cc  >> It's now my pleasure  to introduce today's  Global Hot Spots speaker.  Professor Ben Marquez is in the  Department of Political Science  at UW-Madison.  And he also has affiliations  with the Chicano and Latino  Studies program.  His teaching and research  interests are in political  sociology and American politics.  And he has published extensively  on Latinos in American politics.  His research has focused on  Mexican-American social movement  organizations, and he is the  former director of the Chicano  Studies Program.  His current research project is  on Latino identity in politics  in Chicago.  His topic today is the Politics  and Challenges of Immigration  Reform.  And it's my pleasure to  introduce Professor Ben Marquez.  (applause)  >> Thank you all very much for  coming to see me. 

 And I thank the Alumni  Association for inviting me.  I'd like to start by talking  just a little bit about myself.  Because all of my research, all  of my teaching interests stem  from the experiences that I've  had in my life, or because of  the experiences my family has  had.  When it comes to immigration,  my family background is kind of  complex.  My grandparents, two of my  grandparents on my mother's side  were born in Texas.  On my father's side, his  grandparents, his parents were  born in Mexico.  But one of my great-grandparents  was born in the Arizona  Territory.  That is, that his family was  living in the Arizona area  before it became part of the  United States.  So I have a very complex  personal background when it  comes to immigration.  And my wife is a naturalized  citizen from Bolivia. 

 So I, like you, have immigration  in my family history.  And what I'd like to do today,  and if you'll excuse me, I'll be  darting back and forth to my  notes, I'd like to talk about  immigration and immigration  policy dilemmas from the  perspective of immigration from  Mexico and South America, a  couple of topics that I know  best.  So I'd like to highlight that  aspect of immigration, layout  some facts and figures for you,  and then talk about what it is  that the nation faces, and what  kinds of policy alternatives we  have and what I call policy  dilemmas, and what's likely to  occur in the near future with  our new president, President  Obama.  I like to say that, so I may say  it a couple of times during the  course of the talk.  (light laughter)  Anyway, some of you may know,  the 2000 census revealed that  Hispanics then constituted the  largest ethnic group in the  United States.  They became 12.5% of the  population versus what I think  was 12.4% for African Americans.  So the country took a historic  turn at that point.  But those of us who study Latino  politics and Latin American  politics knew that it probably  occurred much earlier than that,  because of the large flow of  illegal immigration.  And it's estimated, and the  estimates are just that,  estimates, that it's as many as  11 or 12 million undocumented  people live in the United  States, the large majority of  which come from Mexico or South  America.  In fact, four out of five  illegal immigrants, it's  estimated, come from Mexico or  South America. 

 So this is a very appropriate  place, I think, to look at the  question of immigration.  And the immigration flow has  changed the character of our  country.  We now live in a very different  country than we did, even ten  years ago.  From 2000-2007, ten million  additional Latinos became part  of the population, half of that  came through natural population  growth, 60% excuse me.  And 40% came about through  immigration.  So what is it that's driving  this immigration?  I think that's one of the first  questions that we need to ask  ourselves.  What is it that's driving  immigration to the United  States?  A useful framework, although an  incomplete framework that I like  is the old notion of push-pull  forces.  There are pull forces pulling  immigrants to the United States,  in the form of jobs, jobs and  there are jobs.  Mexico and South America have  always had a very intimate link  with the United States when it  comes to labor.  In fact, one of my favorite  historians wrote a book called  "Mexican American History  Is Labor History."  And this is a process that I  believe is at the root of  contemporary immigration. 

 What is happening to our closest  neighbor?  We have a very unique situation  in our relationship to Mexico.  And that is, one of the poorest  countries in the world sits  directly adjacent to the richest  country in the world.  And I remember when I was going  to school, when I was going to  college at the University of  Texas at El Paso, the college  campus sits literally 100 yards  from the Mexican border.  And you know, the college, it  was an okay college.  I got a good education there.  But I was once asked to think  about the college from the  perspective of the people who  were living in the shacks 100  yards from where I was studying.  I was asked, if you lived over  there and you looked over at  these shiny bright new state  buildings, what would you think.  Well, I would think, of course,  of improving my life by coming  to the United States.  And these are the push factors  that exist in Mexico, are  something that have not changed  significantly in a hundred  years.  When I lecture on immigration  and I deliver several lectures,  I tell my students, you know,  some of these lectures are  pretty easy to give, because all  I have to do is change the  names, places and the numbers,  and you have a long-term story  about poverty, political  instability, and economic  justice in Mexico. 

 And an almost insatiable need  for low cost, unorganized labor  in the United States.  Let me just give you a couple  figures.  In 1960, Mexico had 34 million  people, that was the size of its  population.  In 1970, there were 48 million  people.  In 1950, there were 70 million  people.  In 1999, there were 97 million  people.  The latest figures that I've  been able to get for the year  2007, show that Mexico has a  population of 108 million  people.  Unemployment stands at  about 30% to 40%.  Approximately, and this is a  very low approximation, 27% of  the population lives in poverty.  Mexico has few or no social  services. 

 And it has a 2,000-mile-long  border with the United States.  I recommend the work of Douglas  Massey, the great sociologist to  you, if you're interested in  doing more research on  immigration.  And one of the things that he  was interested in was how  effective are our border  enforcement techniques.  We've got an immigration and  control enforcement agency whose  budget is over $5 million--  $5 billion, what am I talking  about, a million these days is  just a pittance, isn't it?  You're not talking real money  until you're talking trillions.  So they've got a budget of over  $5 billion, a budget that's  slated to increase this year.  But what do you suppose the odds  are of making it across the  border if you keep trying?  100%, right.  Your chances of getting caught  the first time are one in three.  But if you keep trying, you will  get across the border.  You're assured of making it  across the border, 100%.  It is a figure that we should  all look at very closely. 

 Another thing that's happening  as well, and a dynamic that we  should also be mindful of, is  that immigration does not occur  willy-nilly.  Okay, it's not something that  people wake up one day and say,  hey, my life stinks, I'm  leaving.  No, it's what immigration  researchers call the chain  migration process.  There always has to be a  pioneer, somebody who goes to a  new place for the very first  time, somebody who today goes to  Mississippi, goes to Arkansas,  goes to Utah.  And then, they establish  themselves by however means they  do that.  But then they become a conduit  of information, a conduit of  information to others.  Well, what's the economy like  there?  What does it cost to live there?  Are there jobs available for me  there?  Can you help me?  And this information is conveyed  to their friends, their  relatives in Mexico.  And again, the terrific work  that Douglas Massey tells us  about this.  He went to Mexico and actually  conducted a survey, asking  people about their knowledge of  the United States, and their  immigration experiences.  Let me just give you a few of  his figures. 

 In the state of Western Mexico,  where he did his study, he found  that 41% of all household heads  in the state of Mexico that he  studied were estimated to have  made at least one trip to the  United States.  That's a lot.  21% made five or more trips.  9% made six to ten trips.  And all the way down to 2%  making 20 or more trips  to the United States.  Nearly 60% of the adults in his  survey, the heads of families,  reported an immediate family  member with US migratory  experience.  And 81% of all household heads  in Western Mexico reported that  someone in their immediate  family, extended family, or  circle of friends, had been to  the United States.  And almost three-quarters say  that someone known to them was  presently living in the United  States.  So they understand.  They understand the United  States. 

 They understand the  opportunities there.  And they know where to go to  find jobs.  They don't just go up and down  State Street and look for jobs.  They know which restaurants,  which businesses, which  furniture shops, which  hospitals, which hotels are  hiring, and they go straight  there.  I'm having my students read a  couple of interesting books on  immigration.  And one of them that I  recommend is "How the Other Half  Works," by Lichter and  Waldinger.  And there are many businesses  willing and ready to hire  undocumented, desperate workers  from other countries.  But now, how else are  immigration decisions made?  Okay, a lot of knowledge is  spread among the population in  Mexico.  Well, we have to keep in mind  that the family unit in Mexico  and South America is very  important culturally.  But I personally am dissatisfied  with cultural explanations. 

 I always think there is an  economic basis for most of the  things that we do as  individuals.  In Mexico and South and Central  America, because of the  non-existent social safety net,  everybody depends upon the  family for their survival.  And the decision to migrate is a  family based decision.  That is, families actually do  get together and strategize  about having one or more of  their members migrate to the  United States.  A family whose well-being is  essential in Mexico and South  America because the government  will not take care of you if  something happens to you.  Your family is responsible for  you.  And without it, you could very  well die.  So what are those decisions  based on?  Well, they're very sensitive to  these things.  And again, Douglas Massey helps  us here.  The decisions to migrate, to  send a member of your family to  another country in search of  work is very sensitive to rising  unemployment, falling wages,  failing crops, sagging product  prices, or high inflation. 

 So what is a typical  characteristic of a migrant from  Mexico?  Overwhelmingly male, between the  ages of 18 and 25.  They've got an education of  about six years, which is about  as far as you can go in Mexico  for free.  They're in the prime of their  working lives.  And they have great  responsibilities to people in  their home countries.  How many of you all?  Well, I won't bore you with the  exact figures, but I've got them  here if you want to check up on  my documentation.  How much money would you guess  is sent to Mexico every year by  migrants living and working in  the United States?  The last figure I saw  was $34 billion.  It is a huge amount of money.  And the other interesting thing  about it, there's a lively  literature that has grown up  around the issue of remittances,  because this is something we can  track.  You can track the movement of  money between the US and Mexico  through electronic channels.  Go the to the Bank of Mexico Web  site. 

 They will tell you.  They will say how much money is  coming into the country.  They track it month by month.  And they worry about drops in  the number of remittances to  Mexico.  I think it's about the third  largest source of hard currency  for Mexico's economy.  In some countries, some small  South American countries, it is  the leading source of hard  currency.  So essentially, what poor  countries are doing is exporting  labor as a commodity.  And people send it back.  And you know, $34 billion is a  lot.  But the average transaction is  about $350. 

 So every payday, migrants are  going down to Western Union,  well there's a huge number of  sources.  They're going down and they're  wiring money to their relatives  in Mexico and South America and  other parts of the world, as  well.  Next time you go to Chicago, I  recommend that you turn on the  AM stations and find one of  these Spanish speaking stations.  They're really crazy.  They chat away  100-miles-an-hour.  They tell jokes.  They offer all kinds of advice.  But then listen to the ads for  remittances.  Even if you're Spanish is not  very good, you can tell.  Who do they recommend?  They recommend fast, safe, cheap  services. 

 Get money to your relatives  quickly and at the lowest cost.  Nobody goes across the border  with money in their pockets.  Very, very few do that.  You're just asking to get robbed  if you do that.  So it goes along the wires.  And it can be measured.  And we do.  We have a pretty good idea about  how much money is going there.  Excuse me.  This brief overview, I think,  points to some of the dilemmas  that the country faces in its  immigration policy. 

 And I think the first is that  historically, emigration, the  movement of people from Mexico,  and now Central America and  South America, is serving as a  safety valve for those  countries.  These, by and large, countries  south of our border are highly  inequitable societies, where the  wealth is distributed among a  very small portion of the  population, where the  overwhelming number of people  living there are poor, whose  lives have become disrupted by  economic international  competition.  And one of the things that  having so many people move out  of the country and into the  United States, is that you  release the steam.  You release the pressure.  You release the anger of people  who find that they have few  alternatives in their home  country.  I think we should not think of  the United States as a place  where every one in the world  wants to live, okay.  I mean, this is not the ideal  for everyone to live.  When I talk to immigrants, I  find people who are thousands of  miles away from their homes, and  they wish they were there.  They wish they could have a  decent life in their home  countries.  I've had an unusual experience  from Madison in the last few  years, in talking to people, and  having a difficult time  communicating with them, when at  first I thought my difficulty  was my lousy Spanish. 

 Yes, my family's been here many  generations, and that's one of  the first things to go out the  window, is your native language.  And I thought I was having  trouble communicating with them  because my Spanish was so  rotten.  Well, that was part of it.  But the other part was that they  spoke indigenous languages.  And their second language was  Spanish.  So we were both communicating in  our second language.  And indigenous people are always  the last people to leave.  You don't leave if you're an  indigenous person in South and  Central America, or Mexico,  unless your community has been  totally disrupted.  So this is, to me, an indication  of some of the grave social  disruptions and the way that it  has moved people, and the way  that decisions are made within  families to leave.  These are powerful, powerful  forces. 

 And what lessons can we learn  from that?  Well, one of them, I believe, is  that the most popular solution  to the issue of undocumented  immigration has been  militarization.  The militarization of the  border.  And it hasn't worked.  It just hasn't worked.  I recommend a book that my  senior seminar on immigration is  reading right now.  It's called "Patrolling Chaos,"  talk about an eye-opening book,  by Robert Merrill.  It's a terrific book.  And what he does, he's a  sociologist/anthropologist, and  he spent two years riding in the  truck of a border patrol agent.  Okay, this big bureaucracy, this  big police force that is  guarding our border, and his  study was conducted in south  Texas.  And what he found was that  everything that is being tried  is not working. 

 They're catching thousands of  undocumented immigrants, don't  get me wrong.  This is really happening.  And they're raising the price of  coming to the United States.  But all of the high-tech devices  that they use, all of the, well,  I can give you a list of some of  the things they have,  helicopters, airplanes, night  vision scopes, electronic  intrusion sensors, closed  circuit TV systems, infrared  lights, electronic finger  printing.  It's a very, very sophisticated  police agency.  And they are frustrated because  they cannot enforce the border  as they have been told to do.  I grew up along the border,  again, in El Paso, Texas.  And when I last went to the  border itself, I no longer go to  Mexico for all the things that I  used to enjoy there, because  it's just too much of a hassle,  plus it's gotten dangerous.  I was really impressed by the  degree of policing of the  bridges.  There are four international  bridges that link El Paso to  Juarez. 

 And it's pretty amazing.  They're very sophisticated.  They're tough.  There's barbed wire.  The patrols are racing up and  down the streets parallel to the  border.  But I know, because I used to be  a hunter, I used to hunt with my  father.  I used to hunt doves.  Yes, we used to shoot the symbol  of peace out of the air and eat  them.  They're great, by the way, I  tell you.  If there's ever been a game bird  that I liked, that's it. 

 But I know, if you go to the  areas where we used to hunt,  where there's nothing but farms,  long stretches of land, those  are impossible to police.  And I have walked across the Rio  Grande several times myself  retrieving a bird.  I'd shoot a bird and it would  fall in that dry bank.  And the river is sometimes this  wide.  Now, sometimes it's a raging  torrent, and it's very  dangerous.  But when agriculture, cities all  along the Rio Grande siphon off  water, they turn it into a tiny  trickle, and you can walk across  in many places without even  getting wet.  You have to be careful  sometimes, because it is a  dangerous river.  The militarization of the border  has not worked.  Many workplace raids has made  the news recently.  You probably read about them in  various parts of the country. 

 So far, let's see, 5,184 arrests  have been made in such raids.  So that means that if we  continue at this rate, it may  take us 2000 years to get all  the undocumented workers out of  their work places and disrupting  their lives and harming their  children.  So what do we do?  Well, let me give you my  preferred solution, and at the  same time, the reason why I will  never be elected to public  office.  Because my solutions are the  ones that I think we need to  pursue.  But in the current political  climate, and at least for the  foreseeable future, we're not  going to do it.  But I think we need to invest in  sending countries.  I think we need a South American  Marshall plan.  I think we need to develop the  countries, help develop the  economies of the countries that  are sending people to our nation  to work in sweatshops, hotels  and restaurants, and other  undesirable occupations, and  reduce the desire to leave.  I think really, in the long run,  that is the only thing that will  actually reduce the numbers of  immigrants to the US.  Now, we've experienced some  great economic difficulties  ourselves. 

 But yet there's only been a  small dip in the number of  undocumented workers in the US.  So the classic push-pull theory  isn't working.  Immigrants come here even in  difficult economic times.  And they find a place for  themselves in low wage  industries.  So that sector of our economy  continues to pull them in.  In fact, employers in these low  wage industries prefer  immigrants.  They prefer a malleable  workforce.  They don't want someone like you  all who will assert your rights  at the work place.  They don't want that.  They prefer somebody who's under  the gun of potential  deportation. 

 We could allow a greater  increase of legal immigration.  The quotas for Mexico with its  population of over 100 million,  it's quotas for legal  immigration is the same as that  of the Dominican Republic, at  20,000.  That's the last figure that I  got.  There's a huge backlog of legal  applicants.  And I tell you, those put at the  head of the line right now are  those with high levels of   education, some of our recent  graduates from Mexico are  tempted to stay.  They are the ones, they are not  the ones that are drawing the  concern of policy makers.  Capital immigrants, those with  education and money to invest in  the US, we welcome them with  open arms.  But economic immigrants, that's  another story altogether.  Well, we could take a step  toward reducing illegal  immigration if we allowed more  legal immigration.  Third, how about the A-word?  The amnesty word. 

 Hmm?  How about amnesty.  You know, we actually did grant  amnesty to almost three million  illegal immigrants in 1986.  The Immigration Reform and  Control Act of 1986 was a  compromise hammered together.  But one of the great aspects of  the 1986 IRCA was amnesty.  If you could prove that you had  lived and worked in the United  States, there's a formula, I  don't have the whole formula.  But if you could prove that  lived in the United States for a  certain period of time, and then  you went through the application  process, within four years, you  could become a citizen.  And by 1990, the cutoff point  for becoming a citizen under  IRCA, almost three million  people became citizens.  It just came out.  They came out of the shadows,  applied, and became citizens.  Well, that was one way, and the  promise of the compromise that  included increased enforcement,  increased funding for ICE that  we have today, it's a huge  agency. 

 There were some provisions for  employer sanctions, which was  largely toothless.  And amnesty was supposed to wipe  the slate clean.  All right, we'll wipe the slate  clean.  We'll start over again.  And we'll get this thing under  control.  We'll bring people out of the  shadows so they won't live in  fear, so they can get decent  healthcare and enjoy the  privileges of American  citizenship.  Well, I didn't hear Mr. McCain  or Mr. Obama utter the A-word  during this entire campaign.  In fact, they barely mentioned  immigration at all.  Well, what is it?  They didn't want to go there.  They didn't want to go there,  because now we're facing an even  larger undocumented population,  three times the size of that  that was amnestied in the 1986  bill. 

 And you know what, we complain  about our congressmen, but we  keep sending them back to office  over and over again.  And there are people in Congress  who said, wait a minute,  I remember this last compromise  and the last amnesty.  And it was supposed to help us  get a grip on immigration and it  didn't.  And they won't have anything to  do with it.  Amnesty, I think, has got to be  a part of that, whether we like  it or not.  I just don't know any other way  out.  Well, yes, we can continue as we  are.  We can continue as we have been.  How about another issue?  Excuse me, how about another  option?  How about a new guest worker  program?  You know, some European  countries, like Germany, have a  guest worker program.  And the word guest, I think  encapsulates the idea very  nicely. 

 It's like somebody comes to  visit you.  They're your guest.  They stick around.  Usually about the third day, you  know, it's about time for them  to move on and go back where  they came from.  That's the idea behind a guest  worker, a guest worker program.  We had a guest worker program, a  huge one, in the United States.  And it was in response to World  War II.  The labor shortage in  agriculture because of the  depletion, because of the draft,  because of women moving into  industry.  We had an agreement with Mexico.  The 1942 Mexican Labor Bill. 

 Popularly known as the Bracero  Bill, the Bracero program.  And it literally meant the  importation of strong arms.  That's where the name comes  from.  And it's interesting, this  Bracero program.  It was created as a response to  labor shortages in agriculture  during World War II, because  tremendous pressures were placed  upon American farmers to produce  during that time, for our  soldiers and for our allies.  But it really only began to take  off after World War II.  And it was not terminated until  1964.  At its peak, we were bringing in  450,000 guest workers a year.  It was an enormous program.  Hundreds of thousands, millions  altogether, immigrants coming to  the US, working in the fields  mostly, and in some other  industries. 

 But they came here every year  under this government sanctioned  program.  It was a huge scandal, by the  way.  There were Braceros who were  not paid.  They were treated badly.  They were poorly housed.  It was a national scandal.  And it was terminated in 1964.  There were a few for the next  couple of years, but that was  pretty much the end of it.  The Bracero program is offered,  although the world bracero isn't  often used, as another approach  to the immigration issue.  Let's regularize the status of  people who come here to work. 

 Well, this I think assumes that  immigrants will voluntarily  participate in a government  program that documents their  presence and documents their  movements.  And that they will obey, they  will obey the rules of the  program and leave after three  years, even if their families  are still in desperate economic  conditions after three years.  After the Bracero program was  terminated, what happened?  There was a surge of illegal  immigration.  So it was one program formally  instituted by the government  replaced by another informal  program, already set in motion  by this chain migration formula  that I was just talking about.  So we face some very difficult  choices.  And in fact, prior to the 9/11  attacks, I thought we were  moving toward another Bracero  program, as ill-advised as it  was, I thought that's where we  were going.  And President Fox, who was the  president at the time, was  having conferences with  President Bush about  establishing a new Bracero  program.  And I thought, holy cow, are we  really moving in that direction?  Then came the attack on the Twin  Towers, and that was it.  No more discussion on it.  A real fear and dislike of  foreigners. 

 And that discussion ended.  Boy, we really are moving at a  whirlwind pace, I hope you know.  It really is an enormously  complex topic.  What are we likely to see?  Okay, what's likely to happen  now?  Well, I think we've got some  unanswered questions there.  You know, immigration was an  issue that was rarely mentioned  in the campaign.  And I think neither John McCain  nor Barack Obama even wanted to  talk about it at all, for a  couple of reasons.  One is that there was not much  difference between the two  candidates, I think, on their  position on immigration.  I think they were very closely  aligned.  And if you look at their history  of working together, it is in  fact true.  They both worked and tried to  pass the same immigration reform  bill. 

 But of course, in a  presidential election, you know,  everything your opponent wants  is wrong, and nothing you agree  with.  So I think instead of bringing  it up, they preferred not to go  there at all.  And if you had taken a quick  look at their Web pages, which  I did, because I wanted to talk  to my students about this.  I found a couple of things.  One is that I really couldn't  understand what either candidate  was saying.  They speak in such vague terms.  I mean, this really was a  radioactive issue.  It's a no-win situation for both  candidates.  It's a no-win situation for John  McCain to go there, or it was.  He really was different in this  respect from most republicans in  that he really had a pretty  humane approach to immigrants. 

 He said, you know, we need to  treat them as God's children.  In fact, he said that at the  republican convention.  And the silence was deafening.  Well, I guess the booing and  hissing could be heard.  But that was a terrible thing to  say for his republican base.  The rabid republicans, the base  of the republican party does not  like that.  But he said it.  And displeased the base.  What about Barack Obama?  What are his alternatives?  Well, the democratic party is  the party of minorities, the  underdog.  They're the bleeding hearts of  American politics. 

 So why didn't he emphasize this  more?  Well, I think the answer is one  of the most important members of  the democratic coalition is  labor.  Labor supports Barack Obama.  And historically, the American  labor movement has been very  anti-immigrant, I think to its  own detriment.  But historically the American  labor movement has argued that  immigrants increase the labor  pool, driving down wages, making  it difficult to organize.  And there has been some attempt  to change that recently among  some labor leaders.  But this has been American  labor's historical position.  And I think Barack Obama did not  want to go there.  So he didn't.  There was a tacit agreement that  both candidates would stay away  from that.  Let's see, John McCain said he  wanted to create a comprehensive  immigration initiative for a  secure nation. 

 Barack Obama said he wanted to  bring people out of the shadows.  Both candidates wanted to secure  our borders.  Both candidates wanted to remove  incentives to enter the country  illegally.  But they were like all  politicians, not going into very  much detail, and really  preferring to stay away from  that topic altogether.  I think also we're going to face  another difficulty.  And that is the current economic  crisis.  The current economic crisis, I  think, has trumped every other  initiative for Mr. Obama.  And he's going to have to make  some very, very difficult  decisions.  How is he going to deal with  this?  He has to get the economy out of  its doldrums.  He has to do something about the  high unemployment rate, about  the collapse of some of our  largest corporations. 

 So how is he going to deal with  this?  He ran as a centrist democrat, I  believe he did.  Barack Obama is a gifted  politician.  Perhaps the most gifted  politician of our times.  But I think his ability to  capture an audience, to capture  our national attention, allows  us to project our own dreams and  aspirations and policy  preferences onto him.  But if you listen to him very  carefully, he really was very  much a centrist democrat.  And I think some of his  appointments to his cabinet  reflect that.  So what is he going to do?  I think he's not going to risk a  lot of political capital on  immigration.  He has to choose his priorities.  And I think the first priority  has been thrust upon him, if  that was not already, and that  is the economy.  But how about the environment?  How about energy?  How about health?  Ending the war?  All of these issues are going to  drain his political capital. 

 And he has to be very careful  about it.  We have a unified government, a  democratic unified government.  So does that mean Mr. Obama can  ask for anything he wants?  We have to be careful.  And the democratic party has to  be careful.  Many of the new democrats that  were elected this year, and  those that were elected in the  previous mid-term election cycle  were moderately conservative  democrats, or they were  democrats who were actually  elected in republican districts.  And remember now, congressional  representatives have a much  shorter timeline than the  president does.  I mean, he'll be president for  four years, you know, so that's  his timeline.  I think we will not move on  immigration until after the  mid-term elections.  I think we're going to want to  get one more re-election under  their belt before they tackle a  very, very difficult and  decisive issue like immigration.  Let me give you some other  reasons why I think immigration  reform is likely to move down on  Mr. Obama's list of priorities. 

 One is that--  I think the political voice of  pro-immigration, excuse me,  I think the political supporters  of continued immigration are  vocal and well organized.  Owners of small businesses that  thrive on immigrant labor want  to maintain the status quo  because it lowers labor costs  and increases profits.  The opposition is broad,  heterogeneous, unorganized and  divided.  Organized labor is at an  historic low in the United  States.  And they have very little power  to wield in the democratic party  coalition.  Latinos, I've heard a lot about  Latinos being a new political  force, and they are.  But they're not the political  force that can drive the  president's hand.  Immigration is important to  Latinos.  Public opinion polls show us  this.  Latinos are more sympathetic to  immigrants than any other group  in the United States. 

 But what did Barack Obama  promise Latino voters?  And this is despite the fact  that they didn't really vote in  significant numbers in pivotal  states.  They didn't turn the election  for him in pivotal states.  Well, he promised them higher  employment, better healthcare, a  better economy.  If he delivers on those issues,  he has delivered to the Latino  voter.  He has delivered their  priorities.  Let me give you one more dynamic  that I think is likely to put  off immigration reform for a  while.  And that is that there are  others who benefit from  immigration, from continued  immigration to the United  States.  It's a large and significant  group.  Who is that?  Which group is that?  A familiar group.  We talked about labor. 

 We talked about Latinos.  What other group benefits from  continued immigration?  All right, we're all here.  It's us.  We benefit from it.  We benefit from cheap services  and products that immigrants  provide.  Jim Sensenbrenner, I think, is  an interesting person.  He won re-election,  overwhelmingly, in a district  drawn for him, one of the most  conservative districts in the  state.  But he's given me some great  examples when I talk to my  students about immigration,  about the policy dilemmas that  we face.  He has actually declared that he  would not use any products or  services provided by illegal  immigrants.  And I wonder, how do you do  that?  How do you accomplish that?  Well, some of you may have had  lunch on State Street today. 

 Did you take a peek in the  kitchen to see who was preparing  the Greek, the Japanese, the  Mexican, you know, whatever  ethnicity, ethnic restaurant you  went to, if you look in the back  room, if you look in the  kitchen, they're all speaking  Spanish.  Well, how do you extricate  yourself from that?  When you get your car washed for  an unbelievable price of $8,  you're entire car is washed, who  is doing that?  Well, go to some of the local  car washes and you will see.  The food on your table.  How did it get there?  He may have his own farm, I  don't know.  He may tend his own cattle and  chickens, and so on.  That's the only way I think you  could possibly do it.  Who's working in the slaughter  houses?  Who's harvesting the food?  Immigrants, legal or not, weave  themselves into the social  fabric the minute that they get  here.  The minute they get here and  make a purchase, they start  paying taxes.  The minute they work, they  become part of the social  product.  They provide low cost services  to us. 

 Child care, lawn maintenance.  Not just restaurants and not  just the products that we see in  the store.  But all kinds of services that  are in essence a transfer of  wealth from the working class to  the middle class.  We benefit from that, and I'm  part of that.  We lead a better life and more  affluent life because of those  that work for lower wages.  So for many of us, I think, the  question of immigration is both  abstract and indirectly  benefiting us as consumers of  goods and products produced in  the United States.  Hotels.  Hotels depress me.  I don't like hotels.  I travel far less than my  colleagues, but far more than I  like. 

 And when I go there, you know,  you see the maid.  You see the cooks.  You see the people cleaning the  rooms.  It just depresses me when they  smile and ask me how I am,  because I know that's part of  their job and they have to be  friendly.  They have to smile.  And they ask me how I am,  usually with a Spanish accent.  So it's another aspect of our  immigration politics that I  think is complicating some kind  of favorable resolution.  If we were to, I think, sanction  all employers, and here's where  both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain  really fudged, that hire people  without proper documentation, I  think that would go a long way  toward resolving the immigration  issue.  Let's establish a system whereby  documents can be verified.  Talk to people you know who own  restaurants, who own resorts,  who own any kind of a service  and ask them, say, look, tell me  the truth. 

 Do you know the immigration  status of the people who work  with you.  Really, be honest with me now.  You know, I won't tell.  Everyone knows.  Everyone knows.  Everyone knows what the status  is.  Whenever I talk about  immigration, my students come  forward and they tell me that.  They say, I work in this  restaurant, I work at that  resort, I work in this hotel.  And everyone in the kitchen is  from Mexico, from a certain  state, from a certain area of  Mexico.  Half of them don't have their  papers, and it's an open secret. 

 You want documents, they'll give  you documents.  There's a booming industry in  false documentation.  Well, that can be cracked, I  think.  If we really got serious about  that, it could be done.  But why aren't we rooting in  that direction?  That's another good question.  Anyway, I did want some time for  Q&A.  I wanted to open it up to you  all and see what you think, and  see will you vote for me in the  next election or did I say  anything that maybe peaked your  interests?  Yes?  >> Well, you've indicated that  probably nothing's going to  happen in terms of immigration  reform.  >> Maybe until the next mid-term  election.  >> So what do you see?  What are the consequences or  what are the scenarios that play  out if we do nothing?  If we just kind of continue to  work with the way it is, the  kind of slippery system we're  in, is that okay?  >> Well, I think one of the  problems is the human tragedy.  You know, 11.5 or 12 million  people that we estimate are here  without proper documentation  are living here under the shadow  of arrest. 

 And occasionally, these arrests  do occur.  More and more communities across  the country are requiring that  their police forces ask for and  then report the citizenship  status of whomever they stop,  for a traffic light, for  speeding, for whatever.  And they live under that fear.  You know, we've all heard the  arguments about 12 million  people not getting appropriate  healthcare because they're  afraid their presence may be  documented and may be connected  to the Immigration, Control and  Enforcement Agency.  I still can't get used to that  name, ICE.  But it's a human tragedy.  Then when there are workplace  sweeps, which you know, the ICE  is empowered to do and that's  part of their mandate, you  destroy families.  You leave American born children  without parents to support them.  And that creates a human  tragedy.  It also, I think, is not a good  thing for organized labor. 

 I think ultimately, labor has to  try to organize undocumented  immigrants, because they are  part of the labor pool.  They work and they exist in a  strata of employment whereby  wages are low, working  conditions are terrible, and in  which there are no benefits.  Why is that the case?  Why should a hotel worker, you  know, not get a decent wage and  some benefits, and respect on  the job?  There's no innate reason why  that should be the case.  And I think it's a labor issue.  I think historically, labor has,  in the United States, has been  at loggerheads with immigrants,  legal or not.  Labor has always been very  suspicious of immigrants.  So I think these are  humanitarian issues.  The public health issue, of  course, concerns us.  But the concerns that I just  laid out, you know, are weak  persuasive arguments in the face  of all these other forces and  dynamics that argue for the  status quo, if not overtly,  covertly.  Yeah?  >> I'm just wondering if you  think that Richardson's  appointment to the cabinet, if  that has anything at all to do  with issues of immigration?  >> It could potentially. 

 Now this is political patronage.  Barack Obama is rewarding his  friends, and even his enemies.  But the one impact that  Richardson could have on the  immigration question is that of  the census.  The US Census would be under his  authority.  But plans for the 2010 Census  are already well under way.  So he's not going to be in the  position to have much of an  impact there.  So maybe he could influence  trade relations.  I tell you, if President Obama  has a comprehensive immigration  plan in mind, it will require  some kind of negotiation with  Mexico, South and Central  America, and Asian nations that  are also sending large numbers  of people to the US.  But I think it's a good  administrative appointment for  him.  You know, for being cynical,  this is a great way to get a  terrifically high paying job  after you leave office. 

 But the one area where he could  have an impact on immigration, I  think, has passed him by.  Had he been appointed by  President Bush, maybe he'd have  some leeway to influence the  census and to count each and  every Latino, each and every  African American, each and every  Asian in the country accurately  and faithfully.  But plans are well underway.  I could be wrong.  He could very well do his  homework and try to understand  where the process is, and maybe  have an impact there.  That would be the point at which  he could have the greatest  impact.  An accurate count enhances  minority representation.  >> Is there credible evidence  that suggests there's an  economic solution, that makes  building the Berlin walls to  preclude immigration?  Is there an economic case that  says we'd be better off with the  immigration?  Is there a good study that says  that?  We're spending billions, as  you've said on preventing people  from getting into the country.  So what's the economic argument  for letting them into the  country and not "waste" the  money that we're spending to  keep them out?  >> What I'd argue and what I  believe is that the impact of  any policy relating to  immigration is going to be  unequally distributed.  The inflow of workers with low  levels of education, with you  know, a minimal grasp of the  English language, with few  skills, is going to have the  greatest impact of domestic  workers that already fit those  characteristics. 

 So immigration places  individuals in competition with  many of our poorest and most  vulnerable workers.  And I think the benefits are  accrued to the most privileged  and most powerful sectors of the  economy.  Every time I go to the grocery  store, well not every time.  You know, I do think about the  people that brought the food  there.  How did it get here?  And how is it that even now in  times of rising prices, food is  relatively cheap in this  country.  If you travel abroad, you know   how expensive food can be.  And here, it still relatively  inexpensive, in part, because of  immigrant labor.  Also in part because of cheap  labor in other countries from  which we import our food.  So now, a direct study, I have  to think about that to come up  with a citation.  I've been gathering citations  like mad. 

 But in direct answer to your  question, I don't have that  right now.  But if I thought a little bit, I  could find something.  I'll give you my card so you can  send me an email message, and  maybe I can attach an article to  send back to you.  >> We'll take one more question.  >> I have come to think that a  couple things might help, like  if we changed our agriculture  and subsidy processes policies,  so that our farm products didn't  undercut what small farmers can  make in Mexico or Central  America.  And the other thing I thought  would help is if our government  stopped interfering with  elections in Mexico, and  especially Central America.  Holding up these governments  that really are not helping  their people with any kind of  support.  Those two things, what do you  think about that?  >> I think you're absolutely  correct.  And prior to the full  implementation of the North  American Free Trade Agreement,  it was estimated that somewhere  around 20 million people in  Mexico live and work on small,  inefficient farms in Mexico.  And with the full implementation  of the North American Free Trade  Agreement, and I thought for  sure Mexico would renounce that  aspect of the treaty. 

 I thought they would simply  renounce it outright, because  we're placing the  non-corporatized, the  non-industrialized sector of  Mexicans at Mexico's  agriculture, it's an agriculture  in transition, we're placing  that sector in direct  competition with some of the  most efficient and highly  subsidized farmers in the world.  I mean, you just have to travel  outside of Madison to see how  well our farmers do.  And on top of that, they're  subsidized.  And what does that happen when  cheap flour, when cheap wheat,  when cheap grains flow into    Mexico and compete with the  local product, well, it places  many of these low producing  farms out of business.  I don't understand the politics  of NAFTA that well, but I really  expected the Mexican government  to renounce that part of the  North American Free Trade  Agreement, and reinstate some  kind of barriers and quota.  And in fact, I know some of the  previous president's advisors  who were asking him to do  precisely that, because Mexican  agriculture, small agriculture,  is suffering.  But boy, we've got some of the  most productive farmers in the  world right here in this state,  and the most productive and  efficient farmers in the entire  world.  And they're also subsidized.  So it is an agricultural  machine, it's a food machine  that's really difficult to  compete with.  >> All right, many, many thanks  to Professor Ben Marquez for  trying to help us wrap our heads  around a very complex topic, and  very timely topic. 

 And many thanks to all of you  for being here.  And let's thank Professor  Marquez, please.  (applause)  >> Thank you.