Transcripts For CSPAN Bipartisan Policy Center Discussion On Immigration The 2020 Election 20240714

Also, the differing approaches to the immigration debate and how the approaches have shifted since the 2016 election. We ask that you wait for the q a so people can understand the questions. We invite you the street invite you to tweet along with us. We will have some staff tweeting the event as well. To do a little bit of a scene setter, i am Teresa Cardinal brown. I am the director of immigration and crossborder policy. We have been working on immigration issues since 2013 when our Immigration Task force was formed. Immigration has become a highprofile national issue. Increasingly important to our elections. It is also becoming more partisan as if we had not noticed that. Partisanship is not good for actually solving problems. Pcs job the to find solutions to the biggest problems. None of these issues is more in need of this than immigration. Last year, we conducted a nationwide poll to find out what types of Immigration Reform americans wanted to see. We found there was more Common Ground than is widely imagined. We call this coming ground the new middle. You can find those results on our website at bipartisan policy. Org new middle. We are pretty into the campaign season. The electoral race is well underway. Embers of congress are gearing up for their campaigns. He wanted to get a sense of where American Voters are on this issue now. Particularly whether or not there is appetite for compromise on the issue. We partnered with warning consult to conduct a poll last month on that topic. Do voters want to want their elected officials to work across the aisle . We will be presenting the results of that poll today. Following that presentation, we will have a Bipartisan Panel of experts in policy and politics to talk about the immigration debate. About where they see this going, both as an issue, and how we might get to solve it, but also politically, how will it play in the election, both president ial and congressional . There will be time for q a at the end. Questions as good we go and now, let me introduce our opening speakers. Tyler sinclair is a Vice President at Morning Consult. He has been conducting polls for many years for them. Carolyn five, has been the primary person working on this for us. They will present an overview of the poll results. You have a memo that they did with summaries and the detailed results of the polling are available on our website that for those who would like to get deep into the numbers. I will ask tyler and carolyn to come forward. Thank you. Tyler thank you very much for that, theresa. And thank you all for having us. It is always very exciting to see a group of smart and dedicated people coming together to talk about the issues that are facing our nation. Just so you all know, im going to go over a couple of key points about what we found in of quickand a couple results before i turn it over to caroline to go more in depth with this topic. Just the quick overview of this is we will look at the importance of immigration. When it comes to their vote for 2020. And what we see is overall for democrats, health care is going to be the most important issue for them. Immigration will be most important to the republicans. Looking overall at the desire for compromise in congress, what we will see is while republicans and democrats say immigration is important to them, we see there is a lot of area for compromise when it comes to this topic. Just looking overall, here at the top line results, when we ask voters the top three most important issues to them when it comes to their vote in 2020, what we see is among democrats, health care is a muscle portent issued to them with about 56 saying it is their most important policy issue for them. When we look at republicans for the top three issues, we see that it is immigration at about 54 saying that will be one of the most important issues for them when thinking of how they will vote in 2020. Votersn, when we ask thinking about canada policies and plans overall, the various policies and proposals that candidates put forward, how important is specifically their immigration plan to how you will vote in 2020 . Or how important is that for when you are evaluating that candidate . Overall, registered voters, 80 the immigration plan of a 2020 candidate is very important to them and how they will vote. But i think what is interesting here is when you look at the intensity of this among the different parties, so when you ask that question two democrats, about 40 of democrats say the 2020 immigration plan will be very important to their vote choice. But when you break that out among republicans, it is 63 of republicans who say that will be very important to evaluate in the candidate for them. Like we saw on the prior slide, when it comes to the intensity of this issue, it is much more intense among the Republican Party then it is among the democrats. Just looking at this next topic here, before i turn it over to thisine, is thinking about issue of compromise and what voters are willing to look at when it comes to compromise. What we see is acrosstheboard, 75 or three in four voters say it is important to them that their legislator, their member of Congress Work collaboratively or across the aisle to find solutions to the immigration problem. Only about 20 less than 25 acrosstheboard here, very few people are saying they would prefer their member of congress stick to their principles when it comes to immigration. Strong, broad,ee bipartisan support with 80 of democrats saying they would like their member of congress to be collaborative when it comes to immigration. 75 of republicans. What we have in this next section here that and i will turn it over to, caroline to talk about, some of the specific nuts and bolts of the policy of where republicans rank it in terms of priority when it comes to immigration and how willing democrats and republicans would be to compromise on those specific policies. I will turn it over to caroline to walk through the next couple of data points. Caroline thank you, tyler. Dive into this, i just want to make sure to explain the graph that you all are looking at. Because it can be a little bit confusing at first glance. What we are looking at here is we ask the pup republicans, about seven immigration proposals and we ask republicans taking the survey to rank those proposals in order of importance. The red dots on the screen, those represent the percentage of republicans who rank the proposal to the left as their number one most important proposal. The gang at the screen, you can see 35 looking at the screen, you can see 35 put the wall is our most important priority. We asked democrats about the same republican proposals, but instead we asked democrats how willing they would be to compromise on this proposal in a bill that would also contain their top immigration priorities. The blue dot represents the percentage of democrats who say this is the number one most willing to compromise on policies. For example, 11 of democrats rank that they would be most willing to compromise on the wall. When we are looking at these results, what we want to see is we want to see those dots be closer together in order to find bipartisan solutions. We dont just want them to be closer together, we want them to be further down the access. We want them to matter to voters. Looking at potential for for bipartisanship when it relates to republican policy priorities, we see increasing spending on Border Security is a place where we might be able to get something done. Same time, there are clear barriers to entry when it comes to immigration policy and compromise. We see the most important policy for Republican Voters heading into 2020 is getting a wall built on the southern border. And yet it is not an area where democrats are yet willing to compromise. Now we flip this on its head. We asked democrats to rank democratic proposals in terms of importance and we asked republicans to rank those same proposals on their willingness to compromise on those proposals. Here, for example, 22 of democrats rate providing permanent legal status for those who came to the u. S. As children and are not currently residing legally in the u. S. , known as dreamers, 22 of democrats rank this as their most important policy priority. 20 of republicans are most willing to compromise on that priority. Thinking about where there may be room for middleground, we see dreamers as a place where we might be able to get something done. Time, allowing children seeking asylum at the border to enter the country without fear of a being detained or separated, we see 21 of democrats rank this as their most important policy priority, yet only 11 of republicans rank this as a priority that they would be willing to compromise on. That is an area where there might be less room for bipartisanship. Additionally, you will see the wall is a place prevent preventing the wall is a place at 17 of it republicans rank as our most impotent priority, yet only 8 of republicans would be willing to compromise on the wall. Thank you to bbc for having a spirit i will turn it back over to theresa to talk a little bit more about these results. Theresa as you can see that i press the button wrong . There is some interesting results here first and foremost. Voters want their members to work across the aisle. There still is a lot of room for divide on what exactly the policies are that can get people together. There is some room for compromise. We have a lot more detail on these policy priorities. I do think what this strikes to me is that sometimes i think the framing of the conversation in the National Debate has been very black and white. I see that particularly in the discussion about the wall and order security. The wall has become some bollix, it has become has become some bollix symbolic. I see thati think were in a mow where the issues have been framed by the leaders and the politicians and in the press has led to increasing divisiveness. It does not reflect underlying views of some of these issues. One of the questions we have Going Forward and hopefully our panelists can talk about it is how is the public framing of these issues impact where voters are and the ability to get things done on the issues . We are very much looking forward to our panel. With that, i will welcome priscilla to the stage. She is a reporter at cnn politics covering embers immigration. She joined at cnn this year, previously she was at the atlantic. She has also worked out washington magazine, has been on tv and all the networks you imagine she would be on. We are very happy to have her moderate the panel and she will introduce them as they come up. So thank you. Priscilla thank you. Good morning, everyone thanks for having me. I first want to bring up casey higgins. Ofey has nearly a decade experience in the u. S. House of representatives. Most recently with the office of the House Speaker paul ryan as assistant to the speaker for policy and trade council. In that role, casey was responsible for advising the speaker and the Republican Leadership on a number of matters including immigration. She is a fellow at the bipartisan policy center. Next i want to bring up stephanie valencia. She is the cofounder of a organization that invests in leaders. An idea that will create a more powerful and active electorate. Stephanie is among a small group of advisers who served president obama in senior roles through his president ial campaign in both terms in office. She also served in leadership roles for a number of lawmakers on capitol hill. Next i want to invite kevin madden. He is the executive price Vice President at arnold ventures, one of the nations leading philanthropic organizations focused on delivering Public Policy reforms at the federal, state, and local level. Kevin also served as a senior strategist and spokesman on the three president ial campaigns from 20042016 including the 2012 romney campaign. He is also on the Advisory Board of the policys interaction. Moran, the director of immigration and has been with Organization Since its foundings. She has 20 years of experience of implementing immigration policy. Tyler previously served as senior policy advisor to senator harry reid. She also served as the deputy of policy director for immigration at the white house to mastech policy council under obama. As you can see, our panelists here have an extensive background in immigration policy. We should just jump right into the conversation. I first want to start with reflecting on the survey results that we that were presented to us. If you want to start, casey, what stood out to you and those results . Casey it has been interesting over the past year or so how much immigration in general has become a more important issue for republicans. Think that is part of donald trump bringing a lot of attention to the issue. But it has been interesting to watch our new candidates that come up, members that are getting up and giving speeches, this is think that is part of dd trump bringing a lot of attention to the issue. Included in every single one of those speeches and all of those introductory statements to the public about why these people want to be or continue to be representing them at congress. That shift in the Republican Party in terms of the importance of immigration has been surprising to watch. But also i think it can be helpful in trying to get something done on the legislative front. Stephanie for me, as i read through the more detailed questions last night, what really stood out to me were two things. One, the digging in on the wall, which i just do not understand it. I think republicans at one point where the party of fiscal conservativism. Now they are the 20 billion wall that will be ineffective, waste of resources, largely folks do not think it will work but for some reason, the symbolism of it is so viscerally important to republicans and to conservatives. Thendly, as we looked at substance of what people are willing to agree on, i think the notion that people want their members of congress to Work Together across the aisle, and when you get into the substance of what an immigration policy conversation should be about, you actually see theres not too and there is a lot of willingness to compromise on things like ilLegal Immigration and Border Security on both sides of the aisle. Once you take the wall out of the conversation, that gave me great hope. That is not the National Conversation we are having today. Aslot of willingness to comprome on things like ilLegal Immigration and Border Security on both sides of the aisle. We were talking about before, there used to be a world in which the most controversial part of immigration policy was getting business and labor into a room to negotiate what future flows would be. I would love to live in that world again, because i actually think we can probably be more closer to compromise on some of the substantive stuff. Kevin i would love to live in tt world on the product of immigration, both my parents were born in ireland. Im first generation american. I look to this as an irishman. But upsets over the bad stuff in it. Obsess over the bad stuff in it. With this data and other data ive seen about but upsets overe bad stuff in it. What is driving and shaping partisan worldviews, and for me, i think it demonstrates that you have republicans and democrats with entirely different worldviews looking at this issue. That is one of the huge challenges we are going to continue to have. They say men are from mars, women are from venus. This is republicans are on mercury and democrats are on pluto when it comes to this. They are very far apart. Even though the pole does show glimpses of hope where the numbers align together, the details matter very much. Ultimately, the political process and the legislative process are very far apart. The intensity of the most vocal minorities on this issue i think continue to drive the politics of it. That continues to be a challenge. Tyler i totally agree. We have done a ton of polling. The American Public has supported everything from path to citizenship to humane treatment, acrosstheboard, the public has been there. The problem is now our lawmakers are not there and it is because when you look at the polling where it shows what is important to the American Public, health care and the economy are always going to be top of mind. In our polling, it is for well. Icans as when you have this small minority within the Republican Party that sees immigration as their top issue, they are the loudest. For the republicans who want to stick their neck out and do things in a bipartisan way, they get slammed. Immigration is important to them. There is not a reward when they stick their neck out. Because it is not the top issue for most people. They agree with it, support it, but there are consequences for doing they are not consequent as for doing the wrong thing. Priscilla we did see that acrosstheboard. More motivating issue for republicans than democrats. What does that mean for Democratic Candidates . Both running for president but also for congress . Can they break out in any particular way . We did some palling and it was of swing voters in battleground states. What we saw is people are turned, off by family separation, they are fed up with the rhetoric and policies coming out of this administration, that they support Humane Solutions but they do not know where democrats stand. 30 of voters knew very well what democrats did for. It is as simple as people coming forward and saying i want to solve the issue. And then using their humane and responsible words. I think one, i think as it relates to how democrats in the conversation on the left. We have fallen into this trap around the wall versus open borders. That is a false narrative. Yes, democrats want Border Security. Yes, democrats want Immigration Enforcement. When you have a conversation or narrative around abolish ice, what that means is lets not have Immigration Enforcement but lets be fundamental but lets find a mentally rethink when we see kids in cages and there is an entire profit system that is being driven to put people behind and to apprehend people. There profit motivation behind that. We have to question what our system is built on and how we do that. There is not at all a conversation on the left about zero Immigration Enforcement. We have to make that absolutely clear. I think we have been very willing and having worked with president obama from 20092014, we took a lot of flak. I have the scars to prove it. From the left on where we are willing to compromise on Border Security and the multiple iterations of Immigration Reform that we attempted and tried, and obviously that is being played out on the left now. The enforcement record is being deeply critiqued. My question has always been to republicans which is one will Border Security be enough . What is that marker that we can actually compromise between the left and right . In the past, it has felt like aving like there has been conversation that continues to evolve and change and we can negotiate our way, democrats will never be able to negotiate our way to the table doing enough Immigration Enforcement. That is literally the conversation we are having to live the reality with now, that we worked really hard to show that we could enforce the border, that we are willing to make the investments and ultimately, that is playing out in a challenging way on the left right now. Priscilla kevin, is there something republicans have figured out and getting their message across and coalescing behind it Border Security in a way that democrats have not nailed down their message . Kevin they have figured out from a base motivation this is an issue where when you look at the issue about some of the what i call poppy and ice cream questions like do you want your member of congress to compromise and come to Common Grounds with democrats . Yes. When you look at the intensity of where the voters are, it is more of a cultural issue for a lot of these voters. For them, it is not about compromise, it is doing battle with what they perceive as an outofcontrol left open borders. When you say what have they found out . They want to tap into that intensity. For many republicans, this is it used to be when i was on the hill, we used to turn this into an economic debate. And a debate about security. But this is much more of a debate now for republicans and you see the president wages this battle every day. It is a cultural battle. Us versus them. Be and theused to way we are going. Make America Great again. That is a very motivating factor in how republicans use it to add up their base. What i would say to that is shortterm, that may work for republicans. Longerterm, you guys have to have a longer game here. I think at the end of the day, there are 32 million latinos who will be eligible to vote in the 2020 election. Which is to say, obviously, immigration is not a monolithic issue in the Latino Community either. I grew up on the u. S. Mexico border. It is complicated in a place like new mexico and arizona. But you are also seeing 32 million hispanics who will be eligible to vote in 2020 and that number radically increasing over the next decade and those attack by thisr president. Whether they are 10th generation immigrants like me or their parents just came six months ago. So i think this conversation, while it is pulled to the right by donald trump, i just urge republicans in the same republicans who are left to remember there is a whole universe of latino voters that you are at risk of alienating. That was a sugar high too. Demographic trend lines it is going to happen. The other thing is you look at one of the most powerful political coalitions right now that helps win National Elections and maintains majorities in the house of representatives. It is suburban voters that look at this issue as an economic issue, they also look at it as a values issue. They see increasingly the big worry i would have is a republican is that this is a party that seems out of step with a lot of those voters that make or break whether or not you keep the majority of republicans. 100 . When we pulled suburban polled suburban women, immigration was a big issue. His alignment with trump on family separation was more of a reason to vote against them then kc support for open borders and sanctuary cities. Priscilla if you remember kevin if you remember, they sold it for three weeks. Every republican has convinced themselves that this is going to energize our base and it will be good for us. What they forgot is it turned off a huge swath of voters. Mile radius around phoenix suburbs, philadelphia suburbs, pittsburgh suburbs, columbus, ohio suburbs, orlando, that is the whole ballgame for a lot of these majority makers speak seats. They turned off a lot of voters with that issue front and center. Priscilla what does this look like in writing . As we saw from the results, they are looking at immigration platforms, but particularly republicans are looking at for them it is very important what that platform says. What does it mean for the platform . Casey i think one of the issues of Border Security is not necessarily what is enough Border Security . And throughout the debates in congress over the last several congresses, it goes back to the fact that a 1986, we didnt get the Border Security we were promised. The question is not necessarily what policy would equal enough of it . But how do we ensure it actually happens . We went through this one obama was president because the question was how do you ensure that all these metrics on the border are actually met . How do you ensure that we secure the border . Understanding we did the amnesty in 1986. We know we will have to do that again but we want to make sure we get the Border Security we are promised. That narrative has moved through even as recently as last year. The idea of these triggers. Linking the two together to figure out how you get that. I think for the most part, republicans are willing to compromise on the dreamers particularly no special path. On the dreamers particularly. No special pathway. That is something that is important to them the fairness issue is not about it is more about being fair to the Legal Immigration system as well. Youve got many people online who have waited their turn. It is, ok, we will have you stay, but how do we figure out how to do this without giving you something that those people that went through the process the right way are at a disadvantage . I think there is middle ground to be found on this. In theo think both sides past couple years have gone to their corner. And the question is, can you ultimately overcome that to find a middle ground . I think it exists. I think i am the Eternal Optimist on this issue. At some point, the rubber is going to hit the road and we have to do something. Last year tooint do a border daca deal. As toxic as the wall is toitically, tyler can speak this, the compromise that got there was throwing a bunch of money at the wall at the border, i should say. The wall is kind of that at the end of the day. I think it is more symbolic than it actually is a policy specific policy issue. We are doing some things. We can do all that. That is where we have landed. I think it is symbolic. I think there was a place to go in interioras not forstmann which gets really day. At the end of the with a doctor border thing, lets start here and build out. We were not ready to do that. Republicans didnt know if they supported it. Democrats were trying to navigate how to deal with the president , given his day. With a doctor border thing, lets start here and build out. Rhetoric and given the frustration that people feel because of how he speaks about immigrants. We havent gotten past that yet. Republicans still dont know for sure what we support from a policy perspective. I think democrats are still struggling with how to deal with a president that they feel is personally targeting them. That will be the difficulty, more politics than the policy. Priscilla this goes to the public framing that theresa alluded to. Particularly with Border Security, how does that influence, how was it talked about on the hill . We have seen the packages for Border Security but then again, i talk to republican representative mike roger yesterday. One of the points they were talking about in a briefing with the acting department of Homeland Security secretary was the wall. They wanted an update on the construction of the wall. How do they bridge that . I think tyler made a good point earlier. It is very interesting about the fact that we have been funding the wall. We have been making progress in that front where we have not necessarily been making progress on the other side. I think it is interesting in january of 2015, House Republicans tried it to bring a Border Security bill to the floor. Onlyhat bill was frankly, homeland jurisdiction. In the immigration world, you have judiciary that tells all the interior enforcement stuff that is very toxic to democrats in this debate, and on the other site, you have Homeland Security who has the actual border infrastructure. We ended up pulling that bill because we didnt get into some of the other things. I think the point tyler made was interesting because we have been making progress on the border infrastructure piece. We have not been making progress on some of the other things that are very valuable to republicans. It has been missed in this whole debate. Buildups been a massive of border infrastructure. They did not say wall, they did not say agents, they said we want technology. Fine. Drones, whatever it is. They need that technology for reasons other than people for drugs, smugglers, traffickers. We needs to be injected in the conversation is the issue of accountability with border control, the issue ever response ability, the issue of governance. It has been a onesided enforcement focused on people. We have lost sight of the fact that our ports of entry need to be fixed, we need to be focusing on people who are bringing drugs into the country. This is not asylumseekers and people that are crossing the border for a better life. In the past, democrats have been coming to the table on Border Security. With the family separation crisis, it was a game changer. It was like a light bulb went off in democrats heads of oh, all this money we are giving them, this is how we are they are using it . It will not be the same starting point as 2013. This president has fundamentally changed how we need to look at those agencies, what they do and how they are held accountable. Priscilla kevin, do you want to jump in . Kevin i agree with. All that the other thing we are missing is bipartisan compromise. Border security is not just about building a fence or a wall or doing with technology and using drones. Part of the problem is the fact that Legal Immigration does not work. If you can fix the Legal Immigration system, you will relieve pressure on the borders. High walls, why gaetz is how we talked about this before donald trump even started using the term wall. The idea is the economic immigrant can come in the front the drug can focus on smugglers and other actual bad actors along the border. The other thing is we need to figure out how to deal with the northern triangle and how to help improve the situation, so that people are not taking this treacherous journey to our borders. The legalxing immigration system and trying to do more in foreign aid one way or another to help the situation kevin i will make one quick point to bolster those points. I think the one time where we saw this white house capitulate and give a win to their opponents and critics on this was during the family separation crisis. It was probably last year. In the most important ingredient to that change was the fact that for once, all the noise in washington, we left the legislative process, the one everybody inand the country, including everyone in washington, turned their attention, their cameras, their pens and pads, down to the living proof and personal impact of the policy chaos washington was creating. And everybody said this is an efficient, this is wrong, this is bad, its not helpful. For folks that are looking to advance stronger immigration policies and compromises, that is a very important lesson. The process on the legislative what i always call the motion to recommitment mentality in washington, d. C. Where you think everyone is glued to their cspan, watching this minute by minute on the floor. They are not there they are going about their lives. They are dealing with the impact of how policy impacts their bottom line. Importantally advancement. Priscilla i did see you shaking your head about Legal Immigration. I find that interesting because it is a conversation that needs to be had. And it is somewhere where democrats have not made a footprint yet. Stephanie its both Legal Immigration and how we think about interior enforcement. I think on the Legal Immigration side, we need we need the balance between business and labor. I would love to be in that posture again where that is the most controversial thing we are worried about. This question of high skill versus low skilled labor, that is a really important conversation for us to half because going back to the economic argument, this country cannot exist and will not survive without immigrant labor, high skilled and low skilled labor. That is our reality. That, we have to think about Immigration Enforcement and accountability for employers. Not just the people who came across illegally, but the people who hired them and gave them a job. When we have an issue like the mississippi raid that happened in august where dozens and dozens of undocumented immigrants were deported from a chicken Processing Plant in mississippi, but no employers were, that is a problem in our immigration system. We need to make sure there is that dual balance. Democrats are not saying that there should not be Immigration Enforcement for people who dont follow the rules. Because we would have to reestablish what the rules should be in a clear way so people want to follow the rules. As long as we have employers who are willing to hire them without consequence, thats a problem too. And that is creating a Magnetic Pull for people to come to think that they can come and work in places like that with no consequence. Priscilla is similar question to what i posed, how does that look in writing . When we are watching the debates, many times they say we will do the opposite of trump. And that is typically the fallback line during these debates on immigration in particular. How do they convey their mission their message on ilLegal Immigration which is important for immigrants who are in this country as well. Stephanie it is getting away from the noise. So long as we are in this political environment where these two poles and it is being led by that person who lives at 1600 pennsylvania avenue giving us space to have this conversation. It will be very hard for us to get to the substance of what we can actually do in a real bill. The last thing i would say is i think part of our challenge is not just the rhetoric but how the rhetoric gets amplified. If we remember in 2018, and again this is about the environment we are creating that echo chamberbe an for how we are creating these poles, in 2018, misinformation around immigration was huge. There were false images that were being circulated by that became this Snowball Effect around how the right was getting jen doubt for the 2018 election p i guarantee we will see that continue to happen in 2020. Especially in moments where trump will be under pressure another issues. We may see a pivot back to immigration whether or not it is in the news or not, to create a foil and a on an issue that he knows will get people excited and focused on something else. I think we need to be very aware of what the externalities are creating and continuing to snowball this conversation and take it into different directions. I think the conversation in the Legal Immigration is critical to talking about solving a path to citizenship. When you can describe to the American Public, it should not take 20 years to bring your Family Member here. We have a system for a 1980s economy. The type of workers we need cannot legally come to this country. There just are not legal means for most people to come here. If we can have that conversation and fix that system, it helps people understand, they dont choose to come here without papers, they dont want to break the law. These are things people think. They come here because they want to be with family, they want a job, or they are fleeing for their life. You have to pair those together. Tot is why it has been hard dismantle comprehensive Immigration Reform because pathway to citizenship are critical and have to go together. It was part of the failings of 1986. This was in the morning polling, this question of do we revert to strictly meritbased system and walk away from our familybased system . Voters dont necessarily are not committed to completely not being in support of a family immigration immigration anymore system anymore. I thought that was an important point. I think there is this assumption based on what we have seen coming out of the white house that there is largescale republican support for just the meritbased system. What i saw in the Morning Consult stuff is that there was far more nuance about that then we might think. Priscilla i want to get to come brands of Immigration Reform because it is tied into these elements. Before i do that, we are in the midst of a president ial election. It will be our focus for the next few months. That aside, how does this play out for democrats who are running in their states . How does it play out at the state and local level . And how do they relay these messages . And also for republicans. Casey it will be a howl of a you will have a dock decision and we all have a sense of how that will go. Middlethat bomb in the 11 Election Year i think is going to be really interesting. Priscilla i want to clarify for anyone unaware, this is sitting before the Supreme Court and we anticipate the decision will come down in the throes of the election. Casey probably early next year. The encouraging part from my perspective on the republican side is this is an issue but republicans are willing to address. The public is willing to address. They are looking to ensure that we get some Border Security in exchange for that. How you talk about things in the middle 11 election cycle is highlevel, you are not getting into detailed policy. I dont think congress will be able to get into detailed policy in the middle of an Election Year on this either. There will be a lot of talk about how to compromise on this issue and to ensure there is a way that these individuals who have come when they were younger through no fault of their own, are able to stay and thrive as americans. I think most of them feel like they are americans. I dont see us having any rand policy that is reached in an Election Year and i dont think you will hear a lot of specifics from candidates either. Priscilla what does this mean for the democrats who split their districts, poorer senators who may be in districts or senators who may be in districts like that . Tyler the reason why we focused on swing voters in battleground states is to prove that you can talk about immigration and those districts. You dont need to run away from it. It is a problem when voters say they dont know who to trust and they dont know what a democrat stands for. That is an opportunity to step in and say we are not for kids cages, we in are for accountability in our enforcement system. Those are words that resonate with voters. To be thelike it has top issue in some of these districts. Democrats have to have a response of not only what they are against, but what they are for. Latino voters in particular, while we are not a monolith when it comes to the issue of immigration, immigration was the number one issue. Usually even among hispanics, you see education, health care, the economy as their primary issue. At the height of everything that has been happening in this other ring of the community, whether you are here for 10 generations or just got here, is starting to resonate and set in with the latino voters in a way that is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. What is interesting as i come aom southern new mexico, democrat flipped a district, and it is in a unique and challenging place where the argument will have to be more nuanced because she is on the border. You go to a place like wisconsin and michigan in the latino voters who are there are much more recently arrived. So they have a more of an experience and a lived experience of being recent immigrants, feel very much under attack. Places like wisconsin and michigan that are battleground states in different ways see the issue of immigration differently. Again, it is one of those issues that both democrats and republicans need to be super nuanced and how they talk about it but should not be running away from it and should be driving toward how they will build toward Real Solutions in a real conversation post from. Priscilla for republicans who may be worried about their seats, how does this dynamic play into the way they may relay their message on immigration when their head of the party has strong rhetoric on the issue . Kevin i think it does put them on defense. You are working on a campaign, particularly a Congressional Campaign or senatorial campaign, the one thing you want is control. You want to control your message, control your outreach to voters, the new cycle. News cycle. What happens is they be looking to promote priorities that are not with immigration not being on the center pier they may want to talk about how the economy is growing, agriculture in their district or manufacturing. Trade is very big in some of these districts. Being tough on china. Thats what they want. In the 24 seven news cycle that is driven by one persons 280 character twitter feed, a lot of this stuff gets dropped on them and they are forced to be very reactive on this issue, versus a being front and center to how they want it promoted. And tyler stole my line which is they are forced to be against something versus for something. The most persuadable voters on voters onswingyest this, they vote on a lens of a value. And you are against something, not for something, that turns them off. That is one of the big challenges for these voters. How they talk about the issue is oftentimes dictated by one person and that is the president. Priscilla again, recognizing that it is an election time, so there is not a lot of legislation moving through congress, or at least comprehensive Immigration Reform. Within the context of impeachment inquiry now, we are still seeing bills with among republicans and democrats that are trying to make tweaks to Border Security, make tweaks to Legal Immigration system. They try tohan not, lump them together. What is the future of comprehensive Immigration Reform and should we be doing it in a more piecemeal way . It is the milliondollar question. It is fascinating to me, in 2013 and 2014, the last time we gave this a real run, you couldnt for democrats, it had to become brands of. For republicans, they wanted piecemeal. Those were the two buzzwords. When we were talking about doing something in the house, it was a piecemeal approach where they moved a bunch of bills in one counter nd that to as tyler said, it is so hard to separate these issues because they are our they are all interrelated. Last year when we were can you we do a daca border deal . We have to address Border Security. We have to talk about that. And it starts to snowball and before you know it, you have a bigger policy than you thought you were going to have. It is also interesting to me that democrats in the house have been moving pieces in a piecemeal fashion. They moved the dream bill, other smaller scale things. They are looking at worker legislation. Its piecemeal, it is not in one big piece of legislation. The question is, can you translate a solution at the end of the day . Something that. Is actually going to become law can you translate something that is going to become law. Can you translate that . It is very difficult to do because of the interconnectivity. What we have seen is instead of copper hints of giving everyone something to vote for, a reason to vote for this, it has given people enough reasons to vote against it. It has been a bigger problem in the house from my perspective but i think we are going to have to navigate that and i think if we can break certain pieces off, start doing a dream and daca, and pairing legal proimmigration piece with more of an enforcement piece, it might work. Tokind it kind of remains be seen with the political dynamics are. Priscilla you were working on a bill. Tyler i think we need to break apart that whole we have tried it that a bunch of times, it didnt work. I thought it was such a good bill, i was proud of the work we did, to put a bill out and to work with folks on the hill. After this administration, it is not the structure anymore. If you think of what has broken in the administration in the immigration system, we need to reform the Legal Immigration system. We dont need interior enforcement. On the border, i know it holds well but we need to make an argument so much has been done on the border, it has been an entire buildup. We spend more on this country on Immigration Enforcement than all Law Enforcement agencies combined. There is an insane amount of money that has gone so we cannot enter into a debate seeing these as equal. Myt is what we have to in mind, what i thing about, border and legalization, i dont know. It is not the same as it was in the past, given the buildup. I think the comprehensive approach is not going to work anymore. These three things of Legal Immigration and path to citizenship are all so tied together in the and the impact one another. They have to be done in succession. We need a new framework that fundamentally gets to the roots of the problem and tries to tackle what the roots of the problem are. What tyler laid out are three of those things. Lastwe have seen over the almost 15 years of trying to pass different iterations, we have seen things die by their own weight. It is always this carefully itstructedlike jenga, and brings these people to the table but then we lose these people. I think people dont want what we have always tried to do but something that will answer this moment in time. That is true for the left and right. On enforcement or in response to what they feel is a lack of accountability on the enforcement system. And their rights call for more security and enforcement at the border. It is in response to what they feel they are seeing coming across. We cant just build walls and not think about why are people coming . It is because of who is hiring them here, or the challenges and realities that they are facing in their home countries. It has to be a new framework that we have operated from in the past. At the same time, it will be a mesh of a number of Different Things together. I think Everybody Knows that we are in a new era, in a new moment in time, and we need to have answers that actually respond to the core things we are doing. Kevin the moment in time observation is the right one. Order to . Brands of legislation together, you have to have a white house that has a very short framework of principles, knowing exactly what they believe in and why. You have to have a legislative strategy that is locked down and in concert with your allies on capitol hill. You have to have a political plan to build a broader coalition of public support and you have to know where you are going to compromise. To have all three of those things. Even if you have all three of those things, it is really hard. They dont have anything compared to that. They dont have any of those elements together right now. To have all three of those things. Even if you have all three of you also have an instinctual the instinct which is to use this as a political cudgel when it most suits a 24 second news cycle. Are just notts there for something, hence of. You also have anpriscilla we ht thispriscilla we have talked at this earlier, the rule that role that daca plays. If they end up striking down its interesting, it is not only Division Among Republicans and democrats, but there are divisions among republicans and among democrats. We have seen that play out over recent months. You have been speaking to the progressives. Youve seen how some democrats, some really did not want to vote for the bill while others did. How do you even bridge within the party . I think we have to have a real conversation and as tyler has talked about a number of ways, what are we for . Who all19 candidates have different plans, a think only seven or eight of them have legit plans. We dont have a leader of the Democratic Party right now. To help bring us together about what is possible and what we can get done. As we continue to see the field narrow, we will have to hone in on what we will before. I think those key issues around Immigration Enforcement and accountability around Immigration Enforcement is a conversation that we have to get really specific about what that means and not just say cant we cannot just say we will abolish ice because that is not an answer. We have to think about where are we willing to compromise on Border Security . Kevin, giving your asked given your extensive experience on president ial campaigns, what resonates with voters on the issue of immigration . Kevin first and foremost, and we saw this in the polling, people do want a sense that we are a secure nation and then there is and enforcement of laws. On the same part of this, on the same side of that on the other side effect going, side of that coin, both stephanie and tyler have mentioned this, we need a modernization of our current laws. We have an immigration system that is essentially the same the one we have been operating since the turnofthecentury. Demographics have changed, the economy has changed. But our laws have not. This idea that it is old, inefficient, not working, unfair in many cases, ways very heavily on voters. Speaking to that and building a more efficient and more modern, forwardlooking immigration system that is consistent with our values, and secures our borders and grows our economy, that is the key message. For candidates, it is resisting the allure of the vocal minorities, and speaking to that broader value base voter that makes or breaks whether or not you win in some of the states. We have had a lot of missed opportunities and ive witnessed a those in missed opportunities those missed opportunities. I think the demographics will help me win that argument one day. But that is where we are right now. Priscilla there are some places we may think around the country, like the border states, but where might we not where might we not be thinking about this . One,ban voters was agriculture communities. I also think michigan and wisconsin. I talked about how there there are in more newly immigrated communities whose kids are u. S. Citizens and they will vote in their first election and their parents may be undocumented or may have mixed status families. Latino voters, many latino voters i will say, have people that they know or have Family Members who are stuck in the system in some way. Either they have been waiting for visas, they have a friend who is undocumented. A lot of how they will view this issue is through that. Latinos will play a Critical Role and bat in battleground states like arizona, wisconsin, michigan, north carolina. Those are new places that largely, democrats and republicans have fought for the White Working Class with a specific narratives on this issue. My point is we cant just do large andlienate a growing part of the electorate in the states who is affected by this issue. I think ag is also and a time where in you have the economy doing so well, unemployment is so low, businesses in general, from an ag perspective, they have a lot going on. You look at dairy farms in wisconsin, they are fighting these trade issues and on top of that, they feel like they cannot get the word they need. For dairy in particular, they dont have a program they have any more. Its not seasonal. They are milking cows all year round. I had a family friend of ours who said if you want to buy farmland in wisconsin in the next couple of years, this would be the time to do it. Dairy farms and farms in general are hurting so much right now. The kids that used to take over the family farm, thats not happening anymore. Ag is a place you will see this very pronounced. H2 v has been a big issue with landscapers and construction workers. On top of that, just a general low skill. There is a frank there is a pizza pals that has been closed because they cant find workers. It has been an institution since the 1950s. Always packed, its closed because i cant find the workers. With the economy doing as well as it is, as unemployment is as low as it is, you will see that play or from a business perspective. Priscilla now we will turn it over to audience questions. I think we have a mic that will be running around. Mic runner. Go ahead. Hi. I actually have two questions. Spend when you said we more on enforcement on the border, did you mean federal money . Tyler yes. Migration policy institute put out a good report. It was in 2013, im sure it is even more skewed. It just seems astounding unless you look at the federal money. Focuss the other is the on limiting the proposals to limit lowwage worker migration, or to focus more on high skill, as i have understood, the economics and need for immigration across the spectrum, it just seems like it is at best, elitist and at most, racist. Is there a valid policy reason for that approach . Are talking about within the Republican Party, they are definitely two different schools of thought on whether more immigration were less immigration is a good thing. I come from a very freemarket perspective on this and i think we should bring in labor to meet the needs of the economy. There is another wing of the party that has concerns about the effect that has on americans next it has on american wages and other issues and i think that part of the party has become more dominant in recent years, it can help our economy and help america. If we were free market. It doesnt feel like it lately. Anyone else have a question . I have two questions in my first is for the wonderful discussion about policy. Personally, i believe no one in our country care throughout policy anymore and only cares about politics which Means Nothing can havent. My other pieces about asylumseekers. We have talked about people coming from the southern borders. Asylumseekers or want to have a better life. There are people leaving their andtries because of danger i dont see our country talking very much about if responsibility to help asylumseekers and if there is any contingency for that is all . Last night, we have some breaking news that the state department has proposed that the ceiling be 18,000 which is a new historic low. Drop from they a want toministration, so add some context to that question and i will turn it over to the panelists. I agree and we told moderate voters that people should have a right to come in for some. The problem is the president has and hasuge microphone labeled them as criminals. And drug smugglers. These people are coming from the most dangerous vices in the world and now the administration has shut the door. He is saying that if they go through other countries. I hope more candidates talk about this issue. People have a right to apply for asylum. We know when there is abject poverty, we need to help invest in those countries and buildup those infrastructures. People that fear for their lives should be able to do it. Theres a long history in that america and mexico why folks are coming. Safe,ople dont feel there are drugs and gangs that have created conditions in those countries that are pushing people to want to come to the united states. That has been lost in the conversation and the united , how do wemerica have a conversation about that and where it relates to how we to createting conditions that are going to create better jobs and better security in those countries . It is not just the southern border. About all the people who are dying. What happened to america question mark this is the push and pull, who are we as a country, what was our system sounded on. People felt like they could come to the country to create a better life for themselves because they feel safer and it was the right argument to be made, but who goes down the street and says, how much did contribute to the Economy Today . At the end of the day this is about people. Is your contribution as good as contribution . At the end of the day, this is about people facing real challenges that we have to remember that we have to decide to liveoing to continue out that . Will say i will say as being on many Congressional Committee hearings on many hours , what is interesting now is we are seeing this decline and it is very much a bipartisan issue for a long time. What do you make of that . I think there has been a lot of rhetoric that has changed look at things and it is unfortunate. Back in the bush years, there are a lot issues around the world and the other thing that was frustrating is the state department in the partners they use, that pipeline was safe. In my head to the purse attacks in some of the things that ultimately led to the sense that bringing in refugees was not safe. That was the state department. The people that get to come to america because of how strict our system is are vetted to the and there are very specific qualifications to make sure you have people that are not going to be a Security Risk at the end of the day. I would say this is bigger than an immigration discussion. This is Foreign Policy, americas posture in the globe. I work a lot on trade issues. If goods dont move across borders, refugees and soldiers will. We have a trade policy that is pulling back and having a huge impact on the economy. Frozenow, we are sort of in the same goes with the state department. We have America First Foreign Policy and we are not looking at how we project power around the thee, how we demonstrate values that we hold dear. A lot of that is being questioned and having a declining effect on our policy as well. A conference of package or conference of the of americas role in the world. Theres a lot of debate around that. Back to the audience for questions . I think i completely agree with you. I come all the way from boston think that we need in our a president government. What do you do effective more than talking because i hear all talking but nothing much is done and i am a bilingual social worker and i have been through the whole dance, you name it, i have been there. Is a thank you for being here. Thank you for the question. Boiling it down, what is the most effective strategy . Kevin said it already. With something as difficult as this, you need the white house to be correlated and no at the end of the day, this is where we where we are willing to go. I think the Central Organization having a strong leader whether it is guiding republicans or guiding democrats, you have to know where they are at the end of the day. He can give them the cover to move on some of these issues. They will get their, but they want to know it is all part of the broader team strategy. The other thing out say is republicans in the house and republicans in the senate tried to move the immigration bills, we cannot pass anything. Have been able to move anything, but it was a struggle to get everyone on the same page and ultimately it was notinical statement, but trying to go towards the compromise. At the end of the day, this has to be bipartisan. The only way to do this is coming together and figuring out how to put together that get backe, so until we into the room and Start Talking across the aisle about how to do this, we are going to remain on our side. There has to be a super clear vision instead of principles from the white house where they are not willing to negotiate a really clear strategy. The challenge is how for hell it take for us is not a break from the cycle we are in right now . Part of our biggest challenge is there is no trust in the process right now and i think the tollenge for us is in order build the compromise, there has to be good faith and trust built. I think that is a bigger challenge we have to think about with regards to our democracy political system to it i think there is a big question of this new era that we are in. Donald trump has put the pen to work on using executive i think there is a question on whether it is immigration for other issues. It was wrong then and it was wrong it is wrong now. I think what we are making the case for his principles could willingr politics and to do as president . Banuld and scooters scooters. On other thing i would focus is the awesome power that every good president has seized upon to become a uniter. Im going to support you and you vote against me on this issue, but i need you on this and im going to do all the hard work to get republicans to do the same. That is the awesome power of the president and to project that to can reallywhere we do the focus. I just think bipartisan agreement on banning scooters. A someone needs to come in on immigration as a positive thing that strengthens our country and makes us stronger. That alone is going to make a huge difference and bring folks together. I will leave it at that. I think we have time for one more question. I wish the ford you could write the platform for both. Arties work. Nds like a lot of we will wrap it up on that note. To our panelists and thank you for joining us. I will take an opportunity to make some questions. At the end of the day, when he heard from our panelistsmake so. , we are going into the elections in the candidates will try to draw distinctions. Participate it is up to all of us to hold them accountable and ask them in detail how you plan to get this done. When i watched the first and how theybate would undo whatever this president did, i did not hear how they would work with congress to get anything done. We have to have members of Congress Make this process worked. Think about that as you go to the polls. To makehink is going our system get back to work. Coming and thank you to our guest. Join us later today when charlie cook, founder of the Cook Political Report looks ahead to campaign 2020 and the upcoming elections. Conversation in a in washington, d. C. Watch live coverage here on cspan or listen live on the three cspan radio app and later tonight the home and subcommittee hearing on school safety. Watch that tonight at 9 00 p. M. Eastern also here on cspan. All this week, we are featuring programs to showcase what is available every weekend on cspan2. Watch the programs tonight beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan to georgia to be everyday all weekend also on cspan2. American history to be was in the classroom as an arkansas professor gave an election a lecture on the California Gold rush. He describes how mining practices led to deforestation and sediment clogs rivers. You can watch that tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan enjoy American History tv every weekend also on cspan three. Campaign 2020. Watch our live coverage of the president ial candidates and make up your own mind. Campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. Felled ommittees held a joint committee on president trumps travel ban. On a review ofed the visa waster visa waiver program