yemen there's more of a reason to not send the people from Yemen there and the same thing is going on with Algeria so I think they fit into the foreign policy debate on why they won't be sent back so back and forth to China and the United States similarly there's a bigger debate which goes into your second question about the judicial review and I think Boumedien extended habeas corpus was because the court viewed its role as being lessened and this had gone on for too long and so if you view the cert petition that was filed in December it basically is a story of the history of habeas not the story of plenary power not the story of extraterritorial constitutionality it's the story of Scalia, Alito, Roberts believe what the separation of powers in habeas means because if we eliminate that aberration or ambiguity we can have courts exert influence there which will release these individuals but the story isn't about the individuals the story is about judicial review but I hadn't thought about it in your context but the only thing I can say at this point is I think it's really an issue about judicial review but the justification is an immigration law so we're kind of left to make sense of why is the plenary power so important it's important because it allows for detention but the resolution will be political so thank you for those comments Professor Park I've practiced immigration law for about 30 years and I was a little puzzled by something you said because you said the law should not regulate the impossible or try to control the impossible and I agree with the concept in theory but you made citations to Microsoft and other companies having employees who are here as if they were here illegally when they're not and I guess what I was puzzled about is we already allow much larger numbers of family based immigrants into the country than those who are employment based or who may contribute to innovation and job creation and so when you were seeming to be saddened by the fact that the message outside world is don't let the poor come in I don't know what we could do that would be possible it seems to me that we should re-align our immigration laws to our economic interests which would allow more people to come in on employment based grounds or at least on rationales that would allow for innovation, allow for job creation expand the pie and so I just was hoping to clarify your point I didn't present a paper but you'll reply to that question first of all a lot of companies like Microsoft or other information technology companies have argued that American rules governing temporary skilled workers and skilled workers in general are too restrictive so Microsoft and other companies have threatened to move to Canada where those rules are more liberal so they can have as many software engineers and geeky people as possible although on the one hand the United States is much more open to employment based immigration certainly it's not as much as some companies would like in reply to the other second part of family unification and about poor migrants coming I would wholeheartedly agree with Professor Johnson that the legal avenues through which poor people can come to the United States have really shrunk it's true, have really shrunk since 1965 and that's a set of public choices that Congress has made to restrict those avenues the theory there is to reduce the social cost of these people so as a fraction of persons who are entering the United States family unification is really falling it used to be 70% now it's about 30-40% in fact they've been displaced by economic migrants in terms of the rule of law argument when I I deal mostly with undergraduates I try to tell my undergraduates that they are living through two major revolutions one is the transportation revolution and one is the communication revolution in the migration context what that means is poor people in poverty can't see how you live and how we live and even if a teeny tiny fraction of them decide to come here that's going to be a lot of people if we don't legalize in some sense or at least do something about that very profound structural change in the way we live our lives we are going to live with a problem of illegality no matter how often we offer it so that's the compelling problem and actually there's written about this too did you want to add I want to ask Dean Johnson a question that's related to that you never called me that before so Kevin can you say that because he's my mom so I just want to follow up on that question because there's kind of an underlying assumption in that question that family-based immigrants are poor and so that was manifested in 2007 as you know by the proposal that got pretty far in Congress that would have eliminated virtually all family integration and instituted a point-based system and I can say in the context of your paper, as I understand it I wonder how you look at that is it a matter of oh we should do more for the economy of the country by removing that integration or is there a racial issue involved and if there is a racial issue involved does that necessarily correlate with poverty for the last sort of package in that question and some of them are a continued dialogue we've had for a long period of time and I don't one of the interesting things I guess is that I don't know if our immigration laws are so favorably based towards Asian migration as you might suggest it's not on purpose but there's some parts of the immigration laws, especially for elderly Chinese where there have been increasing enforcement so we have somebody at UC Davis not a friend of Bill's but somebody at UC Davis who regularly testifies before Congress how elderly Chinese regularly abuse the immigration laws and come here to secure public benefits and I'm not saying I agree with any of that but it's I do think that the family-based immigration categories and some discussions about curtailing them have provoked some opposition from Asian advocacy groups which are different than the kinds of positions that Latino advocacy groups have taken focusing more on employment and less on family over time in fact at Maldef Mexican American Legal Defense Education Fund in responding to the immigration proposal that Bill just mentioned wasn't troubled initially by the reduction of family-based visas while Asian advocacy groups numbered them were deeply troubled and that caused some tension and conflict between those two organizations I don't mean in my favor to take a position on that except to say that if you're going to talk about immigration reform you have to talk about the consequences of any reduction of any changes on distinct groups whether it be Asians or Latinos and to this point the people who want to reduce family-based immigration say well we don't want to talk about race we don't want to talk about that we just think that you should have more employment visas and fewer family-wise don't talk about race and I think that's not a way of moving the debate forward and moving the discussion forward and I don't even think we're in a place where we're even talking about the real issues and D. Johnson would respond to this reflection I'm looking at a report here from the Migration Policy Institute on 27th G and what the report essentially says is if you look at the places which have entered into these agreements with the feds and which have been using them most aggressively there's a disproportionate concentration in the salt and salt easter in particular and essentially only we don't see this explicitly what it's saying is that there are significant populations in the United States which have been historically homogenous which have experienced significant demographic changes in a relatively short time period and which perceive themselves as lacking mechanisms to adjust to this new reality and this has become one of the mechanisms of addressing this new reality and this might have not been my but juxtaposing this with the history of how similar parts of the country dealt with the inclusions of black people into public space the juxtaposition is really striking in that there was a long period of adjustment whereby people got used to the idea that a space which was homogenous was going to include a group of people who had not previously been included but it was a very very long period of adjustment centuries how would you do you find that analogy at all clearly we're talking about two different sets of history I don't want to push it too far but there was something about whether or not it is a realistic expectation that persons who would have had 100, 150, 200, 250 years to address the inclusion of black people into the body quality can realistically be expected to get used to all these wrong people in the body quality I mean I'm doing very crass in my land I understand actually in the middle of a book about the migration from the south to the north by African Americans starting World War I the warmth of different suns and I've been struck by the similarities between some of the reactions in the north to African American migrants it's internal migration and what I see in immigration today you raise a number of important points one of the things that we're seeing today we've seen over the last 20 years and I've heard it called the Browning of America we've seen Latino immigrants in places you didn't used to see them you see the largest place of Latino population growth from 1990 to 2000 is Arkansas because the poultry industry and a lot of immigrants going to Tartarus you see immigrant populations larger than Latino in Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina Georgia actually Georgia strikes me I was in Atlanta last year and I said this is like Los Angeles was in 1965 this is very similar in terms of some of the changes that were taking place so I do think that there are I mean Postville, Iowa I don't think in 1965 there's probably one bottom all in there and there are these I mean Hazelton, Pennsylvania why people react some place in the farm country of Pennsylvania where there's demographic changes and people are passing an immigration law to deal with those changes rightly or wrongly I do think that the reason you're seeing a state local immigration ornces ornces for the locals and state laws at the state level is because of the changing demographics and there are other things too I mean there's a failure in the immigration law but I do think that there's some frustration there's some reaction to change and I mean whether we many of us should be patient or not if this change occurs that's another question I do think you're right that this is similar to what we've seen in other points in our history and I do think well well we should try to be patient when we see a rise in hate crimes like we've seen it's hard I mean not just hate crimes but you know killings in places where there are prosecutions and convictions that's sort of the extreme version of some of the reaction but I think it's part of it and I think that to me makes it clear that we shouldn't as a nation be acting but I do think you're right some of these changes aren't going to did you have a question? that narrative seems to need to become very common over the last 10 to 15 years of what communities that have tended rapid demographic change and finding it difficult to do but I feel some extent it's also engineered because like you're aware of two organizations the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform who at least one of them will show up in any news story about immigration or amnesty or anything like that they have a legitimate sound on their hand and I wonder if you would like to report to the Southern Property Law Center about how these are basically catering to the situation of a few people and it's a very well engineered well run and well disciplined organization that it's basically after a certain but consistent community involves that there's majority popular support for comprehensive reform including some kind of amnesty but these groups oppose it so adversely and so consistently and are gathered around particular newspapers and so forth and they work very, very hard to engineer this controversy and to push this narrative of too much change too fast or part of the ego don't really understand I mean I don't think you can blame it all on those organizations there's some prominent political leaders deans of some law school former deans of some law schools who go around and talk about some of these issues sorry and there's parts of the public who do support some of these things I do agree with you these are well federation for American immigration reform and the federal funded groups that do work very hard to get out the center for immigration studies made email list it's really hard I can tell you but they're they are out there they are doing what appears to be research and promoting it as research but I do think that there are segments of the American public that do resist change as well and maybe it's being utilized on by these groups but I do fear that there is some amongst certain groups some popular resistance to change any other questions are we on time? okay thank you