Immigration. Arizona first. And the borderlands in of itself is a complex issue. That is where the issues of enforcement and humanitarian issues,ow, the economic and the gateway from latin america and to this country. I believe the president needs to deal with that reality. It is wanting to get information about what the policy should and should not be, and it is another thing to talk to groups working , to be there to talk about Border Patrol and Homeland Security. That reality would be important but the symbolism would also be important, that it is a priority this region of the country needs attention and the president ial care of that. Ke can you pick up the phone and talk to the president . Not really. There are certain layers to get that. But i think we have access. It is usually with this crisis, people in white house, direct conversations. We are asking for direct this friday from the hispanic caucus, the progressive caucus, conversations with secretaries of Homeland Security, hhs secretary, and the president , to talk about this crisis and the potential for any executive relieve some of the pressure around immigration now that we hear nothing will happen this year. Thank you. I wanted to ask you what you taught of the president saying he was open in this emergency ,order supplemental requests resources to secure the border and expedite proceedings of the children coming there unaccompanied. The president has signaled a willingness to revisit the fromicking loss coming countries in terms of whether they could voluntarily return themselves to their countries. Nancy pelosi yesterday says it would not be a dealbreaker for her if that were included, that they inspect expect to move forward along those lines. Are you are not your colleague not driving that line in the sand . I am. Toee that as a means negotiate the law has become a means of negotiating the middle ground of whether or not the president get what he needs or wants from these agencies in terms of supplements. I think that is a mistake. The supplemental is basically a request to look at the laws that exist. I worry there will be piling on. I think it will be much different than what the president said. , thenk it will be enforced National Guard and the governors have the authority to do that, to put them on the border, and you will see an illumination of the 2000 a law. It was a huge mistake for many reasons. The law was put in place because of the violence. There was a legacy of violence in the region. Tied to thehas been boiling point of everything having to do with immigration, i think there is a political expediency to get rid of the law and i think that is a mistake. The supplemental becomes an enforcement tool only any information of the law is lost. I worry by us not being firm on the Human Trafficking law that everyone voted for, even the most ardent and my antiimmigrant and antireform folks in congress voted for that. At this point, it is a step backwards and it jeopardizes the support for the supplemental on another and peer it i include myself in that category. . Followup, my understanding from the 2000 a law, was written by a time where there were very few coming into the veggie. A lot of people think the laws updated an unintended concert is is children and families there are misunderstanding and believing because about law, the u. S. Is willing to keep that showed those children. President obama himself our meeting with advocates who are very much putting immigrants first and saying very pointedly to them that in his mind, they have to get tougher because some of the children are being abused by the smugglers on the way here and that is if not more than crisis. And we need to set the send them back. How do you respond to that . There is truth that there has organizedipulation by crime sings and crime syndicates to entice families to 7,000 to getr your kids with a false promise that once they cross the border, safety would be there. The president is correct on that. What i think we are ignoring is the commission on children and human rights. They have said six percent of the kids who have been interviewed are legitimately fleeing violence, that their families put them at risk somewhere else in order to get away from a bigger risk and in fact, well all requires a process and it is not automatic. That adjudication that happens status,e law, refugee families,h the reintegrated back. Those are the options before us. At the time, when immigration country, to be in this these children and unaccompanied minors have become such a point of debate, i wish i can separate the two, but it is almost impossible right now. Think it is a legitimate issue of violence and fear and it is not outdated. Really a key part of the debate. Congressional republicans say does holdingay off the deportation of their children of these children further the argument the embassy accusation that we do around Immigration Reform, whether it is following existing wallabies children, it is some of the bloody wrath fantasy that we have to win every time. I think it is a red herring in this whole discussion area there is a process. The issue of amnesty, the senate bill, every proposal we made in does not deal with any automatic granting of amnesty. The 86 experience of reagan taught us the policy that nature beyond. Equences way do not think the amnesty issue is part of it but it will be the accusation. Congressman, Many Democrats are talking about the violence and tumultuous circumstances from which children are fleeing the border. Citing ans are statistic from a memo, saying a lot of this his understanding is close to 70 of asylum frames end up being false or fraudulent. Colleague, a democrat from california, was saying she had a completely different impression, that over 50 of children claiming asylum are found to have credible claims. How do you reconcile those physics . By going through a thirdparty to validate them. That is a report of the united nations, with, where they interviewed 50 they felt had a legitimate claim to asylum. There is a legacy. The Banana Republic issue, the corporate influence in that region. It is a long legacy. We are still dealing with that legacy. Of ause is still part the root cause is still part of the argument. Loop broken up, where the the rule of law is arbitrary. Talk to moms and their fear is than it is in the stages of horrible check they have to take t. We have to consider where we have involvement in latin america. Nationbuilding is an open content open concept. But the development of this country, Real Investment by the u. N. And the thirdparty judicial, a system that works, and a Security System that is not bought out. Those are longterm issues. Those are the root causes. Tonight, i think watch a seesnce in a row, everyone you must involve yourself in this atmosphere as a priority and we have not done that. Perhaps a Silver Lining to the whole thing, with kids looking in Central America, in inticular, but latin america general, it particular light not inur relationship the historically negative way in the past. You and other progressives at the house are saying you would like to make sure the children are put first as lawmakers decide how to handle the crisis. You attempted to visit a that dealtst month with housing the children and caring for them. You ended up canceling the visit. Have you made the trip, what do you expect to see and are you thesetable and confident children are in Safe Environments and taken care of properly . Thanks to the secretary and his help with it, the visit was rescheduled and we did do the visit. Other third parties have been there to visit. The conclusions are a couple here and i was impressed with fema and u. S. Of public health. Very surprised and very gratified Border Patrol and customs all volunteered for the assignment. They are family people and they have children of their own. That is an important point here. Better. Otten so much , they were noth prepared for it. Thee was a defensiveness on part of the agency not to let people in. Thatk more transparency the press be allowed and that is allowed. Religious groups go in here that is helped people in the region understand what is going on. Sometimes, Homeland Security in have astance, they custodial responsibility. The more they allow people to see what that responsibility is, the more support and better understanding we have. How far does that possibility go . Saying theyhey are need to reform that law and make it more judicious to send the Children Home if they do not qualify for asylum because what happens is there taken by health and Human Services and in place by relatives in the United States and then wait a year or two in immigration series. Many of them do not show up and disappear into the country and then have low priorities at that point. Some advocates are saying they would accept the idea of the children remaining in custody until the hearings as long as the hearings are two or three months. Would you support that . These children deserve the rights within the law. Legal representation, have advocates present. Picachoyearold young girl, how was she going to layer go before an immigration judge violence, how will she make her case . She cannot. The thirdparty support has to be critical in this process. As a we said and the progressive caucus said. Emphasis on due process is essential. You want to speed up the adjudication. Do not do it with the premise of starting likely go like we do with canada. Make the determination whether they are at asylum or and choose deportation. That is the premise they start with. The law requires now that you start with the premise, that they have the right to and not automatic asylum but the right to asylum and they have to please that. If we are still in the mentality that we are expediting to support, then it is a different game. I want to make sure we go back to a discussion about a debate going on on capitol hill. You are the cochairman of the. Ongressional caucus what conversations are you your leadership in terms of where we draw the line in the sand on what democrats should or should not when a piece of legislation ultimately comes to not grantthat would this money or grant only certain conditions . Two points. One is the administration, the president and the white house. What we did with our paper intensive supplemental was to provide a guide over congress and the white house as what we saw as a priority. The other issue was with our own internal leadership. Being consistent with what we go, a week ago or two lisa that the law was vital and that the implementation of the law was essential. If we start backing off from a position, it is incumbent for the leadership in the white house to make that clear. Subliminal messages about stemming the tide, expediting, do not work. The congressional caucus and the hispanic caucus take a position, when are you going to move on executive orders when doing nothing in the house . Part of what we are seeing on is theder with the kids apathy we have created around this issue in congress. With nothing, the blanks are filled for us and whether we like it or not, this is part of the root cause of not fixing a system that is shot and suddenly finding yourself having to deal with one imminent crisis after another and often contributes to the argument on the other side we should not do anything about immigration because the border is not secure. To theget which gets core of the argument on this issue. The present has been going after republicans in congress, by all accounts, they will have 2. 5 years to Work Together with republican still in control of the house. The only way it will change will have to be a sincere public outcry to fix this problem. I think the American People support reform and the polling indicates that. I think there is a great deal of confusion over the issue with the kids and unintended minors right now. It has been almost quiet negotiation, lets do a piece Something Else and you end up with nothing at the end of the day. The blame game is important politically but the substance of doing nothing is the crisis that we are facing now and more that we will face in the future. A president right now, what he can use to product congress to do something is to take the authority of his, and do something bold and in that instance extend a protection and a process for two years. I hope that is the product that moves congress as a whole forward. You mentioned the president said pointedly in the rose garden recently that he will go as far as he can under the law to reform the immigration system. The 2012 tioned that would provide relief for young people, how far would you like the president to go to expand this law for larger number of undocumented migrants for another 4 million estimated parents of young immigrants in the country that some people would like to see covered by this . Others would say 8 million, covered by the senate plan not accepted by the house. How far would you like the president to go and how far realistically do you think he is likely to go . Groups and the categories that were eminent in the bipartisan bill passed in the senate, i think that has to be the ground floor. Those are large numbers. We are also talking about reunification, looking at the 45year wait for people already qualified to get status in this country but are waiting. Me,ink that would be, for the place in which we begin. The place youre talking about, estimating another 5 million around the world. How far do you think the president thiskely to go and is Current Crisis making it more difficult for people to stand up , even though it is a different category of people, doesnt make it harder for people to do this considering what is happening on the border right now . It would make people more bold and about how brave we can be politically speaking with an executive order. You can sense already, even colleagues,ocratic this issue was a little too complicated and too risky. Thinking,t is not the but your question is to the point. Big point about it, it is two separate things. Border andn at the his executive orders will be tied to it. About one minute left. Legislation of people were still looking towards work three us to see. T was one being drafted he said yesterday that legislation would not be introduced, that leadership told be no him there would Immigration Reform this year. Was in itware of what and do you think it would have had any support to pass . As i think it would have. We are talking about low hanging fruit. We are talking about the spouses. F active military persons children,king about kids who already qualify to get permanent status. Low hanging on the immigration and yet, those redeemed to not be part of the discussion. Many of us came to the conclusion that if we cannot get the whole contents of package, lets start to pragmatically and incrementally start to pull things down. I am still open to that discussion. But if there is no substance and we cannot deal with the low hanging fruit, it does not look good. To clarify, youre saying they still do with the low hanging fruit. The popularity publicly and internally was very large. Congressman, thank you for being with us. Cochair of the congressional caucus. We continue our conversation david of the washington post. It is clear no immigration bill will get into the house in this legislation calendar year, but what is next and where does the argument go from here . What is happening right now is the Appropriations Committee is reviewing the request. Group of House Republicans involved in this conversation is a group of eight or so republican members appointed by speaker banner to be a task force or a working group, a clearinghouse to disseminate information to study the issue. Theyre going to Central America this weekend. The border is being run by a senior appropriator. They are giving a presentation to the republican conference tuesday, talking about regarding the border. Theyre talking about many of the recommendations they might for policy riders that would go into the legislative package that comes into the floor, even discussions about how much money might be needed to bolster resources there or not. Will probably be seeing a lot of recommendations make their way into the final package. Your question about the legislation that went nowhere being put forth . Interesteding to hear what he had to say about that. A very secret project. It is such a volatile issue. Credit to be want ammunition to support the bill. You do not want members involved in private private conversations to be exposed as negotiating even in an a formal way. It was said yesterday that leadership said this bill will never see the light of day in the 113th congress. That starts a conversation of, ok. What is in the bill. What was the problem. Very enlightening to hear the of whatmans impression we were actually dealing with. Latest is the backandforth, the fresh ration level between the president and congressional republicans. How high is it . Glass it is hard to believe it could get worse than it has been but it is at a all time low. Speaker banner introduced a lawsuit, the details to the president , and immigration was supposed to be the one area after the president s reelection. It was supposed to be lyrical expedients for republicans. We have seen a drag out for over a year and the president is extremely restaurant right now. He stood up and said a couple weeks ago i will take as much action as i can. And yet the crisis on the border has botched things up. You heard from the representative this idea, a frustration among democrats that you will get enforcement first, provisions to deal with the crisis, before you get any sort of relief that undocumented immigrants are expecting. That is a concern among democrats and liberal advocates toht now, making it harder provide relief and easier for him to move forward and unite. Cut when you talk to officials, do they see endgames . No. Not more, generally speaking. On immigration, there is still hope. Maybe after the election, at the end of the year, possibly early next year before the president ial relate president ial race gets underway, you have seen the president talk about executive actions, smallscale, but he is going around the country right now. He went to denver, talking about taking all the action and republicans will hit on health care. But the president will keep talking about what he can do without congress to move forward. In the white house, theyre saying, this is our last strategy and we will have to do it on our own. Was it a mistake for the not to visit the border . I think it was an open question. You never know what will help the president lyrically when it comes to the current environment republican and criticism of him. If it wouldmyself have softened the political debate