Transcripts For CSPAN3 American Enterprise Institute Discussion On U.S.-Mexico Border 20240714

Enterprise institute, this is 90 minutes. Good morning, everythibody. Thank you for coming. Please silence your phones if you havent already, or turn them off. One or the other. We welcome you to this Panel Discussion cosponsored by the American Enterprise institute where im from, you can tell because the name rolls off my tongue. And the Migration Policy Institute on u. S. Border crisis where we hope to generate more light than heat. A serious discussion by serious people about a complicated issue. Six weeks ago in his style, President Trump reacting to a flood of Central Americans trying to enter the United States illegally on our southern border threatened to impose sanctions on goods from mexico until our southern neighbor did more to interdict wouldbe migrants. Many complained that he was bullying an important economic partner and misusing tariff authorities. Others asked what leverage does he have to get mexico to do more to respond to a genuine migrant crisis . And they will point to mexicos accommodating response as evidence that trumps tactics worked. There was a recent poll, i noted, last night, that said, among respondents, they said 75 said we should deport Central Americans. 67 agreed with the idea of, quote, militarizing the border. Whats interesting is that was a poll in mexico of mexicans. With news that mexico has deployed a phalanx of Security Forces to stop Central Americans, it is fair to say that trump got his wall and mexico is paying for it. To be even more provocative, think its fair to ask if american politicians are able to address a fundamental security issue or whether they prefer to spend the coming Election Year using the border crisis to whip up their bases. These panelists will identify specific steps that could be taken to address the root causes of Central American exodus and remedy the fact that human smugglers are exploiting poor migra migrants, gaming our asylum laws and overwhelming our beleaguered border enforcement efforts. We will ask the question, can our government do one of its most fundamental tasks of preserving our territorial integrity and securing our homeland . Joining us today are hirono gutierrez who served as ambassadam ba ambassador of mexico to the United States under president enrique pena nieto. Hes served in various roles in the Mexican Foreign government focusing on policy and Homeland Security. Ambassador gutierrez is currently a managing partner at biel infrastructure partners. I was with him when probably at crawford yep. Where you came appropriately attired in cowboy boots and jeans and i had loafers and tried to stay out of president bushs line of sight. View. Precisely because i was not appropriately attired. But afterwards the president asked, who was that young guy who had all the answers . And what was interesting is that we all knew he was talking about you, hirono. Welcome this morning. Thank you. Andrew seely, the president of a nonpartisan institution that seeks to improve organization and integration policies. Before joining mbi, he spent 17 years at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars where he founded the centers Mexico Institute and later served as Vice President for programs and executive for Vice President. Hes also the author of a book, very good book, vanishing frontiers. Yes. Vanishing frontiers. I welcome you here, today, andrew, is our cosponsor. Sarah pierce is a policy analyst for u. S. Immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute. Where her Research Expertise includes policy and enforcement. More joining npi, miss pierce practiced Immigration Law with chicagobased law firm before the Immigration Court board of immigration appeals. U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and u. S. Consulate offices abroad. Mark teeson is a resident fellow at aei where he studies and writes about american president ial leadership and counterterrorism. He writes a twice weekly column for the Washington Post on foreign and domestic policy and is a contributor to fox news. Mark also served as chief speakwriter to president george w. Bush and worked with me, well, it was a lot of fun, but it was work, too, when we worked for senator helms in the senator. Hes also the host of a podcast elegantly named what the hell is going on . You should check it out. You should check it out. They did the our first guest was roger noriega. I was the guinea pig. Then they broke it down and retooled after me. At any rate, ambassador gutierrez, welcome. Why dont you sort of lay the groundwork for the discussion . What were the elements of the migration accord the president found satisfactory . Just in june. And explain to us how mexico vee sponding to that. Sure. First of all, thank you for inviting me to be here this morning. Thank you, all, for coming. Its certainly a timely discussion. So i what would call the u. S. And mexico recently just had what i would label an understanding by which both sides are acting upon their own laws, coordinating in a series of factions and mainly three areas. The first one that i would emphasize is theres been an agreement that both countries need partner to work on development. In the end, i think everybody agrees that if people are forced to leave their countries, somethings wrong and i think most people do agree that it is important to work on the development, whether its on southern mexico or Central America. And its a tough task to do that. It takes a lot of time. But i think that its positive that theres an agreement that we should all try to Work Together, including, obviously, because theyre the ones that are directly involved, the countries, our good friends from Central America. The second area is what i would call that, you know, enforcement. And what mexico is doing, im personally very happy to see it, although theres a lot of political flak that has been taken by the administration on this one, is that were actually enforcing our own Immigration Law. Thats new, in a sense, thats new. That is why people are so surprised in mexico and, perhaps, here, and that is why, perhaps, you have President Trump talking about how, you know, mexicos doing great. Were simply doing what our own Immigration Law does, and i think thats important. I think that that should be done with absolute respect of human rights and im sure thats what were trying to do. And it should be done in a way that its humane and orderly, but so far, what mexico has done is just follow what is in its own Immigration Law. And the third area, i think, of the agreement, which is important, or the understanding, is that in some way or fashion, we need to Work Together to address a fact that a lot of people from the northern triangle countries of Central America, mainly, not only from those countries, some from mexico and some from elsewhere, have increasing numbers arrive at the u. S. mexico border to seek asylum and theres a whole debate about what implies and what is causing it. The fact is that i think i think its appropriately described as a humanitarian crisis and also as an Immigration Crisis. Fine. We need to, you know, at least recognize the fact that theres both things. And in the end, i think the only way that that is going to be appropriately addressed is if all of the countries take a regional solution or try to work on a regional that were all going to have to chip in. And were all going to have to if theres a humanitarian crisis mexico, i think, needs to do a little bit more of its share and work with our Central American friends. Those are the three elements. So far, tht implies that there is a program called, as you know, mexico, by which certain people are waiting on the mexican side of the border while their asylum claim is being reviewed. We can talk about whether thats working or not later. We have deployed an increasing number of immigration agents to our southern border. And also, now, the National Guard of our federal police. And that is also happening in important numbers. And were also trying to strengthen our refugee agency, which quite clearly is not up to the task, and, therefore, we need to increase its institutional capacity. Thats the agreement. To be sure, theres a lot of, you know, criticism. You know, the labrador administration is being criticized by mexico. I do have to say to the extent were able to take the politics, whether its on mexico, the United States, and on both countries, as far away from this as possible and its tempting not to. I know. I understand. I think our governments work better on this one. Roger. Thank you very much for laying the groundwork forsarah, the Migration Policy Institute. Why dont we before we talk policy, how are there are there any indications, anecdotal information, whatever, that the initial enforcement efforts are having some kind of an impact in terms of dissuadinining Central Americans from coming into next kco in the first place . Okay. First of all, roger, thank you for proposing this partnership. Its great to be at aei and great to be able to do this together. We i would say theres some initial i mean, if our measurement is, you know, there is a surge in the number of people coming month over month, started in august, ramped up in february and march, up to may, yes, weve seen the numbers go down and we saw mexico apprehend and deport probably a third more people than they had the month before and weve seen a drop probably in the preliminary numbers that have been leaked. We havent seen final numbers, probably a third fewer apprehensions on the u. S. mexico border. Some of that can be seasonal. There tends to be a drop in the number of people coming but theres some reason to believe that Central American migration is less sensitive to seasonal cycles than mexican migration once was. Mexicans had a lot of knowledge of the migration cycle and tend to have places they were going. Central americans, its a little less tied to specific jobs that theyre headed to. But it does seem that theres some of this as enforcement. Right . Mexico was thrown a lot of enforcement resources into this. It is hard tore gse harder to g. I was just in el salvador. People who work with people from the three Central American countries from the majority come from. Guatemala, by the way. Honduras, second, very high. El salvador in distant third. Word that seems to be getting back on the ground is that, you know, this is not the thyme ime go. Its hard to get through mexico. Measured at a longer yardstick, i worried there isnt really no one is yet talking about longterm solutions. Mexico can throw you know, the people in mexico, and certainly the Mexican Government, and i know geronimo, you had to deal with this when you were ambassador. Mexico sees itself still as a kun of about migration, right . Theres never been an investment in the kinds of institutions you need to deal with migration. Right . So the comad, the asylum institute, has a budget of 1. 3 million. You know, for theyre going to get about 60,000 applications for asylum this year. They had a little over 30,000 this year. Theres no way they can deal with that. No one ever thought, yes, theres always been people requesting asylum in mexico, but historically, in no one thought as mexico as a country that had to spend a lot on migration. Not only is it underfunded, theres a lot of end dent out the there that agents collude with smugglers. You may be able to stop things for a while, what stops you from going back to old patterns of behavior . On the u. S. Side, sarah will talk more about this, i have a sense we havent had a real conversation on what our immigration policy is, either. Trump talks tough. I suspect much of what he does is a play to his base. In fact, its not very effective in terms of policy. So, you know, you can talk tough but if theres no implementation of a rational policy behind it, thats not actually very tough and its not very helpful. Democrats talk compassion, but my sense is that democrats quite often are endorsing things that will lead to more migration which is actually leading to more migration generating antibodies against immigration in the country and may not be fair to people drawn to the border. Thats not compassion it. We need a real conversation in the country. I worry what we are trying to do now is outsource or policy to maximum mexico because we dont want to fix it. And injury thats a dangerous place to be in. Mexico op the other hand is happy to sort of assauge pruch for a while but is waiting for the moment to pass and go back to things. I think both of those are wrong reactions. Mexico needs to be serious about migration for its own reasons. Its going to be a country of pass through more and more people staying in mexico. There are people staying in mexico if given asylum or come and go it if there was a Work Based Program in mexico. And there will be people coming arthro. Mexico needs a immigration policy for its own reasons. And United States needs a serious conversation where democrats and republicans sit down and say what is a fairminded but tough minded border strategy that mr. Dissuade people from coming to the country. Allow people to have legal avenues for people to come and work but dissawed people from making a journey as of an unauthorize the migrant to the u. S. Border. We havent had that conversation yet. I worry what we are doing as a result were just basically trying to throw a problem to the mexico and the Mexican Government is saying well deal with it for a while and hoping this passes. We could be having the same conversation a year from now. Yeah, the only thing ill add is we have seen the story during the obama administration. There was a huge crites of unaccompanied Child Migrants arriving at the southern borders. The numbers went down once mexico stepped up southern border enforcement and they have gone back up. Echoing what aund said we need to focus on longterm solutions. Its costly too and addressing the root causes is longer Term Investment and longer term results. Lets talk about the crisis thats really happening. I mean, as great grandson and grandson of mexican immigrants im very pro immigration and not, you know, taken in by the antiimmigrant rhetoric by any means. But there is a serious problem. Everyone unof 31 plus erik Central Americans wanting to come to the u. S. Cant just appear at the border. We have to respond to this. It seems that the smugglers are gaming our asylum system, overwhelming our enforcement efforts. Explain some of the elements and a half, will you please, sarah. Right now when you arrive at the southern border if you are apprehended you can be subject to expedited removal, deported from the country within a few days. The way to get out of expedited removal is to say that you have a credible fear of returning to your home country and apply for asylum. And that is what a lot of individuals are using to enter in system right now. But the problem with our asylum application process is the case is handed over to the Immigration Court system, extremely backlogged. It has nearly 900,000 cases. You frequent i dont go before a judge, three, four, five years down the line. Meanwhile, youre living in the United States. So this is a really bad system for legitimate Asylum Seekers because they live in the United States, doept know if they are betting to stay and their evidence is getting outstate o dated while they wit for this hearing where they can ultimately apply for asylum. Its also bad because like you implied it creates perverse incentives to the come to the United States and use the system at least as a way to temporarily get perms to enter and stay in the United States. And i think thats that did that outdated system is what were seeing being exploited today. Umhum. Mark, you at the time of in agreement wrote about and spoke about and harassed me about that President Trump was using the only leverage available to him. And by the way was having results. And but our colleagues Andreas Martinez and and ryan berg wrote a piece explaining the native relationship, the high confiscates in terms of, you know integrated economic relationship with mexico that were all influenced by the you know, the President Trump or frankly any u. S. President , the United Statesen kind of be strong argument the mexican authorities. Are you able to see the the longterm implications that have kind of cycle on the u. S. Bilateral relationship with mexico. Yeah, so begin with, like you im pro immigration because my mother was a stateless refugee and was welcomed into the refuge were a nation of immigrants and we ought to be. And President Trump is wrong when he said when he looked at the crisis when the kriez started and said sorry is america fl, no more room. In fact because of the economic boom that were having, because of his economic policies our biggest economic problem roubts is we have 1. 6 million unfilled job than we have citizens unemployed workers to fill them. We need immigrants. We need legal immigrants but we need immigrants coming into the country. But and so but what we need to get control of our borders. As you pointed out there was a genuine crisis. Mexico is a friend, ally and partner. And i love all the things that the ambassador laid out that alter doing, now enforcing their Immigration Laws. They werent enforcing them six weeks ago. This went happening. Everyone said a lot of the stuff in the agreement was stuff agreed to in december. Well, six months later it wasnt happening. Now all of a sudden its happening. So, you know, i wrote a column in the post saying it was it would be disaster to to have a trade war with mechanics me during a trade war with china. Because mexico and china sprouse the same goods. There is no where else to get them if you have tariffs on both countries. Bad economically for the United States to have the trade war. But trump didnt see it that way. He thinks tariffs are good. He is wrong. And mexico was serious it was ging to devastating for mexico more so the United States. And it worked all these things are happening finally. My worry is and see mexico is doing exactly what is suggested, which is its waiting trump out, that eventually once either he might lose reelection or you know Something Else might happen in this country and he wont be pressing them and then we can go back to the way things were. Which is why trump i think is right in insisting that there has to be at the end of the process a Safe Third Country Agreement with mexico. Because i dont understand why if mexico is incapable of enforcing it southern border the problem should be ours. If mexico cant enforce its southern southern border and prevent immigrants coming across the 400 mile mothered oh shouldnt be a problem on our 2,000 mile border. They should apply for asylum in mexico and stay theren a mexico deals with that. It would be an incentive to mexico to actually enforce its border and not leet the people in the first place because they would have paid the economic costs. And secondly end a lot of the activity of the coyotes and human smugglers because people arent paying tens of thousands to come to the mexico. They want to come to thes United States. It would have an impact. I worry i think trump had a victory in doing this. I worry that its temporary. Yes i think being loo im concerned mexico is not an adversary. But they werent doing their job. And so, you know, weve tried it through a partnership. And weve tried it through cooperation. And weve tried it through friendly friendly means. And nothing was happening. So the evidence is and see when trump threatened when he spoke when president s speak softly Nothing Happened and when trump picked up the big stick of tariffs something happened. Thats the lesson. Well, ambassador gutierrez said that we got to keep politics away from the problem in both countries. But lets talk about politics. Because were in washington. We need more we need more border enforcement efforts resources to treat people hue manley on the border. Personnel, money, precise willy to enforce our laws, protect our security and provide adjudication of legitimate claims for asylum. It looks as if were in sort of the the gears are locking up in washington, where even the idea of enforcement resources is controversial. And you had every democratic candidate lining up against these efforts criticizing u. S. Enforcement efforts in the worst possible terms, referring to concentration camps and all of this. Is either side prepared you guys watch in very closely. Is either seidling to spend any Political Capital to get to a solution in or do we have to muddle through for the next two years essentially with this crisis . Ill jump in. Yes, please. First first let me grant park the point that quote unquote lets just assume that we were not doing enough. I think that its ive said this publicly before. I think its in mexicos own interests to do a serious enforcement of its own Immigration Laws. Ive said it before, and ill say it again. And again emphasizing that that is not at odds per se of being of you know being humane, upholding human rights, and being as as friendly as possible to a humanitarian crisis. Im sure all of you saw the photographs of a father and her daughter lying dead face down on the banks of the rio grande. Nobody not the United States nor mexico nor the Central Americans can be satisfied with that situation. That is why we have to get the politics out of the way. And so far what has happened over the last two decades in fact is that politicians on both sides of the border had not been willing to pay the political cost of doing this right. And weve been muddling you through as you say. So maybe maybe we got to the point where its a serious you know, a serious enough crisis that well do something about it. If mexico is finally doing a better job in taking seriously its own enforcement i think the United States dish dsh thats my honest opinion the government of the United States and President Trump himself, then he should take another tack and show something on the on having more and better legal avenues for migration. And i know theres always been a debate about lets do Border Security first then well do thats not going to happen. Why dont we do them at the same time. Thats the only way its going to happen. But were doing enforcement what im trying to say is when will the other equation if people have a legal avenue to move whether through mexico and the United States where most of them will use the legal avenue. So i just think, you know ill grant you the point. We need to do a better enforcement. But hopefully well also see on the other side, as you were rightly saying, if the economy here in the United States needs that well lets lets see what we can do or at least willing to show were willing to work on the other side of the equation. And one small thing, whether the tariffs i tend to think that its very risky to mix tariffs and anything else, you know, lets leave the trade agenda to itself. Hopefully that can be done. And my message would be, okay if it shake it but dont break it. Be careful bus you can get to the point where if the tariffs are employeesed you might end up shooting yourself in the foot. I look at it slightly difference i get to snit room mexican mexicans and americans yelling at each other. And my colleague over here has done keeps track of deportations from both countries. One of the little known facts is fascinating is that mexico dpoerted more people than the United States since 2014. Mexico dpoerted the u. S. Apprehends more. Mexico deports more people. Whats the difference there . U. S. Apprehends a lot of people who actually able to apply for asylum and get relief and then let go. If you are a mexican being looing at the situation the reaction is the you are american looking at this is the why dont mexico stop people coming from in if you are mexico i say the reason they are come in as soon as they g et to the u. S. Border there is the magnet up there drawing people in. We can deport as many as we want. Theyre coming through because they want to get through the United States. Now i dont think either of those answers is the right one. This is something which we are coresponsible. Mexico has its own reasons for wanting control of its border and wanting to have legal flows through its country. Countries should want legal flows. I mean, this is its much better for the migrants themselves. Its better for knowing who is in your country. Its better for the labor market if people are there legally. Its why columbia with venezuelan migrants has gone out of its way to legalize as many people as possible. Because with the huge flows coming out some pass through. You are better off with a legal flow than unthoers authorized flow in ins kacie. The mechanics coast ha has its own reason the there is plenty of blame both to going bowing sides. We talk tough but we dont nfrt enforce the border and mexico doesnt. The option of doing either remain in mexico migrant protection protocols its officially called or safe third country. Im skeptical one. We did a sted of Safe Third Country Agreements. And there are few in the world. Countries tend to slither out and tend to run into legal challenges. By the way just sort of amuseding note we do have a Safe Third Country Agreement with canada. Because canadians took ten years to product us to do it and only applies did its not that canadians protecting our border. They are the crossing into canada. And we only agreed to it at ports of entry. Theenings want it at areas between points of country. There is undocumented flow, illegal flow from the u. S. Into canada every month about four to five hundred people. S aring between ports of entry. We into he had a wall. Zpla. Thats right. No the the literally the day before trumps tariffs i was getting of an earful from canadian officials how we botany agree to a Safe Third Country Agreement with them. Irony note for today. I mean safe third countries mv. P. You could do in country processesing. There is things my colleague kathleen eweland knows this. There is useful things that may have some utility. But the only which of stopping the flee is getting our asylum walls in the mexico and the United States. You have an idea how to do this. But i think in the end whfr we agree to its how do we fix our asylum system and mexico fix its asylum system and open up legal channels not a Million People a year. But some legal channel and they think its worth getting into line. So, i mean, on fixes the asylum system, we Migration Policy Institute have recommended is taking the siem asylum adjudication out of the court system thats so bock lagged on problematic. And the put it with uscis pch they conduct the initial interview for many applicants, the credible fear interview. And we believe that they if they were in cell of the final adjudication could jude kate the cases within months as opposed to the current of years. And i do think that there is political will for this. We recently had the 4. 6 million supplemental funding bill pass through congress. And the house version of the bill contained that suggestion that i went over having ucscis do the final adjudication. And we have heard interest in this issue on both sides of the aisle making the adjudications more efficient to be more fair to everyone involved. I think maybe where that political will stops is the white house, there is not enough trust in this administration to implement the plan. But there is political well its getting it over the final hurdle. Of course, any member of congress thats interested in solutions on this wishes to remain aanonymous for the time being is that right. Well, they wrote it into the bill and voted for it so there are. Thats the one element. But in terms of comprehensive reform. Mark, you were saying the president would probably cut a deal a big grand bargain on. He would cut an immigration deal in a hereby with the enacts if he could get the wall. This is what whats amazing to me is that. Where are we putting the wall though. First of all. Maybe it should be put it in southern mexico. Only 400 miles there easier to secure. Create jobs in mexico. Awesome. No, no, please go ahead. Trump wants a wall. Trump wants changes in the immigration system similar to what the to make it more similar to the australian, canadian system with a mor the merit based system. Every exact was in favor of the wall or border fence until donald trump came along. And you know dsh we were talking earlier about leverage. With mexico right now the reason mexico is enforcing its Immigration Laws for the first time is because trump had leverage. Our economy is booming. The mexican economy is in negative growth. They can the mexico cant take a trade war. We could survive aed trade war. And they knew he was willing to put pull the trying are and it worked. He had leveling. Democrats with the wall have leveling, drufrm wants a wall. The many only way he gets the wall if the democrats in capitol hill give it to him. In negotiation oneonone thats called leverage to get a deal. Why we they just throw that leverage away and get nothing if . Effected get daca, some form of legal gas station for all 11. Million people noncriminal aliens in the country. Trump would go along with that for the wall and the changes in the immigration system why are they not interested. If you want to turn off the magnet overeover here talk to nancy pelosi and Chuck Schumer. I have. Because thats where the hold up is. And donald trump would give a in fact if you look at the real immigration restrictionist the big fear they dont care a wall they want to cut immigration. They want to stop people from coming in. And theyre if you listen to many solve the folks on the far right of the immigration issue, theyre really worried that donald trump would cut a dole with nancy pelosi for a wall in exchange for the legal stationization. In the campaign he kept saying people just ignore it but he kept saying we want the bad ones to go and let the good ones day. Booed bad ones good once. He endorsed something called touchback, a bill originally sponsored by kaye bailey huchds during the immigration debate. Which is that Illegal Immigrants have to go back to the country of country briefly get a z visa cut to lain and come over. And there was a l. A. Times did a poll showing like 80 of Illegal Immigrants in the country would go along with that whats wrong with touchback . The problem you talk its very coherent. Thank you. But you dont work in the white house. And frngly pelosi and others would probably be very interested in the kind of a deal except when you talk about the far right and the Republican Party who are worried about trump cutting a deal, they are represented they make policy in the white house. Stephen mierl miller gets in the way of any solution. They pushed this rock up the hull more than a up can of times. Female thought they had the elements of a deal. And it it rolls back over on them thats the problem isnt it. I think there is a problem of this on both sides. Which is there are people who want a solution on both sides and then people want the issue on bowing sides. I think thats a fair statement there are people but i think the truth is donald trump i mean if you listen to what he actually says as opposed to the character of what people think he says, is he would be willing and he had that famous meeting where the whole thing was recorded in front of everybody. And he was sitting next to dick durbin and he said why dont we do comprehensive dick durbin said no, no, please i dont want to go big. Dont overdo we were all alive when that happened. And by the end of the day it rolled back over him. The reality is that democrats are dug in they will not give him this wall and baste thats the bottom line if they were willing to give thiem him the wall or fence or whatever the heck you want to call it he would give them the world. But they are so dug in on the wall that Chuck Schumer supported. Every Senate Democrat voted for the bang gang of eight bill in 2013 which said that no no Illegal Immigrants can be granted permanent status until the secretary of Homeland Security certificates that all 700 miles have been built. And democrats endorsed that. Barack obama said that was consistent with the principles much the Democratic Party. Nancys pelosi says all of a sudden a wall an immorality. Crazy. I think the plkt mr. S there was a moment where the democrats were willing and some republicans were willing to trade daca for wall actually. Daca plus some. Part of the wall. For part of a wall. Down payment on the wall. There was the beginnings of the conversation. So i think there have been reasonable poise voices on both sides its not always moderate. There were rishl liberal and liberal democrats and conservative republicans willing to meet and compromise on this. I think now its become such an immigration in general has become such a symbolic issue for both parties especially heading towards 2020 that often when we talk about i joke occasionally that at m pichlt we occasionedly come in monday morning pan thinking we work on the important issue front page again and we realize what people are debate something not immigration policy but the symbols of immigration. Right much of what the debate is about is actually symbolic debate. And that makes it hard to get to what roger talked about wsh get the political stuff out and talk about the policy side because because each party has folks dug in some in the white house and some on the democratic leadership. One quick point. Pulling the other direction. One quick question if you were a democrat and looking at donald trump and he wants a wall and youve been to for the wall and you have this leverage you should you should look a this as only nixon could go to china. Probably donald trump could cut comprehensive immigration rear view mirror process. We worked in the Bush Administration and where president bush said enforcement first and Border Security first and no one believed it. And rging abandoned him. If donald trump says this deal is okay and he puts his seal of approval on it then there is few vance grimms who are goating against it. Reality if you really care about the issue and not the politics, this is the moment. To try and get a deal. This is the guy this is nixon going to china, on immigration. Otherwise its probably not going to happen in our lifetime. Just to comment, i was recently reading an article by an admiral and he said two things i think are important. First, be careful and single Point Solutions on complex issues. Such as this one. And the problem with a wall among other and thats something the u. S. And the final position of the Mexican Government has been clearly im not authorized to use it but ill say it, which is, its on your side we dont think its a good idea. Its on your side. While we pret our own side, but most intelligent people think thats not a good idea to achieve operational control of the border. So what im trying to say is the solution is going to be a mix this article points to the fact i think its right. Some things needs to be strategic. Some things need to be operational. And some tactical pl. The strategic is helping development of those countries and we should do more. And those countries the Central Americans should do more by themselves. Its difficult to help them more than theyre willing to help themselves. Its also strategic to achieve, you know, to fix and coordinate our asylum systems. I think thats an important strategy given where things are going. And there are going to be operational things. The wall doesnt we back to the first simply thats the best way to go. And it is very offensive to 98 of the mexicans mind you because of the narrative is important. There were 500 miles of fencing built during the Bush Administration, the obama administration, the clinton administrations but it was never personal. And it was not linked to what are simply, you know, not facts about what mexico is doing where they are coming through. Lets have a serious debate about stewart security on the border and immigration lets have mexico do more. But if we put a wall there it will stay a long time, cost a lot of money and probably not the best solution to the United States. Fences make good up in numbers number one and two the reason your country is kraging down on immigration right now is because donald trump saw a video of 1,000 people crossing through a hole in a fence. And if there were a wall there they would not have crossed and we want have the tariff fight to begin with. There are a wall is not a catchall solution for everything. But its a part of everybody agreed until donald trump came along is that it was one part of a comprehensive solution that also requires fixing our asylum laws, also requires you cracking down on your border. Requires dealing with the drug problem and other things like that. But a wall we you would not had the tariff threat if there had been a wall. Im not necessarily in agreement. But i think that there needs to be a series of discussions about Border Security. I think the Mexican Government and we certainly were in favor of Border Security. Secure borders make good neighbors. But its the way you do things was, its important. En a the way you talk about things. Its extremely important ill give you an example. You have tweets right now of President Trump talking about how mexico how well mexico is doing which clearly serve a domestic political interest. I understand that. But it doesnt help move things to continue the ball along. You know. He shouldnt be praising you for doing a good job. What wree were trying to achieve is good border cooperation. I dont think thats the best way to go. And i think that if we manage to work with, you know, the Trump Administration on complex issues such as trade and other Security Issues we can do that. But how you know, how things are presented and were dealing from one agent to another i think it helps to be more careful on the narrative. Part of it is that sort of divisive, polarized negative rhetoric, the four letter word the wall. Undermines confidence not only with mexico but here in the United States. And you seem to be saying essentially the means justify the ends, you know, that we President Trump has to be able to bully people in order for this. He has shown he had to bully people to get something dup. There by the administration ambassadors own admission wasnt getting done until a few weeks ago. But in the year 2000 there was 1. 6 million apprehensions on the southern border. Cbp figures almost 1. 7 million. 98 of there were mexicans. Now its less than. 18 . Far less. Because they are doing better. No because we did our own work because people are finding better opportunities in mexico. And because we rightly began to treat more seriously Border Security. And that started pretty much on 9 11. But. Its been a longer process than it should have. And it also started with Economic Growth and partnership with the United States. And with Central America. And is the Economic Partnership that where 40 of mexicos exports have are u. S. Content. So the tack of rewarding the tactic weve had this discussion before. Rewarding the tactic of threatening tariffs is not healthy in the long run. But i actually. When i had an sprf on the podcast we asked a question which was okay what other leverage do we have and there wasnt you didnt have a good answer. Whats the leverage. Ive had time to think about in thank you very much. Good. I want to you listen to the podcast. Public diplomacy. What is the leverage. Here is the point. I reject the premise of the question because it suggest that is this is our this is mexicos problem to fix. And i reject the idea that you can find formulations where mexico can solve the problematic problem in 90 days we havent been able to solve in 90 years. Them they seem to be solving it. No they are cracking down. Were muddling through. Youre falling in the fassel trap sfla no. Im saying you cannot expect we have to have this is a partnership. Its an Economic Partnership that means millions of jobs in the United States. Thats threatened when he issues these kinds of threats against the economic relationship. Were talking about people trying to buildises across the border. And you never know when he when these thunderbolt attention are o about tariffs are coming raining down on their heads high pressure. Thats not good for mexico, not good for the United States. The point is its not a leverage situation where you have to get the narntway head lock. It is a leverage situation. You want to get the mexican economy in a head lock thats bad for us. Aiming aed gun at your head and threatening to put pull the tryinger i suspect what we have gotten mexico deduct is a short term not longterm response. I think well be about a in the same place. Mechanics cons for their own reasons may decide to do a longterm response. But i dont think we created that leverage pount. And weve distractsed attention away from what we need to to do. The attraction here i get this in the mexican side. Mexicans arent, yeah. But mexican just as right as we are about saying they dont enforce their laws preponderate mexicans are right that the people are coming is that we created perverse incentive. Some people are coming for protection. Lets not discard there are people flying for in re lives. Its a minority but we want them to have protection we should protect those people. But also create the perverse incentives for other people to start a journey they shouldnt start. Thats on us. We should be solving that at the same time in the way sarah talked about at the same time that mexico is doing what it has to do. Just on our point of agreement, i think that one of the things that you mentioned i think you are right is President Trump is so atypical in many ways. Yes. That, yes, i think if he gets behind immigration seriously there is a chance. And i do agree with that. Yeah. And a lot of people probably dont like that in mexico or here in the states. But he for kifrpt reasons he has the contraceptions to do it. So maybe there is a chance. And i think, yes, lets go big to that. And mexico should do its part. Where i where i differ is this and i differ with our position right now. We should go out and say this is what we are willing to do. In the end its the u. S. Who is going to decide how its own immigration should be. And thats for the u. S. To decide. But were so much involved with one another and including that mexico i think we should go out and say, hey, this is what we are willing to do. And this is what we want in exchange. Sure. And you know, republicans and democrats get your act together, we put we put our own piece of the puzzle. And story roger do agree most people agree mexico should also offer protection to the people notmen only the United States and the United States is its it has the you know the biggest share of the challenge right now. And i agree. Mexico we should do our part. Rather than talking about who does a better job protecting Central Americans we have to talk about the people staying in Central American. Which is a pleasen place particularly if you are Central American and you cant find but ton years ago we had a president that worked out cafta, Central American free trade agreement. We talked about the countries then. We sold the agreement. As an Economic Partnership with real economy there. Central American Economy as a whole where we sold more to them than we do india. Now they are mend i kent nations broken down by transnational organized crime because they are caught between mexico started enforcing under president calderon and venezuela and squeezing process. And they are caught in transnational crime and gang sisters violence and corruption destroying the economies. Thats part of the responsibility we have because we consume the drugs. And thats why i thats why i dont like the idea about leverage that the way the way you use it. Sarah we are coming back to you on the political kind of political judgment. Are there elements of an agreement like in the shortrun . Because i dont believe we are getting to broadbased Immigration Reform because we are assigning ideas were making the assumption that the white house can behave in a rational way or. Or that dmakts in congress can behave in a rational way. They are making a judgment too. I agree. Its on both sides. I agree. By the way the Democratic Party i dont i dont ive never supported a democrat for president before. But these people are destroying themselves. The idea of legal immigration. Becoming the party of the legal immigration. Lots of luck with that. Good luck storming the castle. Thats a huge problem. So ill ask, you weigh in this too andrew. I mean is there some shortterm shortterm fixes like the one the one you mentioned moving moved through the house. I mean i certainly hope so. We have had this series of reports that have come over out over the past month of exactly what this looks like, this crisis looks like when our systems are completely overwhelmed at the southern border when we recognize that our system at the southern border is prepared for enforcement. Its not prepared for humanitarian crisis. And that incentivized the shortterm supplemental bill but thats all it is, right. Its not fixing anything permanently. So id like to think that thats incentivizing us to think about Serious Solutions it that would fix at the very left the humanitarian issues and the sigh lum adjudications at the southern border. But i do think that i mean your point of the rest of the white house staff is an issue. If republicans and democrats were able to get together and come up with an efficient solution to fix how were jude indicating sigh tum at the border and and would the white house throw in a sowers era series of other forms like daca. Right. And i think that that breakdown of trust is probably whats preventing this from crossing the final line. Umhum. Absolutely. Well were going to go to i hope this hasnt been too contentious. No its fun. Im asking asking andrew to make in the mean there are folks in the back there is a young lady there. Someone else circulating microphones. But at any rate she will im going to call on folks that please andrew make your point. I think quickly, there is an issue on dealing with root causes, yoend process the u. S. Or orr or u. S. And mexico together with fix economies and political systems in Central America. But there is a new government in el shafrld thats saying all the right things and is aligned with the u. S. On a number of fireman Foreign Policy issues including vens venezuela naguura and here before the inauguration is all the aid is cut. I think there is a huge issue on the incentive sfrur we create for them to do the right thing. There is a rouge question dsh did a ryan wrote about this. The extent to which the u. S. And mexico on the International Community played something a of row role in keeping guatemala and honduras somewhat within part of what really matters with aid is actually keeping people and governments accountable and making structural reforms. That may be more useful than the specific aid sometimes, is actually making shower governance works, making sure you have strong macroeconomic policy, some of the big stuff. We abtd kated that with honduras and guatemala and let them get a pass on things and helped to aggravate the crisis in the region zbroomts we regi region. Well ask you to identify your question and the question cannot be what do you think about this and invite a speech. Okay. Ill try. Yes. Hi, my name is it sanap abmcstudent at dartmouth and intern here at aeip thank for talking about the shared responsibility of mexico and the u. S. And securing our border. My question is you did address that. But there is a domestic spillover. How do you address the problems of lets say specifically maybe affirmative action and welfare as a response to the Immigration Crisis . Zblung. Do you think thats drawing immigrants the fact that Democratic Party is advocating social benefits for Illegal Immigrants. In the democratic debate the Second Democratic debate every hand went up they said do you want to decriminalize illegal immigration and almost every hand went up when they said do you want to give free headquarter to illegal grents np socialism is a open border is a national suicide. You cant give away free stuff and let everybody in the country. You have to have doctor dsh its a deathly problem. One of the seif always argued that a lot of our immigration problem is isnt actually an immigration problem its a welfare problem. So there was a longtime before the welfare stayed was created every immigrant coming here was coming for one thing, eye jb, opportunity, a chance to work and contribute to the society. And i think a lot of immigrants still come for that purpose. But there is this massive welfare state now that exists which the democrats want to put on steroids. They proposed the two debates the democrats proposed anywhere where between 100 appear 2 trillion in programs our. Our annual budget they are proposing to double the federal bumble with free kwolk health care, kmrk, everything. If you gien combine that thats making grimes problem ten times worse. Because with he if you want if anybody wants to come here to work, and to and have opportunity and contribute, thats great. But when everyone is coming to get all sorts of benefits and talk about creating a magnet we were talking about the problems of asylum laws creating the magnet. The welfare sfat is a massive mag et net for people. I think the social many prs i mean im not trying to defend the exacts on this one. I think or republicans. Let me stay out of that debate entirely. But let me what we do know and see immigrants have a lie higher Labor Participation rate in general. Most people unthoeshzed in the country have little access to benefits outside. However of education which is the one thing thats costly. But also the one thing you wouldnt want to take away. I was in trinidad that doesnt allow the children of regularized immigrants to have access to education. You do not want to grow up in a society kids arent going to school. Its complicated. When you get the grimes debate at a local level thats the expensive piece actually that immigrants including on unauthorized immigrants have access to but the one you dont take in which. That but is not the magnet. The magnet has been jobs. Until we figure out a way of reasonable enforcement, a way of asylum laws that make sense but also some some laborbased begin to think about the immigration system not as a problem but actually as part of our Economic Future, i think youd agree with this, be database how do we make immigration part of the Economic Future . Lets have that conversation. Thats including some people coming creating a line for some people to get into until we get to that point, i mean, right now, this is a graup of people trying to get access to the labor market in a dafrpt way. I dont think you can allow that to continue. I dont think we should have a large unauthorized population coming to work. I think that undermines the credibility of are our system. Im not saying its a good thing. I think that creates antibodies against immigration in general. But folks arent coming for welfare. They are coming to get work. Questions down front here. Hi, im selena professor of practice at the perry center. I cover a lot of the countries transnational organized crime and the drug piece in particular. Weve spoken a lot about migrants from mexico which is decreased a lot as well as Central Americans what ive been doing traveling regularly to mexico were seeing a huge number of the cubans, venezuelas but more importantly noncontinental influx of south asians and africans. And this is a bigger issue. Because now you have to take care of the people that dont speak spanish. More importantly those have not followed in naguura they detained four suspected isis affiliates with intentions of coming to the United States. This is a more macrodebate with about National Security rather than the 20yearold debate of leaving and obviously youve left Central America because of the violence and lack of opportunities. That is one of the drivers. But more importantly what are the other complex things and more importantly at the mpi you guys are looking at the numbers that are ararmg particularly in the last two years. Your thoughts on that. I completely agree. Youve touched on anperson important issue. We have seen increases in numbers of mierpgts from bangladesh and india. They are coming from far. Id point to this administration for one of their reasons for this. This administration has complemented a series of very harsh start stop policies at the southern border that gained a lot of attention, in particular family separation. We had family separation during the summer of 2018 right after it ended we had unprecedented numbers of families arriving at the southern border. And similar with the asylum ban. And other policies that theyve implemented and then had to stop soon after. That has actually advertised our southern border and your outdated asylum system to migrants not only in our hem fear but all around the world and that we believe is part of the reason we see the numbers drive up. About 7 of the total apprehensions this fiscal year are not from guatemala, honduras, el salvador, mexico. Now many so of that is venezuelans and nicaraguaens. You are seeing a flow most of the venezuelas. There is 3. 2 million more or less venezuelas in latin america and the caribbean. Thats a huge flow. But you are seeing some of the beginning of people with visas ors family in the u. S. Nicaraguaens you see because of the repressing and economic collapse in naguura. Seeing a these are people coming from india, Different Countries in africa. India with the largest although africa is coming up. Bangladesh and other places. One of the things we have not done in the past and i know selena is an expert on the areas of organized crime and smuggling. We have to deal strategically with smuggling. When you have multiple people, tens of thousands of people coming from a country some are coming to brazil. Oolts of the africans come in brazil. Make their which up through panama, costa ricka. These smuggle rings are sophisticated. We should be sitting to un. U. S. And mexico but also some of the other countries like brazil, panama and costa ricka. And how we go over the smuggle ring. Thats a security threat. And something we shouldnt encourage. Its a challenge also to mexico. We were talking earlier about how it used to be the immigration problem at the southern border was mexican borders. And since the growth of the mexican economy subpoena and Mexico Mexico is becoming a first world country and economy. With that comes first world responsibilities. You start seeing people coming through your country and use going as a coming to you first try to get into mexico because its better than where they are and maybe making it over to us. One of the things mexico needs to do is recognize that this is just not a problem bus the United States is compliance skmang its a problem because of mexicos prosperity and mexicos rise in the global economy. These are now responsibilities that the Mexican Government has to take on. And we should Work Together on that. One of our goals should be to push this problem down in both of ou interests to put push it down from our southern border to your southern border. You say waept to take responsibility for stopping the flo into both countries lets do it at the 400 mile border with a river and some jungle and easier to enforce than our border. And well were willing to do that and put the resource fls it but lites lets partner and President Trump give us resources so we can enforce it so that neither of us have the has the problem. Have a good day worked about 15 greers on border issues i would Say Something we must keep in mind is that not all the border problems are actually solved at the border. Thats very important. We are doing a lot. But we should be doing more in terms of joint intelligence and tackling drug trafficking, Human Trafficking, human smuggling. Were working for better than with it five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago. But we should do more. And yes, i think mexico should step up to the plate. I personally think we should we still have a long way to develop more and there is a lot of challenges. But we have done our homework fairly well for the past 15 years. And therefore we are attracting more people. And we should assume the part of that responsibility work with you are oh friends from Central America. Work with the United States. There is no disagreement there. And i hope that we do that. And that we do it increasingly. Bus in the end if you are able to pinpoint what are the true security threats that our shared bordering, on our region then we can have a far better situation for everything that is not a threat, whether thats trade or people. Thats what we should be focusing on, increasingly. I agree completely. Skip back briefly on the trafficking issue. You know, democrats take a wak back seat to know one on this fighting this scourge of Human Trafficking. But i wonder if they stopped to think that whats going on at the border where the smugglers are gaming our system were becoming part of the Business Model of these people, and you know and so we all should find a better which of responding to that. That part of the equation. There is always been this sense among some people that that smuggler immigrants, not Human Trafficking, which is when you are you know taking of advantage underage drinking people. Cheating people and lying to people. But immigrant smuggle something a victimless crime. These people want to move they help them move. But increasingly we see organizations immensely spreader to, immensely spreader to. And they should be able to become an agreement on both sides between mexico and the u. S. With brazil, he coulder and panama groups taking advantage of people that are spreader to. Even getting getting in the appropriatings voluntarily. These are organizations that should not exist and they are criminal organizations thats a dsh zbloosh great. Question back here in the back. Thank you stuart, mack tosh with a kbrup of 30. I wonder with the pannell can take a longer term rue and comment on the stept to which we should think about in the 10 and 20year time frame, refugee and economic refugee flows driven by Climate Change, because the numbers there seem streamly alarming when i think about the recent World Bank Report that came out in the spring which estimated 140 million Climate Change refugees. And thats at the low end. Is the mpi thinking about that . How should we factor that in the longterm planning of dealings with the frohs. Andrew you want to jump zpl i say we are thinking about tp no, we keep thinking about it. And our struggle in this is you can clearly track migration to environmental factors, right. We know that you can traumatic guatemala, haurnlds, parts of guatemala and haurntsds dealing with both a coffee blight and dealing with a draut [ honduras ]. And you can say there are environmental factor whether they are cloimt change requires us to conversation with scientisting. People say reasoning from environmental conditions causing migration what we need to begin to track is, you know, are these cyclical environmental problems theres been drought in Central America on and off for decades if not centuries. Is this increasing in frequency, lasting longer, no recovery at the he said evidence and there is evidence in a lot of places my colleague has done work on this thp. There is evidence some places in the world that the crisis are increasing number and frequency and length and duration. But it is on on any given crisis you have to look critically at it before you jump to the Climate Change argument. Another question from the lady in the back there. Hi, thank you for this discussion. My name is amber mall i work oh to the we are a Refugee Resettlement agency and serve Asylum Seekers throughout the country. Weve provided assistance to some of our european colleagues and europe who have found need for more robust Refugee Resettlement. My question is around the mexican Refugee Resettlement agency. And you know Government Support is necessary for that and that that political will. But also the population wider population. People willing to hire refugees, for example. And so mr. Ambassador, im interested in your thoughts on where that political will stands, both with the government as well as the general population and any opportunities and challenges you see to moving that forward as a priority for policy. All right. I talked earlier about depoliticizing the issue as much as possible. And certainly that will be beneficial in mexico. Plemt let me explain now. Nowadays the president president Lopez Obrador is being heavily criticized because of you know hag the National Guard at the border and doing he did he did actually say that he was going to do Something Else. To be absolutely honest he was extremely critical of our administration on this matter and then suddenly he is faced with the need to do some enforcement on immigration. If you ask mexican ds there is a whole debate in mexico if you follow mexican politics about what is going on with you are oh own Immigration Enforcement appear asylum, if you really notice carefully, nobody nobodys suspectly and clearly saying, oh,s ins the u. S. Problem just let them pass through. And nobody is clearly saying either, its our own problem, well catch who ever comes here, because thats what we should be doing. So a lot of people are being very cynical about in. And i dont think thats right. So first now on the positive side. Lopez Obrador Administration has actually said and this started with the pineta administration when we started to you know some of the caravans were going threw. And this was the first. Well offer Refugee Status and well try to get them some jobs. And that that is still going on. But we neglected so much our own immigration debate and our own immigration system and institutions that we have to catch up very quickly in order to have people, society, institutions, ngos and the government actually put together a reasonable response to the refugee crisis that we our own selves are facing. It is a joke to have a 1. 38 million bunlt our own refugee agency. Its a joke. And there are many and its a joke to have a 5,000 million petitions ohs brujt on our own migration institute. We should change that. And if everybody is criticizing the other were never going to be able to achieve it. Because there are view advocates on society and to say we need to cope with this. So i hope that given what has happened people in mexico would be much more serious about addressing precisely what you are addressing. But politically to be honest its a minefield right now. Let me come to your defense briefly. Because you are right that thats ridiculously low amount of money for a refugee policy. But the vast majority of the Central Americans coming threw mexico to the United States are economic mierpgts, not legitimate Asylum Seekers pch i think of the people who get a credible threat designation only 10 get approved for asylum in the United States. So the vast majority of the people coming over here are not legitimate refugees seeking asylum for the reasons under our laws. One of the problems im critical of the Trump Administrations decision to reduce the number of refugees we should be recommending to refugees. My mother was a frujee. I think we should be open to refugees within our National Security taking into consideration National Security concerns and all the rest of it. But if you care about refugees, having hundreds hundreds of thousands of people falsely claiming asylum status on the southern border gaming our system, that the people hurt there is a set number of people in the u. S. Government for who do the job of processing asylum claims. And if they are focused on the fake refugees on the southern border then people from southern sudan, then people from somalia, people from afghanistan and iraq and yes people from syria are not getting their claims taken care of or address the for asylum. Its actually hurting refugees. This whole southern crisis on the southern border is hurting frunles from around the world legitimately seeking asylum in the United States because of politicsle oppression and violence and other things. So we have a responsibility to them to deal with this problem ourn southern border because we need to free up resources to deal with real frujes. I actually let me jump in on that ive spent time talking to migrants at the border both at a shelter for young people and at a womens detention center. And im actually surprised most of the people ive talked to clearliule have some sort of claim for asylum. Doesnt mean they get asylum. Once you spend an our so i went out of my way to spend more than an hour and a a fairly large number you find that everyone thats ha detonator for leaving tide to violence. Most of this in the fall. September, october, so my you know, it probably has changed and there is a larger number of people with purely economicof people with purely economic motives. There is a large percentage of people who have a legitimate asylum claims that does not mean they will get asylum. They could get asylum in mexico. Most of the people i talked to would get asylum in mexico or complementary protection. Mexico is a veteran. Those people can make a credible claim that they fear for their lives. They will not make it to the restricted United States asylum. This is where it gets complicated. We are giving them mixed messages. Are people from venezuela all leaving because they are, you know, somebody put a gun to their head . On the other hand, when you Start Talking to them, you realize some of them had political harassment going on. They were not able to get access to basic services that they could have gotten if they were dealing with a central party. Is this the main motivation . Does almost everyone had a story about how they were worried about their daughter being carried off by a gang member, you. Maybe that has gone down in the past few months. I would argue that it has you probably have people coming to whirl areas. We probably have my people who are detained coming from rural areas where there are fewer gangs. This is a mixed bag. This is why we need the asylum system to work quickly. We have to sort through this. We have to make tough judgment. The coyotes train people in how to answer asylum questions. There is organized Human Trafficking happening. They understand how the asylum laws work and are broken. They are using them to help economic refugees get in the country. Also, the fact is, it is not a majority that have that crime. The majority are getting turned down objectively when their claims are being adjudicated. A majority is getting turned down when you are looking at the broad numbers of how many get the initial interview and how many ultimately go to the court. The problem is that the system is so complicated and saturday. Many people are really confused about what is going on. They go through a super intense three hour interview at the border. Many of them think that was the asylum application and that the notice to appear that they are given is a permission to enter the country. It is not in spanish, it is only in english. It is a confusing system. I do agree that if we had a functioning asylum system, it would be a minority that would ultimately get through and make the very narrow definition of what asylum is. It is false to say it is the kind of 10 because the system is broken. Many are filing the paper application will need to file before the Immigration Court because the deadline to file that is far before their hearing happens. It is confusing and prefers. We are not providing counsel at the very least. This would help them get through. We all agree. Let me just say, just from talking to people, they are people who game the system because the smugglers taught them how to do it. People with legitimate claims, it takes them an hour before they tell you why they left. It actually was not this that and the other. They start off by saying that her opportunities and then they put a gun to the threeyear olds had. That was an actual case. Here is when you have an asylum system that functions. People are gaming the system. They walk in and make up a story. People who have real stories will not tell them up front. I may be wrong but something that is missing in the equation is the you and chr. You know, the United Nation of refugee. Why isnt somebody raising his hand and saying we need to fix this . If there is an agreement that there are people that have a legitimate claim whether it is from mexico or the United States. We all believe that they should get the support of our government, lets work on that. I do not know what the solution is but lets work on that. If we all agree that there is a number or percentage, there is economic migration and it is probably better to have legal avenues for them, lets work on that together. The final equation is if somebody is coming here to harm mexico or the United States or Central America, lets work on that also. We need to get that you know, with that, with their agreement, we can do something about this. It is harder and harder to do that. We have a lot of folks coming in. The number of people that are actually from Central American countries, this is closer to 20 . It it just depends on how you play with the numbers. Never get to a hearing. Once people of those who actually filed the paperwork application and for a file for asylum, if you are just looking at the northern triangle country it is closer to 20 . s neck that is what i was about. It is higher for el salvador and lower for guatemala. It is higher if they have counsel. Filling out a paper application in english is extremely difficult. Is it just the threat of violence or does it have to be politically motivated . We have a very narrow definition of asylum in this country. It has to be an individual who is facing persecution on the office of their race or religion, nationality or a political opinion. This administration has narrated further than what it was. I think we make some very good points about how it is overwhelming. One time we had incoming processing, after the 2014 crisis, there was incoming processing. I think the un was involved in determining in he was a refugee. That just went away. They ended it. You guys have conversations. I mean there is an in country processing in mexico. It is set up in southern mexico, a you and protected, a protected zone where people can apply. You have the u. S. , mexico canada, costa rica there. They are willing to take people and have them apply in a single place. They are protected. If you get deported, you go a shorter distance. There is a lot of way to do this. They should be applying for refugee ship in mexico. Make sure that is only one piece of the puzzle. If you are an individual and a person, you might need to make it to the u. S. Border. I am sorry for interjecting. Even if the third agreement, the exception is if you have family. There might be cases in which like previously mexico cannot sustain the full type of challenge. That is why the issue exists. We could not suddenly be responsible. If you have a four other regional partners that are involved in this, somebody is truly leaving the country because of a concern for their life, we should be able to find whether it is in the United States, mexico or elsewhere, a destiny for them. They might not end up in miami. We should work on that. Absolutely. Marks point i think is that if mexicans do not approve of taking in all of these refugees, government and democratically elected government will be more and more inclined to enforce the border and keep people out. We will take the young lady in the, i should not say young, i should not describe anything. [ laughter ] that is all right. I am from Catholic Charities usa. My question is for any of you. So the president of mexico has talked about legalizing marijuana and other drugs in mexico. Do you think that that would help solve the drug smuggling issue or anything like that . What would the proper u. S. Response be . That is for . [ laughter ] that is all yours. Governments elsewhere talked about decriminalizing or legalizing heroin and cocaine. Amnesty for traffickers, i will set that up for you. [ laughter ] i do not think that is quite accurate. I think that in mexico, there is some debate about this. Is about legalizing marijuana. There are 12 dates that have legalized it. Mexico is farther away from the united dates of this. I think it is a mischaracterization. They have not really talked about amnesty. That would be a huge mistake. He did during the campaign. Maybe i am wrong. Let me move, whether it deals with legalization, whether it will help, there is a huge debate. I am not an expert. What i do believe is and i would be critical of the present government position right now. I think we managed to be, our Security Corporation grew immensely because of the married initiative. Not so much because there were resources involved, it was important. It managed to build trust between agency, security agencies from the United States and mexico. I think and i have at this administration will continue that effort in whatever shape or form they see fit. I think that is something that has not been debated recently. And i think that it would be wise for the new administration to seriously consider again, with whatever changes it seems appropriate, it could further the corporations with what is achieved in the initiative. You certainly were a big part of that. I agree, it was historic and significant. I have time for maybe one check or two, the lady upfront. Thank you. All right, thank you. My name is valerie. I am an economist at the institute for womans policy research. My question, i would like to get your opinion on the idea of shifting from a familybased reunification system that we have two skills based. I am split on this honestly. I and a descendent of haitians who went to canada in the 70s. We went through, they went to the point system. I understand the benefit. My and research in the United States, and looking at caribbean immigrants. Even the language and education helps in the early years, eventually after 1520 years, all immigrants tend to integrate in terms of earnings and earning the same as natives. One of the strengths that they have is their social networks. They have family. I am wondering, especially now that we are seeing more women and children coming and you know, the separation of families; how do you feel about the United States shifting to a point system or skills based . Thank you. We are doing a lot of thinking about this. Our colleagues are actually leading a rethinking u. S. Immigration policy initiative. This is one of the central questions. I think where we come down and i say we have disagreements. I mean, in fact i would love to talk with you more on the research you have done. We went to mind some of the research. We have to rebalance toward, we have to make a case as canada and australia and other countries have done that immigration is an economic policy. We should think about that. That said, part of what works in the united dates because we do not do immigrant resettlement. We do not give People Housing and help them get a job when they get here. What works in the United States is family network. Family networks become the integration tools that people use. We certainly need to rebalance this and be more intentional about the economic side. We are overwhelmed. We are unique in the industrial world of being the only country that overwhelmingly does family based immigration. Even canada and australia, all the countries that say they do, you know, new zealand, they say they do a point system. They have moved toward employables overtime. People actually having a job when they arrived, not just having high scores. This is an inclusive move between giving people points through connections. They know this is an integration mechanism. There are ways to recognize this we struggle with this. We will move more toward employment base. How far do you move and how much do you really rate family within that . Family does matter in terms of immigration. We also want to be careful when we talk about a skillsbased system. We are not here to scoop up all the phds and leave out all of the low skill workers. The reality is that the people, some of the businesses that are having the hardest time finding workers are not looking for a phd in computer scientist. They want people to do manual labor and loss of low skill jobs. It needs to be a system that is based, that is more rational and based on what America Needs. What America Needs is not just highly educated skilled immigrants, we need a lot laypeople. We need a lot of workers and lots of people who are willing to work and want to live the american dream. Whatever skillsbased system we come up with will take that into account. We do not want to do what other countries have done. We say that it is okay to have temporary programs. We want to keep pathways open for people to embrace this country and become american. This is what always worked uniquely in this country. We have never done what germany did with guestworkers. Well, we have. We have not generally done that. We have tried to create pathways for people. This is what works about the united dates system. Even if you have workdays, skillsbased and some of it is temporary, you want to create channels and that people can actually decide to stay in this country. That was a fantastic discussion. I help folks agree that we have demonstrated that you can have serious conversations about very complicated issues. You can come to some idea of a way forward. We certainly challenge our political leaders to try that. It is our National Security that is at stake. Our integrity as a nation is at stake. Our values are at stake. Thank you very much. Please join me in thanking our panel. [ applause ] cspans washington journal, lied every day with his aunt policy issues that affected. Coming up with a morning, Board Members of the one country project including a former north dakota senator and jb children talk about the Groups Campaign to reinvigorate the Democratic Partys relationship with rural issues and voters. Then a rural Ohio Republican congressman who serves on the House Budget Committee will discuss the debate over federal spending and an effort to avoid another government shutdown. Also emily martin of the national womans law center will join us. She will talk about efforts to oppose the gender pay gap. Be sure to watch the washington journal live at 7 am wednesday morning. Join the discussion. , sunday night onto monday a former Deputy Inspector talks about his book once a cop. I was young. We were not wealthy. I was born in a family of six, five girls and myself. My father left after the third grade. It is ironic that in my book, i have a picture of me in the fifth grade. I am sitting indian style in the front. I am holding my feet because i have holes in the bottom of my shoes and i have cardboard so that my socks would not get wet. I had a rough upbringing. I got involved in the streets and i met some friends. They were selling drugs. This was the thing to do. Sunday night at 8 pm eastern on 10 tos