#222: The Real Impact of Mass Immigration and Guest Worker Visas: Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies

I engage with Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, to break down the complexities and consequences of modern immigration policies. Jessica shares insights from her extensive experience in immigration policy, including her work with the U.S. Foreign Service and the Department of Justice.

Key topics include:

•Mass Immigration and Labour Distortions: How unchecked immigration policies, including the exploitation of the H-1B visa program, have led to wage suppression and job displacement in the tech industry, often benefiting large staffing firms over local talent.

•Special Interests and Policy Manipulation: Jessica explores how special interest groups and influential politicians, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, shaped immigration laws to favour employers and low-cost labour rather than the public interest.

•Border Security and Enforcement: The discussion highlights the effectiveness of border enforcement policies and the consequences of weak enforcement under the Biden administration, including the rise in illegal crossings and human trafficking concerns.

•The Impact of Sanctuary Cities: Jessica explains how sanctuary policies can unintentionally protect criminal activity, leading to public safety concerns while compromising law enforcement efforts.

•Birth Rates vs. Immigration: Jessica challenges the notion that mass immigration can offset declining birth rates, emphasizing the financial strains imposed on social welfare systems by poorly regulated immigration policies.

Transcript

Christopher Balkaran (00:00.984)
Welcome to another episode of the Open Minds podcast. I'm your host, Christopher Bahlkorn, folks. Today is a very special episode. Today we have Jessica Vaughn, who serves as the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, a Washington DC-based research institute that examines the impact of immigration on American society. And Jessica also educates policymakers and opinion leaders on immigration issues. And I find this really fascinating.

Jessica has focused on immigration policy and operations, covering things like immigration benefits, the visa program, immigration enforcement, and public safety, and has directed the Department of Justice-funded projects on the use of immigration law enforcement in transnational gang suppression. As well, Jessica is an instructor for Senior Law Enforcement Officer Training Seminars at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety.

and routinely speaks at law enforcement and academic conferences across the country and has testified before Congress. And I encourage many of you to check out Jessica on YouTube and her testimonials before Congress on this very important issue. Jessica, welcome to the podcast and thank you so much for agreeing.

Jessica M Vaughan (01:16.381)
Thank you, Christopher. I'm glad to be able to talk with you. It's such a hot topic right now. We won't have any shortage of things to talk about.

Christopher Balkaran (01:21.228)
It really is. So what got you involved in this very interesting area? It seems like you've always been the expert on this.

Jessica M Vaughan (01:32.041)
Well, for a while I was an officer in the US Foreign Service. So I worked in a consular section abroad in Trinidad and Tobago. And the embassies overseas that issue visas were really the front lines, just as the border is, on immigration policy. And so I saw firsthand

what was working and what was not working in our immigration system and you know, gave hundreds of interviews, every really not every day, every couple of days, talking with people about why they wanted to come to the United States. And it was just fascinating to me to watch that dynamic and, then to come back to the States and see the effects of our immigration policy.

on American communities and to understand how it's not just about one person's visa application. It's about how to have an immigration system that serves the public interest. And so that's why I, when I left the Foreign Service, I went to work for the Center for Immigration Studies because what we aim to do is to bring facts

Christopher Balkaran (02:29.964)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (02:53.445)
to every discussion about immigration policy and also to make the case for immigration policies that are not driven by special interests, which was the case when I started out in immigration policy. There were three senators who pretty much made all the decisions on immigration policy and there was very little transparency or public understanding of how these laws were being crafted.

Christopher Balkaran (03:03.448)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (03:20.305)
and who they were going to affect, who were the winners and losers. And like any policy, there are winners and losers. And I would argue that our immigration policy today benefits the immigrants themselves, it benefits their employers, and people who are making money off of our immigration system. I think it's hard to make the case that it's really benefiting our country as a whole in its current state.

Christopher Balkaran (03:51.162)
Jessica, that's fascinating. You mentioned special interest groups. Can you discuss some of the special interests of those three senators when you started in this area? What were their views on immigration and what were they vested? What did they want to see protected and what did they have their vested interests in?

Jessica M Vaughan (04:11.741)
Well, one of the three was Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts, who believed that we needed to have more immigration, that it was an unqualified good for our country, that there were no downsides to immigration, more would be better. And that, you the United States needed to open to everyone in the world to realize the American dream. And it was a very kind of romanticized view of immigration.

as experienced by his own family backgrounds. And I think many people can relate to that, but the laws that he pushed for didn't really always turn out to the benefit of others who were harmed by mass immigration. There were others, members of Congress who were most sympathetic to American employers and felt that American employers should

have access not only to the best and the brightest talent from around the world, we've always been a magnet for people wanting to, people with great ideas, wanting to start great companies and realize those dreams or simply to have the freedom to pursue the career of their choosing. But really a lot of, there are certain aspects of our law and also this applies to

Christopher Balkaran (05:18.5)
Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (05:25.572)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (05:35.525)
unchecked illegal immigration really ends up distorting our labor markets to the point where Americans can be displaced from job opportunities or see their wages depressed because of a surplus of labor or the presence of people who are willing to do jobs for less money than Americans would be willing to do those jobs for.

And that's particularly true with respect to illegal immigration. But a lot of members of Congress were really, what they heard was businesses saying, we need more labor, we need more labor. When really what that translated to, in reality, what they meant was we need cheaper labor. We don't want to have to spend so much money on labor. We want replaceable labor, exploitable labor. And so, you know, that

Christopher Balkaran (06:17.401)
Hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (06:25.305)
Wow.

Right? Yeah.

Jessica M Vaughan (06:32.073)
immigration laws weren't really, the agency I should say that was tasked with immigration enforcement did not get the resources from Congress to really do the job properly. And it would only be when disasters happened like 9-11 or other terrorist attacks that preceded 9-11 when,

Congress and the public realized that there was a national security aspect to this. And the other thing that has changed since the last great wave of immigration in the first part of the 20th century is that our country is much more of a welfare state now. So when we have more people in the population who are not making enough money to support themselves and their families, they qualify for public assistance and welfare programs.

and that is extremely expensive for taxpayers. things are not like they were when my grandparents immigrated to the United States. We're a different country, we're a modern economy, we don't need low skilled labor as much. And we are a social welfare state to a much greater degree. And I would argue also there are many great threats to our national security much more than was the case.

Christopher Balkaran (07:29.315)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (07:55.561)
125 years ago.

Christopher Balkaran (07:58.094)
Jessica, you made a really interesting point about how Ted Kennedy wanted immigration, know, let folks in, but then it was mass immigration. And so here in Canada, similar to the United States, there's economic immigrants, people with education, money in the bank, young children ready to work, ready to start their lives. Their kids most likely will go to good schools, finish university and be taxpaying citizens as well.

very stark difference between that type of economic immigration and what you've described as mass immigration. But I feel like we can't talk about that distinction as much because it seems like both sometimes get lumped in. Do you see that distinction as well? is that, is economic immigration something that was kind of done away with in, like you said, in pursuit of cheaper, exploitative labor? And why do you think that would be?

Jessica M Vaughan (08:52.083)
Well, I think that when you allow unlimited immigration, mean, let's face it, the world is populated with billions of people. you know, many people would like the opportunity. Most people I think would rather stay at home and live, you know, in the countries that they're used to. But sometimes these countries are not, you know, don't have economies that can give everyone a great quality of life. And so when Western countries have

Christopher Balkaran (09:17.487)
Yeah.

Jessica M Vaughan (09:21.105)
do not enforce their immigration laws, that means more people are willing to risk coming to those countries to try to improve their quality of life rather than stay at home. And what we end up is distorted labor markets. And that can happen even through legal immigration, sometimes through unregulated guest worker programs. And it can happen in white collar occupations as well.

I think Canadians and Americans want to have high skill immigration programs or opportunities to attract the best and the brightest or even if it's not the best and the brightest, just like really good people who are gonna contribute to society and love being Canadians or Americans and really be good citizens.

I think that should be the goal of every immigration policy is to make new citizens who love the country. But the availability of certain temporary work visa programs has been exploited by certain types of companies that are really staffing companies. And they are not the direct employers. What they specialize in is bringing in bodies that they can place in

Christopher Balkaran (10:36.175)
Wow.

Jessica M Vaughan (10:46.575)
ordinary jobs and these people are willing to work for less money for a long period of time if they think that they might be able to stay permanently and that creates distortions and this has happened in particular I know in Canada and the US in the technology sector information technology and so these staffing companies have been able to recruit workers from

a lot of them come from India, also from China and Eastern Europe and other Asian countries to say, look, we're gonna help you get a placement in the United States. We have employers who will hire you. It's more money than you can make in your home country. And you should be willing to do that because you'll end up with permanent residency in...

the United States or Canada, our programs work pretty much the same way. And employers go to the staffing company and say, wow, you can staff my data center or my call center for less money. I'm going to do it. And they will literally replace their local workers with people, uh, visa workers because they save an enormous amount of payroll by doing that.

Christopher Balkaran (12:01.818)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (12:08.423)
you know, they figure, well, the American workers or the Canadian workers can just find something else. You know, and they train their replacements quite literally. And it's a problem because it's concentrated in certain occupations in certain sectors. And it's really allowing this one business model of the staffing company to to profit from a visa program.

Christopher Balkaran (12:14.19)
Wow.

Jessica M Vaughan (12:35.291)
If it were the employers having to hire each of these people individually, I don't think it would be a problem. But when it's done en masse through the staffing companies, that creates distortions that cuts off opportunities for local workers and ends up the guest workers end up being exploited.

Christopher Balkaran (12:55.45)
Jessica, I want to get into the distortions in a second, but you did mention something which I find interesting, which is again about the special interests. I remember reading a book by an author who said, no matter the civilization and human history, there's always been a need for cheap and exploitative labor. And what you've just described about this push towards mass immigration and cheap exploitative labor fulfills exactly that author's perspective right here in the 20th and 21st century.

What types of special interests would it be companies, know, people throw around the word coyotes, people who are human smugglers. How could they possibly have some type of power or interest that would reach the walls of Congress and Senate to influence policymakers on this? Because to me, it seems like every American of every political stripe would be against exploitative labor, given the labor movement.

in the 19th and 20th centuries, but it just doesn't seem like that seems to be the case. It seems to be that there is a group that is quite effective at achieving this aim of mass immigration.

Jessica M Vaughan (14:07.635)
Well, I think it happens in a number of different industries. One that's especially notorious is the agricultural sector. And they have been able for far too long to convince lawmakers that they simply, know, crops will rot in the field if they do not have access to labor from abroad and unlimited access. And that if

they're not allowed to have an illegal workforce, then Americans won't be able to have strawberries or heads of lettuce will cost $20. But it's really not true. It's misleading. There've been a number of very authoritative studies that have shown that, first of all, the cost of labor is a very small proportion of the cost of food.

it's you know, really in farming especially the costs are in the equipment and in the Materials and in the processing of the food. It's not the labor itself necessarily and they found that if if Growers were were forced to increase the wages by 25 % The price of a head of lettuce would probably go up by five or ten cents not you know

exponentially. And that also reliance on labor instead of equipment, machinery, or technology is really kind of stunting growth and innovation in the agricultural sector. That there are a lot of types of crops that are harvested using what

Christopher Balkaran (15:36.026)
Wow.

Jessica M Vaughan (16:00.967)
really are kind of primitive methods, know, people back breaking labor, bending over to pick things out of the ground. Whereas places, for example, in Europe, much of the agriculture is mechanized. And that is, you know, much better for productivity. It means that the jobs in the agricultural sector require higher skills and are paid more. And we don't have to sacrifice the availability of produce.

Christopher Balkaran (16:03.247)
Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (16:13.785)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (16:30.537)
You know that there but but when you know, it's a hard thing to transition from reliance on labor doing all of the production to investing in technology and equipment because you know that costs money but but it if there's an incentive to do it if you're labors, if you're told, you know, look you've got a transition to a legal workforce. It's going to happen. I mean, we've already seen in the past

Christopher Balkaran (16:46.872)
course yeah.

Jessica M Vaughan (16:58.364)
in times where immigration was limited, that these industries do adapt. And I feel that, you know, we are highly developed entrepreneurial people. We can find a way to adapt. The dairy industry is a perfect example too. In the Netherlands, there is a thriving dairy industry and there are not people milking the cows. It's almost entirely machines.

Christopher Balkaran (17:21.24)
Yeah.

Jessica M Vaughan (17:23.837)
But for some reason, American dairy concerns do not want to make that transition. They just keep saying, we need the workers.

Christopher Balkaran (17:31.758)
Jessica, this is so interesting because here in Canada, I have a friend who lives on a dairy farm and yes, no one's milking the cows. is all automated as well. It just...

Jessica M Vaughan (17:38.121)
There's a lot of reasons that's preferable. mean, you know, when you think about the avian flu problem right now and the, you know, the contact between humans and the cows and so on. But anyway, that's another story.

Christopher Balkaran (17:43.46)
Yeah, sanitation. Yeah.

Christopher Balkaran (17:51.93)
Exactly. Yeah, that's a separate podcast for sure. But Jessica, I just find it very interesting, you know, when we talk immigration and you've seen this perhaps more than anyone, the conversation does not talk about the labor demand and the labor issue because maybe this is an uninformed opinion, but people would not be illegally crossing and risking their lives without some form of labor demand on the other side that is better than

where they're coming from. Now, is that an uninformed perspective? Because I just think that if I were young, if I were in Central America and there's nothing for me in my community, there may be something better in the United States. And I know through friends that there's labor demand. I'm working dairy farms. I'm working agriculture. Wherever I'm working is way better than where I am.

Jessica M Vaughan (18:44.253)
Well, I agree with you. There is no question that the motivation behind this migration, whether legal or illegal, is for employment and the opportunity to have a higher standard of living. And that is the push factor. Well, actually, well, yeah, that's the push factor. That's the motivation people have. And there's no question that there are employers in developed countries

Christopher Balkaran (18:55.14)
Right.

Jessica M Vaughan (19:13.927)
that their demand for labor is insatiable because they want to always lower their labor costs to increase their profits. But there is also this industry of middlemen, companies that tell employers that they will take care of all their labor problems. Like if you're a factory owner or a farmer or

running a hospital even or a restaurant. Hiring and firing people, finding good help, good employees is one of your hardest problems on a daily basis. Particularly in industry like a factory manufacturing or something where you don't need college degrees to do this work. you're always, and as I said, we're a modern society now. don't have as many, more and more people are highly educated.

Christopher Balkaran (19:53.614)
Yep.

Christopher Balkaran (20:02.596)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (20:12.289)
And so they're not looking for those kinds of jobs. so these employers are looking for recruiters to find workers for them. They don't want to think about it. And the recruiters promise the employers that they're going to take away that problem. They're going to take care of it for them. And the recruiters go to their own networks of people in their home countries often.

Christopher Balkaran (20:22.148)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (20:40.211)
who are looking for the opportunity to come to the United States. And what happens is those jobs are simply not available to the local workforce. Even though, you in our country now, we don't have a shortage of labor. We have a low unemployment rate, but we have millions, about six or seven million people who lack a college degree, who have dropped out of the labor force because they've just stopped looking for jobs because

Christopher Balkaran (20:47.674)
Right.

Christopher Balkaran (21:05.657)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (21:09.871)
No one will hire them. They don't know how to find jobs. They don't have the networks. They're not willing to move. And a lot of that slack in the labor market is met by immigrant labor and that the recruiters fill. And when you have open border policies like we've had under the last four years of the Biden administration, people are willing to take that risk to leave their home country and

Christopher Balkaran (21:22.842)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (21:39.673)
make a down payment to a criminal smuggling organization, which is actually also a labor trafficking organization that's going to tell them, if you come to the United States, you're going to be allowed to stay here and we're going to hook you up with an employer and you'll be all set. And it almost always inevitably turns out that that employer is,

you know, a staffing company or a recruiter that's taking the money of the migrant and, you know, the employer pays the staffing company or the middleman and that staffing company pays the migrant and there's a lot of money being lost in that transaction. The migrants aren't seeing fair wages and the middlemen are the ones making most of the profits and the migrants

feel that they're better off sometimes, they don't realize that they're being exploited. Sometimes they are, they get here and they find out that it's not as nice as they were told it was going to be, or they're not making as much money, or they're having to work more hours, or in the worst cases, they're trapped in these situations and threatened violently or lured into sex trafficking. Usually it's more regular labor trafficking.

Christopher Balkaran (22:37.145)
Yeah.

Christopher Balkaran (22:42.543)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (23:02.119)
you know, through, you know, in factories or on farms and places like that. But they, end up really entrapped and stuck here and worse off for having made this decision to come here. And yet it's a very difficult situation to get yourself out of. And in the case of, you know, some of the younger people, they don't realize how they're being exploited.

Christopher Balkaran (23:23.886)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (23:29.353)
They just wanted to come and make money and send money home to their families. And if they're able to do that, they think it's OK. But the losers here are not only are they being mistreated, but there are Americans or legal immigrants who would like to have the opportunity for some of these jobs without being exploited, who are on the sidelines. the are often

saddled with the burden of providing schooling, medical care, welfare programs to workers who are underpaid. And employers, it's kind of an unspoken bargain really between employers and especially at the state level, state officials that want to have generous welfare programs that, you know,

Christopher Balkaran (24:08.282)
Hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (24:12.634)
Yeah.

Jessica M Vaughan (24:25.981)
The employers know that they can get away with paying workers less if the state is going to subsidize them with welfare payments. So it's kind of a vicious cycle that's hard to get out of. But what we've also found is that when borders are enforced, then employers have to compete for workers. And then wages go up and jobs are better and they can't get away with exploiting workers or they're going to go out of business. So

Christopher Balkaran (24:29.487)
Yeah.

Christopher Balkaran (24:37.678)
Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (24:47.61)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (24:54.971)
It's a painful transition, but it is possible to do it. And we've done it in the past in times when there have, you know, when there is not an endless supply of workers coming over the border, employers become more flexible. They'll allow more part-time workers. They may hire older semi-retired workers. They will train workers. They will adapt to stay in business.

Christopher Balkaran (25:20.462)
Hmm. Right.

Jessica M Vaughan (25:22.707)
But in order to have a level playing field for businesses and for employees, it's necessary to control immigration to do that. It's not the only factor in some of these issues, but it's one that a government can actually control.

Christopher Balkaran (25:39.918)
Jessica, we're almost halfway through our podcast and I haven't even gotten to section one that tells us that this is really interesting stuff and I absolutely love. No, I love the passion. This is exactly what we need to be talking about. And I know we chatted before I hit record about everything happening with Canada, the United States and the Trump administration signaling some type of union. truly do believe and I know this is outside your expertise, but there may be

Jessica M Vaughan (25:47.977)
That means I'm talking too much.

Christopher Balkaran (26:09.366)
a labor union, a free flow of labor, because here in Canada, there is a labor shortage and we have an abundance of natural resources and minerals that are untapped and are underdeveloped. And I do think Trump probably sees this as an opportunity to create a freer form of labor movement north of the border. That perhaps justifies the rationale for all this is back and forth. So interesting that you mentioned labor.

You did mention, Jessica, I just want to pick up on one thing. You mentioned open borders under the Biden administration. And I know this has been like a hot button topic for many Democrats as well. So I'd love to know from you, some would say that we haven't had open borders for the past four years under Biden. What say you to those that are critical of the suggestion or the statement that we that the United States has had open borders for the past four years?

Jessica M Vaughan (27:03.315)
Well, we have experienced an unprecedented growth in the immigrant population in the United States in the last four years. More than eight million people have arrived. Some were turned back at the border, but far, far more were allowed to come in and stay. It's showing up in our monthly census surveys.

and they're coming in in three categories. It's people who crossed the border illegally and were never detected. It's people who arrived at the border and were allowed to stay because they made an asylum claim or they said they feared return to their home country. And that was about 5 million people. And in addition, there were programs that the Biden administration implemented for people who didn't qualify for visas.

to simply come in anyway, if they were from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and a few other places, they were simply allowed to apply from abroad and bypass the entire visa process and come in. it's undeniable that the number of people arriving from abroad to settle in the United States has exploded. We have the highest...

Christopher Balkaran (28:14.447)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (28:30.313)
share of our population now that is immigrant than ever before in our history. And we've never had a situation where twice as many of the new arrivals came in illegally and not through our legal immigration system. So that's really unprecedented. I don't know what else you call it, but open borders.

Christopher Balkaran (28:52.877)
Jessica, you know, here in Canada, we have a population cliff. Our birth rate, our replacement rate is 1.26 and the UN says that we should be at or near 2.1. And it has been going down steadily since the 1970s. I understand in the United States, I don't believe the birth rate is as low in the United States as it is in Canada. But do you believe that

the Biden administration and others like Ted Kennedy who argued for greater immigration, everyone coming here, was to stave off what they saw as population cliffs in Canada, in Europe, where more and more people are just choosing not to have children. And as a result, there'd be more retirees, enough people paying taxes, et cetera. Because what we see here in Canada is federal tax revenue has gone up, liberal or conservative government,

year after year, decade after decade. And so I just wonder, what are your thoughts about immigration supplementing the birth rate?

Jessica M Vaughan (29:54.321)
Yeah, that is a common justification for immigration. I would argue that and United States fertility rates have been dropping and I think it's mostly because of just economic development and modernization. People just don't have as many kids for a variety of reasons. I don't think immigration is going to solve that problem. You if you're talking about having enough

Christopher Balkaran (30:11.458)
Yeah, for sure.

Jessica M Vaughan (30:23.849)
government revenue to fund retirement programs and other government expenses. The problem is that, you know, and we do, when you remember we do have legal immigration, we admit a million legal immigrants every year. We don't need more than that. Or I should say admitting more people than that is not.

especially in the form that it's coming illegally and basically decided by the migrants themselves and the cartels and not necessarily people who are going to be high earners. It's not going to bail out our social security system. It's not going to correct the birth dearth because when people come, when immigrants come, they tend to assimilate, at least in their fertility rates, let's put it that way. They're not going to have as many

Christopher Balkaran (31:13.218)
Yeah. Yeah.

Jessica M Vaughan (31:15.657)
kids as they might have had in their home country. That's just what we've learned from studying the population data over decades. That the fertility of the immigrants goes down as well. And the problem is, you allowing so much migration of people who are not equipped to be self-sufficient in a country means that they are a fiscal drain.

Christopher Balkaran (31:23.3)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (31:42.321)
And so they are not going to help save that social security system because we're paying out in other government programs to support them and their families. And they're not equipped to be able to fill jobs that are going to be high paying. you know, if you just have, you know, an open immigration system, you're not going to get the kind of immigrants that are able to help you with that problem. You're going to get more people.

Christopher Balkaran (31:42.394)
Hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (31:51.396)
Hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (31:59.182)
Right.

Jessica M Vaughan (32:12.061)
you're not necessarily going to have a more sustainable social welfare system at all.

Christopher Balkaran (32:18.306)
Right. We are again 36 minutes in and still haven't touched segment one. That's how good this conversation is, Jessica. Okay, so now we're going to start on segment one, which is enforcement. you've mentioned this earlier, Jessica, but I read a quote from you and it stated, the only effective way to reduce illegal immigration is to ensure consistent enforcement, which acts as both a deterrent and a way to maintain the integrity of the legal immigration system.

What are your thoughts about those who question stricter border controls? Researchers have seen when these are implemented, they're not as effective as some politicians may have seen. And so many are questioning, what do we do moving forward? Why do you believe stricter border control is absolutely necessary?

Jessica M Vaughan (33:12.029)
Well, at the moment we have hardly any border control at all, although that's definitely going to change on January 20th with the incoming Trump administration. people are not, illegal migration into the United States is not, you can't just walk across the border. You have to pay a criminal smuggling organization and you have to traverse numerous other countries and put yourself at risk to make that journey. Many people also, or you have to be,

able to buy a plane ticket and come in on a visa to overstay. You're not going to risk that if you think that there's a chance that you might be caught and returned home. There's no benefit to you. You're not getting anything out of it. You're not able to find employment and especially you're not going to do it if there aren't employers that are going to hire you because the country has stricter rules about illegal employment.

So you're simply not gonna put yourself in the hands of a smuggling organization or risk being arrested and detained for no benefit. And so enforcing the laws sends that message that there's no point in coming here illegally because it's, you you're not gonna get anything out of it. And so fewer people start trying to come illegally and people who are in the country illegally start filtering home on their own. And then the...

really robust enforcement can be focused on the people who are not going to go home on their own, which is usually criminals, gang members, people causing problems, people who need a strong law enforcement action to send them home.

Christopher Balkaran (34:49.474)
Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (34:58.125)
Yeah.

Jessica, you know, when I did my research on Trump's border wall, I was really trying to figure out what is the Democrats' response to that because the wall sends a very strong message. I think it resonates even with moderates about immigration control and how important it is. When I looked into some of the proposals by the Democrats, it included things like surveillance cameras, AI, unmanned drones.

circulating certain parts of the border between the United States and Mexico. What are your thoughts on the efficacies, efficacy of certain border control measures? What have you seen in your research that definitely works and those that are very experimental, doesn't seem to work, may even infringe upon the civil rights and liberties of Americans living in or near border walls and the border between United States and Mexico?

Jessica M Vaughan (35:54.153)
Well, walls and barriers definitely work, but they don't work everywhere. They work where they can be patrolled. The purpose of the barrier is to slow down the entry of people and to prevent vehicles from coming across at will. They've, you know, we've been building barriers for since about the early 1990s and found that

You don't, you the situation used to be where people would amass on the, Mexico and you know, like 2000 people would rush across when the sun went down and you'd have to have hundreds of border patrol agents just trying to catch whoever they could. And it was kind of chaotic. Now in those places where there is a wall, there are people who breach the wall, but because of the walls are backed up with sensors and cameras and drones and other

Christopher Balkaran (36:33.647)
Yeah.

Christopher Balkaran (36:39.662)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (36:51.933)
technology-based systems, you can have just a handful of border patrol agents watching what's going on. And when they get over, then you send a couple of agents to apprehend what is a much smaller group. And so it just really cuts down on the flow of people, on the numbers. And it's much more manageable, but there are places where the geography doesn't make sense for a wall.

or there's just not enough, know, the terrain is too difficult. So you wouldn't put it everywhere, but you would, there are places like, especially in populated areas like El Paso and Nogales or Douglas, Arizona, San Diego, you really need to create a buffer between the two countries that can't be breached very easily.

Christopher Balkaran (37:41.229)
Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (37:49.572)
Jessica, you mentioned earlier in our chat about post 9-11 and some of the economic pressures as well. And I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you about, say you were to advise the president and the economy is booming. Is that a time where immigration controls for illegal immigration become that much more heightened because money is flowing, labor is in high demand, and we see an inflow of illegal immigration? Whereas when the economy is contracting,

we see the opposite or at least a slower flow or is it true that illegal immigration seems to persist despite economic the economic cycle that exists?

Jessica M Vaughan (38:30.439)
You know, that's a really good question. And it is one that we have looked at quite extensively over the years. And what we found is that, yes, economic upturns and downturns can affect migration flows, that when things are booming, you may have more people trying to come illegally because there are more employment opportunities available. But what really controls the flow are the policies.

We found that when in, for example, 2007, 2008, there was a big movement on the part of certain state governments to restrict illegal immigration and illegal hiring in particular. And Congress at the same time increased the resources available to federal immigration enforcement efforts. So there was more federal activity as well.

Illegal migration slowed down a great deal and more people from the interior of the country who had been here illegally decided to go home. So there was a real outflow, noticeable outflow and fewer people coming in. And this started actually, it was reinforced by the recession of 2008, but it actually started before then in 2007 when the enforcement was in place. so there's real,

hard empirical evidence that the policies and the level of enforcement are much more important than economic factors in controlling illegal immigration.

Christopher Balkaran (40:12.738)
On that point, Jessica, I know the Obama administration has been hailed or criticized for being known as the Deporter-in-Chief. I think approximately three million illegal immigrants were deported under the Obama administration, both terms. Is that in direct response to what you've seen in terms of effective policy? Because to me, seems like what you've mentioned is...

It's not enough to build a wall. It's building a wall where it makes sense. But what also matters are the policies behind that that really support effective illegal immigration control.

Jessica M Vaughan (40:47.965)
Well, the reason deportations were so high under the Obama administration was because illegal immigration was higher under the Obama administration compared to times before and compared to the Trump administration. most of those deportations were coming from the border. So there were more people trying to, who thought that it was a good idea to come and they were removing some of them. Also,

Christopher Balkaran (41:06.436)
I see.

Jessica M Vaughan (41:15.273)
If you look at the numbers, most of those, the higher numbers of deportations were in the early years of the Obama administration when some of the Bush enforcement policies were still in effect. And it's really by 2012 after the DACA program and some other changes in policy, the deportation numbers plummeted quite low and they started to go up under Trump until the pandemic hit.

And then they went way down under the Biden administration. But yeah, mean, it, they were high border deportations, but low interior deportations. And I would argue that what most Americans care about is interior deportations because that's what they affects their communities.

Christopher Balkaran (42:04.398)
I want to get to that in Sanctuary Cities in one quick second, Jessica. I'd love to ask you about deportations because, again, seems some seem that, okay, do deportations work in sending a message to illegal immigrants that, hey, by the way, deportations are on the rise, we better not attempt to cross over? Because what I'm sensing and what I've seen from the reports is

There seems to be a steady stream that seems unaffected by deportation numbers, regardless of who's in power. Is that a fair statement?

Jessica M Vaughan (42:41.977)
of I mean you know messaging is more important than you would think. More important than I would have thought until 2016 after the 2016 election when Trump was elected there was an almost immediate drop in illegal immigration that was sustained pretty far into the Trump administration.

Christopher Balkaran (42:56.334)
Yes.

Christopher Balkaran (43:02.713)
Wow.

Jessica M Vaughan (43:07.817)
that you can't attribute to anything else but the messaging because he hadn't taken office yet. And yet still the number of illegal arrivals went down. And the same thing happened when Biden was elected and was promising that immigration rules would be relaxed and there would be fewer deportations and he was gonna do a moratorium on deportations.

Christopher Balkaran (43:13.966)
Yeah.

Christopher Balkaran (43:20.077)
Mm-hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (43:34.075)
And the numbers went up at the very end of the Trump administration, the border numbers did go up. And so clearly that messaging had a very powerful effect on what was happening at the border. So people respond to these messages, but you know, one issue under the Trump administration was how family members and unaccompanied minors had to be dealt with.

and by the border patrol and by ICE. And there was a very critical court decision that happened in 2019 when the Trump administration was told that they could not detain any families with kids or kids arriving on their own. So what happened? Everyone who wanted to come brought a kid. It was either a rented kid or their own kid.

Christopher Balkaran (44:25.562)
That's right.

Jessica M Vaughan (44:28.947)
But that is to, those cases are mainly what was driving the increase that happened in 2019. And we all remember the issue about detaining families and separating families and so on, but that's pretty much what caused that. So that's a policy that the president couldn't control.

Christopher Balkaran (44:40.153)
Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (44:49.592)
Yeah. And you know, when you are president, you put in place policies and they do take years to actually show that for the data to show up. Jessica, I'd love to talk with you about sanctuary cities, sanctuary policies, because this is something that I've been perplexed by them. I look into it myself as an outsider. So I want to get a sense from you what it is at a high level. As I understand, it's an environment where individuals with

criminal backgrounds can evade federal immigration enforcement? Is that a fair assessment of sanctuary cities?

Jessica M Vaughan (45:27.689)
Well, that's definitely one of the effects of a sanctuary policy. A sanctuary policy is one that's adopted by a state or local jurisdiction that says that local law enforcement or state law enforcement officers may not cooperate with federal authorities. Because the way most enforcement happens is ICE is focused on arresting people. Their highest priority is

that small share of the immigrant population that has committed a crime. And they are not patrolling the streets. They learn of these people through, because they get the fingerprints of everyone who's arrested and they match it up against the immigration databases. So they will ask a local jail to hold an individual if it is somebody that they want to deport. They have probable cause to know that they're deportable. There's a fingerprint match. They're like,

We have a record that you know, this person is not a legal immigrant So we're going to remove them and they're a priority because they've done time for a rape or whatever so in the sanctuary jurisdictions they Forbid the local police from communicating with ice and so even if I says hey, you've got a guy that we want to remove They will not

respond to ICE and say, okay, a normal jurisdiction would say, yeah, this guy's getting released from jail on January 15th. We'll hold them until you get here because we have this warrant and this, you know, detainer. So we'll, you know, the constitution and federal law allows us to hold them for you. In the sanctuaries, they say, no, we're not lifting a finger. These people are going to be released.

Christopher Balkaran (47:16.836)
Wow.

Jessica M Vaughan (47:19.731)
because it's not our job, we don't wanna get involved with immigration. think immigration enforcement's too zealous. And so people that ICE is seeking to get custody of criminals get released back into the community. And instead of arresting them at the jail, ICE then has to go out into the community and find that person and make an arrest in public, in the community. And these policies...

They say that they're adopted to help immigrants feel protected in the community and so that they won't be afraid of police. But really the practical effect is that criminals are being released back into the community for political reasons. And that's why they're a problem.

Christopher Balkaran (47:57.508)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (48:11.0)
Jessica, you know, the more you explain this to an outsider like me, the more I just keep scratching my head. I'm trying to understand what the rationale behind the policymakers would be. One. And then the second, I'd love to know from you any statistics you have, any research that you have on the impact this has on local communities, because I can imagine this is what's fomenting

not xenophobia, but a really strong what happened to our country, where's our frustration, Correct.

Jessica M Vaughan (48:44.243)
Frustration, yeah, I wouldn't call it xenophobia. It's frustration that things happen because, well, I would say there are variety of motivations for having sanctuary policies. There are many local leaders who feel, they just disagree with our immigration laws and think that we should let more people stay. And so that's...

their motivation. think that immigration laws are unfair or discriminatory or, you know, violate people's civil rights or human rights. And so they just they have the authority that, you know, they tell the cops, you're not working with ICE. I don't think that they're actively seeking to protect criminals. I think that they are unrealistic and uninformed about the effects of their policies. But what ends up happening is that

criminals get released into the community and sadly often reoffend. And there are statistics, enforcement statistics that show that a very high percentage of these individuals will offend again if they're released. That's just the way it is. And there have been some high profile cases of people who have, the one, was a legislation just recently passed by the US House.

in honor of a young woman who was a nursing student in Georgia who was out for a run and was abducted by a Venezuelan man who had come over the border illegally and been released as a parolee. And he had gone to New York, was arrested in New York, and New York is a sanctuary. They let him go. They didn't turn him over to ICE, came down to Georgia in this university town.

Same thing happened. He was arrested for shoplifting and it's a sanctuary jurisdiction. And the local sheriff said, we're not whole, you know, I, you know, go get them yourself. He's allowed into the community and then abducts this woman and kills her. That's the human cost of sanctuary policies that should, you know, I think, as I said, I think earlier, everyone should agree that the highest priority that there should be cooperation on that small fraction.

Jessica M Vaughan (51:06.533)
of the illegal immigrant population that is committing crimes and preying on people. And another justification used is that some politicians believe that immigrants won't report crimes if they think that they might be deported if they're here illegally. But the reality is that victims and witnesses are never targets for immigration enforcement, that you can be comfortable reporting a crime.

Christopher Balkaran (51:23.641)
Right.

Jessica M Vaughan (51:35.656)
and know that you're not going to be subject to deportation. They want to catch the criminal and you can report anonymously or you should just know that they're very clear about the policies, no victims and witnesses. And as it turns out, I did an analysis of our victimization data broken down by citizenship and found that in reality, immigrants aren't afraid to report crimes. They do report crimes.

Christopher Balkaran (52:05.092)
Wow.

Jessica M Vaughan (52:05.545)
even if they're in the country illegally. And so this excuse for a sanctuary policy is just mean it doesn't exist. It's based on a false premise. So, you know, that's, but you know, that's why it boils down to a political policy that affects public safety in a sad way.

Christopher Balkaran (52:26.958)
Jessica, in the few minutes that I have with you, because again, this has been such an incredible conversation, and we're only scratching the surface on many of these topics, but I had this conversation last night with someone about COVID spending here in Canada.

Jessica M Vaughan (52:42.087)
I'm sorry Christopher, I lost you.

Christopher Balkaran (52:44.122)
Oh, did you? Oh, give me one second. Give me one second. Oh, you hear me now? Yes, yes. I think my VPN kicked back in, so I just disabled it. So I was having this conversation with a friend of mine. We were talking about COVID spending right here in Canada to the tune of five hundred and seventy six billion dollars. And it's across 20 to 25 million Canadians who pay income tax.

Jessica M Vaughan (52:48.931)
now I hear you. Yeah, I'm glad you're recording. You can cut that.

Jessica M Vaughan (52:57.405)
Okay.

Christopher Balkaran (53:13.658)
And so I said to my friend who's a researcher, said, listen, I understand it's a pandemic. Government thought they knew what they were doing and they didn't. But where was that sober second thought to say, hang on, we don't know if these new programs are actually going to be effective. Why don't we put some controls in before we say yes and start handing out checks? And the response I received from my friend was they didn't know what they were doing. They threw their hands up. I think most Canadians think that.

And I said, but isn't that very dangerous policymaking? Like there's a certain level of trust we give policymakers because as citizens, we don't know the insides and outs of making effective policy. And as you described sanctuary policy, I feel very similar in that people are saying we need to protect the person who may feel threatened by law enforcement, but at the mercy of the community who now may feel unsafe.

From your experience, what leads to effective influence in policymaking so that all risks are being considered so we don't spiral down these thought bubbles that have large implications for our society as a whole?

Jessica M Vaughan (54:25.257)
That's a tough question, but it's an important one. I think that policymakers need to understand that there shouldn't be any absolutes one way or the other, that there are trade-offs and that you need to decide whose interests are going to be primary. Is it going to be those Americans who are

Christopher Balkaran (54:37.977)
Hmm.

Jessica M Vaughan (54:54.483)
who are disadvantaged by immigration policies because it turns out that they are often people on the margins of society or are the interests of employers going to be the highest priority? it really national security should never be compromised? Neither should public safety. I think that when policies are made based on facts and sound unbiased analysis,

that you can find a way to have a policy that doesn't please everyone, but that expresses your national priorities and the national interest without violating civil rights, without, you know, and that's enforced in a very humane and fair way. And that doesn't tempt people.

to make bad choices to come to the country illegally. That's how you can do it. And that if the public believes that immigration rules are going to be enforced and that we're going, then you can have a legal immigration system that people will support because they don't feel that it's being undermined by allowing illegal immigration. That they'll get behind refugee programs

if they know that you're not just taking anybody who makes what, you know, maybe a frivolous claim for asylum, that you're willing to support some groups of migrants because you're not having to support all of them, that it's sustainable and not disadvantaging citizens in any, to the extent possible. There are always winners and losers, but you want to minimize the losers or at least have the losers be people who are not already

Christopher Balkaran (56:26.424)
Mm-hmm.

Christopher Balkaran (56:33.166)
Yeah.

Jessica M Vaughan (56:47.741)
having a tough time of it.

Christopher Balkaran (56:50.234)
Jessica, I know we're at time and I just want to say that Canada is experiencing some of the issues that the United States has been in the recent years under the Trudeau government who dramatically increased immigration here in Canada, but also increased low skill international students who have taken over many of the lower skilled jobs that the 16 year old, 17 year old Canadian citizen would occupy.

is being taken over by international students. And to your point, I feel many times the international student in this case is the one on the front lines of just bad policy making. We call them coyotes here. I'm sure it's similar to human smugglers who promise the world to these young kids. They come here, you know, and they're doing food deliveries in the dead of winter, January outside. And Trudeau has indicated that he's going to start sending a lot of them back to their home countries.

It's just one of those things where it's just the result of bad policy making and bad policy enforcement.

Jessica M Vaughan (57:53.907)
but good intentions, always good intentions, but not well thought through. And with respect to immigration, often policymakers are really reluctant to admit that there can be a downside to these policies, that there are malevolent actors that take advantage of poorly written policies or unenforced policies, and the losers are the migrants.

Christopher Balkaran (58:20.908)
And Jessica, would love, and through your research, one thing I absolutely loved is this shift away because when I talk about immigration with my friends, it turns into this racism, xenophobia, and it's not intended to do that. It's intended to factually assess what has been effective and what has not been, and the repercussions impact immigrants as much as it does everyone else. I mean, that's the reality. This is actually not the best way forward. How do we mitigate this moving forward?

Jessica M Vaughan (58:42.504)
Yes.

Christopher Balkaran (58:50.402)
I know we scratched the surface, Jessica. can't thank you enough for coming on and sharing your passion with the entire audience. It came through the camera and the mic. So thank you so much for your time.

Jessica M Vaughan (59:00.691)
Thank you for having me, Christopher. I enjoyed our discussion.