 Greetings. Welcome to Working Together on Think Tech Hawaiʻi. I'm your host, Cheryl Krozier-Garcia, and on this show we talk about the impact of change on workers, the workforce and the economy. Today we're doing a little bit of a different show. I'm being joined by our president of Think Tech Hawaiʻi, Jay Fidel, and we are going to talk about recent presidential executive orders and actions being taken in the Senate, as far as confirmation and our recent attempt at an immigration ban. So, Jay, welcome to the show. Thanks for inviting me, Cheryl. Yeah, and we invite you to call in. You can do that by dialing in to the number you see on the bottom of your screen, or you can tweet us at Think Tech Hawaiʻi. So, Jay, you're an attorney, so you're well acquainted with the court process and how these types of arguments work. And you mentioned earlier that you have not had a chance to listen to the YouTube hearing, but how common is it that appeals hearings of this kind would actually be broadcast live? I hadn't heard that before. Federal court is usually tighter than a state court about such things, so I guess the judges decided it was okay. Good for them. Good for them on many levels. Good for them. Yeah, I listened to it, and it was done via conference call, which I think was another kind of interesting point. It was done in the ninth circuit because one of the major signatories to the as a plaintiff on the immigration ban was the state of Washington, but Hawaiʻi and a bunch of other states had also filed briefs in support of what Washington was doing, and they talked about things like lost revenues for colleges and universities, harm to the business community, as well as some issues around the ban, perhaps unfairly targeting folks of a particular religion, specifically in this case Muslims from the seven countries that had been targeted by this ban. But a couple of things just sounded really interesting to me that I am not completely familiar with as far as how government works. The first is the idea of the use of an executive order to actually make immigration law, and the second is actually having attorneys representing states or private organizations file suit against the president to protest a particular executive order. In your experience, is that a common occurrence? It wouldn't be in my experience, but I have heard that over the years and the 200-plus years of this country, we've had this before, and so not recently and not to the same scale or on the same issues or with the same intensity. It goes for the proposition that we are finding new boundaries here. We're finding new areas, new issues, new new adventures in appreciating the law of the checks and balances of our government, which is actually not a good thing because the checks and balances have been and are being tested here. Imagine for the United States attorney to come forward in the Federal District Court rather in the Ninth Circuit and say, it's not reviewable. What he does in Washington, it's not reviewable. You guys don't have anything to say about this. That's extraordinary. Now there are certain circumstances where de facto he can do things and there is no likelihood of review. But in this case, there were constitutional issues involved. In this case that were, as you said, a change in the immigration law perhaps without a statute that should have been passed in order to achieve that change. In this case, gee whiz. Yeah, gee whiz is right. Although I do think it's probably as good a time as any to begin challenging those boundaries of the Constitution. It's supposed to be a living document. Well, we'll see how good it is, won't we? You know, but I appreciate the thought and we could find out that it is just as resilient and flexible as we want it to be that it can change with changing times and deal with new issues. But we can also find, and I hate to think of this, that maybe it's not so flexible and maybe it doesn't work against the kinds of things that this president can do. I worry about that. Don't you worry about that? I worry about this president. He's testing the boundaries. Yes, indeed. He, a kid, on a road trip with her family in the backseat of the car with her sibling. And the kid wants to provoke some kind of interesting social phenomenon. So they go like this, poke, poke. And the next thing you know, the sibling is all upset and halls off and cracks the kid and the parents immediately blame the one that did the hitting and not the one that did the pushing. And I get a sense of our president that he's kind of the one that would would push a little bit to try and provoke some kind of combative response. Intentionally or otherwise. He's already done that. He may not mean it. On the other hand, he could be fooling us all about the relative level of his sophistication, political strategy, and you know, and end up being a very canny person and user of the legal system that we have in place right now. Well, that's the big question. Will the court system and checks and balances and the way the framers set it up with those checks and balances, will that work against the guy who seems to be lawless about the Constitution? Or can he find a way, you know, to break it and worry about that? Because we live in a social compact, an agreement, a basic understanding of all the people in this country that this is the document, this is the system. And if you start breaking the document, breaking the system, then where do we go from there? Well, we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So John Adams said that he's my personal favorite. My favorite of all the founders is John Adams, because he didn't own slaves. Interesting. Yeah, he didn't. He was seeing ahead of his time. Well, he couldn't afford slaves. Okay, it was that simple. He was not a wealthy man. Did you see what happened in, was it Harvard? John Seacal, was it Harvard or Yale? John Seacal, changed the name of the building. Yeah. Well, which brings up another point to what degree does what we're doing right now represent kind of a revisionist approach to U.S. folklore, history, etc. Yeah. Well, it's interesting because the revisionist is the right thing. It's revision both ways. Some people want to revise this way. Some people want to revise that way. The ones who didn't want to see John Calhoun's name on the building, they were the ones who didn't like the fact that he was a supremacist. On the other hand, there are people now that want to be supremacists and are racist. And there's a surprising resurrection, a reemergence of racism in this country. And you pointed a little while ago, I think that some of the things, many, many of the things that Donald Trump has done actually foments this kind of new racism. It takes advantage of people's concerns about that. And then it elevates the whole controversy and we get into a new world that we don't like. Nobody likes that, but that's what's happening. I worry about that. Well, I don't know that nobody likes it. I think some people may like it. The majority of us probably don't like it. But when we begin to do things like change the names on buildings, Calhoun Hall is now Hopper Hall, Hooper Hall, Hopper, Hopper Hall. After Admiral Hopper, the genius computer scientist of her day. But when we change the names, because say Mr. Calhoun was a white supremacist and a pro-slavery person, we take away opportunities for dialogue going forward. So now young kids at Yale University, future generations, are not going to get to say, well, gee, how does Calhoun's ideas about race resonate with what's happening today? Oh, really. It does away with an opportunity to think about ideas in a very different way. That's an interesting point, Cheryl. At the time, building was named for him. He was a big deal. He was well respected. He was a part of American history for sure. We all studied him in school. We studied him as an icon of American history, supremacist and all that together. So if you throw him out, if you revise him out, maybe you change the conversation to exclude consideration of what he was, good or bad. And maybe that thins it down somehow and make it flattens it out, doesn't give us the rich panoply of American history that we need to appreciate. And the other thing too is, I think that when we take those names out of history, we're forgetting the fact that he wasn't alone in his opinions. And I would venture the opinion that when he was talking about white supremacy, he was indeed representing the majority of perhaps white thought at the time. Yeah, a lot of people thought of it. So is it reasonable to blame one person for the majority opinion of a time? He becomes iconic. He was probably somebody that iconic at the time, so he was the tip of the spear on that in some ways. But what I get out of this is that it was that controversy, it was that tension between guys like him and guys like who was it, Adams, who were more clear thinking about this. It's that tension that invented our whole system, our system of values. We may not be faithful to them these days. Sometimes I don't think we are. But at least theoretically, we have the system of pretty good values. And we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't have those values except for that tension and the resolution of that tension. That's right. For example, the Civil War. But even the Civil War is not always a Civil War. If you look at textbooks that are published for, say, public schools in the US South, that period of history is referred to as the War of Northern Aggression. No, it really is. Right now. Yeah. I lived in Georgia for a while and when I started my graduate education, and so because I was not a student from Georgia, I had to take Georgia history. And so, yes, the Civil Wars referred to as the War of Northern Aggression. That's revisionist. Yeah. It is. I was shocked. Yeah, it is shocking. It's shocking that it exists today. But it shows you, and I would have to agree that the Civil War is not over. In many ways, it's not. But I would also submit that there's no such thing as a Civil War. Okay, go. We could have a seditious war, a war of sedition, where you have states pulling away from the Union. But war is, by definition, not a civil activity. Okay. Well, you know, also, I mean, war usually is with another country, and a Civil War here, they're just splitting apart. It was the most important thing that happened in American history until at least that time, and maybe it's still happening. And you know, I really feel that we haven't really resolved the issues that were raised, the Lincoln race and others were raising in the Civil War. I mean, it's such a fascinating period of time in American history, but it's not over. And I think there's a lot of people still studying it to see why the textbooks have the War of Northern Aggression, which is so ridiculous. But then, you know, part of that explains the vote on Trump, why so many people voted for Trump. They are in a different place. Yeah, that's true. And that's a bit of a Civil War role itself, don't you think? Indeed, indeed. And speaking of which, I think we need to look, since we're talking about the election too, as a matter of free-ranging conversation, the degree to which one of our governmental machines is perhaps obsolete, and that is the Electoral College. I know it may sound like sour grapes because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but our new president won the Electoral vote. The Electoral College was originated at a time when communications technology and travel technology was such that it was difficult for people to get back and forth and to really cast an informed vote. I'm not sure that those difficulties exist now, so is it time, either, to say goodbye to the Electoral College, and thank you very much for your service. Well, a couple of thoughts about that. We've been talking about, to some extent, you know, first, the Electoral College, okay, was a compromise, because, you know, some states were bigger, some states were smaller, and this is the way you got them all to buy in. Electoral College kind of flattened that out, you know, sort of democratized the size of the states, just the way we have in the Senate, you know, two votes from each state. So, you know, it's not that it was a perfect idea. It was just a political compromise at the time. Secondly, you know, it hasn't always worked like you think, but thirdly, it really didn't work very well in this election. The popular vote was like nearly three million, you know, more for Hillary Clinton than Trump, and yet he wins, and people legitimately, you know, begin to question the Electoral College. Why can't we have a popular vote around the country? Why do we need this fiction? It really is a fiction, because, you know, the states are coming together, as you expect they would. We are one country. Why can't we just vote? At the beginning of his term, Obama wrote an article, which I caught, about why not just simply have voting on the internet? You know, let's take advantage of the technology, and the technology will drive us away from the Electoral College. Yeah, that's true, and our technology is telling us that it's time for a break. So, we are going to step away for a minute and let you see some of our other excellent programming on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm Cheryl Crozier-Garcia, and this is Working Together. We'll be right back. Hello, this is Martin Despeng. I want to get you excited about my new show, which is called Humane Architecture for Hawaii and Beyond, and it's going to be on Think Tech Hawaii from downtown Honolulu on Tuesday afternoon at 5 p.m. And we're going to talk about to make architecture more inclusive on the islands, which is one of the definitions of humane, which is being tolerant of, you know, many people of nature, of many other influences. So, we're going to have some great guests, like today's guest, for example, my collaborator, David Rockwood, who's the author of the awesome manifestation of humane architecture in the background. So, see you on Tuesdays, 5 p.m., and look forward to... This is Working Together on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm Cheryl Crozier-Garcia, and that is Jay Fidel. Hi, Cheryl. Hi. And Jay, we're sharing with us some ideas about the Electoral College. So, Jay, please, continue. Yeah, there's one more point I wanted to make with you, and that is, you know, the Electoral College, it's not going to be easy to change it. I mean, you suggested that that was coming time to change it, but how do you change it? You need, obviously, a constitutional amendment. That's where it's stated, and that's to pass through the states. And, gee whiz, I, you know, what, a state that benefits, you know, that has greater leverage because of the Electoral College international election is not going to want to vote for that. So, it's going to be a real mess to try to change it, and it probably won't, my guess, it won't be changed. So, we got it, it's part of the program, and I don't think we're going to change it. But I think the states that have the most electoral votes would also have the most popular votes. California has a pile of electoral votes, and they're also one of the most popular states. So, I'm not sure that folks that benefit, theoretically benefit from the Electoral College would not similarly benefit from a straight popular vote. I'd like to see that. I'd like to see the country come together on that. I'd like to see a popular vote, and I think the difference between the regions is not as great as it was. I mean, as you said earlier, I mean, it could be great distances, different cultures, different places. Now, we're more together, and we can probably do, we can probably govern ourselves without regard to an Electoral College. And the other thing, troubling about the Electoral Theoretically, the electors, the Electoral College, they don't have to abide by the vote in their community. That's really scary. In some states they do. It's state law. Yeah. Very interesting. It came up in this recent election. That's right, because we are learning new things every day. Indeed. We live in interesting times. Yeah, we do. The Chinese curse. Yeah, and it is a curse. But let's talk about, let's talk about STEM. Let's talk about, you know, what motivated, what motivated, I put it to you, what motivated the Attorney General of the State of Washington to bring that case to set aside and get a TRO against the immigration executive order? Well, they brought up a number of issues. And the first one had to do with loss of revenue because of international students entering into the Washington State University system. As you may know, the states have resident, non-resident tuition. International students pay non-resident tuition. So they become sort of a cash cow for the various public universities. So that was one thing. But the other thing that they brought up that I don't think that they made quite as good an argument with is the loss of potential STEM workers who would come into the U.S. via the H1B visa, work for a particular company who essentially is sponsoring them to get that visa. And without those workers, high tech industries, research, those kinds of things are really kind of lost. Well, you know, that's commentary on how we're doing today. I mean, you know, people argue that our educational system isn't up to snuff. Bill Gates used to make trips around the country trying to convince college kids to study computer science. It was singularly unsuccessful in that. And if you look at Microsoft or any of the big, you know, tech companies now, a good solid percent, maybe even more than half of their tech workers, you know, tech visionaries, their programming engineers, those sort of, you know, they're from other countries. And we are not training them here. Or they are not willing to be trained. I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't know why in this country where everybody worries about being employable, worries about losing his job in the coal mine. Why can't we study tech? What's the problem? I don't have a problem. But no, but I see what you're saying. And I think it's true that we need to get away from sort of the view that immigrants are taking my job. They're not taking your job because the majority of us don't do those STEM types of jobs that people are coming in to take. So that's one thing. The other thing is that we, as a country, have not done a good job of showing the sexy side of the STEM work. I'll give you an example. I have nephews who are of that age. They are millennials. And they, one in particular, is a computer genius, but he doesn't want to do the STEM work. No astronaut stuff, no none of that. He wants to design games. And the reality is there's probably more money in designing interactive computer games than there is in figuring out a way to get a group of human beings to and from Mars safely. Yeah. And one helps the other, too. The point is that we collectively, the country, the economy, we need people who know these areas, who are trained in these areas, not just for their own jobs, but for the human resources in the country. And we have come to rely on immigrants for this over the past few years. Trump is arguing about Mexican labor that sneaks across the border. That's not really the issue here. We need to develop inside, in-house, people who are qualified to do global things. Instead, what we're doing is we're importing our talent, we're importing our resources. We're also importing all our manufactured goods. We're getting lazy is my point. And there must be a solution. I don't think he has it. I don't think he even understands this. But we have to figure it out. And part of that, big part of that is the educational system. And I guess every man, woman, and child in the country has got to recognize what you and I are talking about. I hope so. I mean, I'd like to see people wake up to that fact. But I need to make a point because when we talk about immigrants coming across the border and working as undocumented workers, the fault for that phenomenon is us. It's the U.S. employer that refuses to do his or her due diligence and really make sure that everyone they hire has the appropriate documentation to work in this country. The only reason there's a market for undocumented workers is because employers will hire undocumented workers. Let's change the tilt a little bit. So suppose I play it straight, totally straight. I follow the law everywhere. I do not hire undocumented workers. I do everything I'm supposed to do. I follow every bloody regulation they want to throw at me and there are more all the time. It's one of the reasons that Trump won is because he wants to show a lot of regulations out. But if I'm a good boy, okay, and I follow every rule and every regulation, I'll be out of business. You think so? Yeah, for a lot of companies. And furthermore, if I'm a young fellow or girl and I want to start a business, I'm out of school, I'm a millennial, you know, and I even have for a moment I think, well, maybe I'll make a business, I'll be an entrepreneur. It's not easy. And of course it's not easy on a business level, but it's also not easy on a regulatory level. It's hard to do it. Lots of delays, permitting issues, regulations all over me. So I don't do it. I get a job with someone else. And I think that's a discouraging feature. I do not agree with it, but I do agree that we have to find a way to make business grow in the country. And then that will help in many levels. Yeah, I do think that entrepreneurs are finding more sort of innovative ways to make their businesses successful. And there's kind of a nontraditional movement. I'll give you an example. That's a food industry. If you look, there are food trucks out there where you can get as good a meal for $8 in a Styrofoam box, then you, as you could get for $35 in one of Waikiki's best four-star restaurants. And the reason is that the chefs want to show their skill, their artistry, their talent. They want to feed people and they don't recognize the value added with cloth or fancy linen tablecloths and extremely fancy and ornate. Bypassing all of bureaucracy. That's right. It's going right to it. I don't know if you've been in New York lately, but last couple of trips I made, I noticed in the 50s, midtown, right in the center of things, there are these Middle Eastern food trucks. And they do lamb and it smells so good you can smell it a block away. And people line up around the block so they can have these these dinners and they come, it's a dinner you take your girl out, where your spouse out for Valentine's Day and you go to one of these trucks and have this delicious lamb dinner. Furthermore, some of the landlords in that area, right, have rebuilt the front ends of their buildings to put benches in so you can sit on the street on Fifth Avenue, Sixth Avenue. Yes, it's wonderful. And you can have this great dinner. So I'm saying, you know, that's pure entrepreneurship. Indeed it is. That's like Pony Askew and all these things. You know Pony? Yeah. All these things that she does with the food trucks here in Hawaii. Yeah. And that's an example of what you're talking about, the millennials doing business. Yeah. And you know, speaking of which, because our time is running out, let's go eat.