Though the statute clearly said here is the deadline. There was this backdrop of not trusting the president and immigration was part of it. Part of the aca was part of that whole debate. Going into next year, look, we will not have a big bill. We will not have the senate will again. I look at it as a combination of an everify, Border Security and an ag fix it will be some mix like that. Youve got a train with little caboose on it. The train is moving along but it is split up into different parts. What will go on that versus one big bill like the senate bill was. Maybe its high scale Border Security and everify and some other mix of that. I dont think Border Security first will fly in the senate because the democrats will want more out of of order security there is the fear that once congress does Border Security its another 10 years before they will come back to revisit it. It is substance and policy but also politics. Is ted cruz going to be the next president or will hillary . Or is it rubio . George bush was unable to get a bill through, though we worked hard on it. It depends not just on the presidency. Mark we are not going to see anything until after the president ial election. I dont think there is any way around that. What should congress be doing . How should be approaching this issue . The 115th congress. I think thats right. It seems that the idea of a 2000 page monstrosity bill that gives every Interest Group something to be happy about doesnt work. It had failed in 2005 and 2006 and 2013 and its just bad lawmaking. Whatever you think about how health care should be done, a gigantic aca is not the way to have done it and likewise with immigration. It seems to me, people on all sides of the debate need to lower their gazes and look at more smaller digestible things to do. Something i have suggested that would give everybody something would be, for instance, mandatory everify but package it into a small package with, say, giving green cards to the beneficiaries. Upgrade their amnesty to a green card premium from the green card light they have now. That way both sides would get something and maybe there has been versions of this maybe throw in some tech stuff where foreign students who get phds in stem fields would get green cards if they wanted them. Something like that. That is a smaller, digestible package and various constituency groups would get something out of it and i think it would move the issue forward rather than the idea of always trying to hit home runs. I dont mean to give advice to the other panelists but youre not always going to get home runs. Try for singles. It seems that both sides can get something out of an attempt at hitting singles instead of trying to get everything you want all at once and rolling over the opposition. They failed over and over again. Ms. Kiefer i had a conversation with congressman gutierrez as things look bad for the democrats last year on Immigration Reform. He seemed pretty open and pretty flexible to the separate pieces he seemed pretty flexible and pretty open to the separate pieces idea depending on what the pieces were. He expressed a degree of flexibility and pointed to the vision within republicans as a problem. Maybe you would like to address that. Maria elena whether it is a comprehensive bill or a separate bill that amounts to a comprehensive solution, i think that is a tactical question. Thats probably what he was referring to. I want to go back to Something Else, francine. One of the things that amazes me about washington dc is facts dont matter. What the president has announced whether it was 2012 or the recent executive action are not amnesty. All they are is a deferral of deportation. Its a temporary reprieve from deportation and if they voluntarily come forward and go through a National Security background check and they pay 465, after an individual determination, if they are awarded deferred action, they are eligible for Work Authorization. That is based on the regulations from the 1980s. Thats not anything the president did new and that can be revoked at any moment. We have seen individual daca folks get that revoked and it does not give them additional amnesty benefits. There is no path to citizenship or permanent say. As a lawyer, i think facts matter a lot. They make a huge difference. As far as the way forward, one of the big challenges we have now is that a lot of the president ial candidates are talking about Border Security first. For the last couple of decades in the United States, we have had enforcement first as the only approach but we have not had legalization or the 11 million considered. Until the candidates address the issue about what will happen with the 11 million, will they try to deport all of them . Mitt romney said self deportation and that did not get him far. Any candidate who wants to fund their path to the white house has to address the issue of the 11 million. It will not happen. They will not get the lation vote or the api vote. Ms. Kiefer let me give laura a chance to jump in here. Laura i would echo some of that what maria elena said. The idea that enforcement only has benefits to the status quo and asked and thats not the solution american support. One of the reasons why people talk about these things having to be either sequenced or together is because the parts are interlocking. People want to know what would a future president do with the 11 Million People that are here. They also want to know how would people coming to the country prospectively and how we address this so we are not in the future looking at another Large Population of people without avisa and how do we fix that in the future . They want to know that the borders are being and forced but that is something we have been seeing for the last 20 years. Border enforcement and enforcement only policies are the status quote from they are they are not the solution that americans support. I would say that one of the things i think we need to ask is why deny the benefits we would have if we would get all of these pieces fixed . The moral imperative is clear but there is real economic benefits that would be spread throughout the economy if we were able to get these pieces addressed. Enforcement is going to be what continues. We are denying the country significant economic benefits. Mark i dont like to play word games about amnesty but i will say my piece the fact is, giving legal status of any kind to an illegal immigrant is what we call amnesty. La raza did focus groups for bush which was torpedoed by 9 11 and what they found was that people hated the word amnesty. Their memo was not to use the word. Come up with euphemisms. Path to legalization, normalization every week there was a new euphemism. I lost track of them, but the fact is, the 600,000 people that obama has given amnesty has work permits have work permits, Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, eligible for the earnings tax credit which is welfare through the irs that is amnesty and they will not have it taken away. The only people who have lost their amnesty are the ones who mistakenly got the threeyear renewal instead of the twoyear renewal. Those people are permanently amnestied in the real world. Even though, technically, its temporary. The idea that we have had enforcement first is not true. We have had some enforcement but mostly at the border. The elements that are essential and that broken control people have been advocating for decades are not in place. Mandatory everify these are control congress eight times in the past 20 years is mandated the development of an exit tracking to check out systems for foreign visitors per it eight times of has been mandated and it still does not exist. Amnesty people who are here or amnesty people who are here undertake programs without having a system in place already to make sure we dont have more illegal aliens in the future is surreal. This contention that we have done everything that can reasonably be expected with regard to enforcement and that anything else is special pleading or rationalization president obama made that point that his speech in el paso a few years ago. He was saying we built a wall, do they want moats . Do they want alligators in the moats . It was his jokey way of saying that continuing to insist on enforcement is an excuse for postponing amnesty. We do not have the elements in place that we have been demanding for decades. Until those things are in place and fully operational and proven and overcome the legal challenges, we should not even be talking about what to do about the Illegal Immigrants who are here. That is not even a legitimate topic for discussion until we fix the problem. Its like bailing out the boat before you fill the hole. First, you plug the hole and then you talk about bailing out the boat. Ms. Kiefer randy, yes . Randy the chamber has been accused of supporting the hated Senate Amnesty bill which it wasnt. We dont have to belabor it but amnesty in our view is forgiveness. If you look it up in a law dictionary. Its forgiveness of a wrong and no one is offered forgiveness. There is a stiff fine for that wrong of coming in. Its not for giving the wrong. Its what is the appropriate. Penalty . Many think people think deportation is appropriate. I would argue thats a penalty i would argue that the. Penalty does not fit the crime. Its not realistic because we will not deport them so lets come up with a fix instead of doing nothing. It seems a substantial civil fine and going through other steps before you get a series of probationary steps before you get a status to work and then a green card is appropriate. People will disagree with that. But i dont think most people call that amnesty. At least from the chamber positive point, its not amnesty. With regard to Border Security, it is more complicated than assets of the border and many maybe we do need those and more of them. The senate bill had lots of money in there. There is disagreement on how that money would be spent. It was a lot of money. All past Homeland Security secretaries have said physical Border Security is not enough. It should be combined for National Security purposes. Forget the humanistic argument here such as a controlled temporary worker programs, eliminate the job magnet which draws the Illegal Immigrants here and control temporary worker programs and health National Security and it helps Border Security. Everyone from napolitano to tom ridge to chertoff has said the same thing. You cannot ignore the economic realities. Not to help employ earners, but to would help the nations Border Security. On legalization, it is more difficult area. I dont talk about this at the thanksgiving table anymore. Everyone has strong views, depending where they live. That is the part of shrinking the haystack. There is some logic to providing the legalization process to those people who are here and finding out who they are and those we find out our criminals deport them. Its unfortunate but coming back to aca with the website, it fed into the argument that the administration cannot create a process to check on 11 Million People. They cant even put up a website on health care. That was another perfect storm hurt us last year. Among cantors defeat and the kids at the border issue, among several others. Part of the argument about why we need other parts of Immigration Reform other than more stuff of the border is not to help employers but it really helps National Security and helps Border Security. People who are not big defenders of the employers can say that. Ms. Kiefer not being a big word person, myself, i have appreciated the unpacking of the amnesty word in this discussion. I learned a few things. I want to come back to the way forward again. When you bring Immigration Reform and all its complexities and boil it down, it strikes me that there are two pieces the enforcement aspect and what to do about the undocumented aspect. There has been agreement in the Senate Bipartisan bill that did not go anywhere in the house. There has been agreement on how to handle this so congress is capable of doing this. Then it sort of broke down. One question i would like to ask each one of you is what needs to change in the dynamic in order for this to come back again and be dealt with in a bipartisan way . If you were to identify one thing you feel needs to change to get back on this road that we seemed to be on in 2013 when the Senate Passed this bill, what would that be . Maria elena one way to think about the path forward is to look at california as a blueprint. In 1994, governor wilson at the time had strong antiimmigrant rhetoric, just like we see today at the federal level, and was a supporter of prop 187, and antiimmigrant bill that became law and was struck down for being unconstitutional. Today, california is passing some of the most progressive and inclusive state policies because it understands the demographics require us to really take an approach to not try to exclude people who are part of the community but how do we improve conditions for everyone . In california, the Republican Party has not been able to gain back any positions of power because of that antiimmigrant rhetoric. We are seeing the exact same thing at the federal level. When, lets say if donald trump were to become president or if he were the nominee he would lose so badly. If the Republican Party continues to have an agenda that is antiimmigrant and antiblack and antiwomen and antiworker, they have no path to the white house. A major loss in 2016 which given the rate they are going now, they are picking every community to fight against and to offend. They will lose and they will lose so badly that i think the extreme right wing of the Republican Party will finally be silent and the establishment of the Republican Party will say we need to come up with solutions and Immigration Reform will be one of those. Ms. Kiefer what is the one thing that needs to change . Mark if there is a big loss in the part of the democrats, i will come back in 1. 5 years and we will see what that needs means. The one thing i think that needs to change is the sense that having a republican and democrat supporter of amnesty together make something bipartisan. The problem you see across the board in the politics in this issue is that this is not really a right left issue entirely. It is also an up down issue, an elite versus the public. That the dynamic here. You see it in congress where youve got guys who are almost like fish that dont understand they are wet. They dont they think that john mccain and ted kennedy got together on something so that must cover all the ideological basis. The fact is, they are the same guys. There is a very broad diversity of opinion among the public very different from the elite consensus. A key part of that consensus, that isnt shared by the public, is the third element. You are talking about enforcement and amnesty basically. There is a third part of the senate bill on a third part of the issue which is the level of Legal Immigration. The senate bill would have doubled Legal Immigration from the one million per year to 2 million per year. It would have almost doubled socalled temporary worker admissions which ends up being longterm anyway. If i pick one thing, its the issue of the legal numbers being sort of taken for granted as a kind of gimme to various constituent groups. We will get rid of this category but we will give you extra here. The way they deal with the issue with competing intrests in Legal Immigration is everybody gets more. Rethinking that and thinking about it in a different way Charles Kamasaki is with larasa and he talked about the issue and said maybe his side of the issue needs to rethink this and consider trading legal status for illegals in exchange for cutting future Legal Immigration. That is the kind of thing back that can completely reshuffle the deck on this and maybe yield political results. Ms. Kiefer laura, whats your thought about what could break this logjam in a new presidency and congress . Laura we will continue to see latino voters are paying attention to this issue and are hearing about it in the mainstream news as the debate is being covered. They hear about it on spanishlanguage news every night. Its such a personal issue for latino voters. They know someone who has gone through the immigrant experience and i know someone who was on documented. Who is undocumented. Thats what they want to see addressed. As the number of voters increase in the trap of latino voters continues to grow, i think thats what will make the difference. Ms. Kiefer you and maria elena say the election outcome will be a game changer. Maria elena they will determine the changes. Elected officials will have to realize that the country has changed and is changing. Ms. Kiefer randy, any thoughts about one thing that might need to change in your view to bring this issue home . Randy i have a little different perspective. I have seen enough internal republican and analysis on the latino vote, republicans could whether a storm and take the white house this time around even if their message was perceived as antilatino. Maybe the next election, not likely. There is the argument. The house still has to pass a bill and the senate has to pass a bill. You still have to deal with the house. As long as the speaker sticks h to the hastert rule, its a majority of the republicans. Giv