At the brookings institution. Thank you for coming out on a friday morning to talk about this incredibly important issue. We have a great panel for you. We have a cspan audience, live webcast. Anyone who would like to tweet, Us Immigration and hope to have a good discussion both here and online. This way back when, when i was a graduate student at the university of california berkeley where secretary Janet Napolitano runs these days, we learned about wedge issues, those things that really divided the electorate, got everybody excited. Everyone had an opinion about. Immigration has become a wedge issue. Wedge issues come and go depending upon the year. Clearly since 2015 when donald trump started to run for Office Immigration has been at the forefront in terms of one of the wedge issues. It divides not just democrats and republicans but it divides republicans. There is an nbc wall street journal poll out today that has some fascinating divides with the Republican Party between Trump Supporters and people who call themselves more or less traditional republicans. This is a big issue that everyone has an opinion about as opposed to many of the other issues we talk about here at brookings, telecommunications and things like that, normal people dont have strong opinions about those issues. This is one where people do have strong opinions and therefore it is of interest to everyone. The issue also runs the gamut from what i call a hard issue to a head issue. People have very strong opinions about what this means for our country, what kind of country we ought to have, we get emotional about it but it also goes to very practical issues. John hudak, my colleague will be moderating this panel, and i discussed a couple months ago, a look at the practical side. Is it possible to do what the president wants to do and in theory was elected to do . We came up with some interesting answers which i think will be brought out in the course of the discussion. And finally, one of the things about a political issue that becomes so hot is often it is not exactly factbased. Remember, i think it was senator moynihan who said everyone is entitled to his own opinions but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. In this immigration debate we have been treated to a series of statements, some from the president , we simply dont have anything to do with reality. We will talk about that too. Thank you very much for joining us today. We will have the panel open up and get some statements, have some discussion and open up to you in the audience and also open it up to people who are online. Thank you very much. Would our panel please come up . [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning, welcome to brookings. Im john hudak, senior fellow in government studies and Deputy Director of the center for public management. It is my honor today to moderate this panel and introduce all of you to our panelists to discuss a critically important issue broadly but also in the current political environment. Before i begin i would like to thank the Carnegie Corporation for their support and welcome our viewers who are tuned in via live webcast from the brookings website and viewers on cspan watching this live, any of you who want to engage us on social media can use hashtag Us Immigration to get into the conversation. On to our panelists. To my left, Janet Napolitano is currently the president of the university of california, a post she held since 2013, prior to becoming president of uc she served as third secretary of the home and security during the first term of president obama and a little bit into his second term, prior to that served as attorney general of arizona and governor of arizona. Immediately to her left is carlos guevara, senior policy advisor, previously National Council of barroso. He leaves the immigration policy and legislative advocacy work for the organization. Previously served in the Obama Administration in 201417 where he focused on developing and appointing immigration policy for the administration. Last not least on the end, Doris Meissner of the Us Immigration policy program at the immigration policy institute. 19932000 she served as commissioner of the immigration and Naturalization Service and throughout a stories career in doj served under five president s. I would like to thank our panelists for joining us for what i hope will be an engaging conversation and i will start with my first question to Janet Napolitano. Recently you joined a lawsuit over the president s decision to rescind daca as president of the university of california. The president s decision to repeal this in a 6month window with the hope that congress will step in and codify daca into law has made for a lot of controversy throughout the United States and a lot of policy circles. You see a system of 4000 students who are undocumented many of whom have applied for daca protection. Can you talk a little bit about what this policy means broadly and what it means for your University System and your students . I certainly can. I am very familiar with daca. We did daca when i was secretary of Homeland Security. We did it out of a recognition that there was there were a whole host of individuals who had been brought here as children, raised in the country, and any kind of Immigration Enforcement perspective, should be able to stay in the country without fear of deportation. The deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca, with the resulting programs that we initiated, and exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Each applicant is reviewed individually, they have to have a clean criminal record, have to meet a host of other requirements how to qualify. At the university of california, we estimate we have around 4000 undocumented students, the vast majority of them are in daca. Indeed, a quarter of the 800,000 Daca Recipients in the country are in california. These young people are an important part of our University Community. They are by and large firstgeneration college students, and have done everything required academically to get interviewed in university of california which is not the easiest thing to do. They have the brains, the energy, the initiative, they are exactly the kind of people we should want in our country to contribute. So the president s decision to rescind daca is wrong on a number of grounds. One of the reasons the universitys food was to seek and get judicial relief from the decision. It is wrong as a matter of law. It is wrong as a matter of Immigration Enforcement policy. It is inconsistent with our values as a country. Whether congress acts, who knows . One can always hope. We hear that there may have been a deal negotiated between the president and senator schumer and nancy pelosi over chinese food and chocolate cake at the white house but reducing that to legislation and legislation that will be brought to the floor and passed that the president will sign, to get that done in six months, we are going to advocate for it and believe strongly that congress can and should act, we think as a matter of law the court should step in and protect these 800,000 young people. Thank you for those comments. Carlos guevara, Janet Napolitano talked about the University Community at uc and the Important Role Daca Recipients play in that community. Can you talk more broadly about immigrant communities nationwide, what daca has meant for those communities and just as a portly what this uncertainty that has stemmed from the president s announcement also means to those communities . Thank you for the question and the opportunity to be here and my copanelists, and honor to be with you. Daca in many ways, back to where i began my legal career once upon a time, i was doing a lot of these cases, after the daca announcement, i remember doing 100 of these cases, thinking through the difficulty and conversations that must have happened around many kitchen tables across the country before coming to meet with me, a consultation about what daca might mean for a family and what doors may open. I mention this because Daca Recipients today, the definition of the program, ten years, at the time the program was announced there was a lot of uncertainty in the community about coming forward, committing to criminal background checks, providing information about your residency, your residence, family members, and by the way, having to come up in many instances with the money, the time to be with someone like me to carry your application. In many ways what i am trying to convey is the decision to apply to daca took a lot of trust in the federal government, there is a small piece of the grand bargain that if you come forward you will have a release from deportation and an opportunity to work and have opportunities for yourself and your family. When we have these decisions that the president took on september 5th to put it mildly, the trust that was violated and part of the deal undertaken by many in the community, was completely eroded. In this context we have to understand not only what is ahead of us but a window and momentum to get to a legislative fix but have empathy to consider what families are going through even as we try to get folks eligible from now to october 5th, to meet with an attorney, to come to Community Meetings and learn about their rights and so forth and colleagues, reporting we have seen ourselves in our own networks, 300 affiliates we work with across the country including california, reporting folks are not showing up for interviews or not attending opportunities to bring their daca status. Really concerned about the environment created in the wake of the decision, the weeks leading up to the election of the current president and since will have a chilling effect, people do continue to come out and we continue to create momentum for a legislative fix. Doris meissner, you have worked under democratic and republican president s on issues surrounding immigration and recently you have done some work on president ial rhetoric around this issue. Can you talk about what the president s rhetoric on the campaign trail and in office has meant for politics, what it has meant for voters, advocacy communities around issues of immigration . I will try. I think i would like to take off from what elaine said about an idea that is not factbased because what we see here on immigration in the American Experience at least in modern times, president ial candidacy base on immigration as a toptier issue, that has never happened before. Others have tried it. Pete wilson tried it in the 1990s, Patrick Buchanan tried it, never been successful. This time it was successful. A result of that candidacy has been the rallying cry of the border wall which characterized virtually every event that took place during the campaign and an amazing drive as the president came into office to pursue that agenda aggressively, quickly, initially through executive orders, lots of other implications for budgets and legislation including what has happened on daca. Daca is the first issue that has come along in his agenda where there is easy thinking whatsoever. Virtually Everything Else is straight out of the Campaign Playbook which is quite extraordinary. In our political experience. The build the wall rallying cry and the promise of aggressive enforcement, and force the law, everyone who is in the country illegally is subject because they are in violation of the law. On the ground it is incredibly different from that overall picture and that agenda because what we see, i will talk for a moment about enforcement and interior enforcement, border enforcement, we are at a 50 year low in the numbers of apprehensions across the southwest border. It is an absolutely historic low. We have come from a piece in 2000 of 1. 6 million apprehensions at the southwest border to and 88 drop by fiscal year 2016 and it will drop further in fiscal 2017. 81 is an enormous percentage in any policy realm and certainly in Law Enforcement. Along with that we have come to a point where their traditional place has been supplanted by Central American so there is a real change in character of what is taking place at the southwest border and that change peaked in 2014, coming down since then but having supplanted the mexican flag, very much lower numbers than the mexican flag ever was and it is declining and it is a very different flow. It is what we call a mixed flow in immigration term is made up of economic vibrations and also protection and persecution with people in it that are eligible for refugee status, and that kind of a flow is a different enforcement issue when dealing with the mexican flow because these are people the need to see judges and asylum officers and are wanting to turn themselves in to the government in order to pursue a possible claim for help rather than evading and slipping through the southwest border. It is not a picture that looks for a wall or answer, that kind of a picture, even the Central American soil has fallen dramatically between this administration that came into office between then and now, we have seen a 40 drop in the Central American flow, a very significant percentage in light of the pushback. That is one set of numbers, the other is in the interior where there is a more muscular approach, very different philosophy of enforcement then you just described it has to do with prosecutorial discretion and things like holding Daca Recipients harmless. This has created an enormous climate of fear and when uncertainty, it was true the numbers of arrests are up in the composition of the arrests are different, you have larger share of noncriminals to criminals than was the case at the end of the obama years but the shift is what we saw in the last two years. It was what was begun in 2014 with strict guidelines but at the end of the Obama Administration were issued. If you lift a little more broadly back to earlier years in the Obama Administration the record falls short. What was taking place between 2008 and 2012 and 13. Falling back to being on a pile or less then what is taking place just a few years ago. Also resulting in less people being removed from the United States, 13 less people being sent back to their countries than under the prior administrations and the border numbers are so low, not so many people across the borders. And forced countries immigration, less pressure of returns than has been the case earlier. That is a huge gap between perception and reality and seems to me a lot of take aways from it. The most straightforward take away is how important leadership tone matters, what the willpower is of the rhetoric and the message because we are now in an era where immigration is portrayed as a threat to the country, as a danger to the country, not as an asset to the country and the results of that is we are seeing changes in behavior on the ground because of the perceptions rather than what is really happening. What you have touched on, what each of you touched on with regard to the daca decision is if congress doesnt act, 800,000 individuals are supposed to be deported. Each of you have worked in some capacity and different capacities on issues around immigration so i would like to hear from each of you something a lot of people dont talk about beyond the rhetoric and what ends up in political analysis and administering of costs, what do you see as the challenge, the burden of suddenly telling the department of Homeland Security you need to deport 800,000 people. In this conversation a lot of times it is seen as a quick and easy cost free process no one needs to worry about but in an era of budgetcutting where congress and the president are committed to Smaller Government can you talk about the challenge of Homeland Security secretary will face in the agencies within dhs in carrying out that order . Lets not forget if congress doesnt act accordingly to preventing the decision of daca. You dont just pick up somebody and in another country. There is a whole administrative procedure that goes along with that beginning with the ice agent, find the person, detained them, administrative procedure by which they are adjudicated whether there affordable or not. Then transport them and the country to which they are being deported has to receive them so there is a whole chain of things that happened. Each of those things requires resources, each takes time. So the notion that you just flip a switch and remove 800,000 people is a myth. It doesnt work that way. That is the reality. The perception, however, is one that i think instills a lot of fear in immigrant communities. One of the virtues of daca was dreamers didnt have to walk around always looking over their shoulder wondering whether there was an ice agent trying to find and deport them. That assurance would be gone. So you have entire communities that live in fear and apprehension. When the rhetoric is so much more muscular it ups the temperature and makes everybody live not just in fear and trepidation, but reluctant to do things, for example reluctant to report when they are victims of crime. One of the reasons local Law Enforcement agents, agencies, are so opposed to some of the actions being taken, the words being used on Immigration Enforcement. These are all things that must be taken into account. I would add to that an important piece of that puzzle is where immigration courts falling in the opportunity individuals have to develop part of the process to seek relief available to them under our laws. That is the dynamic in terms of how these things play out, the perception and reality of what enforcement actually means. I want to talk about the other costs, the aspect that is less talked about. The largest Latino Organization in this country, nearly eight out of every ten latinos in this country is a us citizen. Most of these individuals we are talking about, what we are really talking about is millions of American Families. It goes beyond the construct, goes beyond the impact to an individual but also the broader fabric of who we are as a country. Interesting reporting recently coming out has shown there are 5. 7 million us citizen children in this country with one undocumented parent. Every ten registered hispanic voters that are documented in many cases as a family member. So i just want to provide that context when we talk about muscular enforcement may mean. He was ultimately picked up and on the way to dropping off his kids to school. I do not mention us to discuss necessarily because i hope we have some sympathy for the individual but what it might be like for the daughter as it so turned out, recorded the incident as now is viral and on youtube. You can check that out. You have i. C. E. Officers on the way to School Picking up your father. What that might mean for your Mental Health having to be play that every day. What does that mean for your school . We be fully invested in school . And by the way, two of the four were training for the Los Angeles Marathon with the help of the father peers are just the other aspect of trying to be a normal teenager in the day today. I mean just thinking about a marathon i get tired but trying to do things day today. I think it is important to think through that it is not just you know, the real significance associated with this but what of the collateral costs to the family . In many instances these American Families that are left behind with the ramped up interior enforcement that we are going through right now. Lets pick up on another point. On daca and the deal, if it does not happen. I totally agree. As dreadful as that would be, as a general Public Policy matter. I think that one does have to be realistic. This is not an automatic deportation. It is somewhere between seven and 800,000 people but the far more likely outcome is 70 800,000 young people who are, will find themselves in an extraordinarily more vulnerable circumstance in this country. Some will transport Law Enforcement will come across some of them one way or another. I do not believe that there will be a targeted effort to go out and look for the daca population if daca ultimately is removed. But the perception and the concern about deportation is as has been said, incredibly real and these peoples lives and in their family lives. If you step back from it, probably they far more important characteristic of daca is authorization. The Work Authorization that comes with daca is what has made this community, this population of people has showed actually what the importance of a Legalization Program overall would be. Because of your people that are legal in the labor market, there on an upward mobility track. The data are clear that the daca population got better jobs, they earn better, they are able to get drivers licenses and therefore have much more mobility and the ability to function. They are able to go to school because Tuition Assistance programs. In many states, etc. They are able to be productive. If that Work Authorization, bar and back into the underground economy is not only vulnerability for them and their families in addition to the possibility randomly of deportation. It is a real loss to the labor markets and particularly the locations which are heavily concentrated. Ribs are not california, texas and there are about six or eight locations that are dominant locations for the daca population. And that is a very big loss in general. To our productivity in those parts of the country. Doris, pick up a little on cost again. One of the issues that we addressed in our paper and that the president has talked about is a lack of capacity to enforce Immigration Laws. And the president s plan is to hire 15,000 i. C. E. And Border Patrol agents to that is what he has put forward as his goal. Now, we talk a little bit about the financial challenges, the administrative challenges and just the basic hr challenges of hiring to those jobs. Can you talk a little bit about challenges that exist in terms of hiring, retention, etc. . As well as the cost of hiring and what the likelihood is of an administration able to boost those numbers of 15,000 and up . I would like to start with you and then well, i can capture it and maybe a ratio of 27 to 1. In order to higher up in the Border Patrol, we had to have 27 candidates at the beginning of the process. In order to get one coming out at the end of the process. That was in the Border Patrol. That is an enormously expensive undertaking and a very big recruitment challenge. And the reasons are that you know you do not just hire anybody to be a Border Patrol agent. There are physical fitness requirements. It is the only agency in the federal government outside of the service that has a Foreign Language requirement. People have to speak spanish and pass a spanish test. They are, the Immigration Law training requirements are significant. These are really very well trained Law Enforcement officers. And the security clearances, lots of people felt the security clearances. Frankly, today, the labor court available for these sorts of jobs is a real difficulty. Because of drugs, because of other background clearance kind of issues. And the locations in which these people work are remote. Their salaries are very good for those locations. But we have more than 20,000 Border Patrol already. The border is saturated with personnel. The Border Patrol numbers are the smaller of the agenda. The larger our i. C. E. Ages. 10,000. On a workforce you all do the numbers in the report. But it is a much bigger percentage of the workforce. So when you are talking about absorbing that level of workforce, your whole supervisory structure, your physical facilities, a tremendous Ripple Effect to that kind of a ramp up. So if that sort of a ramp up does happen it will happen early in the course of 5 to 10 years because it is simply not doable in a firstterm timeframe. I would come over and i do not think the numbers have changed all that much. Since you were the commissioner. You are right that you have to have an enormous applicant pool to harvest one agent. The training, at the economy takes a number of months. Youve got to have the physical facilities in which the training can occur. You have to have the stations out of which the agents operate, they need to be properly sized. And as you say, at the border, there already had been such a significant wrap up. I think the real issue at the border is the greater use of technology. Both at the ports of entry and between the ports of entry. And air coverage. Over the border. So that agents are better able to detect where unlawful passage is being attempted. And in terms of enlarging the interior enforcement, that also will create a significant period of time and require a lot more resources than people anticipate. If i may. I have one point that i think to the credit of leadership at dhs and in the past eight years or so, agencies like Border Patrol have been moving in the direction of Greater Transparency and accountability. And things like establishing an internal Affairs Board and authorizing that position with more powers. Publishing supports data, instituting or looking at instituting Body Worn Camera pilots and so forth. The reason i mention this is i think there is an inference that some may draw that why dont we look at the standards . Why is it so hard for folks to give into the Border Patrol and possibly the i. C. E. Agency as well. I would caution against moving too far in that direction. I think to the credit again of the department, they have been moving in the right direction to enhance accountability, to enhance and make sure that the hiring standard is up to par. I would offer that is something that contributes to possibly the local hiring challenges but it would be fundamental from a marketing perspective that those things do not get lost. Thank you. We talk a little bit about the cost of hiring the agencies and the saturation already at the border of having agents and a little bit about technology. And all of this really folds into another topic that exists in the immigration debate. That is the border wall. As Homeland Security secretary and as governor, you oppose the construction of a physical barrier at the southern border of the United States. Janet napolitano, you are often quite insane show me a 50 foot wall in level show you a 51 foot ladder. [laughter] i would not get on a 51 foot ladder, i will be honest. [laughter] can you talk about the challenges of this policy and what types of alternatives are not just more effective but more attainable if the heated rhetoric died down a little and people into this conversation in a more levelheaded way . Yes, i think the notion of building a wall across the southwest border i mean, first of all just doing it. You know that border from a geography standpoint, youre talking about going through riverbeds, over mountains, there is a great deal of private Property Ownership along the border. When there was money set aside in the secure fencing acts. A decade and and a half ago, and number of the Property Owners whose property would be used for that, many of those cases are still in litigation. You will have those issues. You have indian reservations that straddle the border. You have that in arizona for example. The community lives on both sides of the border. They have already said that they are not going to have a wall. So just the pure doing of it, not to mention the actual cost. Which you know, i think the numbers i have seen our loan numbers. And i think youre probably talking in excess of 20 billion to build anything like a wall. Answer you have to question, what does a wall do . Well, the notion that there is going to be some kind of impermeable structure. Along the border, again, anybody who has been at the border and knows the border, knows that that just will not fly. And real border enforcement, what that means is a strategy that includes manpower, that includes technology. It includes as said before, air coverage. It also includes working with our neighbors to the south to try and prevent traffic before it actually gets to the physical border. And you know i think some of the Real Progress that we made was with the government of mexico. And in their own efforts in protecting their southern borders. So waiting until the traffic hits and mythological structure does not surprise immigration policy. Would anyone else like to add . Well, maybe i should use this opportunity to throw out my favorite number. You said the law transferred that the wall is estimated at 21 billion. They announced overall 19 billion peer that represents 25 percent more than all federal criminal Law Enforcement. Which is, it means that the fbi, dea, atf, secret service, marshall service. Our Immigration Enforcement, we are spending 25 percent more than those agencies combined and now we are talking about a 20 billion wall that is even more expensive then that expenditure . And in the face of changes and the kinds of points that you probably raise that i completely agree with on what brings about effective Law Enforcement. I actually will raise my hand as a proponent of barriers along the border. In certain places, under some circumstances. About one third of the border already has, you can call it a wall or whatever you want. One third of that 2000 miles has it is of enormous assistance to the Border Patrol. But it requires repair, it is the most expensive piece of infrastructure that is they are. It has to be combined with technology and it is simply a method of helping to channel the flow and deal with certain types of terrain. It is not a onesizefitsall to solve the problem and a solution. Do we have a few minutes left. I want to get away from this and gets is more fun stuff and talk about the politics of the issue. Carlos, i would like to start with you. Is one of the most highprofile in the country dealing with these issues. Talk about how unidosus has responded to the new political environment and in many ways an unexpected political environment since november 8. And a little bit about what has happened with unidosus and its partners. A lot of times when there is a disastrous policy situation in or on your radar, it can bring groups together in ways that are the situations may not. Can you talk a little bit about the Interest Group and Advocacy Group environment . Yes, thank you. I would like to say the election of President Trump perhaps through many of us in the advocacy space for a loop. I think that is the profile or the positioning of a lot of groups today. They had to be one of more Rapid Response posture. Whereas perhaps many were gearing up for a different dynamic had a Different Administration been in place. So that means it is relentless to your point. Tracking the latest hot button issue of the day and thats coming together frankly of the groups to deal with those in the most appropriate manner. I would say with as i get the constant onslaught these days. Starting from muslim been to ramped up interior Enforcement Actions to now daca. It feels like we are just now on the defensive. But i say that and i say it with pride and the reaction that the community and others, partners have, in a way that they have come together to respond. One of the ways that we are seeing that play out is in response to the dr. Decision now and it is very multifaceted approaches to that. We have a window right now. To get something done. You will see a lot of the groups Carry Forward the momentum until we get to a place where we must talk about the debt ceiling and so forth we might have opportunities to discuss this issue more fully as a comprehensive package perhaps. I will say that. That momentum and the work continues, we will continue to be in this fight and we know that we have a lot at stake. As i mentioned earlier, it is not just 800,000 individuals with Doctoral Recipients it is their families and also the individuals are not to be forgotten in the space who do not have daca but otherwise are law abiding individuals who are trying to go about their daytoday lives as well. President Janet Napolitano. Over the past several election cycles with senior home state of arizona a trend toward purple. In 2004 president bush won arizona by 10 points. In 2012 president obama lost arizona by nine points and in this past election, President Trump won the state by only about 3 and a half percent. And there are a lot of factors that go into that. But surely immigration is one of them. Can you talk a little bit about what effect you think the president immigration policy broadly, whether it is rhetorical, if it involves daca or the wall or controversial pardons perhaps. What that might mean for the politics on the ground in a state like arizona in the elections, statewide elections, Congressional Elections and for the next president ial race. Well, you are right. Arizona does trend toward purple although it turns a little more republican than democratic. Although it has elected democratic governors and [laughter] and congressional delegation in the house is about equally divided. I think that when impact could be to stimulate Voter Registration and voting by the latino population. The fact of the matter is that if the latino population voted at the same percentage as the white population, arizona would be a blue state now and so, all of these actions taken together, the rhetoric, the policy pronouncements, the pardon, i think could have the impact of this said, increasing latino voter turnout. And we will see that in 2018. For my last question, we have about five minutes before audience questions. I will wrap up by asking each of you to think about the next 5 and a half months. As Congress Mulls over what to do on daca as Congress Mulls over a variety of immigration policies. Whether it is there a funding bill coming up in december and probably get two or three months later and then two or three months after that. What bit of advice would you give to members of congress who are facing this set of issues . And feel free to talk about politics, policy, the human aspect or whatever portion of that you think is most important to congressional leadership or to rank and file. I think if i were called upon to advise a member of congress but i would say that the imminent risk now is to the dreamers. And that the wall, will hope at some point for comprehensive Immigration Reform which the country surely needs. That achieving some sort of statutory resolution or at least for that population. If they need to attach it to pass a bill, that is a strategically that has worked in the past for other types of measures. The notion arises, what kind of would you agree to anything on the enforcement side for those who have that interest paramount in their mind. In order to get success for the dreamers. And there, there should be redlines. Funding for a wall should be a redline. But if you have to add some other funding for Border Security to the mix. Whether that is well spent funding or not, that funding is going to in my view, current some form or fashion anyway and if you can get the dream act through, using that as a package that should be where there is consideration. So, while we should not lose sight of the fact that the country needs overall Immigration Reform, the immediate need now is for the dreamers. I would have one simple clear message. It would be lets get it done. Lets get it done and we talked about the, we have been talking about the human cost today of the 800,000 or so youth and their families that would be impacted by nonaction by congress. I would remind congress that we have a for all intents and purposes all eyes on you to act. I would remind congress that the American People support a pathway for the youth. This includes not just the usual suspects of democrats, moderate republicans but an overwhelming number of republicans who voted for President Trump. The time is now. We have a window to get this done. I also would urge representatives in congress that the community is watching i think more broadly. We are concerned and really basing probably the subject friendly conversation, the issue of credibility of some of the core institutions and congress submitted one. What better way than to show the American People that we can come together and really express who we are as a country. Whatever American Values are and working together to find a solution for these youth. I would say lets get it done. I would say, if there is any issue on which to test a timer you should break the rule, this is it because immigration legislation has never been able to pass by just one party. Immigration legislation historically has required bipartisanship. There are elements of each party although not equivalent. I do not in any way say that there is equivalency but still, there are parts of each party that will resist however, as you pointed out and it is so important, this issue of all in this contentious area is one that is strongly backed across the board by the public. It is members of congress, they know that we have to find a way to get a center back into a functional center. You know back into play. And this is an election or whatever it wants to see problems solved. They picked their way to do it that was surprising but nonetheless, it is part of the message. And so, you cannot solve problems without bipartisanship. The leadership has got to be willing to take this to the members and allow both parties to vote for it in order to get majority and they will get credit for it. Great, thank you. Now i would like to turn it over to all of you. We will get some questions. I have a couple of caveats. First, short questions are great. Testimony is not great. This is not a courtroom. I reserve the right to absolutely cut you off and shut you down if you make yourself a panelist. [laughter] you can ask russians we have twitter you can do that or use the Us Immigration. Our social media team will grab a microphone and asked him along the way. Lets start at front here. I would like to thank all of the panelist today. You guys are wonderful. My name is alicia and i am currently an intern at the Us Department of Homeland Security. Im working for the office of civil rights and Civil Liberties. My question is, what components are essential to keep in mind in regards immigration policy when working for the office of civil rights and Civil Liberties . Thank you. You know dhs better than i do. I think the office, it is interesting. Dhs is the only federal department that has a Civil Rights Office that looks internally, not externally. And i think it is important that that office have visibility into the policies and practices of what is happening at i. C. E. , at cbp. That and have an effective mechanism by which compliance can be received and resolved. And that the process in and of itself be transparent. All right. Thank you. I am Congressional Correspondent for the hispanic outlook. In 2013, the judiciary subcommittee consider, this is in july after june, after the 2015 bipartisan department of immigration bill passed for the judiciary subcommittee and has considered a bill called the kids asked it which is a stand alone dream act. And every democrat on the panel opposed it. And get taras said it is unamerican to legalize just one segment of illegal immigrant communities. So the democrats have been completely against this standalone bill. Now, the tables have turned. They want this as a standalone and they do not want to add anything. I think the republicans would like to add everify. What you think about that . I think to the first point of your question moving away from perhaps a more comprehensive role to something a little more specific. I think there is recognition that we are not just in different times that there is a sense of urgency and momentum as we speak to resolve this issue and get it done for this population. I think that is what some of our democrats that you speak to are reacting to. Not just democrats, frankly republicans as well. I would offer that. In terms of everify, i will maintain and we have heard publicly that we are one of he organizations that is pushing for a clean act or a vehicle that contains essential policy provisions of a dream act. The proposal that we have seen to date or what we see in the background frankly are unacceptable to the community. I say that, remember it is you know there are themes were not just talking about this hundred thousand. Talking about the parents of the recipients, the dreamers. And the broader documented population. I think everify is one of these issues that we really cant have a conversation unless we talk about broader pieces of the population. Right here. Earlier this morning you mentioned discretion on dhs and discussion. That is over 300,000 immigrants in the United States. What do you think is going to happen to current status and how will that affect Work Authorization renewal for those immigrants . During the Obama Administration there were directives issued to i. C. E. In particular on cases that were to be prioritized. And the idea was that when you have 11 million undocumented individuals in the United States, you dont have the resources to deport them all. Just as the Justice Department does not have the resources to prosecute every bad check case. For example in the country. So you have the executive branch has the authority to exercise what is called prosecutorial discretion and have priorities. So the Obama Administration set forth those priorities. The Current Administration has basically undone those directives. And creates a greater sense of free for all Immigration Enforcement. I do not think it is a wise use of executive branch authority. I think it has all of the impacts that carlos has talked about in terms of the community. And i think that it is a misuse of the resources at the department that they do have. Lets see, in the aisle in the back. Hi, i am claudia. I spent a year at the uva school of education. Where of course, immigration became a huge talking point. My question is, what can schools do to combat the human cost that mr. Was talking about . Thank you for the question. And would like to hear from fellow alum. [laughter] thank you for the question. I think this is one of the points i was trying to describe in terms of the collateral impact of increased interior enforcement. One of the places that we hear time and time again from our affiliates and boots on the ground is this very issue. What do we do in schools which are seen kind of in many ways is a safe space. I think something that has been very helpful i am not advocating folks to design things but other schools provide opportunity to have that convening power if you will to bring communities together to discuss the broader contacts, what folks rights are. Something we are very interested in as an organization. Using these venues as opportunities to screen folks for additional forms of relief. In many cases individuals circumstances have changed or it was a long time since i spoke with a lawyer about this stuff. Our ways to facilitate that and a safe space would be, it will go a long way. That said, we have heard reports and unfortunately there are, they are anecdotal. We are working to find out and provide more information but the tactics start to bleed into these locations are places that are perceived to be safe. I would encourage schools to really use the space for broader, no youre right, the screenings and getting information to people that is much needed at this time. I would just kind of list what we did the university of california. Undocumented students pay instate tuition. We have undocumented Student Centers on our campuses. We provide a dream long program. It is a loan program for undocumented youth that cannot get federal loans. Provide Legal Services for our undocumented students and their families. So those are just some concrete actions we have taken over the past years. Preceding this docket issue for the undocumented population. For the next question, for students or School Administrators or whomever you are looking to do more in this space and see what opportunities there are, are there any resources that you could let them know about . Certainly, and folks should feel free to reach out to me. We have a topnotch team that deal with immigration issues, healthcare and housing and so forth. We are looking at the question so if you like to share the information i would be happy to point people to that. Including one piece as we are driving and asking those eligible to renew resources and information about things that are out there to cover fees. Thank you. My name is dan melnick. I am retired from the National Science foundation. My question is, i would like to ask you to relate when you have been talking about the brother stance of america and the world is specifically, he discussed the immigration issue but you never mentioned and never actually discussed the role of the states and secondly, the changes and the flows into the United States, i would like you to address the issue of how this reflects perhaps, and impact of this rhetoric on immigration and does this mean or doesnt it mean that the policies are succeeding in a way . Because they are stopping the flow. I think it is an extremely interesting point. There are so many things that one could talk about. The refugee realm is an entire you know topic of its own in which one could do a panel and of course if we are hearing you know if the rumors are correct, the numbers that the administration will request for proposal are going to be dramatically lower than they have been in the past. Of course this year they were lowered dramatically. Some 110,000 to 50,000. 50,000 is written into the statute. We have not gone under that. Since 1980 when the statute was written. So but dispense with the overall worldview that has been expressed by the administration. As i said, immigration is a threat and a danger to the country, not an asset. And of course, the irony where refugees are concerned is that if there is any group in the world that is really the victims of threats around the world, it is people that are outside of their own countries and that historically high number now since the second world war. So the us of course has always been a leader. Where refugee policy is concerned we are advocating that role. And we also, we are in the process of that along with how many other things are going on, really changing america as a brand in the world. And i do not say that in pr terms. The part of our image and part of our ability to be has to do their immigration stands over time and refugees are part of that but the rest of it is as well. This is a welcoming nation that benefits from immigration. Obviously, properly managed, it should not be chaotic. It is those are all important caveats but nonetheless, all of those things are now being cast in a very different way. So but one of the ironies is what you point out. Some of this is working. There is no other explanation right now for the drop in just the last six months of crossing at the southwest border then what is being turned the trump effect. It is against all historic norms of this season of the year. It is against what we know of the causes of the flows from Central America have been. It is most likely a function of this climate of fear and of the information flows through the informal networks. Among the smugglers, from families in the us back to countries of origin that things have changed and it is a dangerous time. How about this gentleman here . Dan marcus. I am a retired lawyer and professor and alumnus of the clinton administration. One of the fundamental principles of Immigration Reform both comprehensive proposals and the dream act over the last couple of decades has been a path to citizenship. I am sort of optimistic that some things going to get done on docket in the next six months. But its not going to include a path to citizenship i think. So i want to ask you, if i am right, what does that mean to the longterm prospect for Immigration Reform for undocumented immigrants in terms of the path to citizenship . Thank you for the question. I still maintain that we have a window and were pushing for a vehicle or a measure that includes a pathway towards legalization. I think that there is support. I think that there is a recent polling done by our friends at us that there is support among Republican Voters for a solution that includes a pathway towards legalization. And we can talk about what that might mean but i think its important from our communitys perspective that we continue to push for that and that we insist on that because of concerns that we have of introducing notions and ideas of secondclass citizenship and under classes and so forth. Which reminds me of another group of individuals frankly that they have a little bit of historical a group of individuals currently under protective status to that have been under limbo state for over 15 years. We continue to believe that there is a window to get that done. In terms of the broader question of pivoting to Immigration Reform, i think that we need to get past this initial conversation first. I do think that this could lead to a more momentum or broader conversation and perhaps include, should we not get to the point of legalization it was only have to improve that discussion at that time. Right in front of you. Yes, thank you very much. President Janet Napolitano mentioned the possibilities and i want to ask a question related to voting and state and local levels. Whether it is the governor or local or house of representatives and off years. Last week we saw nancy pelosi being attacked at a townhall meeting. And yet, there is Something Like seven or more republican congressman in california who are not on record as supporting a dream act provision. Channeling energy and what can be said the wrong direction for state and local level and off your representative elections. They respond to those who voted and latinos have not been known to vote in off year elections. And in state and local elections. So i would like you all to comment on the degree to which you can in which the tools that you can to not elect an attorney general in texas who brings a suit against daca. It is convoluted but d. C. , my question relates to the nonfederal focus that i think is lacking in some of this discussion. I think any effort to vote and support voting is a good thing. And when people go and they get their ballot, it will have federal and state offices on the same ballot. The question is to get them either by voting by mail or to go to the polls on election day. And i think also it would be helpful for some of these state offices to do a better job educating people about what impact the officeholders can have on them. For example, state attorneys general have a big impact and with the state attorneys general who filed to hold up daca in the court. It was the threat of state attorneys general filing suit that led to the trump decision to rescind daca. So i do not think from a turnout perspective, like us in the ballot includes federal and state offices altogether. But the impact of what some of these state officeholders can have i think would also help stimulate turnout. Just briefly, certain organizations are looking at the issue very closely and making the push as to register and so forth. I will just say that the latino population is not monolithic. And perhaps some folks in the california area may be different than folks in texas and is also a question of political maturity as well in certain states. Certain organizations are looking closely at this issue and trying to push that, push folks to have great understanding not just in the general but midterms as well. I dont know colors that well. Good morning. My name is selena i am with the National Association for equal opportunity in higher education. We represent historically black colleges and universities and predominantly black institutions. Just wondering about the effect of the african and caribbean students on our campuses and you mentioned, you just mentioned tps. But what we need to be doing to protect some of those young people as well. I guess i opened that one. [laughter] as an organization we are acutely focused on this very question of tps. We know that in the next five months, usually six days before an Expiration Date the department of Homeland Security will make an announcement as to what they will do with current designations. We know that in the next four months, between now and mid january, we will have decisions on the top three countries in terms of populations to include the transfer we expect the decision of being in of november and potentially in terms of numbers we are talking about 80,000 individuals. 80 which will be around thanksgiving time. We have already seen an extension back in march i believe and you know some of the messaging after that has been a little concerning and suggestions that they might not extend. We are working at closely. Then the big one, certainly from the latino perspective, thats what the quarter of a million individuals that have been in this country by definition at least 16 years. So we are working hard to elevate the importance of this issue in terms of the population. We are talking of all the countries, 400,000 individuals about half the size of the daca population that will need a decision to be made. We are working hard to elevate the importance of this issue without friends in congress. Trying to get momentum going on the issue but we are very concerned about the state of play with these countries and the future of folks that have been lawfully in this country, work authorized, paying taxes, submitted to criminal background checks. And having the rug pulled from underneath them. I think the most boring thing if i was a given action, i would say we are interested in this, helping to elevate the importance of the issue and working with the population and constituencies to reach members and folks who may influence the administration on this particular issue to elevate the importance of that issue. We have about five minutes left. We can get a couple of questions in. Gentlemen in the back. She had the question i just have longer arms good plan with canada, citgo is one of the countries that has the highest levels of cooperation with the United States. With issues of trade or environment or national security. All of these affect both countries and require extensive bilateral cooperation. I guess my question is, what is the administrations policy and what does it mean for the policy with mexico . I think it is good given the tendency of the nafta negotiation and the position about nafta and you know the whole usmexico relationship is, in my view a value to the United States. It is a value to our economy. There are at least and a half million jobs in california alone directly related to trade along with mexico under nafta. It is a value from historic and cultural ties. It is a value certainly on the Security Side where over the past decade, we have seen stronger and Stronger Partnership and cooperation with mexico. And so, we run the risk under the guise of rhetoric of really diminishing that relationship and from every possible perspective, that is the wrong way to go. We should be doing is working ever more closely with mexico to really look at ourselves as an economic region. As we face the rest of the world. As we look as a security region and deal with common problems and a length of fashion, and again, as we appreciate the other ties that we have with mexico. So i am quite concerned that we are putting that relationship at risk. Time for one more quick question. This is for seconds Janet Napolitano and commissioner Doris Meissner. Say you get a call from Chuck Schumer say nancy and i are meeting at the white house for lunch with the president , with mcconnell, they would wanted to do a deal on daca but they need something on Border Security. What could i give them on Border Security that would not be detrimental and might actually be helpful and they would like . Tall order that would be an interesting call [laughter] i would say a Border Technology package. That was include funding for sensors and border surveillance devices that would be a force multiplier for the Border Patrol. I would agree with that and we are, honored to have an effective border in establishing a equipment, technology and infrastructure. And you could do some blessing upon all of those. That is reasonable. I would definitely put most of my eggs in the technology basket. I completely agree. And in addition to that, to a part of the border that never gets the attention that it should and that is the ports of entry. The ports of entry are absolutely essential and the more effective enforcement you do between the ports of entry, the more pressure there is on the ports of entry. And that is a big longterm infrastructure effort that could also align with what it is for this administration that they want to achieve. That is very much no interest both from a standpoint of enforcement and mexico and legal. So there is a conversation to be had about the border that is short of a border wall and short of the kind of heated rhetoric that has been in play now. I would like to encourage all of you to look at the work being done by doris and her colleagues at the migration policy institute. Carlos and we are looking forward to more leadership from the university of california system particularly on this issue. I encourage you all to visit the website to check on margot work on immigration policy for shameless selfpromotion, read the paper hitting the wall that my colleagues elaine and christine are coauthored with me as well as the latest brookings essay by one of our colleagues that looks at Security Issues specifically around the border wall and the debate around that. With that said, i would like you guys to join me in thanking our panelists for a great conversation today. [applause] this weekend on booktv on cspan2. Saturday at 7 pm eastern Hillary Clinton gives her personal accounts of the 2016 president ial campaign and election with her book what happened to it really hit me that there were these very important issues that needed to be discussed, debated even that our democracy and country relied upon that kind of selfexamination and i thought well, i need to know what happened and i need to be as honest, candid, open as i possibly can in order to figure it out for myself. And maybe, doing this in a book would provide the discipline, the deadline to try and think it through. On sunday at 7 30 pm eastern, paul hollander, sociology professor at the university of massachusetts ends his book from Benito Mussolini to hugo chavez. A century of political hero worship. These people are actually quite good at projecting their kind of personality which intellectuals found attractive. As i said, this philosopher, this revolutionary idea, or the assumption of the belief that these dictators used political power wisely. And benevolently. That they were kind. That was the most important for intellectuals. They bridge the gap between theory and practice. For more of this begins schedule go to booktv. Org. Now a panel of former ambassador to russia and the ukraine. Discuss whether the us should arm ukraine and what russias response might be if that happens. This event is 90 minutes