whate of the big issues is would mandatory e-verify due to the agricultural industry, where even the industry acknowledges that over half of their workforce is undocumented. that does not mean a necessary know it, but it is true. what would that do to the industry? would it shut it down? there is this issue circulating around that. the long and short is we support mandatory procedures with certain conditions. theave negotiated with conservative house republicans on this issue. i still have my job. it is a new mandate on our members. >> i wanted to ask you a completely different question. just before the senate votes for , the senate majority leader gave a press conference. he mentioned the trust issue, that the president had poisoned the well. address if you might looking ahead to after 2016. how might a new president proceed on this issue? you have two fronts to concern yourself with, one is trust. the other is policy. how do you feel that might work with a new president? i >> that is a concern politically. it is policy, but it is all politics. who is going to be the next president, hillary, rubio? george bush was unable to get a bill through, although we did work hard on that. >> we will not see anything until after the presidential election. what should congress be doing. how should we be approaching the issue. it seems to me that this idea of a 2000 page monstrosity bill that gives every interest group a piece -- it doesn't work. it is bad lawmaking. it seems to me that people on all sides of the debate need to lower their gazes and look more .t smaller, digestible things one thing that i would suggest would be mandatory e-verify in a small package that would say giving green cards -- they already have an amnesty, but that so that both sides have something. that is a smaller, digestible package. various constituent groups would get something out of that. it would move the issue forward, rather than this idea of always trying to hit home runs. i don't mean to give advice to the other three panelists, but you're not always going to get home runs. try for singles. it seems to me if both sides can get something out of an attempt to get singles instead of trying to get everything you want all at once >> i had a conversation with a badressman as things look for the democrats last year on immigration reform and he seems pretty open and very flexible to the separate pieces idea depending on what the pieces were about the expressed a degree of flexibility and pointed to division in republicans as a problem. maybe you would like to address that. >> for the democrats last year on immigration reform and he seems pretty open and very flexible ia comprehensive bill or a separate bill that amounts to a comprehensive solution that is what representatives would feel it is referring to. i want to go back to something else, francine, because one of the things that amazes me in washington, d.c. is that facts do not matter. announcedresident had are not administered. -- amnesty. all there are is a default of deportation. a temporary reprieve. if the person comes forward and goes through a criminal background check and pays, if, after determination they are given default they are authorized for work and that is based on regulation from the 80's. all that does is work authorization for three years that can be revoked at any moment. folks geten daca it revoked. there is no tendency. -- permanency. as a lawyer i feel that facts matter a lot. forward, one of the big challenges we have now is that a lot of the presidential candidates are talking about border security first. decades of theo united states we have had enforcement first as the only approach. what we have not had is legalization and the 11 million. until the candidates address the aree of what will happen, they really going to try to deport all 11 million. mitt romney, his mantra was stopped deportation and that did not get him very far. findandidate that wants to it after the white house has to deal with the issue. we will not give the latino vote or the api vote. francine: i just want to get laura to jump in. laura: i would just go some of what she said. -- echo some of what she had said. enforcement has been the only answer and that is not what americans support. the reason that people talk about these things being sequenced or together, it is because the parts are interlocking. know whate want to are the candidates, what would a future president do with the 11 million people who are here about the also want to know how would people -- feel about they also want to know about how would people come into the country so we are not looking at another large population of people that came without a visa. how do we fix that? and they certainly do want to know that reporters are being enforced but -- that is something the orders are being want to know that the borders are being enforced. and finally i would just say that one of the things that i think we need to ask candidates deny the not -- benefits we would have if we would have all of the pieces fixed to the country? certainly the moral imperative is clear but there are real economic benefits that would be spread throughout the economy if we were able to get these pieces addressed. only asthat enforcement a continued we are denying the country economic benefits. >> i will say my piece and then we can leave the word games fine. 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 have work permits, social security numbers, driver's 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 three-year renewal instead of the two-year renewal. those people are permanently amnestied in the real world. even though, technically, it's only good for a temporary time. 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 pro-control people have been advocating for decades are not in place. sa controlverify -- vi , 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 undertake increases in programs programs without having a system in place already to make sure we don't 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 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. it's 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 wasn't. we don't have to belabor it but amnesty in our view is forgiveness. if you look it up in a law dictionary, it's forgiveness of a wrong and no one is offered forgiveness. there is a stiff fine for that wrong of coming in. the question is, it's not forgiving the wrong. it's what is the appropriate penalty? many think people think deportation is appropriate. i would argue that the penalty does not fit the crime. more importantly, it's not realistic because we will not deport them so let's 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 don't think most people call that amnesty. at least from the chamber viewpoint, it's not amnesty. with regard to border security, it is more complicated than assets at the border and maybe we do need those and more of them. the senate bill had billions of dollars in their for border security. 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 arguments 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 help the nations border security. on legalization, it is more difficult area. i don't talk about this at the thanksgiving table anymore. everyone has strong views, depending where they live. that is the part of shrinking the haystack. you have heard the argument. but 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. it's 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 can't even put up a website on health care. that was another perfect storm that hurt us last year. among cantor's defeat and the kids at the border issue, among several other things. 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? i would like to ask each of you, 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 anti-immigrant rhetoric, just like we see today at the federal level, and was a supporter of prop 187, an anti-immigrant 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 anti-immigrant rhetoric. we are seeing the exact same thing at the federal level. when, let's 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 anti-immigrant and anti-black and anti-women and anti-worker, 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 partly. it is also an up/down issue, an elite versus the public. that's the dynamic here. you see it in congress where you've got guys who are almost like fish that don't understand they are wet. they do not get -- 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, the elite consensus that isn't 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 so-called temporary worker admissions which ends up being long-term anyway. if i pick one thing, it's 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. in other words, the way they deal with the issue with competing intrests in legal immigration is everybody gets more. thinking about it in a different charles kamasaki is with la raza 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 that can completely reshuffle the deck on this and maybe yield political results. ms. kiefer: laura, what's 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 spanish-language news every night. it's such a personal issue for latino voters. they know someone who has gone through the immigrant experience and they know someone who is undocumented. that's what they want to see addressed. as the number of voters increase in the turnout, i think that's 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. the long-term demographic shift. 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 back? randy: i have a little different perspective. i have seen enough internal republican and analysis on the latino vote, republicans could weather a storm and take the white house this time around, even if their message was perceived as anti-latino. 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. the senate can flip to demographic control. but you still have to deal with the house. as long as the speaker sticks to the hastert rule, it's a majority of the republicans. i think, given my visits on the hill, what i get back my staff, it's not the amnesty issue compelling opposition to doing things so much as this pervasive view that immigrants are taking jobs away from americans that they hear in town halls. that kind of thing. we can give these guys economic studies that say the opposite and arguments but economists are like lawyers, no one believes them. it's hard to explain. by the time you get down there, it's like, yeah, but we're still against that damn bill. i think we've got to do a better job of getting data out there and doing a better job of spreading the word that immigration is good for america and that is the message. there is a lot of data behind that. state and local cities and technology. cities and towns are are reaching out to immigrants to come to cities because they see them as keys to urban revitalization. where the rubber meets the road you see this happen. that belies those who say immigrants are on welfare rolls. we have to do a better message of getting the word out. i told the staff that we are going on the right wing talk radio shows to get the message out. nonresponsive. when you talk about half the republican caucus, that's what i hear. i don't care who's in the white house, you still have to get the speaker behind it. you got to overcome that and i think that's what got to change. ms. kiefer: i think we have room for one more question among ourselves before we go to the q&a and i want to ask you about the element you brought up of legal workers, h1b visas and high-tech workers in the kind of thing -- the part that is not being talked about much, can you elaborate on that? mark: i'm talking about overall numbers. the visas are a part of it and they are ostensibly temporary visas for technical workers. they are a contract worker program. they are indentured servants but there are all kinds of other things like legal immigration which is permanent which is running at one million per year. there seems to be an increasing consensus that our legal immigration flow is skewed toward relatives and needs to be skewed more to the individual skills of the immigrants. for instance, rubio talks about that and bush talks about that but they are talking about it in the context of increasing immigration as opposed to what i think is clearly decreased immigration. the public approval for increases in immigration is miniscule. the practices of planned parenthood are as popular as increasing immigration but every bill that comes forward that establishment on both party pushes calls for increased immigration. they do not talk about it in that context. that seems to be one of the key questions, not just enforcement, not just legalization for the illegal immigrants but what tomorrow's illegals? we need to be clear and you were reflecting this view is that the way you deal with illegal immigration and pressures in the future is by letting in everybody wants to come here legally and that way there is no illegal immigration. if you let everybody come, then who will sneak in? maybe just a handful of bad guys. that's an approach you can take which is plausible. saying the solution is to let everybody in. , is that goods for american workers? is it good for american taxpayers? randy said cities are trying to entice more immigrants. it debunks the idea that they're all on welfare. welfare and work go together. almost everybody whether they are immigrant or whoever is on welfare has a job. what drives welfare rates is the level of education of the people who are coming in and therefore their incomes. we have an immigration system that lets in lots of low skilled workers and cannot earn a lot of money. if you're a high school dropout, you can work three jobs and still cannot support your family without the taxpayers giving you stuff. that is the question. it's not how do we keep foreigners off of welfare. the question is, why are we importing more people? inevitably, they will end up using taxpayer-funded government services. that's something nobody wants to engage. >> i disagree with the characterization of the h1b program but with regard to low skilled workers, very few green cards go to workers at all, it's only 6%. >> it's based on employment. but they all have jobs. >> we need to move into the audience participation part. if you could, i will call on you and if you can state your name and organization and wait for someone to bring you a microphone -- we will begin right here with the laptop. >> thanks very much, last summer, congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the workforce innovation and opportunity act. one in six workers in the u.s. is an immigrant and most of them are not undocumented. how do we bring immigration into the conversation about what the skills of the american workforce needs to look like and what employers need? my question is first to randy and others on the panel. >> we have a whole center at the chamber for workforce preparation. what that is about is trying to improve the influence on the local school system. that is somewhat but marginal, because that's driven by states. there are department of labor and education programs. that is why we support core standards. we've got to do more to improve the job training and skills of american workers. anytime i have testified, we have always had that slice of the pie. in the meantime, we view immigration as filling some of the gaps in which american workers are not filling those gaps in those areas. it depends geographically where the american workers are. they do not always line up all the time with that particular job. anytime you talk about immigration, you've got to talk about the other slice of the pie. some people argue that immigration can lead to those american workers who are at the bottom being ignored because immigrants can fill the gap. that does not mean there could be a complementary activity of both angles. >> politically speaking, they will be ignored if they don't have to be addressed. we have workforce human capital problems in a lot of our society. there is no question about that. what high levels of immigration does is eliminate the incentive for american business, the most important and powerful lobbying element in our society, to exert the pressure on our institutions or others,t schools to do something about these single capital deficits. it's a sort of a shortcut -- to put it crudely -- let's take these american kids who don't know how to work and don't drop on time and are chewing gum while they try to check out people of the store -- let's push them aside. they can get welfare and we can import better people from outside. morally, it's an abomination. secondly, it does not work in the long run. the children of immigrants are americans and they've got all the same social problems that the rest of us do. then what do we do? importwn a side and another group? it's not sustainable. only by creating the conditions where we fix our own problems are we ever going to overcome some of these hurdles that really exist that employers have to face. a crutch that enables us to avoid grappling with these larger social problems. >> thank you for the question. frankly, we have major problems in the united states with unemployment and underemployment. up until now, there has been a disinvestment in poor communities especially ones of color. there is a need for investment in the school system and our public schools and make sure today's children are in stem classes. what are we doing to make sure we have a next generation that is prepared to take those classes? in the meantime, they are being fulfilled primarily with temper -- temporary guest workers. the incentive that employers have now to recruit and hire undocumented workers often -- this is a small set of them -- it's to exploit a lot of those workers because they can get away with that because there are not strong labor law enforcement policies. if you're looking at enforcement as a solution, there's a way to get at that through labor law enforcement but not necessarily more border or interior enforcement. >> you were next. then we will come to you. yeah, on the aisle. >> i have a question. you have mentioned the ethical concerns of family separation. i am wondering if you are aware of what percentage of people who are in this country legally with an american citizen and child have legal barriers from their home country, bringing their children back with them rather than separating? whether you think it's appropriate for a person who has justdeported maybe because finished a sentence and wouldn't be eligible for an amnesty because they usually are not , people with felony convictions. would you say it's upon them to bring back the child with them? should they be leaving them? >> i don't know a percentage. i will share a couple of reflections. 85% of immigrant families today are what we call mixed out of -- status families which means there is a u.s. citizen and one undocumented immigrant in the family unit. we are talking about large percentages of people. many people who are deported take their children back to their home country. i don't know that there are other legal barriers and other countries to do that for the impact is that we have u.s. citizen children who sometimes the father or mother might say they will stay in the united states with me because i want them to have a quality education. often times, and entire family gets uprooted. that's not the solution either. here.ht then i will come back to you. >> talking about border security, there seems to be a static member of 11 million undocumented immigrants. when you look at the statistics and bringing it back to border security, according to customs and border protection, fiscal year 2015 from october 1 two june 30, more than 99,000 other than mexicans, many of them from central america, have been apprehended in that time. that is a huge number and i wonder if you would comment on how that reflects on the border security issue. >> we have done some research on this. a lot of people on the skeptical side don't believe the $12 million number. it's between 11 million and 12 million. it may be 13 million, but it is not 20 million or 30 million. if it is, you would see it in the birth and death records. it is something like 11 or 12 or maybe 13. there has been ongoing illegal immigration to the united states. our estimate is since the obama inauguration, 2.5 million of today's illegal aliens arrived when obama took office. at the same time, there has been outflow from the illegal population. some people go home because of the bad economy. some people have gotten amnesty basically so they are out of the of the illegal population. the point is the illegal population is always churning. law,ama were enforcing the there would be 2000 less than there were. we are releasing a report tomorrow that looks at the recent numbers literally from this year and last year and it looks like the trend is reversing in the number of illegal immigrants which is going back up. honestly, i don't really care what the numbers are because of 11 million is a big enough population of illegal aliens. it's a plausible number and not something people pulled out of the air. it's an educated guess but it's a well educated guess. playing around with 20 is missing the point. what do we do to make sure we don't have another 11 million illegal aliens? that's the key issue. and until we address that, it doesn't matter whether it's 11 or 12 or 13 million. what matters is how we stop the next 11 or 12 or 13 million? >> what about the 99,000? >> the flow has shifted so that mexicans are a smaller share of new illegal immigrants. central americans and asians are a larger share. but shifting happens all the time. like i said earlier, most of the , thellegal immigrants majority of them are visa overstayers. about isou are talking a different spread of illegal immigration. not a larger or smaller level. the debateck to discussion, marco rubio brought up a point there are more central americans. i was wondering what difference that makes overall to the immigration debate? doesn't matter we are talking about people from mexico or central america? >> it matters from the perspective of what do we do, what is the solution. one of the reasons mexican migration is that net zero because the conditions have improved. central america is one of the unintended consequences of 1996 immigration laws. we have deported individuals convicted of gang activity to central america, particularly honduras and guatemala. the violence has skyrocketed. honduras in particular has the highest murder rate per capita. we are now seeing people fleeing the violence. in terms of looking forward to solutions, we talk in the united states about comprehensive immigration reform. there is nothing comprehensive about the bills we have seen unless you are looking at u.s. foreign policy and you economic policy and economic investments. if we want to address future flows, we have to look at what is the kind of aid that is being invested in sending countries to try to diminish that. people don't want to migrate. people in other parts of the country and in latin america, there is a movement on the right to remain in your home country. people are being forced out either because of violence or economic reasons. >> that would be 4000 pages long instead of 2000 pages long. >> way in the back was a gentle man. >> i am the director of the national guest worker alliance. i represented immigrant workers who have earned 1$ - 5$ per hour at a factory floor or a subcontracting scheme, and they are afraid to speak at for their rights because of the fear that that will lead to incarceration and deportation. it sounds from the panel that there is a consensus we're not going to legalize or double migration or anything like that and we are not going to take a big, bold federal action through an act of congress in the next 12 months. if the question is, what can be done now? it's clear that what can be done now is protecting the civil and labor rights of legal and undocumented immigrants so that their standards of the workplace go up and so that the standards of american workers who work alongside them go up. i would like to hear from the representative of the chamber , in the intermittent time while you have a respite and not running up to congress to pass immigration reform were be against it, whichever, -- could we see some action from you to get your high road employers to come out in favor of basic worker protections for immigrant workers? which helps them and gets rid of free rider problem. i would love to hear specific policy initiatives now that can raise immigrant worker standards like the power act. the, we talked during hershey strikes and i am a clear view -- i have a clear view of what you are against but it's difficult to tell what you are for but you are for american workers. the one million guestworkers in the country, about one million work alongside 24 million u.s. workers. the 11 million work along side 150 million u.s. workers. what could you do to help immigrant worker standards rise so we are released from the race to the bottom? >> let's start with randy. >> there is the conflating of the undocumented workers and it sounds to me that part of your work is representing people who are legally here in guestworker programs. >> the legal guestworkers on visas very often are told by their employers or assume that upon termination, they will be deported. we have rescued workers from bus stops, where they are being put forcibly on buses back to mexico. >> that first group, legalization is the issue. but this is how it comes up in negotiation on the bills. employment laws apply to all these workers whether they are undocumented or not. i have had many arguments over this. there was finally a statute to say there are covered. there was a case that came down that said you had the protections but you could not get your back pay. we supported reversing hoffman plastics as part of senate negotiations. we have always put into negotiations making it crystal-clear what is already in existence that these people have these rights get private counsel, the same rights as american workers. if they are not being paid the minimum wage, go to the department of labor. tom perez has people over there who are going after my employers for more frivolous things where we have examples of independent contractors not paying the minimum wage. go file a complaint. there are times when that's not easy to do. that's true about our american jurisprudence generally. how hard is it to exercise your rights? what are the risks? everybody who go through discrimination has to deal with that. the laws do apply. we have robust enforcement agencies. if you want to google certain companies under the j-visa program, they have had to pay huge fines because certain have had to pay. you can google it. also, if you're found to be in violation of the rules of these guestworker programs, you can be disbarred. there are examples. if you look on the department of labor website, there have been companies that have been debarred. are there bad actors? there are bad actors in any kind of program and we are a big country, 185 million workers. people have to exercise their rights. i'm just saying, as you know, there are mechanisms to help do that. that providesa protection when you file a complaint from deportation while that is being processed. that was part of the senate negotiations as well. >> do you want to start? >> in this area, there is a lot that can be done administratively. it is fortunate that the administration is putting together a task force that includes a lot of parts of the administration that normally talk to each other. the department of labor folks and eeoc folks are talking in -- and there are things they could be doing that don't require legislation. one of those things would be for workers to be able to come forward and apply for deferred action when they are in terrible cases like the ones you see. so there are ways we hope and recommendations will help them make their way to the administration can be enacted before the end of this administration. >> this is probably something that would be good to work on together. i think that high road employers are supportive of these things. those employers that are violating the law are undermining employers that are playing by the rules. along the lines of what laura mentioned, one of the parts of the executive action of the president included this interagency working group. while the daca is blocked in the courts, we would urge the administration that they do everything they can to use existing regulations for individuals for workers in a labor dispute or are being exploited to come forward and get deferred action and get work authorization and be able to pursue their legal claims. legislatively, that's not an option now. you referred to the power act which is part of the senate bill would give people a u-visa. if they are a victim of a labor violation. >> i think we are out of time. i would suggest that maybe you and the questioner chat afterwards. you can have a chance to answer his questions. >> let me say one thing -- guestworker programs are inherently explicated. they cannot be fixed and should be abolished altogether. you can do all the enforcement you want but it doesn't matter. some just workers, from a study a few years ago, looked forward to becoming illegal aliens because they would be able to earn more and have more rights basically in the workforce. the solution is get rid of guestworker programs. >> they have the same rights as american workers do under labor laws. >> we will wrap it up now. thanks to the bipartisan policy center for hosting this. thanks everyone for coming. [applause] >> thank you, francine, thank you for the great questions. the live stream of this panel will be archived on our website. you can go back and revisit anything anyone said and it will be available there. check out our website at bipartisan policy.org. thank you all for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on the next washington journal, michael ferris on efforts to amend the constitution and how state legislature has a role. howteddy downey looks at economic populism and income inequality are playing out in the presidential race. and a look at the impact the game has on wildlife populations in south africa. we also get your reaction by phone, facebook, and twitter. washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday, on the communicators -- >> you was really into computers and that pushed him. he had heard about silicon valley and drink about getting to america from a very young age. you ran away from home and did it. >> bloomberg reporter ashley banks on one of silicon valley's most inventive leaders, elon musk. >> he is seen as the next steve jobs figure. detail,his attention to pushes workers really hard. more of this edison idea. what i have taken away is he is a guy who gets thousands of engineers, the brightest of the right, very hard-working individuals. he is able to get products out of them that can be commercialized and really change the industry. he is the guy who has combined software and hardware. adams and bits in a way no one else has. >> monday night on c-span2. c-span, author phyllis bennis. and the iowa state fair this week on q1 day, institute for-- on q and a, institute studies, phyllis bennis. phyllis bennis, how would you describe what you do for a living? phyllis: i get to work my passion, which is working as a public scholar. for me, it means

Related Keywords

Mexico , United States , Honduras , Elon , Iowa , California , Guatemala , Washington , District Of Columbia , Spain , South Africa , Americans , America , Mexicans , Spanish , Mexican , American , Tom Perez , Marco Rubio , Hillary Rubio , Phyllis Bennis , Michael Ferris , George Bush , El Paso , Maria Elena , John Mccain , Tom Ridge , Ted Kennedy ,