Video of event with Michelle Malkin

It went well. The transcript and all videos can be found here. I've embedded my section below. (If you read the transcript or watch the unedited video from Facebook, you'll note a few strange interjections. We were having a problem with the computer screen flickering.)

Panel event with Michelle Malkin

On Friday, March 1, at 4:00 pm at the National Press Club, I'll be appearing on a panel with Michelle Malkin. We''ll be discussing high-skill immigration, and the starting point will be my new report discussed in the previous post. Admission is free, and there will be food provided, so please come.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 26, 2019) – The Center for Immigration Studies will host a panel discussion and reception Friday, March 1 focusing on the impact of immigration on skilled workers and the value of a foreign vs. domestic diploma. The starting point for conversation will be the recent report by independent policy analyst Jason Richwine which compared the skill levels of foreign-educated immigrants and native-born Americans. 

REPORT: Foreign-Educated Immigrants Are Less Skilled Than U.S. Degree Holders
WHAT: Panel discussion on the value of foreign college degrees and the reality behind "high-skill" immigration 

WHEN: Friday, March 1, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. 

WHERE: National Press Club, Murrow Room, 529 14th St NW, Washington, D.C. 

STREAM: Facebook Live 

WHO: 

MICHELLE MALKIN 

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated commentator and co-author of the 2015 book "Sold Out", which explores the effects of current immigration policies on American skilled workers. In the book, which she co-authored with CIS Fellow John Miano, she writes, "There is nothing special about the hundreds of thousands of H-1B visa holders flooding our workforce. Most are sponsored by companies that specialize in outsourcing of U.S. jobs." 

JASON RICHWINE 

Jason Richwine is an independent public policy analyst based in Washington D.C. and the author of the recent report, "Foreign-Educated Immigrants Are Less Skilled Than U.S. Degree Holders." In it, Richwine demonstrates that supposedly "high-skill" foreign-educated immigrants drastically under-perform native-born Americans with comparable degrees in various standardized exams.

Highly-Educated Immigration ≠ Highly-Skilled Immigration

I have a new report out this week with a self-explanatory title, "Foreign-Educated Immigrants Are Less Skilled Than U.S. Degree Holders." Here's the summary chart:

And here's the conclusion:

Although skilled immigration may be desirable, policy-makers must be cautious in using foreign degrees as proof of those skills. This report has shown that immigrants with foreign degrees perform substantially worse than U.S. degree holders on tests of literacy, numeracy, and computer operations. In some cases, the gaps are so large that immigrants with foreign college degrees have skills that resemble those of natives who have only a high school diploma. Although poor English clearly plays a role in the disparity — and a command of English is essential for success in most high-skill occupations in the United States — the disparity persists even among immigrants who have had at least five years to learn English after arriving. 

In Congress, some proposed immigration reforms acknowledge the greater value of U.S. degrees. For example, the RAISE Act would establish a points system for high-skill immigrants that prioritizes U.S. degrees over foreign degrees. It would also go beyond educational credentials by giving extra points for English fluency, STEM specialties, and pre-arranged employment. Ultimately, policy-makers should consider making skill selection even more direct. Universities, the foreign service, and the military have been using standardized testing for decades to evaluate applicants. For example, people who want to do advanced study in important subjects such as biology, chemistry, and physics need to take the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) to demonstrate their knowledge and preparation. Perhaps Congress could integrate similar tests into a truly high-skill immigration system.

Please read the whole thing. 

The threat to English

My first piece for American Greatness is out today. It deals with the issue of language assimilation. A sample:

For decades, immigration enthusiasts have offered conflicting assurances to skeptics who perceive a lack of assimilation among newcomers. Multiculturalism is a great gift to the United States, so why worry? Also, assimilation is proceeding apace, so, again, why worry? The former assurance is generally directed at liberals, and the latter is directed at conservatives, but the underlying point is the same—nothing to see here, just move along. 

Pundits repeated the same assurances last month after Tom Brokaw remarked on how “Hispanics should work harder at assimilation,” and that “they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English.” Despite the furor and his subsequent apology, Brokaw is right to be concerned. When it comes to language assimilation, neither of the standard assurances is convincing.

Please read the whole thing.

Faith in the unelected

I have a new essay out this morning on the power of unelected officials within the government. It grew out of my frustration that judges are invoking "non-partisan experts" in the bureaucracy to strike down White House policies. Here's a sample:

Take Trump’s executive order that disqualified some transgender people from military service. In halting the order (later reinstated by the Supreme Court), a federal judge declared that Trump’s justifications were “contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself.” The judge inferred that Trump must therefore be motivated by illegal “animus” toward transgender people. 

Now, perhaps the military’s studies are rigorous and not motivated at all by political correctness. Perhaps Trump’s new policy is indeed unjustifiable. Nevertheless, the danger here is obvious: The military has effectively vetoed an order by the commander-in-chief. If the military brass is owed such deference, it is easy to see how it could head off interference from the civilian leadership simply by producing a study that confirms its own beliefs.

Read the whole thing at National Review.

The 28 counties where a majority of school-age children speak Spanish at home

It is no surprise to see California and Texas well represented on this list, but look at Kansas, Nebraska, and Washington. Concentrations of Spanish speakers can be found farther north than most people realize.

County, State	Total, ages 5-17		speak Spanish at home, 5-17:		% 5-17 who speak Spanish at home
Starr, Texas	14,649		13,693		93.5%
Maverick, Texas	12,963		11,341		87.5%
Webb, Texas	64,686		54,852		84.8%
Santa Cruz, Arizona	9,665		8,170		84.5%
Zapata, Texas	3,437		2,885		83.9%
Hidalgo, Texas	201,133		157,717		78.4%
Presidio, Texas	1,480		1,143		77.2%
Imperial, California	36,611		26,724		73.0%
Reagan, Texas	818		539		65.9%
Seward, Kansas	5,124		3,353		65.4%
Cameron, Texas	95,782		61,979		64.7%
Hudspeth, Texas	692		444		64.2%
Ford, Kansas	7,240		4,596		63.5%
Ochiltree, Texas	2,408		1,520		63.1%
Kenedy, Texas	124		77		62.1%
Adams, Washington	4,768		2,936		61.6%
El Paso, Texas	168,715		103,833		61.5%
Bailey, Texas	1,530		935		61.1%
Monterey, California	81,463		49,172		60.4%
Val Verde, Texas	9,995		5,978		59.8%
Yuma, Arizona	37,866		22,630		59.8%
Miami-Dade, Florida	397,099		235,932		59.4%
Jeff Davis, Texas	352		205		58.2%
Zavala, Texas	2,636		1,493		56.6%
Colfax, Nebraska	2,249		1,227		54.6%
Franklin, Washington	21,204		11,505		54.3%
Colusa, California	4,411		2,356		53.4%
Titus, Texas	7,007		3,655		52.2%

Source: American Community Survey, 5-year sample, 2013-2017

Just say no to the two-minutes hate

When the media claimed that white Catholic Trump-supporting boys mocked an elderly American Indian at a demonstration, several of my fellow conservatives participated in the two-minutes hate against the boys, fanning the flames of Outrage Culture with over-the-top condemnations.

After the story collapsed, apologies of the “I shouldn’t have rushed to judgment” variety were issued. One could fairly ask why anyone would ever rush to judgment after so many similar reports have crumbled upon further review. But there’s an even larger problem here -- it’s that too many conservatives felt the urge to weigh in at all. Even if the initial reporting had been accurate, it should have been filed away in the vast folder labeled “people being rude at a political protest” and dismissed without comment. By contrast, accusing Catholic kids of having metaphorically “spit on the cross” is about the worst possible response. Joining the pile-on legitimizes the media’s elevation of this inconsequential event and encourages more hysteria in the future.

One might argue that it is “principled” for us to condemn all instances of conservatives behaving badly, while it would be “partisan” or “tribal” to ignore them. No. The principled response to a two-minutes hate is to reject it. Ridicule the idea that any lessons can be drawn from a single instance of some person being rude to another person in a country of 328 million. Oppose all manifestations of Outrage Culture.

Obviously, the media focused on the MAGA-hatted white Catholic boys to bolster the narrative that all four groups – Trump supporters, whites, Christians, and males – are menaces to society. By that standard, however, virtually any political narrative finds support during demonstrations. Indeed, the boys were apparently being harassed by a group of black protesters shouting epithets. In response, should we demand an apology from the NAACP? Conclude that black nationalism is a dire threat? Write think pieces about how whites are oppressed?

I’m not engaging in whataboutism. I’m rejecting the idea that any of these incidents say anything about the broader political situation. They do not deserve our attention, let alone our outrage.