Browsing Tag: Asia

    Visit Okinawa Japan – Travel through Naha city by monorail
    Articles, Blog

    Visit Okinawa Japan – Travel through Naha city by monorail

    September 11, 2019


    皆さま、はいたーい! ミス沖縄2018スカイブルーの山城美希とコバルトブルーの宮平かなです! 本日は沖縄都市モノレールを使用して、那覇市の観光スポットをご紹介致します。 沖縄都市モノレールは那覇空港駅を始点とし、首里駅を終点とする沖縄を支える公共交通機関です。 切符の購入の仕方は非常に簡単です。 お金を入れて行先を選択するだけ もちろん多言語対応もしております 一日乗車券なども便利な乗り放題切符のほか 沖縄観光PR大使のマハエとマハローの乗った便利でかわいらしいICカードもございますよ! 切符を購入した後は、バーコードをリーダーに読ませるだけで駅構内に入ることができます。 切符は駅を降りる際も使用致しますのでなくさないようにしましょう。 それでは早速参りましょう! まず 最初 の 行先 は? 沖縄といったらまずここ!国際通りへと参りましょう! 国際通りの最寄り駅である牧志駅は、那覇空港から約16分 やちむん通りや第一牧志公設市場には、牧志駅で降りることをおすすめ致します。 2階の食堂では、1階で購入した食材をその場で調理し頂くこともできますよ。 散策途中におしゃれなカフェで、一息休憩することもおすすめです。 次どこいく? 沖縄の歴史を学びに首里城へと参りましょう! 首里城の最寄り駅である首里駅は、先ほどの国際通りのある牧志駅から約11分の位置にあります。 首里城は沖縄の歴史や文化を象徴した城で 1992年に国営公園として復元されました。 2000年には世界遺産にも登録されています。 書院の隣にある「鎖之間」では、琉球王朝時代の伝統菓子やお茶を味わうことができますよ。 首里城には那覇市の街並みを眺めることができるスポットもございますよ! 皆さま
    沖縄都市モノレールを使った那覇の観光スポット巡りはいかがでしたでしょうか。 沖縄都市モノレールを利用すれば、効率良く那覇市の観光スポットを巡ることができます。 このビデオが皆様のお役に立つことを願っています! それでは!またやーたい!

    Articles

    Riding a Train in India | 8 Hours on an Indian Train Rajasthan

    September 6, 2019


    People in India are very friendly. And if you have issues in personal space, this might not be your country. This guy’s a total stranger. We haven’t met. What’s your name? My name’s Alex. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Welcome to India. Thank you. All right everybody, let us introduce you guys to our fixer and friend here. This is Parve. Parve has a blog, a travel blog. It’s called How I Wander.com. He also has a YouTube channel. We’ll link it in the description, but he is our cultural guy. He’s helping us get through some of the more difficult and tricky aspects of Indian society. But we’re about to board a train, which is quintessential India. I’ve never done it before. Marko is the only one who has. I’ve insisted on..at some point we have to take a train. This is going to be an experience. Let’s go get some food. Let’s get some snacks and let’s board because we’re going Udaipur in a few minutes. So we’re going to be in the chair car. I don’t know what that means. Hopefully, there are chairs. Indian society is definitely structured in hierarchy, and the train reflects that. There’s first class; there’s second class; there’s third class And then there’s unreserved class, which is no seats, just a big car full of people. We’re going in chair class, which is a daytime seat, and it should be an experience. I think this is our wagon right here. All right guys, first the snacks have arrived. We’ve got some chai. All right, we’re off. The train to Udaipur from Jaipur has begun. One of the coolest things about the trains in India is that you can just hang off the side. This is going to be quite the adventure. Are you ready? You ready? Yeah. I have no idea who he is, but he’s friendly. If you know me, you know that I love trains, and India has some of the best trains in the world. I first started using trains when I was working here after college, and I would be working in the sugar fields of Karnataka in the south and I’d go between Mumbai and Karnataka. India’s train system was built by the British during the colonial period. On one hand it was to extract resources, on the other was part of their mission to civilize India by bringing trains, administration, and sanitation, etc. But the way they built it was designed so that the Indians could not use the trains to fight the British. They made them of different railway gages: wide gage, standard gage, narrow gage so that Indians could not move troops around the country to fight the British during an uprising. Every single state has different gages, and to this day they are trying to rip out the old tracks and make it uniform across the country. But there are certain towns that are dedicated to only being railway stations where you change from one gage to the next. Ting, ting chai. Each chai is ten rupees. Three teas is fifty cents. This is the station of Ajmer. It’s near Pushar. It’s super crowded and very busy; lots of colors. Interesting smells. We’re going to be coming back here at the end of this trip to go that Pushkar Camel Festival. You can see that people are already flooding into this town to buy and sell camels at Pushkar, which is not far. Ajmer itself is a Muslim holy place. There’re pilgrims; there’re merchants; there’re travellers; and there’s us, all in the thick of it, and it’s pretty awesome. All aboard! There’s our train. Let’s go. This is fun, bro. Mark has always been talking up the Indian train experience. And not going to lie. Definitely worth it. Super rad. It’s not just… you’d think I have a bias in favor of trains. I do, but it’s generally awesome. Hanging out of the train is definitely my favorite pastime. I have a collection of photos I’ve taken of myself hanging out of trains back in the day. And I love it. But it’s funny because you get this… if you look out the side and train there’s just this steady stream of trash. And that’s because initially tea and food was served on biodegradable things like clay pots. Now it’s in plastic cups, and people still throw it out the side of the train. There’s always trash. We have been on the train for quite a while. I would say probably about five or six hours. We still have two hours left. It’s dinnertime, as you can hear from the crying baby. Always very hungry. We got dinner. I don’t know what it is. It’s like a little veg- cutlet thing with some potato maybe in there and some bread, some buttered bread with some ketchup. Carlos lost it. At least it went into the spot. We’re in Chittorgarh, which is where this huge UNESCO World Heritage port is- one of the biggest ports in Asia. But we were trying to go here but kind of ran out of time. The thing about India is you’ve got to try to do less, less, less because things take time here, and it’s a huge country with a lot of distance.. So maybe next time. But for now, we head to Udaipur. Super cool to see you can sit down, have a picnic in the middle of the train station. They’re eating from these things called tiffins. Tiffins are basically an Indian way of carrying food around. It’s like Tupperware, but you can put a bunch of these metal canisters on top of one another and carry them as a unit. These guys just sat down and started having dinner. It’s pretty chill. A little bit of newspaper, some food, good company, and you’re set. Okay dinner break is over. Back onto the train. Goodbye. Alright ladies and gentlemen… 8 hours later. We have arrived to Udaipur, and we have a lot more adventures coming at you guys soon. This has been an adventure in itself. Traveling in India is an adventure. Amen. Tomorrow we’re going to be going through Udaipur, which is known as the Venice of India, and you’ll see why. So stay tuned. If you like this video give a thumbs- up, share with your travel buddies, and subscribe to Vagabrothers And turn on notifications, if you have not already. And in the meantime remember stay curious, keep exploring, and we’ll see you guys and girls on the road. Peace.

    Top 10 Dangerous Railway Tracks In The World
    Articles, Blog

    Top 10 Dangerous Railway Tracks In The World

    August 29, 2019


    10 Dangerous Rail Routes You Gotta Travel How many times have you found yourself day
    dreaming about a long vacation? Yea, it happens frequently and there aint
    any harm done! Those gorgeous beaches, sky high mountains,
    cosy resorts and tons of yummy food, who doesn’t want that? Your little dreaming adventure took you to
    places, having fun but there aint a thing about your journey, now that’s totally unfair! You obviously were planning to fly to your
    destination but rail roads have a charm like none other. The scenic views are impossible to beat in
    general but if you have a thing for thrills, we have you covered with these insane routes
    that will get the adrenaline pumping in you! Number 10. Georgetown Loop Railroad, Colorado
    A rail road some 195m high in the mountains has all it takes to attract people from around
    the world. Hundreds of people every year book tickets
    on the train to travel the 4.5 miles from Sliver Plume to Georgetown. This 3ft narrow gauge is located in the Rocky
    Mountains and can set your heart rate flying so think twice before you attempt this journey! But the gorgeous views from that height will
    do their best to distract you from the fear, uhmmm it might just increase that feeling
    also, not sure! Number 9. Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad, New Mexico
    The 64 miles between Chama, New Mexico and Antonito, Colorado host a 3ft narrow gauge
    heritage railroad that you just have to travel! It was built in 1880 as a part of Rio Grande
    Railroad San Juan Extension and since 1971 carries tourists through the scenic mountains! The name of the route is derived from spots
    it passes, Toltec Gorge which stands at 800ft and the 10,015ft high Cumbres Pass which is
    the highest pass in US! If loops, trestles, tunnels and narrow ledges
    don’t scare you, this is where you have to be right now! Number 8. The Death Railway, Thailand
    The 250-mile railway stretch from Ban Pong, Thailand to Thanbuyuzayat, Burma is a famous
    one, any idea why? Doesn’t the name ‘The Death Railway’
    ring a bell in your ears? This track was built after the World War 2
    with the help of prisoners of war and Asian slave laborers. The whole railway line sings the saga of the
    horrendous past of Thailand because during the 16 months that it was being constructed,
    nearly one hundred thousand laborers died! It might offer you incredible views but you
    will never look at it the same way now! Number 7. White Pass & Yukon Route, Alaska
    This 110-mile-long track connecting Alaska and Skagway was first opened in 1900 but had
    to be shut down in 1982 due to the collapse of the mining industry. It was reopened in 1988 as a heritage railway
    for tourists who want to delve into the scenic beauty of mountains and glaciers, keeping
    the thrill factor intact! You ask where does thrill and adventure make
    their way here? Well, it escalates to a height of 3000m so
    hold your breath while you are there, looking outside the window might be scary! Number 6. Tren a las Nubes, Argentina
    You know the route is special when it is called the ‘Train to clouds’, uhmm you don’t
    come across many trains taking you there, isn’t it an airplane’s job? That might just not be true because hello,
    this track is 4220m above sea level making it the 5th highest railway in the world. Going from the Argentine Northwest to the
    Chilean border, Tren a las Nubes was built originally for economic reasons in 1948 but
    now acts as a heritage railway for tourists. You’ll be mesmerized by numerous zigzag
    lines, 21 tunnels and 13 bridges that you will pass during your journey! Number 5. Kuranda Scenic Railroad, Australia
    This railway runs from Cairns, Queensland to the town of Kuranda, across the Barron
    Gorge National Park and is more of a tourist attraction than a regular commute up the mountains! The line was built between 1882 and 1891 and
    stretches for about 23 miles taking almost 2 hours to reach the top including the stops
    at the falls. Your journey will be eventful keeping in mind
    the 15 tunnels, 40 bridges, 93 curves and waterfalls that you’ll pass by, even getting
    a bit of sprinkling from them, sounds romantic? Number 4. Chennai-Rameswaram Route, India
    One of the most scenic rail routes of India is also a scary one, double fun! It includes a 1.2-mile-long bridge that connects
    Rameswaram on Pambam island to mainland India. The most interesting part is that it is the
    first cantilever bridge in India and was built over the course of 14 years, completed only
    in 1914! Standing at 12.5m above sea level, the bridge
    can be raised at the center to allow ships to pass. Though it stands strong on 143 piers, strong
    ocean currents and cyclones can cause serious damage to the bridge and train, yikes! Number 3. Narizdel Diablo or Devil’s Nose Train, Ecuador
    The 45-minute ride from the town of Alausi to Silambe is a dreamy one with mountains
    around, cool! Situated at 2700m above sea level, the Devil’s
    Nose section is considered among the most difficult railways to engineer and we can’t
    doubt that! Though the views are mesmerizing, they will
    vanish from your sight once you reach the vertical drop of 500m, the ride might restore
    your faith in God! You won’t want to climb onto the roof of
    the train for fear of your life, not that you are allowed to as it is! But you can still enjoy the thrill that will
    come with this ride unsaid! Number 2. Lynton & Lynmouth Cliff Railway, United Kingdom
    Back in the 19th century, it was difficult for the two towns of Lynton and Lynmouth to
    rise economically due to the high cliffs between them. Therefore, in 1890, a railway line joining
    these two towns became operational, a good move we should say! While on the journey, you get mesmerizing
    views of Exmoor and the North Devon Coastline but don’t get too carried away, the thrill
    is waiting! There is a steep 500ft cliff with a 58% gradient
    that will leave you astounded! So get yourself on any of the two cars each
    carrying 40 people to delve into the natural beauty! Number 1. Aso Minami route, Japan
    Imagine yourself on a train that passes close by an active volcano! That is surely not many people’s dream vacation
    but we can’t deny that the experience would be pure thrilling! Not that the volcano is always erupting but
    being in a close vicinity of one that may just erupt…ooh we got goosebumps! The railroad connecting Takamori to Tateno
    Station in Minamiaso is without a doubt Japan’s most dangerous rail routes and you aren’t
    wandering off there with a weak heart by any means! Which of these railway lines seem the most
    inviting and thrilling to you? Tell us in the comment section below. Subscribe to our channel if you liked this
    video. And while you’re here, check out our other
    videos and tell us what you think of them. You can also find us on twitter, facebook
    and instagram. Thanks for watching.

    Why Is China Investing Billions in Africa? | NowThis World
    Articles, Blog

    Why Is China Investing Billions in Africa? | NowThis World

    August 22, 2019


    China has invested billions of dollars into the continent of Africa to build massive infrastructure projects. Much of this infrastructure is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, an estimated 1 trillion dollar plan to connect the country to trade routes all over the world. African leaders like Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta have favorably compared China’s investments to earlier projects built by colonial powers. While the old railway was built by force and violence against the wishes of those whose land it divided, the new railway is built by consent and partnership both between ourselves and China and between the governments which will prosper and profit by it. But is China’s investment in the continent actually a “win-win” as some African and Chinese leaders have said? Or just a new form of colonialism on a continent that’s experienced so much of it? In this episode, we’re examining China’s Belt and Road Initiative and what it might mean for Africa. While China’s Belt and Road Initiative was only proposed in 2013, the country’s first infrastructure project on the African continent was built decades ago. The Tazara railway, completed in 1976, was built to connect copper mines in Zambia to Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania’s former capital. The Tazara railway was the first infrastructure project built on a pan-African scale. China’s Belt and Road projects will be designed with this scale in mind, creating new trade routes within and between African countries. In 2017, a Chinese firm opened a railway network in Kenya, connecting its capital Nairobi to the port city of Mombasa. There are already plans to extend this network into South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. China, through its public and private sectors, has already loaned about $132 billion to African countries from 2006 to 2017. Many observers worry that African countries won’t be able to pay back these debts, placing them in what’s been called a quote “debt trap.” The Jubilee Debt Campaign, which campaigns for poor countries’ debts to be canceled, estimates that about 20% of debt held by African governments is owed to China, making it the single largest lending nation. For comparison, 35% of African debt is owed to multilateral, global institutions like the World Bank. Earlier waves of Chinese firms that invested in Africa made mistakes that caused problems for those countries’ governments. Starting in 2005, tens of thousands of workers from China poured into the west African country of Ghana to take advantage of a gold rush. This eventually provoked a local backlash due to accusations of illegal mining, inflaming tensions between Chinese miners and the local government. Many observers have pointed to projects like this as examples of China exploiting Africa for its natural resources through quote “neo-colonialist behavior.” However, other observers contend that the majority of investment from China has largely avoided creating the problems seen in Ghana’s gold mines, precisely because resource extraction has not been the main focus of other investments. In fact, the number one industry for Chinese investment has been the service industry, according to IMF economist Wenjie Cheng. She also points out that the countries where China’s investment has been largest include those without abundant natural resources, such as Ethiopia and Kenya, in addition to resource-rich countries like Nigeria. Ultimately, African governments may feel that the risk of accumulating debt is outweighed by the benefits of new infrastructure. The China Africa Research Initiative found that roughly 40% of China’s loans between 2000 and 2015 went towards paying for energy projects and another 30% went toward modernizing transportation on the continent. These loans were set at relatively low interest rates and with longer periods of time to pay them back. The Center for Global Development crunched the numbers on debt to China as a result of the Belt and Road Initiative, and found that eight of the 71 countries involved in the project were particularly vulnerable to getting caught in a debt trap. Of these eight countries, only one was in Africa: Djibouti, a port country that’s also become a military strategic point for China. The other seven countries are in Europe and Asia. Nevertheless, China has denied engaging in “debt trap” diplomacy. In an attempt at thisto strengthen this collaboration, China has also promised to align its goals for the Belt and Road Initiative with the African Union’s own development goals of greater interconnectivity on the continent. However, these promises have yet to be outlined. Ultimately, China’s push in Africa may be seeking to increase the country’s influence, rather than reap financial gains. Its investments are already strengthening China’s alliances with African governments, to China’s benefit. Every African country but eSwatini, formerly known as Swaziland, has cut ties with Taiwan, a prerequisite for diplomatic relations with mainland China. Some observers think that as African countries rise economically, they could actually have the upper hand by the time they negotiate payments back to China. This explains why African leaders have been so confident in calling Chinese investment a “win-win,” but only time will tell if their long game pans out. So do you think China’s investments in Africa will be a boon to the continent, or are they a form of neocolonialism? Let us know in the comments below. Thanks for watching NowThis World, don’t forget to like and subscribe.

    Should US immigration policy be changed? (1980) | ARCHIVES
    Articles, Blog

    Should US immigration policy be changed? (1980) | ARCHIVES

    August 14, 2019


    Announcer: From the nation’s capital, the
    American Enterprise Institute for public policy research presents, “Public Policy Forums,”
    a series of programs featuring the nation’s top authorities presenting their different
    views on the vital issues which confront us. Today’s topic, “Should US Immigration Policy
    Be Changed?” Peter: Is there a limit to how many immigrants
    this country can absorb without affecting American jobs, the economy and spending on
    federal services? If immigration is to be restricted, where do we draw the line? Who
    won’t be allowed in? Should we spend a fortune and stop illegal immigrants or just admit
    we can’t stop them and grant amnesty? Welcome to another Public Policy Forum presented by
    AEI, the American Enterprise Institute, a non-profit, nonpartisan research and education
    organization. Taking part in today’s panel are Harrison
    Schmitt who was a Republican senator from New Mexico. Senator Schmitt is a co-sponsor
    of a bill to grant temporary visas to migrant Mexican workers. He is a member of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee and the Senate Small Business Committee. Lawrence Fuchs is Chairman of the American
    studies department at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. Dr. Fuchs is on leave from
    that position serving as Director of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy.
    He is a recognized expert on ethnic and religious factors in American life. J. F. Otero is International Vice President
    of the Brotherhood of Railway Airline and Steamship Clerks. Mr. Otero who came to this
    country from Cuba at the age of 20 once served as the International of Transport Workers
    Unions’ director for Latin America. Michael Novak who is a resident scholar at
    AEI is the author of a syndicated newspaper column which often analyzes problems of ethnics
    in U.S. society. He is the author of the book, “The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics.” John Charles Daly will moderate the discussion.
    Mr. Daly has served as a top news executive, analyst and correspondent for CBS and ABC,
    and is a former head of the Voice of America. Now, here is Mr. Daly. John: This Public Policy Forum part of a series
    presented by the American Enterprise Institute is concerned with a major social problem brought
    anew to confrontation by the catechisms in Southeast Asia, the tides of immigration crisscrossing
    the Mexican-American border, the upheavals in the Caribbean in the ’60s and the ’70s,
    and the tragic immigrations from Cuba and Haiti in the early months of the ’80s. Our
    subject, “Should U.S. Immigration Policy Be Changed?” Our nation’s record on welcoming the tired,
    the poor, the huddled message yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of the teeming
    shore, the homeless, the tempest-tossed is spotty, but it is still very proud. It was
    a century after the Declaration of Independence in 1875 that the U.S. first restricted immigrants,
    barring convicts and prostitutes. In 1881, 1908 and 1917, the Congress acted against
    Chinese, Japanese and Asian Indians in that order. In 1921, quotas were established based
    on national origin, a system locked in by the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 and transparently
    biased to keep a lid on immigration and to give overwhelming priority to those of Anglo-Saxon
    and Nordic origins. Several bills watered down the McCarran-Walter
    Act during the ’50s and the early ’60s. And in the end after long and biting debate, the
    savage dislocation and a horde of displaced persons following upon World War II brought
    basic reforms in 1965. To replace quotas and Asian exclusion, preference based on unification
    of families and occupational skills with protection of the job market for Americans became the
    benchmarks. The new legislation also placed ceilings of 170,000 for the Eastern hemisphere
    with a maximum of 20,000 per country against an overall ceiling of 120,000 a year for the
    Western hemisphere, 17,000 places were reserved for refugees. Signing that new legislation in 1965 at the
    base of the Statue of Liberty, President Lyndon Johnson said, “It repairs a deep and painful
    flaw in the fabric of American Justice. The days of unlimited immigration are past, but
    those who come will come because of what they are, not because of the land from which they
    sprung.” The reforms began in 1965, were virtually
    completed in 1978. Legislation combined the two hemisphere ceilings into a single worldwide
    total of 290 and established a uniform preference system. The ’70s, however, produced new and
    agonizing problems that a patchwork of parole power and special legislation did little to
    solve. Under the hammer blows of that turbulent decade, it became clear that reserving 17,000
    places for refugees was unrealistic. In the past quarter of a century in fact,
    attorney generals alone have used that officers’ discretion and its powers, its parole power
    to admit more than a million refugees from Hungary, Cuba, the Soviet Union and other
    countries, and the Refugee Act of 1980 gives the president complete discretion on the admission
    of political exiles. And so, in the fall of 1978, a Select Commission
    on Immigration and Refugee Policy was established by the Congress. To begin, gentlemen, I would
    pose the same question to each of you in turn. What would constitute a humane and proper
    policy for immigration into the United States? As Executive Director of the Hesburgh Commission
    examining present policy, will you start, Dr. Fuchs? Lawrence: Well, I supposed a humane policy
    would be one that would add to some of humanity of decency in the world and in this country
    particularly. We, in the United States of America, are responsible for 40% of the world’s
    GNP, yet, I don’t suppose it’s realistic that we could take in over a short period of time
    40% of the world’s population. Knowing that there have to be some limits and that the
    number of places available are going to be smaller than what the demand is, the question
    becomes, “How do we determine how to allocate those scarce visas to the United States?” I supposed we can think of a humane policy
    as one which meets our goals if we have confidence in this country and I do. I believe that if
    the fundamental values of the nation, the fundamental goals of this country is set forth
    in our great documents, in our historic utterances by Jefferson and Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt
    and others. If they are to be fulfilled and met through an immigration policy, we ought
    to look carefully at goals which manifest our national interest. That means, something
    of a shift away from the kind of hodgepodge development that we’ve had in the past to
    a clear articulation of national interest goals and I think that’s the course that the
    commission has set for itself. I’ll say more about that later I’m sure. John: All right, Senator Schmitt? Harrison: John, I think, first of all, more
    and more, and more importantly we have begun to separate political immigration from economic
    migration, a very important distinction of any new humane or workable policy must have.
    In political immigration, I hope that whatever we develop and the Commission recommends,
    and the Congress eventually modifies as its wisdom will recognize that political immigration
    has been the basis of a great deal of what this country is, and that we should not do
    anything that eliminates that rejuvenation process in our own country, in our own heritage. In the case of economic migration, particularly
    that from Mexico and maybe other parts of Latin America, again, I think we have to recognize
    it is largely a true migration and that most such individuals who come to this country
    for economic betterment are temporary in their migration, and desire to remain Mexicans or
    other nationalities and not become Americans. And as long as our policies will recognize
    those two things that it’s a political immigration and an economic migration and in the latter
    case develop a temporary worker visa program or someway in which that can happen legally,
    I think we will have a humane and workable policy. John: Dr. Novak? Michael: I do think though picking up on these
    remarks that we’re likely to see in the future an increase in the number of those who seek
    to come to countries like the United States and we better be ready for that. My reason
    for saying that is that there is among human beings everywhere, a hunger for freedom and
    freedom is in short supply in the world. And it seems to me, looking at the future, that
    the number of societies which will permit liberty, economic liberty as well as political
    liberty is likely to shrink. And in that case, we can expect more and more persons over the
    years to migrate towards this few centers of freedom which will remain. Now, by freedom here, I want to be clear about
    the fact that, I mean, not just the seeking of opportunity by which one might better oneself,
    that’s very important, of course. But there’s also I think, other things being equal, a
    sheer satisfaction and living in the sort of society which allows you to keep what you
    earn, to spend it as you will and all those other sorts of freedoms which we come to have.
    Some population specialists have suggested that two-thirds of all the people who’ve ever
    lived are alive now. If that’s not the right figure, it’s something very close to that.
    That, too, I think suggest that we’re going to have a very special problem in the United
    States down the road. Given our past history with the question, I would say that in order
    to have a humane policy, we should err on the side of generosity. John: Mr. Otero? Joaquin: Mr. Daly, I support a policy for
    the United States that is consistent with our nation’s traditions of humane and compassionate
    people. As an immigrant myself, and very proud American Citizen, I sincerely hope and I will
    work for that America will remain the land of the free and the home of the brave, and
    that we will continue to remain a nation of immigrants. I believe that an immigration
    policy that is humane should foster family reunification above all. It should also provide
    a haven for those who seek refuge on political persecution, and that is a policy that takes
    into consideration the interests and the needs of American workers. Also, I sincerely hope
    that any type of a policy that is develop takes into consideration the questions of
    dealing fairly and equitably with the problem of both legal and illegal immigration into
    the country. John: Well, as you’ve noted, the immigration
    issue is now really two issues. What to do about the admission of legal immigrations,
    in the future? What to do about so-called, “Illegals,” here in uncertain numbers of millions
    and still coming? So, let’s look at the legal issue first. The Hesburgh Commission’s goal
    in Father Hesburgh’s words, Doctor, is to design a policy that will be generous, humane,
    non-racist, rational and workable. Does present policy fail in these areas substantiality? Lawrence: Well, it’s not workable. It’s out
    of control and there’s a very strong sense running in the public opinion right now that
    it is out of control. That has to do partly with the illegal immigration. The law is not
    enforceable and you have substantial number of persons who enter without inspection, without
    documents, and live in an underground economy to some extent and become an underclass to
    some degree. And they are exploited not only at the work place in some cases at the margin,
    but also are preyed upon by criminals. In some cases, they don’t report their health
    problems and they don’t even send children to school in some cases which is a very bad
    thing for the United States of America. So, it’s not working in that respect. It’s
    not working in another respect. The backlogs that we have accrued over a period of time
    are really quite enormous and, in fact, it’s gotten at the point where we now having fifth
    preference, the preference for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, such explosive growth
    that it can double every year. It did double between ’78 and ’79 from 230,000 to over half
    a million. Those just who have been awarded visa numbers but can’t get in to the country
    because the backlogs are so great. So, it’s not clear that it’s workable. It’s
    not necessarily humane or equitable either because you have a rigid system, a rigidity
    in the immigration law in which a person who is a spouse, a wife or a husband, or a small
    child of a resident alien has to wait sometimes three, four, five or more years depending
    upon what country they happen to be petitioning from. Whereas, a specialty cook might get
    in from another country just like that because of our country’s ceiling system which is a
    rigid system. It puts the same country ceiling on a small country like Lichtenstein as we
    have on a large country such as India. So, it’s not workable. It’s not equitable,
    and Father Hesburgh has these other qualities, generosity. It all depends what you mean by
    generosity. Now, if you take, let’s say, the decade 1900 to 1910, at that time, that decade
    we averaged about 900,000 immigrants a year. We averaged about 400,000 a year in the decade
    of the 1970s. That constitutes less than 20% of our present population growth at a time
    when we’re growing at less than 1% a year. Now, it depends whether you’re looking at
    the donut or the whole if you want to call or characterize that as generous, well, compared
    to most countries in the world it’s quite generous. Compared to the decade 1900 to 1910,
    the United States of America, it’s not particularly generous. So, there it is. Now, on the issue of humanity
    and what I think the Commission have fairly well-decided at this point is that there are
    three clear immigration goals. One is, as Commissioner Otero said a moment ago, one
    is the reunification of families, but we need to clarify what we mean by the reunification
    of families and make the system work so that when we say we favor the immediate access
    to this country of the wives, the husbands, and the small children of persons who are
    here, that other people can’t leap ahead of them. We also, clearly, in the Commission accept
    that view that the United States will remain, as Mr. Otero said, a refuge for persons who
    have a well-founded fear of persecution in the countries that they’re leaving. The question
    here is, “How can you deal with expellees such as we have seen from Cuba?” Now, they
    don’t necessarily qualify under the definition of a refugee. One wants to be generous, but
    one wants to be equitable. One wants to have a law that’s enforceable, and then there’s
    a third goal that the Commission is seemed determine to meet, and that is to provide
    opportunity for persons who seek freedom and who seek opportunity of an economic kind. And here, Senator Schmitt, I think you’ve
    got an interesting distinction between the political immigrant and economic migrant.
    A fact of the matter is it’s not such a clear distinction historically although the distinction
    may be more clear in recent years. Harrison: It’s more clear now, I believe in,
    but you’re correct historically. But in terms of our relationships with Mexico, the distinction
    has maintained fairly sharp way through the decades and through the year. Lawrence: Well, one thing the Commission has
    under active consideration right now is whether or not the opportunity for economic well-being
    that so many people seek in the world and many come to the United States to seek it,
    whether or not that is not better provided by having them enter into the legal migration
    stream in a third category which meets U.S. goals for economic and cultural development
    rather than on a temporary worker or a guest worker basis. Harrison: Well, but you mentioned earlier
    that the process was out of control. It’s certainly I think, for all intents and purposes
    is out of control in the political immigration area, but the economy of the marketplace is
    controlling the migration of the now, what we call, “Illegals,” “the migrant.” Of course,
    I’m from New Mexico which sees a great deal of the flow, not all of the workers, but a
    great deal of the flow, and there’s no question that these people are moving in response to
    the job market in this country. A small percentage of them are in fact competing with U.S. workers,
    but the recent research by both in Mexico and in this country indicate very strongly
    that that level of competition is not nearly as high as been pictured by many. That most
    of the workers are moving across the border for the basic spring, summer, fall season
    to take those kinds of jobs that are characteristic to those seasons that Americans just aren’t
    seeking. And it looks as if the number like 85%, plus or minus 5% are those kinds of people. Lawrence: It’s always dangerous to argue with
    a United State senator, but… Harrison: That’s never. Lawrence: The research is so imperfect that
    what we find in this business, Senator, is that one can use research findings on either
    side of the argument. Many commissioners take the view that the United States should look
    in to the possibilities of a guest worker program which would be quite different than
    the old bracero program, but other commissioners take the view, and each one of them can marshal
    their economists and their research findings, although, generally speaking, your statement,
    if I understood it correctly, that the idea of severe economic competition or severe and
    widespread displacement has not been proven is correct, neither has opposite of that been
    proven. Harrison: It appears to be the most well-grounded
    academic research both in Mexico and here tends to support strongly the position that
    I have stated. There clearly has not been documentation that there is strong economic
    competition of this migrant. For one thing, most of them are incapable in terms of skill
    levels of competing with American labor. Not to mention the fact that American labor doesn’t
    have to fall below the safety net that we put beneath them. Michael: Senator, is the proposal you make
    that the bill you have to do this sort of thing, is that pretty much designed for Mexico
    then perhaps we should think of Mexico here for special sense? Harrison: It is very specifically designed
    for Mexico for a number of reasons. It’s conceivable that modified, it can become a model for other
    efforts. That Mexican problem is clearly one that has certain unique characteristic. So,
    2,000-mile common border for one thing and the impossibility with any reasonable cost
    of policing that border, of stopping the flow, and the inhuman nature of the attempts to
    stop it that at least so far have resulted in many case. John: What do you propose to do? Harrison: Basically, propose to recognize
    that the vast majority of these migrants are coming north in response to an economic crisis
    in their own lives. They come and stay only for the period of six to eight months that
    our normal working seasons for the semi-skilled, unskilled worker in this country and that
    they then return to Mexico, and the evidence I find very persuasive that this is in fact
    happening. The numbers are somewhere on the order of a million and a half, plus or minus
    500,000. That sounds like an awfully big plus or minus, but that one of the reasons we don’t
    know the level of the problem is because it’s illegal and you can’t really get your arms
    around it and find out how big it is. We would add one proviso in recognition of this significant
    but still small percentage of workers that compete with the American labor in the skilled
    areas, that if under certain guidelines, it can be demonstrated that at a particular work
    site, that American labor is available and willing to work, then that side can be declared
    off limits to the visa holder. John: Mr. Otero? Joaquin: First of all, I’d like to say that
    I am one of those commissioners on the Select Commission on Immigration on Refugee Policy
    who has made up his mind regarding the question of any attempt by any description to institute
    another bracero program in the United States. We are going to oppose with everything that
    we have, I’m talking about organized labor, any such program, a bracero program by any
    other name remains bracero program. Harrison: Well, if I could interrupt, it does
    not. John: Would you describe a bracero program
    for our audience? Joaquin: Well, a bracero program was something
    that was instituted in this country during the war days and brought about the importations
    of 400,000 foreign nationals to do primarily work in the agricultural fields of the Untied
    State. It was discontinued in 1964 and there has not been a similar program since although
    we have something call H2 program which is something under more control, but what I want
    to say is that you have issued a series of statement, Senator, that I wish you could
    furnish the Commission in terms of your research, the question that it doesn’t affect American
    workers. It does affect American workers when you have a large pool of people in this country
    who are exploitable. There are in this nation today by all estimates,
    approximately 6 to 8 million people unemployed. They don’t go back. They remain here because
    they have no place to go back, like you say, escaping from a tragedy of real economic difficulty
    at home and they come to the United States looking for the job opportunities. And from
    this particular human tragedy, many American employers benefit by using these people in
    tremendously low levels of employment and at the greatest exploitation possible. All I wish is that you could do is go with
    me to New York City or to Los Angeles, California and I’ll find you these people working in
    sweat shops like the likes have not seen in this country since the 1920s. They’re not
    working in the fields anymore. This 6 to 8 million people are competing across the spectrum
    of American skills today. They are in railroads. They are in the hotel industry. They’re in
    restaurants. They are in the garment industry. They’re everywhere and in very low numbers
    in the agricultural field. Harrison: Well, the facts just don’t support
    those kind of statement. There clearly are illegal migrants from Mexico in the kind of
    jobs that you described. I’ll not argue that, but the vast majority of them by modern research
    are in the agricultural area and in small businesses that otherwise would not be employing
    anybody. And the basic problem no longer is one of, “Can I get, as an employer, get a
    low-wage skilled person?” The problem is, “Can I get anybody to do that job?” Now, that’s why we build into this proposed
    legislation a way of protecting the skilled labor of America. The unskilled, semi-skilled
    workers are finding jobs that are not being taken by Americans and I think we have to
    recognize that fact. I think we also have to recognize that as long as they’re illegal,
    the exploitation that you decry, and I do also, is going to continue. The only time
    that exploitations going to cease is when they have a legal status that they’re not
    afraid of coming forward and saying, “I’m being exploited.” Lawrence: Why not go all the way and give
    them a green card, and give them…? Joaquin: Senator, this is what I am advocating. Harrison: Because they don’t want a green
    card. Lawrence: Why not? What’s the…? Harrison: They want to move back and forth
    across their border. They’re Mexicans. Lawrence: Well, a green card doesn’t keep
    you from… Harrison: Do you mean the H2 card? I’m sorry. Lawrence: No, resident alien, an immigrant.
    Most immigrants would come to United States historically really come to look around and
    even with some groups, of course, the return migration, the repatriation was really very
    significant. Historically, about 30% of the people who immigrated to the United States
    went back to where they came from. Some groups Italian, Southern Italians, the rate was even
    much higher. Harrison: And that appears to be about 90%
    in the case of the Mexican moving across the border. Lawrence: Well, not from the… Harrison: All the evidence, it’s anybody’s
    place in front of anybody says that’s the number. There’s has been not any contradict
    the evidence unless that… Joaquin: Senator, I’m not going to debate
    you here today on issues that you have your view point and I have my view point, and the
    facts do not warrant that 90% of them go back. The fact of the matter remains that at a time
    when we have more than 10 million Americans unemployed in this country, we have got to
    adopt the policy which is consistent with the interest of American citizens at the same
    time remaining our borders open. Now… Harrison: I couldn’t agree with you more. Joaquin: Let me finish my point. Harrison: That’s exactly the policy that we’re
    proposing. Joaquin: Let me finish my point. The question
    is, I understand what you’re trying to do, but I’m also trying to explain to you that
    there is a reality which makes it almost impossible for the American worker to have a bargaining
    power when he’s confronted with this large influx of low-wage exploitable people and
    the reason is very simple. Take the state of Virginia, for example, where the tobacco
    growers get together and in a monopoly type of a situation, they set the rate for picking
    tobacco at $3.10 an hour. And since they are the only ones that set the rate, the labor
    department is unable to say there should be any other rate. So, an American worker that
    wants to pick tobacco has to pick it for $3.10. He has no bargaining power with that employer.
    So, consequently, even if he lives far away from the point where the picking is going
    to be done, and he says, “Well, I need another 40 cents to pay for the high cost of gas or
    whatever, I will do it for $3.50.” The labor department cannot certify that wage. Harrison: So you see, that’s exactly what
    we’re trying to protect against in this bill. Joaquin: Well, okay, fine. Harrison: Where there is willing American
    labor then the work site would be off limits. That you have no such of means right now to
    declare that work site off limits. Joaquin: Yes, we have. The problem is that
    we have to change the immigration laws to provide for a genuine availability test of
    American workers. As it is today, that doesn’t exist. And naturally, a grower or an employer
    prefers to bring a group of people who are not wise about their rights in the United
    States and it makes it impossible for them to compete. Harrison: But that’s what we’re trying to
    change, Mr. Otero. That’s exactly what we’re trying to change. We’re trying to change the
    situation under which these workers are exploited. There’s no question about it and also protect
    the American worker in those situations exactly like you described. Joaquin: I don’t disagree with you. Harrison: Where they’re under this unfair
    competition. Joaquin: I don’t disagree with what you’re
    trying to do. What I’m trying to tell you that there are first things that come first.
    What we ought to do first in this country is to have amnesty across the board for all
    the people who are illegally in this country. Allow them to regularize their status. Harrison: What does that mean? What does amnesty
    mean? Does it mean five years we’re going to defer any deportation? Joaquin: It depends. I am against total, any
    type of mass deportation. I think this country cannot tolerate mass deportation. Now, whether
    we say one year or two years, or three years, that’s a question for the Commission to decide
    and making a recommendation to Congress and then it’d be up to you the legislation to
    decide. Harrison: Well, of course, my opinion is… John: Well, let me bring a point in here if
    I may. Don’t we need some hard numbers on how many illegals there are? You hear everything
    from a few million to 12 million to make any recent judgment on policy and how we’re going
    to get them. Harrison: You can’t until you legalize it. Lawrence: The problem is, Mr. Daly, and for
    the audience too, is that if you could count them, you could deport them. You can’t count
    them with the kind of accuracy position that we would like. There have been a great many
    ingenious studies which have tried to account them. They all depend on heroic assumptions.
    The methodologies can be quite ingenious. Now, in the Census Bureau Review for the Select
    Commission of all of the best of these studies, the most credible ones, it was determined
    by the three authors of that review, of that analysis, that at any one time in the year
    1979, there was no fewer than 3.5 million and no more than 6 million and that’s really
    what it amounts too. Harrison: And that lower estimate jives, speaking
    of only of the Mexican situation with the estimates of 1 to 2 million Mexicans, but
    that again is a heroic assumption that you know the percent. Lawrence: Senator, the other finding is that
    probably no more than half of the undocumented aliens in this country now are Mexican nationals. Harrison: Dr. Cornelius and others would say
    60%. Michael: So I’d like to broaden it beyond
    Mexico for us…? John: Yeah. Actually, I wish you would because
    I think we mustn’t freeze in on one geographic variant. Michael: First of all, as a theologian I find
    I don’t have to worry too much about numbers, you know, three persons in God, seven sacraments,
    few basic little numbers and make life a lot easier for me. But it does seem to me that
    irrespective of our special historical relationship with Mexico and the Mexican people, a naughty
    but I think a soluble problem, one soluble with good will and intelligence. It seems
    to be we’re going to be facing this tide of refugees coming, en masse, suddenly from different
    parts of the world and we’re going to have to gear up as a society in a way we haven’t
    for a long time, to think of ourselves again as a society of immigrants, suddenly besieged
    and we’re going to have to, I think, mobilize our private sector, the churches, the universities,
    business communities, the unions and so forth to be ready to receive such migrants. I’m
    almost certain that the ’80s are going to see one wave after another coming from God
    knows where, but Africa, Asia, Latin America. The world is so turbulent as one can see in
    prediction that that we’re just going to have to gear ourselves up to be ready on a crash
    basis to receive as needs to be. Harrison: John, I think Dr. Novak is entirely
    correct on this and I would add only that at the same time we gear ourselves for that
    influx, which is going to come at unpredicted times, we must also do those things after
    in the rest of the world through a coherent foreign policy that perpetuates two things.
    One, freedom and two, the economic developed of these countries that begin to reduce those
    push factors that exist out that cause such migration. Michael: And they go together. Harrison: It doesn’t mean the migration or
    immigration is going to disappear. It means that we have to be doing both things and they’re
    both imminently justifiable morally. Joaquin: Mr. Daly. John: Yes, Mr. Otero? Joaquin: I like to say that I don’t disagree
    with your bill in its entirety. What I am saying is that we need to attack the problem
    at hand in a combined effort. First of all, we need to do various things to attack the
    problem not just one single thing like providing additional job opportunities for people and
    to make sure that they’re not illegal in the country. We need to give amnesty in this nation.
    We need to curve the flow of illegal immigration into this country. And for that, we need to
    put the problem in this proper perspective and that is people come here because of the
    push factor and the pull factor, meaning that people don’t have a job at home, they come
    here looking for a job. We need to have sanctions on employers who
    knowingly hire illegal aliens. There should be criminal sanctions with injunctive relief.
    We should also have greater enforcement at the border. We should have enforcement of
    existing statues such as child labor laws, Fair Labor Standards Act. We need to provide
    economic assistance to other nations such as Mexico and other countries in Latin America
    to help them develop their own economies. We need to develop a number of other areas
    to curve this problem and to bring it to manageable proportions. We will never be able to stop
    illegal immigration into the United States. That is an impossibility if we are to remain
    a nation that is a democratic bastion throughout the world. We cannot conceivably mobilize
    the army or the air force, or any other service to seal the border. That is impossible, but
    we can, if we put our minds to it, bring about enough measures to be able to remain a nation
    that admits people legally. Yes, I’m in favor of increasing the number of people who enter
    the United State legally. Legal controlled migration. Yes, more refugees,
    but also taken into consideration that there are 14 million political refugees today in
    the world and that it would seem impossible that America could take them all at the same
    time. This is something that should be internationalized. Other nations of the world that share the
    same responsibility with us. Australia, Western Europe and so on, should also be participating
    in accepting the refugees, but in doing all this, we must always keep in mind that we
    have a responsibility to our own people especially at a time when our economic situation is not
    the best, when we have large number of people unemployed and the prospects for unemployment
    continue to grow higher. Those are the issues that should be taken into consideration in
    developing the humane policy that you were talking about. John: Well, let’s come to grips with one area
    that you raised. Representative Peter Rodino, in the early ’70s, proposed making it a crime
    for employers to hire illegals knowingly. The House reacted favorably. is my memory
    of it. The Senate did not. The Senate actively opposed the idea. Then in 1977, President
    Carter renewed the Rodino plan and coupled it with amnesty for illegals here before 1970,
    and a temporary status for those who arrive after that until 1977. The Congress has not
    been enthusiastic, although the President has renewed this proposal. So, what do you
    think of the plan, gentlemen? Harrison: John, I would just have to say that
    the reason I got involved in this, other than the interest that New Mexico has, I mean,
    very close to the border and culturally alive with Mexico, was the universal condemnation
    that the President’s renewal of these proposals we’re seeing. Sanctions and it was condemnation
    by Hispanic community not just by everybody else, all of whom I think have a great deal
    of common sense, but it was primarily by the Hispanic committee. Sanction means discrimination.
    Every employer is going to have to be concerned about, “Is that person who’s approaching him
    for a job, an illegal alien or is it a New Mexican that happens to look a little bit
    like a Mexican?” Like, sometimes I do after a little bit in the sun and enforcement at
    the border is an impossibility unless you’re willing to put billions of dollars into that
    2,000 miles. I’d like to take all of you along, just walk along portions of the New Mexico
    border. You just can’t do it. It’s an impossible task. And amnesty, I think there ought to
    be a clearer set of criteria by which permanent residence would be granted for those people
    in this country, but the amnesty proposed by the President, some vague five-year plan
    was again, deservedly, universally criticized. John: Dr. Fuchs? Lawrence: What I hear many of the commissioners
    asking is whether or not there isn’t a way to meet your objectives. I understand your
    objectives to be as follows, to accommodate the desire of many employers in this country,
    to find hardworking persons who will do an honest day’s labor so that they can meet their
    goals in their establishment. To accommodate the desire of the great many people not just
    from Mexico, but from many countries in South America and Central America, and other parts
    of the world to come to the United States to improve their lot economically, with the
    notion that they’re not necessarily going to plant roots in the United States, not necessarily
    going to raise their families in the United States. And it seems to me what the commissioners
    are trying to do right now is to recognize that when you do have a large scale temporary
    worker program, it isn’t necessarily going to be enforceable that there will be leakage
    out of that system, that human beings stay here because they fall in love, they get married,
    they have children or they find that they really do like the place after all. And that
    in the nature of human activity, people don’t really have that kind of a mindset, “I am
    going back,” or, “I am going to stay.” That’s not the way most of our ancestors thought
    about it when they came. What there is, is a kind of a concern that the whole thrust
    of our history has been away from indentured servants, away from bonded labor, away from
    slavery toward treating every individual who works in the United States as a potential
    citizen and having the potential for all of the entitlements, and all of the rights protected
    by the constitution and/or resident aliens will have that. So, that’s some of the thinking.
    The fear that in the nature of the case no matter how well-designed a temporary worker
    program might not meet the highest standards which American sets for the protection of… Harrison: I think one of the problems that
    we’re having is we still remember the word, “Bracero,” which was a program that everybody
    would like to forget. It was a program that required a contract to exist between the worker
    and the employer. That’s what is often forgotten in the descriptions of the bracero program
    and what we’re saying is, “No, let’s do everything that you have just described, but except we’re
    going to put a limit on the time that they can spend here.” Temporary worker visa for
    them, but otherwise, the ropes are off and all U.S. laws apply to the protection of these
    workers, to their salary levels, to everything else and the benefits that they raised on.
    That is the difference. The leakage will occur. John: Before we get to the question and answer
    session, Mr. Otero raised a point which I think it would be useful if we could define
    further or delineate on. Mr. Otero knows we should have the help of other nations in this
    resolution of this immigration problem, the refugee problem being a large part of it because
    it’s going to be with us as far as we can see into the future. So, what kind of help
    can we expect or should we expect, for instance, from the United Nations or any other international
    body in this immigration crisis? Dr. Fuchs, do you want to start? Lawrence: Should and help are two different…
    should we expect and what kind will we get are two different things because I think we
    should expect a great deal from many potentially large receiving countries, but we have received
    very little. I’m not sure how effective our efforts in this line have been, but what we
    have now, a very thin week international structures to deal with an international problem. International
    problem of migration is one of the great world issues, one of the great planetary issues
    of our time. We don’t have planetary structures to deal with it if you take the question of
    refugee migration and sudden refugee migration particularly. We’ve followed up on the great Cambodian crisis
    with a marvelously dramatic episode, Vice President Mondale went and made a wonderful
    speech, talked about the turning away of the Jews in the 1930s and so on. And we were able
    to extract some cooperation from other receiving countries. With respect to this recent Cuban
    episode, our efforts on the diplomatic side to the extent that we made them, don’t seem
    to have borne much fruit. So, when you say, “What kind should we expect?” We should expect
    a great deal. This Commission has on the study now ways in which we might be able to build
    regional, that is on international scale, structures which could help to plan for and
    deal with emergency refugee flows when they took place on a regional basis. They don’t
    exist right now and that’s really the answer to the question. Joaquin: Well, I think the United States should
    take the initiative to promote some sort of a conference on a worldwide basis to develop
    ways and means for the handling of these type of crisis such as we are witnessing today.
    There’s no reason why the nations of the free world that have a concern that they are with
    us in military alliances, economic alliances and so forth, should not get together and
    develop a statute internationally to try to work together in resettling these refugees
    all over the world. And to me, if the United States should be taking that initiative because
    everybody in the world wants to come to this country and I think we should be proud of
    that that we remain a nation. That people don’t want to go to Russia or Red China. They
    want to come here. Michael: John? John: Yes, Dr. Novak? Michael: Could I raise one thing? One point
    we have to remember here is, where are these people coming from? One of the great causes
    of these migrations we’re talking about is totalitarianism. Andso as long as we let totalitarianism
    multiply, which it has done in Cambodia and Cuba, and other places as well, that is where
    the red tide of refugees is coming from and will come from. And until the free world nations
    are willing to face that problem, there’s going to be a greater shortage of liberty
    and more people coming in. Harrison: Amen. Amen. John: Well, I think we have opened this general
    subject up very broadly. I think there’s one quick question that I might pose. I have read
    and heard charges that in the differential treatment of the Cubans coming out of Cuba
    now and the Asians who are coming into Florida, we have a racist policy. Dr. Fuchs? Lawrence: Under the new law, the UN protocol
    has been accepted in the definition of refugee and that’s anybody who was a well-founded
    fear of persecution should they return in their homeland. The problem with the Asians
    may be several folds, apart from their racist factor which I have no personal knowledge
    of it all. There is the fact of, one, people who flee from persecution in Haiti to the
    extent that there is real persecution and there’s no question or there is some, or fleeing
    from a family despotism, not an ideological despotism and not fleeing religious persecution.
    It’s not a question, such as Soviet Jews where, you know, in the Soviet Union today if you’re
    Jewish, your kids are not going to have as good a chance to go to schools or fulfill
    certain occupations. So, you have endemic, systemic persecution, but in the Haitians,
    it’s a family. If you go along with the family, you’re okay if you don’t. So that’s one problem. The second problem is the State Department
    some time back, when we had the old law, did send a team down to Haiti and looked the situation
    over and said that substantially what you have is people who live in terrible economic
    conditions, but that you don’t have widespread political persecution. So, because of the
    legacy of that report and because of the legacy of the law and the old definition, and perhaps
    because they are black, and I don’t know that that’s a case, but this is some of the thinking
    perhaps that’s gone into the reluctance of our government to move into a definition of
    refugee status for the Haitian, even to grant work authorizations to those who are petitioning
    for asylum. But the fact of the matter is that more recently, the Cubans who have come
    to the United States, also are largely seeking opportunity as the Haitians are. Some have
    a well-founded fear of persecution, particularly now that they have left the place, just as
    some of the Haitians have a well-founded fear of persecution now that they left Haiti, but
    most human beings. It’s, again, the human situation. Why do you
    leave? Why do the Irish leave Ireland? You know, they were starving. But did they like
    the political system? Did they have reason to fear that system? Sure, they did and that
    it’s a mixture of motives and it’s very hard to decide. Now, refugee policy and the last
    analysis anywhere in the world is going to be a function of foreign politics as well
    as domestic politics, as well as some generalized standard of equity which we have tried to
    embody in the law, but we can’t accept all 14 million so we make decisions on an ad hoc
    basis. Michael: One problem you come to in the case
    of Haiti is the jump from defining a refugee is someone who flees from totalitarianism
    to defining it as someone who flees from authoritarianism. Now that covers virtually the whole world
    except a dozen or 20 nations at most, and that’s an enormous jump. Now, the difference
    between a totalitarian and an authoritarian regime is a considerable one, because the
    one is able to cover a whole totality of human life. The other can be cruel and repressive
    for that anything like the synchronization of controls. That’s, I think, a step we’re
    going to have to face. [Crosstalk 00:47:30] John: Well, we go to the question and answer
    right after Mr. Otero. Joaquin: Just this point here. You know, the
    technicality that is applied to the Haitian refugees doesn’t convince me in any way because
    Haiti has one of the most repressive, one of the most brutal dictatorships that this
    earth has ever known. In Haiti, Papa Doc when he becomes your enemy and you do something
    against him, not only does he kill you, but he kills everybody who’s a member of your
    family. They eradicate your roots in Haiti. You know, Batista in Cuba used to kill a lot
    of people and Marcos Perez Jimenez, and Castro still killing people and imprisoning people. So, for anybody to say that the Haitians are
    merely economic refugees, they ought to have their head examined because, in reality, they
    don’t know what’s happening in Haiti. There is as much political persecution in Haiti
    as there is in Cuba or as there is in Guatemala or any other country that has a dictatorship. John: I think what we need to find here is
    the definition problem is a very difficult one we’ll have to wor. Now, it’s time for
    question and answer session. Yes, sir. You, sir. Please, sir. Roger: My name is Roger Conner and I’m the
    Executive Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. It’s better known as FAIR.
    I’ve noted that each of the panelist has in tern advocated an increase in immigration
    of one kind or another. So my question is this, in 1977 the distinguish Roper Polling
    organization found that 75% of the American people believe that a level of immigration
    of 400,000 per year is excessive. And today, legal immigration is running at greater than
    600,000 per year. So, my question to each of the panelist, and I regret that all the
    panelists agree on this score and you don’t have a dissenting view, but I’d ask each of
    the panelist, why is it they believe that the American people are wrong on this score? Harrison: Well, as an elective representative
    of those people, let me say that I don’t know what the number is and you may not have been
    listening carefully. In my opening remarks, I said, I think we have to come to some decisions,
    some goals, some limits, if you will, that are consistent with the traditional role that
    political immigration is played in our country. I don’t know what those limits are. I don’t
    know whether they’re 400,000 or a million, or 200,000, or what. I just think that it
    is almost impossible with our tradition, I kind of think it is impossible, with our tradition
    to completely close our doors to political immigration. On the other hand, with respect to the economic
    migration, I think you’ll find that the surveys are very different at least in the areas that
    are most significantly affected by economic migration. So, such as that for Mexico. The
    idea of temporary worker visa programs has a fair amount of support and I think we have
    to continue to draw this distinction. There is a very valid distinction between the two. Lawrence: I think the most important distinction,
    Mr. Conner, is one between legal immigration and on one hand, and illegal immigration and
    sudden refugee emergencies or flows particularly when there are expellees on the other. What
    we found at our public hearings and what we’re finding in the effort to fine tune the analysis
    of public opinion is there is growing anxiety, even outrage, over an immigration policy that
    is out of control and that means that the hostility is directed against illegal immigration.
    And also to some considerable and growing extent against the acceptance of large numbers
    of refugees who impact very suddenly in a particular locality so that we have found
    that the…and the polls never ask these questions and don’t make the distinction really. We
    have found that with respect to the family reunification goal of immigration, with respect
    to the goal of immigration to provide opportunity for persons who seek opportunity and who would
    make a contribution to the United States that when you make those distinctions, there isn’t
    the outrage and hostility. Most people still seem to feel strongly that this is a country
    whose strength, to a very large degree, comes from valid immigration, legal immigration,
    but they are very angry about illegal immigration and about sudden impact from refugees, particularly
    when they’re expellees as in the case of recent Cuban migrations. John: Dr. Novak? Michael: Public opinion isn’t always right
    and it isn’t always to be followed because public opinion itself changes. It changes
    on the economic climate is different. It changes when leaders figure out a rational and intelligent
    policy and seek to persuade people to follow it. A lot would depend with public opinion
    in how you ask the question. If you ask that whether they would like to turn people back
    in the sea, whether by their choice of limiting from 400,000 to 200,000 let’s say, they would
    like to condemn such persons to lives in prison or whatever else. I think the American people
    might very well suggest that there are some other things they would rather see yield than
    that. And in any case, that’s the function of leadership, to determine what is a rational
    policy and then to try to persuade people democratically, that it is indeed a rational
    policy which they would support. John: Mr. Otero? Joaquin: Mr. Conner, your figure of 400,000
    is inaccurate, 600,000 is more in reality. When you consider the number of legal immigrants
    coming into the United States through the regular route, plus the number of refugees
    from Cambodia and so on, you got over 600,000 people. And I am very cognizant of the so-called
    backlash that is being effected today throughout the country and particularly among my own
    membership in the labor unions. But I want to say to you that my advocacy for a larger
    number of legal migrants is subordinated toward doing something about the legal immigration
    in the United States. So, as far as I am concerned, the two things go hand in hand. We first control
    or try to control illegal immigration and then worry about the numbers for legal migrants
    into the United States. John: Next question please? Yes, sir. Roy: My name is Roy Morgan. I’m the Executive
    Director of Zero Population Growth. Given that the U.S. population is about to 5% of
    the world’s population and given that we consume about 35% of the world’s non-renewable resources,
    it seems to make sense that U.S. immigration policy should be a part of a national U.S.
    population policy. Would you comment on that please? John: Who’d like to start that one? Why don’t
    you start it? All right, please, Dr. Novak. Michael: I’ll start thereabout. Well, first
    of all, there are something tricky about those figures that I like to call attention to.
    Many of the things we now call resources, non-renewable resources at that, were not
    known to be resources 50 years ago, some of them are 100 years ago for others, but that’s
    a very important data. The same population of the United States that you were speaking
    of because of its liberty, because of its inventiveness, because of the character of
    the people who come here is also the source of the discovery of a quite considerably larger
    share than 35% of those resources. And so, I think overall, and my own view would be
    that our preoccupation with the Zero Population Growth alone in the United States is not the
    only way to go about setting a policy either for population or for immigration. Lawrence: On this question of linking immigration
    policy to population policy and resource use policy, we’ve heard from as many people arguing
    that they’re worried about a shortfall in population in this country as they are worrying
    on the other side. The argument is that given our present fertility rate of 1.8 that we
    will have a serious shortage of persons in the working age population relative to those
    who are over 65 or over 70, or who are more dependent on those in the workforce. This
    applies of course obviously the social security options. Harrison: God help us if we don’t change that,
    Social Security System. Lawrence: But it also applies with respect
    to general levels of productivity and very great concern about what American economic
    vitality will be in 1990 and by the year 2000. John: This concludes another Public Policy
    Forum presented by the American Enterprise Institute for public policy research. On behalf
    of AEI, our hearty thanks to the distinguished and expert panelists, Dr. Michael Novak, Dr.
    Lawrence Fuchs, Senator Harrison Schmitt, and Mr. J. F. Otero, and our thanks also to
    our guests and experts in the audience for their participation. Peter: This public policy forum on U.S. immigration
    policy has brought to you the views of four experts in the field. It was presented by
    AEI, the American Enterprise Institute. It is the aim of AEI to clarify issues of the
    day by presenting many view points in the hope that by so doing, those who wish to learn
    about the decision-making process will benefit from such a free exchange of informed and
    enlightened opinion. I’m Peter Hackes in Washington. Announcer: This Public Policy Forum series
    is created and supplied to this station as a public service by the American Enterprise
    Institute, Washington, D.C. AEI is a non-profit, nonpartisan, publicly-supported research and
    education organization. For a transcript of this program, send $3.75
    to the American Enterprise Institute, 1150 17th Street, Northwest Washington, D.C., 20036.

    How Japan’s Bullet Trains Changed Travel
    Articles, Blog

    How Japan’s Bullet Trains Changed Travel

    August 8, 2019


    Today’s high-speed trains will have you cruising along at 350 kilometres per hour. A ticket is about the same as a flight, and the door-to-door time on some of the world’s most popular routes is the same, or less than getting a plane. But decades ago rail travel was in decline. It faced fierce competition from the air and auto industries. Then came Japan’s bullet train. By the late 1950s, Japan’s economic miracle had transformed the war ravaged nation. Its economy was growing quickly. The area between Tokyo and Osaka was booming with industry. People were flocking to the capital for work but the rail line connecting the two major cities couldn’t take the stress. In 1958, a government panel was set up to tackle the problem and several potential solutions arose. Among them, building the world’s first high-speed rail line. Many were skeptical, but two men were true believers. Shinji Sogō was the then president of the state-run Japanese National Railways. The other, Sogō’s colleague, veteran engineer Hideo Shima. Up against bureaucratic obstacles and fierce opposition – the two drove the project forward. In 1959, the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line started construction under Sogō’s leadership. Shima was appointed the project’s chief engineer. His team designed the sleek and revolutionary cone-shaped front – from which the bullet train got its name. Rather than being pulled by an engine in front, each carriage of the bullet train was driven by an individual electric motor, which has proven to be safer, faster and more efficient. Apart from the train itself, the team also built wider tracks, which were more costly but allowed for greater stability and higher speeds. 3,000 bridges and 67 tunnels were built on the 515-kilometer line to allow a clear and largely curveless path. Older trains were banned from the new line. Equipped with advanced technologies, the new trains were able to travel as fast as 210 kilometers per hour, a breakthrough in the passenger rail industry and the world’s fastest at the time. The journey time between Tokyo and Osaka was cut from over 6 hours to 4. On October 1, 1964, the new line opened, just in time for the Tokyo Olympic Games. But neither Sogō’ nor Shima were invited for the inauguration. They both resigned in 1963 because the project’s budget came in at double what was promised – 400 billion yen, the equivalent of 3.6 billion US dollars today. But despite their premature departure, the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line was an immediate success and quickly turned a profit. It transformed the nation – allowing more people to work in metropolitan areas and became a symbol of Japan’s postwar re-emergence as an economic and tech power. Now over 300 trains operate on the line everyday. And the trip between Tokyo and Osaka has shortened to two and a half hours. The number of passengers has also soared, reaching 165 million in 2016. After the success of the Tōkaidō Shinkanse line, Japan has continued expanding its high-speed rail network and plans to build more. Following Japan’s lead, countries like France, Germany and China have also developed high-speed railways. By the end of 2018, the total length of high-speed rail network in the world will be over 46,000 kilometers, and over half of it is in China.