Transcripts For CSPAN3 Immigration Policy 20171003

Daily. Next, a conversation about u. S. Immigration policy and possible action on daca. Its an hour and a half. Good morning, everyone. Im Elaine Kaymark here 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 and of course a live, live web cast. Anyone who would like to tweet, theres the u. S. Immigration. And we hope to have a good discussion both here and online. This is, you know, way back when, when i was a graduate student at the university of california, berkley, where secretary napolitano runs these days, we learned about wedge issues. Wedge issues were those things that really divided the electorate, that got everybody excited. That everyone had an opinion about. Well, immigration has become a wedge issue. Wedge issues kind of come and go, and depending upon the year. And clearly since 2015, when President Trump started to run for office, immigration has been at the forefront in terms of one of the wedge issues. It divides not just republicans and democrats but republicanss and republicans. It has fascinating divides within the republican party, between trump supports and people who were call themselves traditional republicans. So this is a big issue, an issue that everyone has an opinion about. As opposed to many of the issues we talk about here at brooking, telecommunication and things like that. Le normal people dont really have strong opinions about those issues. This is one where people do have strong opinions. Therefore, it is of interest to everyone. The issue also runs the gamut from what i call a head issue to a heart issue. People have very strong opinions about what this manes feans for country, what kind of country we ought to have, and we get yes motional about it, but it also goes to more practical issues. So john hudack and i took a look at the practical side. Is it possible for the president to do what he was elected to do . And we came up with some interesting answers. And finally, one of the things about a political issue that becomes so hot is that often it is not exactly factbased. And remember, i think it was the late senator moynahan said everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not everyone is entitled to his own facts. We have been treated to a series of statements. Some from the president , from his team, which simply dont, dont have anything to do with reality. And well talk about that, too, im sure. So thank you very much for joining us today. Were going to have our panel open up and give some statements, have some discussion, and then we will open it up to you in the audience, and wei will also ope it up to people online. So thank you very much, and will our panel please come up. [ applause ] all right, good morning, everyone. Welcome to brookings. Im james huda. Its my honor today to moderate this panel aen it introduce all of you to our panelists, to discuss what is a critically important issue as elaine mentioned, broadly but in the current political environment. Id like to welcome our viewers who are tuned in via a live web cast as well as the viewers on cspan, watching this live. Any of you who want to engaebl us on social media, you can use u. S. Immigration to getna the conversation. Now on to our panelists. Immediately to my left. Janet napolitano. Prior to becoming president of uc, she served as the third secretary of the department of Homeland Security, during the first term of president obama and a little bitna his second term. Prior to that, she served as the attorney g general of arizona. And then the governor of arizona. Immediately it her left is carlos scavara, previously the National Council of laraza. And last but not least on the end, doris misener, senior fellow of the u. S. Immigration program. From 1993 to 2000 she served as commissioner of the immigration and naturalization unit. Shes served under five president s. Hed like it to thank our panelists for what i hope will be an engaging conversation. And im going to start with my first question to president 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 the sixmonth window with the hope that congress will step in and codify dacana law has made for a lot of controversy throughout the unit a unitunited states. Can you talk a little bit about what this policy maneans broadl and for your students. I certainly can. Im very familiar with daca. We did daca when i was the secretary of Homeland Security. And we did it out of a recognition that there was, there were a whole host of individuals who had been brought here as children, had been raised in the country and from any kind of an Immigration Enforcement perspective, should be able to stay in the country without fear of deportation. And so deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca, was the resulting program that we initiated. And it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. They have to have a clean criminal record and a whole host of requirements to qualify. At the university of california, we estimate that we have around 4,000 undocumented students. Apartme and the vast majority of them are in daca. About a quarter of the 800,000 Daca Recipients in the country are in california. And these young people are, you know, theyre an important part of our University Community. They are by and large firstgeneration college students. They are and have done everything required of them academically to get into the university of california, which is not the easiest thing in the world to o do. You know, they have the brains, the energy, the initiative. They are exactly the kinds of people we should want to stay in our country and contribute. So the president s decision to rescind dha rescind daca was wrong on a number of grounds. Its wrong as a matter of law, its wrong as a matter of immigration policy and inconsistent with our values as a country. Whether Congress Acts . Who knows. One can as ylways hope. And you hear there may have been a deal negotiated between the president and senator schumer and representative pelosi over chinese food and chocolate cake at the white house. And, but, reducing that to legislation and legislation that will be brought to the floor and passed, that the president will sign, and to get that all done in six months is, while were going to advocate for it and believe strongly that congress can and should act, we also think, as a matter of law, the court should step in and protect thats 800,000 young people. Thank you for those comments. Carlos, president napolitano talked a little bit about the University Community at uc and the Important Role that daca resip an recipients play in that community. Can you talk a little more about what daca has meant for communities and what this uncertainty that has stemmed from the president s announcement also means to those communities. John, thank you for the question and the opportunity to be here and to my copanelists, its an honor to be here with you both. I think back on my legal career, once upon a time i was a line attorney. And i remember doing about 100 of these cases and thinking through the difficulty and conversations that must have happened around many kitchen tables across the country, before coming to meet with me, to do a consultation about what obtaini obtaining daca might mean for a family. I mention this because Daca Recipients today have been here about ten years. But before the program was announced, even then, there weighs a lwas a lot of concern about coming forward, providing information about your residence. Family members, and oh, by the way, having to come up, in many instances, with the money and to take off the time to be with somebody leak ike me to preparer application. The decision to apply to daca in the first place took a lot of trust in the federal government, telling you, look, theres a small piece of the grand bar gain th gain, that you will have an opportunity to work and provide for yourself and your family. So when we have the decision, john about the recision that the president took on september 5th, to put it mildly, the trust that was violated there, and part of the deal, if you will that was undertaken by many in the community completely yes rodeer. But really to have empathy to consider what these families are going through right now. Even as we drive to get folks who are eligible between now and october 5th to even come and meet with an attorney to come to community meetings, to learn about their rights and so forth. I was talking to some colleagues at American Immigration Lawyers Association recently that are reporting, we see ourselves in our own network. We have a network of about 300 affiliates that we work with across the country, including california, reporting that folks arent showing up for interviews or not attending these opportunities to renew their daca status. The folks who are eligible. Were really concerned that the environment, and i think well talk about this later, that has been created and the wake of this decision and in the wake leading up to, frankly, the election of the kupts president and since, will have a Chilling Effect on folks coming out. We do encourage people to come out. Its very important, and that we continue to create the momentum for a legislative fix. And through the congress. So ill stop there. Doris, youve worked under both democratic and republican president s on issues surrounding immigration. And i know recently, youve done some work on president ial rhetoric around this issue. Could you talk a little bit about what the president s rhetoric both on the campaign trail and once hes been in office has meant for politics, what it has meant for voters, what its meant for advocacy communities around issues of immigration. Ill try. Thanks for the invitation. I think id like to take off from what elaine said about this being an area that is not exactly factbased. Because what weve seen here is really new on immigration in the american experience, at least in, in modern times. And that is, a president ial candidacy fundamentally based on immigration as a top tier issue, that has never happened before. Others have tried it, pete wilson tried it in the 1990s, Patrick Buchanan tried it. Its never been successful, but their time this time it was successful. A result of that candidacy, of course, hassan been the rallying cry of build the wall, which, characterized virtually every event. That took place during the campaign, and an amazing drive, as the president came into office to really pursue that agenda, aggressively, quickly, initially through executive orders. But with lots of other implications for budgets and for possible legislation, including what has happened on daca, and daca is really the first issue thats come along in this agenda where theres been any rethinking whatsoever. Virtually Everything Else is straight out of the campaign playbook. Which is also quite extraordinary. In, you know, in our political experience. So, you have the build the wall rallying cry and the promise of aggressive enforcement, obey the law, enforce the law, everybody in the country here illegally is subject to removal because theyre in violation of the law. Well, the facts on the ground are incredibly different from that overall picture, and from that agenda. Because, what we see just in two areas. Ill talk for a moment about border enforcement and about interior enforcement. In border enforcement, were on a 40year, going on 50year low in the numbers of apprehensions coming across the southwest border. Its an absolutely historic low. Weve come from a peak in 2000 of 1. 6 million apprehensions at the southwest border to an 88 drop by fiscal year 2016 and it will drop further when this year, fiscal 2017 numbers come in. 88 . That is an enormous percentage, in any policy realm. And certainly, in Law Enforcement. And along with that weve come to a point where the traditional flows, which are the mexican flows have been sup mantzplante Central American flows. So theres a rell change real character. It peaked in 2014. Weve been coming down since then. Even though it has supplanted the mexican flow, its at very much lower numbers than the mexican flow ever was, and it is declining, and it is a very different flow. Its what we call a mixed flow in immigration terms, and that is made up of economic migration but also claims for protection, fleeing violence and persecution, with people in it that are, to some extent, some of them eligible for Refugee Status in the united states. And dealing with that kind of a flow is a very different enforcement issue than dealing with the mexican flow. Because these are people that 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 trying to slip through the southwest border. So if ever there is not a picture that looks for a wall, as an answer, this is that kind of a picture. And even that Central American flow is now falling dramatically since this administration came into office between then and now, weve seen a 40 drop, even, in the Central American flow, again, a very significant percentage. Particularly in light of the push factors for that flow. So thats one set of numbers. The other set of numbers is in the interior, where of course there is a much more muscular approach to enforcement, a very different philosophy of enforcement than you have just described that has to do with prosecutorial discretion and obviously things like Holding People like the Daca Recipients harmless. And this approach has created an enormous climate of fear, an enormous uncertainty in the country, and it is certainly true what we read in the press that the numbers of arrests are up and that the composition of the arrests are different. You have a larger share of noncriminals to criminals than was the case at the end of the obama years, but the shift is only over what we saw in the last two years. Its only over what was begun in 2014 with very strict guide lines that at the end of the Obama Administration were issued. If you look a little more broadly, back to the earlier years in the Obama Administration, the record now falls short of what it was that was taking place between 2008 and 2012 and 13. So whats currently happening is actually falling back to being on a par or less than what it was taking place just a few years ago. And it is also resulting in less people being removed from the united states. 13 less people actually being sent back to their countries than had been the case under the prior administration. And thats baecause the border numbers are so low. There are just not that many people coming across the borders. So the experience for countries that are source countries of immigration is less pressure of returns. Than had been the case earlier. Now that is a huge gap between perception and reality. And it just seems to me, i mean, there are lots of take aways from it. But the most straightforward take away it seems to me is how very important leadership tone matters. What the real power is of the rhetoric and of the message, because we now are in an era where immigration is being portrayed as a threat to the country, as a danger to the country, not as an asset to the country. And, you know, the result of that is that we are seeing changes in behavior on the ground because of the perceptions rather than what it is thats really happening. Thank you. What youve touched on, what each of you have touched on with regard to the daca recision is that if congress doesnt act, 800,000 individuals, about 800 tho 800,000 individuals are supposed to be deported. Now each of you have worked in different areas of enforcement of the immigration issue. Id like to hear beyond the rhetoric, a lot of what ends up in political analysis, and that is the administrative cost. That is what do you see as the challenges, the burdens of suddenly telling the department of Homeland Security, you need to go ut o a to go out and deport 800,000 people. In an era of budget cutting, in an era where congress and the president are committed to smaller government, can you talk a little bit about the challenges the Homeland Security secretary will face in carrying out that order . And lets not forget if congress doesnt act, the courts may. Sure, sure. So theres both a belt and suspenders approach to preventing the recision of daca. But you know, you dont just pick up somebody and all of a sudden theyre in another country, theres a whole administrative procedure that goes along with that, beginning with the ice agent who has it to find the person and detain them. And then an administrative procedure by which theyre adjudicated. Whether theyre deportable or not. Then youve got to transport them. And the country to which theyre being deported has it to receiv them. So theres a whole change of things that have to happen. And each of those things requires resources. And each takes time. And so the notion that you just flip a switch and remove 800,000 people is a myth. Just, it just doesnt work that way. And thats, thats the you know, kind of the reality. The perception, however, is one that i think instills a lot of fear in yes, maam graimmigrant. And one of the virtues of daca was that these d. R. E. A. M. Ers didnt have to walk around always looking over their shoulder, wondering whether there was an ice agent trying to find them and deport them. That assurance is now, would be gone. And so you have entire communities that, you know, live in fear and apprehension, and when the rhetoric is to use doriss words, so much more muscular, it just ups the temperature. And makes everybody live not just in fear and trepidation but reluctant to do things. Like, for example, reluctant it to report when theres a victim of crime. Thats within of the reasons why local Law Enforcement agencies are so opposed to some of the actions being taken or, and the words being used on Immigration Enforcement. And so these are all things that must be taken into account. If i may, i would add to that an important piece of that puzzle is where the immigration courts fall in, and the opportunity that individuals have, which is also part of this process, to seek relief if available to them under our law. So that also adds a dynamic in terms of how these things play out, and, again, to the perception and reality of what enforcement actually means. I do want to talk about, if i may, john, some of the other costs and perhaps an aspect that maybe is lesstalkedabout. What we know as the largest latino civil rights and advocacy norgs Th Organization in this country nearly eight out of ten latinos in this country are a legal citizen. Millions of american families. So it goes beyond, when we talk about the enforcement construct here. It goes beyond the impact to an individual but also to the broader fabric of who i think we are as a country. Interesting reporting recently coming out has shown that there are 5. 7 million u. S. Citizen children in this country that have at least one undocumented parent. Out of every ten hispanic voters, one has an undocumented family member. When we talk about costs, what muscular enforcement may mean. Its really the broader family context. And then you Start Talking about and thinking through what are these socalled collateral costs of ramped up enforcement . We have, as i mentioned earlier, a broad net work of affiliates across the country, and ill relate one story out of los angeles, in california, of an individual who was in this country for 30 years, a longtime member of his community, been raising four u. S. Citizen children in the los angeles area. But most of them in the high school age. He had an incident, an incident that involved a misdemeanor and was ultimately picked up by ice. On the way to dropping off his kids to school. I dont mention this issue to discuss necessarily, i hope folks would have some sympathy for the individual in question here, but what it must be like as the daughter, who, as it it so turned out, w was recording incident and its now viral and on youtube. Of ice office earrs on the way School Picking up your father. What that might mean for your mental health, playing that every day, what that might mean in school, are you going to be fullyinvested in school . And by the way, two of the four daughters were actually training for the Los Angeles Marathon with the help of their father. So just the other aspects of trying to be a normal teenager in the day to day. I think about running a marathon, i just think about it i get tired. The folks who are actually trying to do other things in their day to day. So i think its important to think through that its not just, you know, the Community Member that is impacted. There are real costs associated with that, but what are the collateral costs to the families. In many instances, american families, that are left behind with the ramped up interior enforcement that we are living through right now. Let me pick up on one other point on daca, and if the daca deal does not happen. I mean, i totally agree. As, as dreadful as that would be, as a general Public Policy matter, i think one does have to be realistic. This is not an automatic deportation that takes place, and wyes, it is somewhere betwen 700,000 and 800,000 people. But the far more likely outcome is 700,000 to 800,000 young people who will find themselves in an extraordinarily more vul merable circumstance in this country. Some will come, Law Enforcement will come across some of them in one way or another. I dont believe that there will be a targeted effort to go out and look for the daca population, if this, you know, if, if daca ultimately is removed. But the perception and the concern about deportation is, as has been said, incredibly real in these peoples lives and if their family lives. If you step back from it, probably the far more important character of daca is Work 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, if you have people that are legally in the labor market, they are on an upward mobility track. I mean, the data are clear that the daca population got better jobs, earns better. Are able to get drivers licenses and therefore have much more mobility and ability to function. Are able to go to school because of assistance programs. If that goes, they fall back into the underground economy, and falling back into the underground economy is not only a real vulnerability for them and their families in addition to the possibility, randomly, of deportation, its a real loss for labor markets, and particularly, the locations which are heavily concentrated. Now were talking about california, texas, you know, it there a there are about six or eight locations that are the dominant locations for the daca population, and thats a very big loss in general. To our productivity as a, you know, in those parts of the country. So doris, pick up a little bit on o cost again. One of the issues that we address in our paper and that the president has talked about is a lack of capacity to enforce Immigration Law. And the president s plan is to hire 15,000 ice and Border Patrol agents. Thats what hes set forward as his goal. Now we talk a little bit about the penguifinancial challenges e basic h. Rchb basic hr challenges of hiring that many people. As the former commissioner of the ins, can of talk about challenges in hiring, retention, et cetera, as well as thecosts hiring and the likelihood of an administration being able to boost those numbers like 15,000 and up. I would like to start with you. Janet had a more recent experience with that. I can capture it in one ratio, 271. In order to hire up in the Border Patrol, and this may be different today, but during the period i was thats correct ere 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 challenge. The reasons are that you dont just hire anybody to be a Border Patrol agent. There are physical requirements. A Foreign Language requirement. People have to speak spanish and pass a spanish test. They are, the physical training requirements and the Immigration Law training requirements are significant. These are really very welltrained Law Enforcement officers. And the security clearances, lots of people fail the security clearances. Frankly, today, the labor pool that is available for these sorts of jobs is a real difficulty because of drugs. Because of other background clearance issues. Their salaries are very good for those locations, but we have more than 20,000 Border Patrol already. The border is saturated with personnel. And the Border Patrol numbers, though, are the smaller of this agenda. The ladies arger are ice agents. 10 o,000 10,000. Its a much bigger percentage of the workforce. So when you are talking about absorbing that level of workforce, your whole supervisory structure, physical facilities, there are tremendous ripple effects to that kind of a rampup. So if that kind of a rampup does happen it will happen over the course of 510 years, not 48 years, because its not doable in a first term time range. You were the commissioner, and you, you are right that you have to have an enormous applicant pool to harvest one agent. The training at the Academy Takes a number of months. Youve got to have, you know, the physical facilities in which the training can occur. Youve got to have the stations out of which the agents operate, immedia need to be properly sized. And, as you say, at the border, there already had been such a significant ramp up. The real issue at the border is the greater use of technology. And both at the ports of entry and between the ports of entry, and air coverage over, over the border. So that agents are better able to detect where unlawful pass ablg is being attempted. And, in terms of enlarging the interior enforcement, ice, that, too, will take a significant period of time and require a lot more resources than people anit t tis pate. If i may, just one point there. To the credit of the leadership at dhs in the past eight years or so. Agencies like the Border Patrol hadden abo had been moving in the direction of Greater Transparency and accountability. In things like establishing internal Affairs Board and authorizing that division with more powers, publishing use of force data, instituting or looking at instituting bodyworn camera pilots and so north. The reason i mention this is i think theres an inference it that some may draw. Why dont we perhaps look at the standards. Why is it so hard for folks to get into the Border Patrol and possibly ice agency as well. And i would caution against moving too far in that direction. I think to the credit, again, to the department, they had been move oi moving in the right direction to enhance accountability, to enhance that hiring standards are up to par. So i would just offer it that as something that contributes to possibly the hiring challenges. But its fundamental from the marketing perspective ha those things do not get lost. So we talked a little bit about the costs of hiring. Doris, as you said, 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, and ha that is the border wall. You opposed the construction of a physical border at the southern border of the united states. And you often were quoted saying show me a 50foot wall, and ill show you a 51foot ladder. I would not step foot on a 51foot ladder, to be honest. What types of alternatives are not just more effective, but more attainable, if the heated rhetoric died down a little and people entered this conversation in a more levelheaded way . Yeah, so, you know, i think the notion of building a wall across the southwest border, i mean, i just, first of all, just doing it. You know, that border from a geography standpoint, youre talking about going through river beds, over mountains. Theres a great deal of private Property Ownership along the border. When there was money set aside in a secure fencing act a decade and a half ago a number of the Property Owners who, whose property would be used for that sued. Those cases, many of them, are still in litigation. So, you know, youll have those issues. You have indian reservations that straddle the border, in arizona, for example, the community lives on both sides of the border. Theyve already said theyre 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 ive seen areal low numbers. And i think youre talking in excess of 20 billion to build anything like a wall. So you have to question, what does a wall do . Well, the notion that a wall, theres going to be some kind of impermeable structure along the border, again, you know, anybody whos been at the border and mows t mo knows the border knows that just wont fly. And what real border enforcement means is a strategy that includes manpower, that includes technology, that includes, as i said before, air coverage. It also includes working with our neighbors to the south to try to 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 and protecting their southern border. So you know, waiting until the traffic hits a myth logical structure does not suffice as an immigration policy. Would anyone else like to add . Well, maybe i should use this opportunity to throw out my favorite number. You said the wall was probably in the 20 billion range. Thats what Homeland Security has been estimating. 21 billion. We now spend 19 billion on immigration enforce mptd overall in this country. That represents 25 more than all federal criminal Law Enforcement, which means the fbi, the dea, the atf, the secret service, the marshal service. Were spending 25 more than those agencies combined. And now wire talkiere talking 20 billion wall that is even more expensive than that expenditure and in the face of chamss in flows and the kinds of points that you properly raised that i completely agree w what brings about effective Law Enforcement . I will raise my hand as a proi poenant of bear juriarriers. In certain circumstances. About a third of the border has a bear jurarrier. You can call it a wall or whatever you want. And its of enormous help. But it has to be maintained, repaired. Its simply a method of helping to channel the flow and deal with certain types of terrain. Its not a onesizefitsall and solve the problem solution. We have about 12 or 13 minutes before i open it up to audience questions. Carlos, i want to start with you. Buenos is one of the agencies affecting community. I want you to talk about how it has responded to an unexpected political environment since november 8th. And an a little bit about what has happened with bu knee toes and its partners. A lot of times when there is a disastrous policy situation in your, on your radar, it can bring groups together in ways that other situations may not. Can you talk a little bit about the Interest Group and Advocacy Group o environmen Group Environment . Suffice it to say, the election of President Trump, perhaps unexpectedly by some kind of threw many of us in the advocacy space, of course i wasnt then in the advocacy space, but now in the advocacy space for a loop. I think inthe profile or positioning of a lot of groups today has had to be one of more rapid response. Perhaps many were gearing up for a different dynamic had a Different Administration been in place. So what that means is relentless to a point, john, a relentless, you know, tracking of the latest hot button issue of the day and a coming together, frankly, of the groups to deal with those in the most proecappropriate manne. I will tell you, it feels like its a constant onslaught these days. Starting from muslim ban to ramped up interior ebb forcement actions to daca now. It just always feels like were on the defensive. But i say that, and i say that with some pride and the reaction that the Advocacy Community and others, partners have, in the way that they have come together to respond. And one of the ways that we are seeing that play out is in response to the daca recision now in this very multifaceted approaches to that. And as we think about the window that we have. And i sincerely believe that we have a window right now, to get something done. Y you see a lot of the groups looking to Carry Forward the momentum, to talk about debt ceiling and so forth where me might have opportunity to discuss this as a more comprehensive package perhaps. That momentum and work continues. It will continue to o be in thi fight and we have a lot at stake. Its not just 800,000 individuals, Daca Recipients. Its their families and also the individuals not to be forgotten in this space, who do not have daca but for all intents and purposes lawabiding individuals trying to go about their day to day lives as well. President napolitano, over the past several election cycles, weve seen your home state of arizona trend toward purple. In 2004, president bush won by 10 points. In 2012, president obama lost arizona by nine points and President Trump won the state by 3. 5 . 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 S Immigration policies broad la broadly. Whether its rhetorical, whether it involves daca and the wall, controversial pardons, perhaps, what that might mean for the politics on the ground in a state like arizona in local elections, Congressional Elections and for the next president ial race. Well, youre right. Arizona trends purple, though it tends a little more republican than democratic. Although, you know, it has elected democratic governors, and senators. And the congressional delegation is, in the house is about equally divided. You know, i think that one impact could be to stimulate Voter Registration and voting by the latino population. And 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, as i said, increasing latino vote o voter turnout. And we will see that in 2018. Okay. So for my last question, we have about five minutes before audience questions. Im going to wrap by asking each of you to think about the next five and a half months. As Congress Mulls over what to do on daca, as Congress Mulls over a variety of immigration policies, whether its through a funding bill thats coming up in december and probably again two or three month s later and probably two or three months after that. What advice would you give to members of Congress Facing this type of issue. Whatever portion of that you think is most important to congressional leadership or to rank and file. Well, i think, if i were called upon to advise a member of congress, which i would be reluctant to do. But i would say that the imminent risk now is to o tthe d. R. E. A. M. Ers. And while we all hope at some point for a comprehensive immigration reperform, whiform, country sorely needs. That achieving some sort of statutory resolution for at least that population and if they need to attach it to a mustpass bill that, you know, ha ha is a strategiry that has worked in the past for other types of measures. You know, the notion arises, you know, what kind of, would you agree to anything on the enforcement side for those who have that interest on their mind in order to get success for the d. R. E. A. M. Ers. And there should be some red lines. Funding for a wall should be a red line. But, you know, you have to add some other funding for Border Security to the mix, whether that, you know, is wellspent funding or not. That funding is going to, in my view, occur in some form or fashion anyway. And if you can get the a d. R. E. A. M. Act through, using that as a package, that should be worthy of consideration. So while we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that the country needs overall immigration reform, the immediate need now is for the d. R. E. A. M. Ers. I would have one simple, clear message. That would be lets get it done. Lets get it done. And we talk about the, we have been talking about the human costs 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, a manmade disaster after the recision of daca and all eyes are on you to act. And i would remind congress that the American People support a pathway for these youth, that it 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 their th this done. More broadly, we are concerned and a subject for another conversation, an issue of credibility in some of our core institutions, and congress, i would submit, is one. What better way than to o show the American People that we can come together and really express who we are as a country, what our American Values are and working together to find a solution. So i would say lets get it done. I would say, if theres any issue on which to test a time where you should break the hastert 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 theyre not equivalent. I dont in any way say that this is an equivalency. But still, there are parts of each party that will resist. However, as you pointed out, and so important. This issue of all others in this contentious area is one that is strongly backed across the board by the public. Its, members of Congress Know that weve got to find a way to get a center back into, a functional center, you know, back into play. And this is an election whatever else wants to see problems solved. They picked a way to do it that was surprising, but nonetheless, thats part of the message. And so you cant 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 a majority. And they will get credit for it. Great, thank you. Now id like to turn it over to all of you. To hear some questions. I have a couple of caveats. First, short questions are great. Testimony is not great. This is not a courtroom. And i reserve the right to absolutely cut you off and shut you down if you make yourself a fifth panelist. Next, you can ask questions via twitter. You can tweet them brookings kb them first and foremost, id like to thank all of our panelists today. My name is alicia mctaggert, and i am currently an intern. My question is, what components are essential to keep in mind in regards to 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, its interesting. Dhs is the only federal department that has a Civil Rights Office that looks internall internally not externally. And, you know, i, i think it important that that office have visibility into the policies and practices of what is happening at ice, at cbp, that it have an effective mechanism by which complaints can be received and resolved. And that that process in and of itself be transparent. All right. Right up front. Thanks. Im a Congressional Correspondent for the hispanic outlook. In 2013, the judiciary subcommittee considered a, this was in july. After june, after the 2013 bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill passed. The judiciary subcommittee in the house considered a bill called the kids act, which was a standalone d. R. E. A. M. Act. And every democrat on the panel opposed it. Luis gutierrez said it was now the tables have turned. They want this as an it standalone. And they dont want to add anything. I think the republicans would like to add everify. What do you think about that . To the first point of your question, moving away from perhaps a more comprehensive bill to something a little more specific. I think theres a recognition that we are not just in different times, but theres a sense of urgency and momentum, as we speak, to resolve this issue and get it done for this p population. So i think thats what some of the democrats that you speak to are reacting to. Mott just democrats, frankly, republicans as well. Though i would offer that in terms of everify, look, i will maintain, and behave sawe have publicly, that we are one of the organizations pushing for a clean d. R. E. A. M. Act or a vehicle that contains the central provisions of the d. R. E. A. M. Act. What we see percolating in the background are frankly unacceptable to the community. And why i say that is, remember, one of the themes of, points here, were not just talking necessarily about the 800,000 o. We were talking about the parents of the d. R. E. A. M. Ers. I think everify is one of these, these issues that hi woud smi submit we really cant have that conversation until we have broader pieces of the puzzle. Right here on the end. Earlier this morning you mentioned prosecutorial discretion. Dhs rescinded prosecutorial discretion. Now theres over 300,000 status immigrants in the united states. What do you think is going to happen to current pd status, and how will that affect those immigrants. Well, if i understand your question, during the Obama Administration, there were directiontives issued to ice in particular on cases that were to o be pryioritized. And the idea was that when you have 11 million undocumented individuals in the united states, you dont have the sources to deport them all