Parsing Immigration Policy

The latest podcast episode from the Center for Immigration Studies highlights recent fieldwork conducted in Colombia and Panama. This episode explores the migration flow through the Darien Gap and examines new developments under Panama’s leadership designed to manage the number of migrants traveling through this dangerous area en route to the U.S. border. Despite these initiatives carrying positive implications for U.S., the U.S. has been slow to provide the diplomatic and financial support promised to the Panamanian government.National Security Fellow Todd Bensman joins the podcast after returning from a lengthy trip to the Darien region. He shares how Panama's newly elected president, who took office on July 1, is working to close the Darien Gap to the massive surge of migrants. This region, a roadless jungle connecting Colombia and Panama, has become a strategic choke point for migrants traveling north to the United States. Many of the migrants come from Venezuela, Haiti and countries with high potential security risks. Last year, over 550,000 migrants made their way through the gap, a significant increase from previous years. So great had the volume become that Panama went from screening 90 percent of those passing through the country for terrorism or espionage before 2021 to less than 3 percent in 2024.Bensman emphasizes that the Darien Gap matters to U.S. national security as it’s a transit point for migrants from over 170 countries, including those of terrorism concern. Panama’s new president recognized this and moved swiftly to set up roadblocks, erect barbed wire, target smuggling networks and more. However, U.S. support, particularly financial backing for deportation flights, has been slow to materialize, allowing the flow to continue.Bensman also delves into the armed militia group that controls critical smuggling routes on the Colombia side of the Darien Gap and speaks about his exclusive CIS interview with the chief of Panama’s National Border Service, Director General Jorge Gobea.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestTodd Bensman is the National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedProgress Report: Has Panama Closed the Notorious ‘Darien Gap’ Mass Migration Route to the U.S. Border as Promised?Exclusive Interview: Panama Border Security Chief Says Many U.S.-Bound Terror Suspects Caught in Darien Gap RegionCIS at the “Darien Gap”, heart of the U.S. Border Crisis?Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new episode of its Parsing Immigration Policy podcast based on a recent Center report, “Sen. Kamala Harris’s Attempted Sabotage of Immigration Law Enforcement”, which examines then-Sen. Kamala Harris’s immigration track record during her four years in Congress. Based on this comprehensive review of legislation that Harris either wrote or co-sponsored, the episode offers key insights into what immigration policies might look like under a potential Harris administration.George Fishman, the Center’s senior legal fellow and podcast guest, says, “If Harris were elected on the same immigration platform she advocated in Congress, her policies would be far more extreme than those of the Biden administration or even the impeached Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. I have never seen anything so extreme.”Fishman discusses radical legislation authored or co-sponsored by Sen. Harris on the border, detention, deportations, asylum fraud, and the handcuffing of immigration enforcement officers – all examples of Harris’s views on immigration policy. In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and the host of the podcast, highlights the recent presidential debate and missed opportunities by both candidates to clearly articulate their views on immigration.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGeorge Fishman is Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedSen. Kamala Harris’s Attempted Sabotage of Immigration Law EnforcementIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Many argue the United States needs to bring in more immigrants to work in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) due to a labor “shortage.” However, data recently obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows little long-term increase in real (inflation-adjusted) compensation for STEM workers. This is powerful evidence that demand for STEM labor is not outstripping supply.Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research, and Jason Richwine, the Center’s Resident Scholar, discuss these findings in their latest analysis, New Wage Data Show No STEM Worker ‘Shortage.’ The two experts join the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast to discuss how the recently received compensation data contradicts a new report released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which again advocates for increased immigration based on an alleged labor shortage. The report overlooks the issue of stagnant wages and benefits, and the role they may play in hindering the recruitment of domestic STEM degree holders.The conversation also touches on the 29 percent of STEM workers who are foreign-born and how this may crowd out Americans from the field, as well as the national security implications of not cultivating a larger domestic tech workforce.In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of the podcast, highlights an upcoming book, Against the Corporate Media – a collection of over forty essays on the decline of the news industry. Edited by Michael Walsh, the book includes a chapter on immigration authored by Krikorian.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.Jason Richwine is a Resident Scholar at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedInternational Talent Programs in the Changing Global EnvironmentNew Wage Data Show No STEM Worker ‘Shortage’Immigrants in U.S. Doctoral ProgramsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A new episode of Parsing Immigration Policy explores Vice President Harris’s role as the “Root Causes” Czar in addressing the U.S. migrant crisis. Discussing Harris’s efforts and their impact are host Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director, and Andrew Arthur, the center’s Resident Fellow in Law and Policy. Key Discussion Points:What are “Root Causes”?Root causes refers to the underlying factors driving migration, including crime, violence, food insecurity, poverty, corruption, and climate change. The Biden administration’s border strategy has focused exclusively on addressing these issues, also called “push factors”, in Central America, as opposed to “pull factors” in the U.S., to reduce the flow of migrants heading to the U.S. border.The Strategy:Vice President Harris has engaged in diplomatic efforts, including meetings with a few Central American leaders and private corporations, aimed at stabilizing the region and creating economic opportunities. However, her focus has been largely on just three countries – Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador – while migration from other regions has increased dramatically.What Was Done?Harris has visited Central America twice since taking on this role: once in 2021, and again in 2022 for the inauguration of Honduran President Xiomara Castro. Despite discussions around corruption and governance, corruption continues to worsen.Challenges and Criticisms:One major criticism of the administration’s approach is the lack of measurable success. While Harris has highlighted investments in Central America, questions remain about how much investment has occurred, how much of this investment would have occurred anyway, and whether it has effectively curbed migration.The Biden administration has not emphasized a policy of deterrence. Without addressing the pull factors – such as the ability to live and work in the U.S., whether illegal migrants are detained or prosecuted, and the existence of formidable border infrastructure – mass migration to the U.S. will continue.A Global Issue:The episode also touches on the broader issue of migration, noting that many countries are experiencing significant illegal flows of migrants. Helping nations develop to a point where migration will no longer occur is a very long-term, and perhaps impossible, solution.Contrasting Success:A notable contrast is seen in El Salvador, where a significant drop in crime has occurred due to internal policies, including the arrest and prosecution of gang members. Despite this success, the Biden-Harris administration has not promoted El Salvador’s approach, raising questions about the administration’s commitment to effective solutions.In his closing, Krikorian highlights reports that Harris has reversed her decision on building more border wall and now embraces it. This talking point resulted from her DNC speech, where she said she would sign the failed Senate border bill, which referred to funding for the wall but provided no new resources. Is she flip flopping?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow of Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedHow Fruitful Have Kamala Harris Root Causes Efforts Been?The Biden-Harris ‘Root Causes’ Strategy, Decoded: Part OneThe Biden-Harris ‘Root Causes’ Strategy Decoded - Part TwoKamala Harris and Feckless ‘Root Causes’ Plan to Secure the BorderThe Spectator World: What did Kamala do to address the ‘root causes’ of migration?The NY Post: Don’t Believe for One Minute Kamala Harris’ Fantasy Pivot on Open BorderIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies’ podcast, Parsing Immigration Policy, focuses on the Center’s updated map of sanctuary jurisdictions, based on data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Joining host Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center, is Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s director of policy studies, who explains her update of the map.The update adds about 170 new sanctuary locations, mostly counties (including regional jails) as well as some cities. Some of these newly listed sanctuaries are in states that prohibit such policies, such as South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, and North Carolina.Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, New York, and Minnesota have seen the most significant increases in sanctuary policies.The Center's updated map is based on ICE's internal tracking, adding information from the document entitled "Detainer Acceptance Tracker – Limited and Non-Cooperative Institutions," obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. The Center’s map is a collaboration between Vaughan and multimedia director Bryan Griffith, and has been used to track sanctuaries since 2015, using ICE information and open sources.Since then, well over 10,000 deportable criminal aliens who were arrested by local authorities for state and local crimes have been released back to the streets due to sanctuary policies, despite ICE seeking custody with a detainer, and a significant share have committed subsequent crimes. For example, in a documented eight-month period during 2014-2015, about 1,800 of 8,000 criminal aliens released by sanctuary jurisdictions were rearrested for committing 7,500 new crimes.“It is alarming to see the continued proliferation of sanctuary policies, especially in places like Virginia,” Vaughan notes, “where ICE has had to use its scarce resources to re-arrest violent gang members and rapists in our communities who were set free by local jails, when they should have been transferred directly to ICE custody for a plane ride home.”Vaughan continued: “Federal and state lawmakers should adopt measures to better ensure that local law enforcement agencies cooperate with ICE, and to penalize those agencies that choose not to cooperate.”In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the Democratic Party’s 2024 immigration platform introduced this week at the party’s convention. The platform embraces the U.S. Citizenship Act, a radical piece of legislation introduced in January 2021, that would have granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the U.S. as of January 2021 and even allowed the return of many previously deported illegal immigrants. This position contrasts sharply with the Republican position on immigration enforcement, setting the stage for an unambiguous policy debate.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedSanctuary MapJustice Department Still Funding SanctuariesAre Immigrants Less Willing to Report Crime?Background and Likely Effects of the Biden-Menendez Amnesty BillThe 2024 Democratic Party PlatformIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Biden-Harris administration expects to resettle more than 100,000 refugees into the U.S. by the end of Fiscal Year 2024 — the highest number in three decades. In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the Center’s Executive Director Mark Krikorian and the Center’s Senior Researcher and refugee expert Nayla Rush discuss how the administration has transformed the resettlement program to reach these high admission numbers. The episode highlights concern about whether the remade program truly helps the most vulnerable, or if the distinction between humanitarian resettlement and ordinary immigration has been blurred.Key topics discussed in this episode include:Executive Branch Role: While the resettlement program is established in law, the president sets the cap on refugee admissions each year, which is now viewed more as a target than a limit.Expansion of Who Is Treated as a “Refugee”: The Biden-Harris administration has effectively redefined the term “refugee,” extending benefits and privileges to individuals who do not meet the traditional legal definition.An Expanded Domestic Resettlement Network: Ten religious or community-based organizations which assist with resettling refugees inside the U.S. maintain nationwide networks of local affiliates to provide refugees with services, including assistance in signing up for taxpayer-funded benefits. The local affiliate number is up from 150 to 350.Modernization of the Refugee Program: Efforts to modernize the program have significantly reduced processing times from years to just a few months, allowing for faster refugee arrivals. In FY 2023, despite a cap of 125,000, only half that number were resettled. However, with ongoing modernization and the introduction of “private” sponsorship, the cap is expected to be met or even raised in FY 2025.Private Sponsorship through the “Welcome Corps”: The administration has introduced the Welcome Corps initiative, allowing private groups and individuals to select their own refugees and future American citizens, bypassing the traditional role of the UN. The “Welcome Corps” was further expanded to include the “Welcome Corps on Campus”, bringing “refugees” straight to U.S. campuses; and the Welcome Corps at Work, bringing them straight to U.S. jobs. There is also a Latin American program and an Afghan targeted program.Concerns and Controversies:Chain Refugee Resettlement: Former refugees sponsoring new refugees, potentially creating issues with accountability and oversight.Private Sponsorship Challenges: Despite being labeled as “private,” the Welcome Corps is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayer funding.Future Expansion under a Potential Harris Administration: Pressure is already being exerted to create a “Welcome Corps” program for Gaza refugees.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestNayla Rush is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedRemaking the U.S. Refugee Resettlement ProgramLatest Biden/Harris ‘Lawful Pathways’ Scheme: Declare Latin American Migrants to be ‘Refugees’Parolees Paroling More ParoleesIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Biden/Harris administration has recently paused the fraud-prone program which allows up to 30,000 inadmissible nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to fly to the United States each month. The suspension of this “CHNV parole program” is the focus of this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, featuring Andrew Arthur, the Center’s Fellow in Law and Policy, and Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director.While the grants of parole (and work authorization) to these migrants – who have no legal right to enter the U.S. – are supposed to last only two years, Arthur notes that “the administration never had a plan to remove these migrants after these two years were over.” Overall, nearly 400,000 unauthorized migrants have entered the U.S. under the CHNV program, likely permanently.Arthur also points out the fraud and other abuses in the CHNV program. For instance, many of these migrants are flying to the U.S. from safe third countries such as Iceland and Fiji. Arthur also points out various problems with the program’s sponsor requirement – “sponsors” are not actually required to provide food or housing for CHNV beneficiaries, and there are many cases of sponsors turning out to be deceased or possessing fake Social Security numbers, raising concern about trafficking.Arthur and Krikorian surmise that the administration is likely pausing the program because they see it as a political liability for the upcoming election, as the widespread examples of fraud became too difficult to hide. Ultimately, the flaws in this program reveal the importance of ensuring that Congress, not the president, has the sole power to make laws pertaining to immigration.Highlights:The Biden-Harris administration’s legal rationale for the CHNV program comes from Congress’s authorization of a narrow “parole” authority, which allows the executive to let in inadmissible aliens under certain narrow circumstances. This administration has abused this small loophole to let in 2.2 million people who have no right to be here.The CHNV program is one of two legally dubious parole programs implemented by the Biden-Harris administration. The other, the CBP One app interview scheme, allows migrants of any nationality to schedule their illegal entry at one of eight ports of entry on the Mexican border.There are currently two ongoing legal challenges to the CHNV program, one in Texas and one in North Dakota.Sponsors of CHNV applicants need not be individuals; non-profit groups or companies can also be sponsors, creating the potential for labor exploitation where employers hold migrants in debt bondage.If the next administration were to terminate the CHNV program, the INA would require all 400,000 CHNV parolees to be detained, making a complete shutdown potentially difficult to implement.In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the ongoing riots in the United Kingdom, sparked by the murder of three British girls by the son of Rwandan immigrants. He describes the riots as symbolic of the broader consequences of Western leadership acting as a “cartel” to prevent changes to immigration policy favored by the majority, leading to societal unrest.

SummaryThis week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy explores the relationship between the cost of illegal immigration and the Biden-Harris administration’s abuse of parole. Joining host Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, are Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s Director of Policy Studies, and George Fishman, the Center’s Senior Legal Fellow.Vaughan highlights her recent report on Massachusetts as a case study of the long-term costs of mass illegal immigration. She asserts that “people have not been focusing on the long-term cost ... and that long-term cost is going to clearly eclipse the [short-term] cost of [migrant] shelters.” Specifically, she discusses how the Biden-Harris administration’s policy of paroling millions of illegal aliens into the U.S. is a “fiscal time bomb”, as many of these aliens will qualify for welfare benefits in the coming years.Fishman explains how the time bomb works: the Biden-Harris administration’s abuse of the parole system interacts with the 1996 welfare reform law, which allows paroled aliens to access welfare benefits after residing in the U.S. for five years – a “parole payday” which Fisman explored in a 2023 report. As a result, over one million aliens paroled into the U.S. since 2021 will start becoming eligible for welfare benefits as early as 2026.To mitigate the burden that mass immigration places on the welfare system, Vaughan suggests that sponsors of parolees should be required to register with the state and thus have their income factored into the decision whether to grant welfare benefits to an alien. Additionally, Fishman suggests that the 1996 welfare reform law should be reformed so that parolees no longer qualify for welfare benefits.In his closing, Krikorian highlights two recent Center publications – a report on the enormous changes the Biden-Harris administration made to the refugee resettlement program and an article discussing one of those changes: the Safe Mobility Office Initiative in Latin America, which is responsible for flying in thousands of people who would not have qualified as refugees in the past. These pieces highlight the administration’s perspective that any foreigner should have the opportunity to come to the U.S., pointing to the crux of the immigration debate: should American immigration policies serve the interest of the American people or foreign citizens?Highlights:The main reason that mass immigration is so costly is that illegal immigrants generally are less-skilled, thus earn lower salaries, and therefore consume large sums in welfare, healthcare, and education while working low-paying jobs.60 percent of illegal-alien households are currently using at least one welfare program.While the goal of the 1996 welfare reform law was to restrict the number of aliens who could access federal welfare benefits, one of its measures allows paroled aliens (technically only aliens who are paroled before entering the U.S.) to receive welfare after residing in the US for five years, creating a “fiscal time bomb.”The requirement that some parolees have a sponsor to gain entry does not reduce the fiscal burden that these migrants place on the welfare system, because these sponsors are not actually responsible for providing any financial support.Fishman speculates that Trump may revoke the parole status should he return to the White House in 2025, but suggests that if Harris becomes president, she would “never in a million years…revoke [these aliens’] parole status.”HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration StudiesGeorge Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedMassachusetts: A Case Study in Mass Immigration and the Welfare StateParole with BenefitsWelfare Use by Immigrants and the U.S.-BornHaitian CHNV Parole Migrant Arrested for Aggravated Rape in MassachusettsRemaking the US Refugee Resettlement ProgramThe Latest Biden/Harris ‘Lawful Pathways’ Scheme: Declare Latin American Migrants to Be ‘Refugees’Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Emma Waters, a Senior Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation, joins Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director, to discuss the recent development of international commercial surrogacy, which creates tremendous potential for immigration fraud and exploitation and poses a national security risk.International commercial surrogacy refers to the process by which foreign nationals contract with surrogates in the United States to have a child on their behalf. While this child is subsequently raised in a foreign country, the child is granted U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth here, making it easier for the parents of this child to eventually obtain U.S. citizenship. This system is unique to the United States, as other Western countries either ban international surrogacy or do not have birthright citizenship.Waters states that international commercial surrogacy is a “situation of immigration fraud as well as a national security risk.” The most common demographic of foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for surrogacy are Chinese men, and thus this form of birth tourism allows children who are raised in China and shaped by CCP influence to obtain U.S. citizenship, posing a threat to U.S. national security.To prevent this form of birth tourism, Waters emphasizes that U.S. immigration laws need to be updated to reflect technological advancements in surrogacy, childbirth, etc. She points to recent examples of nations, such as Nepal and India, which have successfully restricted commercial surrogacy. She also highlights the importance of publishing information surrounding international commercial surrogacy, such as state records regarding the number of surrogacy contracts in each state and the country of origin of the contracting parents.Waters and Krikorian agree that once information regarding the abuses in the international commercial surrogacy industry becomes available, it will be possible for Congress and state governments to take action against this particularly troublesome form of birth tourism.Highlights:The U.S. has no federal laws governing international commercial surrogacy, making it extremely difficult to identify the children and parents involved in this industry.The majority of fertility clinics are in California, and these surrogacy agencies often have deep connections in China.The Heritage Foundation has recently filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking data regarding the countries of origin of contracting parents as well as the number of surrogacy contracts in states such as California.Addressing the problem of international commercial surrogacy ultimately requires “[preventing] foreign nationals from accessing commercial surrogacy in the United States,” but this would require states to forego the financial interest they have in continuing this lucrative industry.Recently, some Republican lawmakers have expressed interest in addressing the abuses of this troublesome form of birth tourism through legislation, focusing on how commercial surrogacy harms American surrogate mothers and places the interests of foreign countries above the interests of American citizens.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestEmma Waters is a Senior Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation.RelatedThe New Face of Birth Tourism: Chinese Nationals, American Surrogates, and Birthright CitizenshipThe Rise and Fall of International AdoptionAmerica’s Rent-A-Womb Industry Lures An Alarming Number Of Chinese NationalsBirth Tourism: Facts and RecommendationsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week, Balazs Orban, a member of the Hungarian Parliament and political director for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (no relation), joins Parsing Immigration Policy to discuss the strategies Hungary has taken to prevent illegal migration despite continuing pressure from the EU.Speaking with the Center’s executive director Mark Krikorian, Orban addresses both the effects on Hungary of the 2015-16 migrant crisis in Europe as well as a recent EU court ruling fining it millions of euros for its strict policies regarding asylum for illegal border crossers.He emphasizes the deterrent effect of Hungary’s policies, asserting that the country's immigration policies were designed to make it so “if you try [to immigrate] illegally you are losing something, not getting something.” Hungary believes maintaining this deterrent effect is a critical aspect of securing its borders, and it has held firm to these deterrent policies despite the massive fines from the EU.Orban concludes by stating that Hungary “does not want to become an immigration-based society,” highlighting Hungary’s strategy of limiting immigration to a few selective guestworker programs while using the state to promote pro-family policies and raise the fertility rate. Such policies, while costly, are crucial in preserving the cultural and demographic heritage of Hungary—a top priority for this small, landlocked central European country.In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the Republican National Convention’s highlighting of illegal immigration and crime. He points out crime rates of illegal immigrants and Americans are not comparable and that every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is preventable and is a result of government policy.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestBalazs Orban is a member of the Hungarian Parliament and political director for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.RelatedMigration Research InstituteECJ Fines Hungary for Violating Asylum LawCIS Report on the Hungarian Border FenceHungary Rejects EU Migrant Quota in 2016While Illegal Aliens Kill and Rape, Bogus Crime Comparisons Still Blunt SolutionsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".