to talk about this incredibly important issue. we have a great panel for you. we have a c-span audience, and of course, a live webcast. tweak,who would like to u.s.immigration. we hope to have a good discussion here and online. way back when when i was a graduate student at the university of california berkeley, where secretary napolitano runs these days, we learned about wedge issues -- wedge issues were those things that really divided the electorate, that get everyone excited, that everyone had opinions about. well, immigration has become a wedge issue. wedge issues come and go, depending upon the year, and clearly, since 2015, one president trump started to run for office, immigration has been at the forefront in terms of one of the wedge issues. it divides not just the mccracken republicans. republicans. in fact, there is an nbc/wall street journal poll out today that has some fascinating divides within the republican party between trump supporters and people that call themselves more or less traditional republicans. so, this is a big issue. this is an issue that everyone has an opinion about, as opposed to many of the other issues we talk about here at brookings -- tele communications, and things like that. really, normal people don't really have strong opinions about those issues. this is one where people who have strong opinions, and therefore it is of interest to everyone. the issue also runs the gamut of -- from what i call a heart issue to a head issue. people have strong opinions about what this means for our country -- what kind of country we ought to have, and we get emotional about it, but it also goes to more very practical issues. my colleague you will be moderating this panel and i, we just, a couple of months ago took a look at the practical side. is it possible to do what the president wants to do and, in theory, was elected to do, and we came up with some pretty interesting answers, which i think will be brought out in the course of the discussion. and, finally, one of the things about a political issue that itomes so hot is that often is not exactly fact-based. remember, i think it was senator moynahan -- the late senator moynahan said everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. in this immigration debate we have been treated to a series of statements, some from the president or from his team, which simply don't have anything to do with reality. we will talk about that, i am sure, too. so, thank you very much for joining us today. we will have our panel open up, get some statements, have some discussion, and that we will open it up to you in the audience, and we will also open it up to people who are online. ok? so, again, thank you very much, and what our panel please come up. [applause] john: all right, good morning, everyone. i'm a senior fellow in governance studies and the deputy director for effective public management. it is my honor to moderate this panel and to introduce all of you to our panelists to discuss what is a critically important issue, as elaine mentioned, broadly, but also in the current political environment. before i begin, i would like to thank the carnegie corporation for their support for research and for the event today. i would like to welcome our viewers who are attended by live webcast through the brookings website and those on c-span watching this live. any of you who want to engage us on social media, you can use #u.s. immigration to get into the conversation. now on to our panelists. janetately to my left, napolitano is currently the president of the university of california system, a post she has held since 2013. prior to becoming president of u.c., she served as the third secretary of homeland security during the first time of president obama and a little bit into his second term. priors you that she served as attorney general of arizona and the governor of arizona. ,o the left, carlos gemara previously at the national raza.l of la previously he served in the obama administration from 2014 to 2017, where he focused on developing an intimate team immigration policy for the administration. least, the senior fellow and director of the u.s. immigration policy program at the migration policy institute. from 1993 to 2000 she served as the commissioner of immigration national -- nationalization service. she has served under five presidents. i would have to think our panelists for joining us and what will be, hopefully, and engaging conversation. i will spark -- start with my first question to president napolitano. recently you joined a lawsuit over the president's decision to rescind daca as president of the university of california. the president's decision to repeal this in a six-month window with the hope congress will step in and codify daca into law has made for a lot of controversy throughout the united states and in a lot of policy circles. you oversee a system with 4000 students who are undocumented, many of whom will have applied for daca protection. can you talk a little bit about what this policy means broadly, and what it means for your university system and for your students? sec. napolitano: well, i certainly can. i'm very familiar with daca. when i was the secretary of homeland security, and we did it out of a recognition that there was -- there were a whole host of individuals who had been brought here as children, had been raised in the country, and from any kind of immigration shouldment perspective, be able to stay in the country without fear of deportation. so, deferred action for childhood arrivals was the program that we initiated, and it is an exercise of respiratory of discretion. each applicant is reviewed individually. they have to have a clean criminal record, and meet a whole host of other requirements to qualify. at the university of california, we estimate that we have around 4000 undocumented students, and the vast majority of them are in daca. indeed, about one quarter of the hundred thousand daca recipients -- 800,000 daca recipients in the country are in california, and these young people are -- they are an important part of our university community. they are, by and large, first-generation college students. they are -- and have done everything required of them academically to get into the university of california, which is not the easiest thing in the world to do. have the brains, the .nergy, the initiative and they are exactly the kind of people we should want to stay in our country and contribute. to the president decision was wrong on a number of grounds, and one of the reasons the university sued was to seek and the judicial relief from the system. it is wrong as a matter of law. it is wrong as a matter of immigration enforcement policy. and it is inconsistent with our values as a country. acts, the nose. one can always hope. we hear that there may have been a deal negotiated between the president and senator schumer, and representative policy over chinese food and chocolate cake at the white house. -- but we do need legislation that would be brought to the floor and passed that the president will sign, and to get that all done in six months -- while we are going to advocate for it and believe strongly that congress can and should act, we also think that as a matter of law the court should step in and protect these hundred thousand young people. john: thank you for those comments. carlos, president napolitano talked about the university community at u.c., and the important role daca recipients play in that community. can you talk more broadly about immigrant canaries nationwide, what daca has meant for those communities, and carlos: john, thank you for the question and the opportunity to be here. it is honor to be here with my co-panelists. daca, in many ways, i think back to when i began my legal career. i was a line attorney during a lot of these cases. during about 100 and the cases, difficulty in the conversations that must have happened around many kitchen tables across the country, before coming to me for consultations about what obtaining daca might mean for a -- whatand what more -- what doors it might open. , -- and doris's words, is so much more muscular, and makes everyone nervous, and reluctant to do things. reluctant to report whenever they are victims of crime. it is one of the reasons why local law enforcement agents, agencies are so opposed to some of the and thebeing taken words being used on immigration enforcement. these are all things that must be taken into account. post: i would add to that that an important piece of the puzzle is where immigration courts come in. that is also part of this process, to seek relief, if it is available to them. , that adds a new dynamic in terms of how these as a right tot it is don't have a work on this record, this is to c-span is in virginia so long as long as you audio of your connected cities du jour goingle >> you often were quoted as saying show me a 50 foot wall and i was are you a 51 foot ladder. that said, i would not get on a 51 foot ladder. can you talk to the challenges and what types of policies are more effective if not more attainable if the heated rhetoric died down into and peoplele enter this conversation in a way more levelheaded way? >> yes. you know, i think the notion of building a wall across the southwest border, i mean, i just, first of all, just doing from a geography standpoint, you're talking about going to riverbeds, mountains. there's a great deal of private property ownership along the border. when there was money set aside and a secure fencing act a decade and a half ago, a number of the property owners whose property would beused for that -- be used for that sued. those cases, many of them are still in litigation so you'll have those issues. you have inian reservations that straddle the border in arizona, the community lives on both sides of the border. they've already said they're not going to have a wall. so, just the pure doing of it, not to mention the actual cost. , which, you know, i think the numbers i've seen are low numbers. and i think you're probably talking in excess of $20 billion to build anything like a wall. and, so, you have to question, what does a wall do? well, the notion that a wall, there is going to be some kind of impermeable structure along the border. again, anybody who has been at the border and knows the border knows that that just won't fly and what, you know, real border enforcement means is a strategy that includes manpower, that includes technology, that includes, as i said before, air coverage. it also includes working with our neighbors to the south to try to prevent traffic before it actually gets to the physical border. and, you know, i think some of the real progress that we made was with the government of mexico and their own efforts and protecting their southern border. so, waiting until the traffic hits a myth logical structure does not suffice as an immigration policy. >> anything you would like to add? >> well, maybe i should use this opportunity to throw out my favorite number. you said the wall is probably in the $20 billion range. that's what homeland security has been estimating, $21 billion. we now spend $19 billion on immigration enforcement overall in this country. that represents 25% more than all federal criminal law enforcement, which means the fbi, the dea, the atf, the secret service, the marshals service. on immigration enforcement we're spending 25% more than those agencies combined, and now we're talking about a $20 billion wall that is even more expensive than that expenditure? and in the face of the changes and flows and the kinds of points that you properly raised that i completely agree with about what brings about first effective law enforcement. i will raise my hand as a proponent of barriers along the border. in certain places under certain circumstances. about a third of the border already has it. you can call it whatever you want. a third, about 2000 miles, has a barrier of one sort or another. it is assistance to the border patrol. it requires repair. it is the most expensive piece of infrastructure that is there. it has to becombined with agent technology and oversight. it is simply a method of helping to channel the flow and deal with certain types ofterrain. it's not a one size the problem fits all and solve the problem solution. >> so we have about 12 or 13 minutes before i open this up to audience questions. so, now i want to get away from being accountants and actuaries and get to more of the fun stuff and talk about the politics of this issue. so, carlos, i want to start with you. unidos is one of the most active high-profile advocacy organizations in the united states working on a whole range of issues affecting immigrant communities. i'm hoping you can talk a little about how unidos has responded to the new political environment and in many ways an unexpected political environment since november 8 and a little bit about what has happened with unidos. a lot of times when there is a disastrous policy situation on your radar it can bring groups , together in ways that other situations may not. can you talk about the advocacy group and interest group environment? >> yes, thank you. suffice to say the election of president trump, perhaps unexpectedly by some, kind of threw many of us in the advocacy space, of course, i wasn't in the advocacy space. but now in theadvocacy space for a loop. i think the profile or the positioning of a lot of groups today has had to be one of a more rapid response posture, whereas perhaps many were gearing up for a different dynamic had different administration been in place. and, so, what that means is it's relentless to your point what you were alluding to, john. tracking the latest hot button issue of the day, and it coming together frankly of the group to deal with those in the most appropriate manner. we'll tell you it feels like it is a constant onslaught these days starting from muslim ban to ramped up interior actions. daca now. it feels like we are always on the defensive. but i say that, and i say that with some pride in the reaction that the advocacy community has, in the way that they have come together to respond. one of the ways that we are seeing that play out is, to the with response to the daca decision now. there are very multifaceted approaches to that. as we think about the window that we have, and i sincerely believe we have a window right now to get something done, you'll see a lot of groups carry forward the momentum. until we get to a place where we talk about debt ceiling and so forth where we might have opportunities to discuss this issue more fully as a comprehensive package perhaps. so i'll say that. that momentum and that work continues. we'll continue to be in this fight. we know we have a lot at stake. as i mentioned earlier, it's not 800,000 individuals that are daca recipients. it's their families. and also the individuals not to be forgotten in this space that do not have daca but otherwise are for all intents around are law-abiding individuals trying to go about their day-to-day lives as well. over the past several election cycles, we've seen your home state of arizona trend toward purple. in 2004, president bush won arizona. in 2012, president obama lost arizona by nine points. and in this past election president trump won the state by , only about 3.5%. there are a lot of factors that go into that, but surely immigration is one of them. can you talk a little bit about what effect you think the president's immigration policies, broadly, whether it's rhetorical, whether it involved daca or the wall, whether it involves controversial pardons perhaps, what that might mean for the politics on the ground in a state like arizona in local elections, statewide elections, congressional elections and for the next presidential race? >> well, you're right, arizona does trend toward purple, although it trends a little more republican than democratic, although, you know, it has elected democratic governors and senators. and the congressional delegation in the house is about equally divided. you know, i think that one impact could be to stimulate voter registration and voting by the latino population. and the fact of the matter is that if the latino population voted at the same percentage as the white population, arizona would be a blue state now. so all of these actions taken together, the rhetoric, the policy pronouncements, the pardon, i think could have the impact of, as i said, increasing latino voter turnout, and we will see that in 2018. >> great. so for my last question we've got about five minutes before audience questions. i'm going to wrap by asking each of you to think about the next 5 and a half months as congress over what to do on daca , as congress mulls over a variety of immigration policies, whether through a funding bill coming in december and probably again two or three months later and two or three months after that, what bit of advice would you give to members of congress who are facing this set of issues? feel free to talk about whatever portion of that you think is most important to congressional leadership or to rank and file. >> well, i think if i were called upon to advice a member of congress, which i would be reluctant to do, but i would say that the imminent risk now is to the dreamers and that while we all hopeat some point for comprehensive immigration reform, which the country sorely needs, that achieving some sort of statutory resolution for at least that population and if a need to attach it to a must pass bill, that that is a strategery strategy that has worked in the past for other types of measures. you know that the motion arises, you know. would you agree to anything on the enforcement side fort hose for those who have that interest paramount in their mind in order to get success for the dreamers. and there, there should besome red lines, funding for a wall should be a red line. if you have to add some other funding for border security to the mix, whether that is well spent funding or not, that funding is going to, in my view, occur in some form or fashion anyway. and if you can get the dream act through using that as a package, that should be worthy of consideration. so while we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the country needs overall immigration reform, the immediate needs now is for the dreamers. >> i would have one simple, clear message. that would be, let's get it done. let's get it done. and we talk about the -- we have been talking about the human costs today of the 800,000 or so youth and their families that would be impacted by non-action by congress. i would remind congress that we have a, for all intents and purposes, a man made disaster after the rescission of daca. and all eyes are on you to act. and i would remind congress that the american people support a pathway for these youth, that this includes not just the usual suspects of democrats and moderate republicans, but an overwhelming number of republicans who voted for president trump. the time is now. we have a window to get this done. i also would urge representatives in congress that the communities watching, i think more broadly we are concerned and really facing, probably a subject for another conversation, an issue of credibility in some of our core institutions. and congress, i would submit, is one. what better way to show the american people that we can come together and really express who we are as a country, what our american values are than to working together to find a solution for these youth. so i'd say let's get it done. >> i would say if there's any issue on which to test a time where you should break the hastert rule, this is it because immigration legislation has never been able to pass by just immigration legislation historically has required bipartisanship. there are elements of each party, although they're not equivalent, but still there are parts of each party that will resist. however, as you've pointed out and so important, this issue of all others in this contentious area is one that is strongly backed across the board by the public. members of congress know that we've got to find a way to get a functional center back into play. and this is, election, whatever else, wants to see problems solved. they pick add way to do it that's surprising. but nonetheless, that's part of the message. so you can't solve problems without bipartisanship. the leadership has got to be willing to take this to the members and allow both parties to vote for it in order to get a majority and they will get credit for it. >> great. thank you. now, i'd like to turn it over to all of you to hear some questions. i have a couple of caveats. first, short questions are great. testimony is not great. this is not a courtroom and i reserve the right to absolutely cut you off and shut you down if you make yourself a fifth panelist. next, you can ask next, you can ask questions via twitter. you can tweak them @brookingsgov and our immediate team will grab a microphone and ask some along the way. let's start right up here. >> first and foremost, i'd like to thank the panelists today. you guys were wonderful. i am currently an intern at the department of homeland security working for the office of civil rights and civil libs. -- civil liberties. my question is what components , are essential to keep in mind for immigration policy when working for the office of civil rights and civil liberties? thank you. >> you know dhs better than i do. think theou know, i office, it is interesting. the only federal department that has a civil rights office that looks internally, not think it isand i important that that that office into thebility policies and practices of what is happening at ice, at cbt. have an effective mechanism by which complaints andbe received and resolved that that process in an of itself be transparent. >> right up front. >> thanks. number ofgressional the hispanic outlook. in 2013, the judiciary july after the 2013 bipartisan appropriate immigration bill passed, the judiciary subsidiary considered a bill called the kids act, which was a standalone dream act , and every democrat on the panel opposed it. luis gutierrez said it is un-american to legalize just one segment of the illegal immigrant community. the democrats have been completely against the stand-alone bill. now, the tables have turned. they want this as a standalone. they do not want to add anything. i think republicans would like to add. what do you think about that? i will maybe take it. point of your question moving away from the more comprehensive bill to something a little more specific , i think there is a recognition int we are not just different times, but there is a sense of urgency and momentum as we speak to resolve this issue and get it done for this population. i think that is what some of the democrats that you speak to are reacting to not his democrats, frankly. republicans as well. i would offer that. verifying, we will maintain and we are one of the organizations pushing for a vehicleeen act or a that is clean that contains the central policy provisions of the dream act. the proposal that we have seen to date or what we see percolating in the background are vaguely unacceptable to the community, and why i say that is the theme of the point here is not talking necessarily about 800,000. we are talking about the parents recipients, dreamers, and the broader population. submitssues that i would we really cannot have that conversation unless we talk about broader pieces of the population. >> right here on the end. >> houston college. early this morning, you mentioned pressprich oil discretion. dhs rescinded it. now, there is over 300,000 immigrants in the united states. what do you think is going to status,o the current and how will that affect work authorization renewal for those immigrants? >> if i understand your question, during the obama , there wereon, directives issued to ice in particular on cases that were to be prioritized. and the idea was that when you have 11 million undocumented individuals in the united states, you have the resources to deport them all, just as the justice department does not have the resources to prosecute every bad case. for example, in the country. you have the executive branch with the authority to exercise what is called prosecutorial discretion and high-priority. so the obama administration set forth those priorities. the current administration has basically undone those directives. and it creates a greater sense of free-for-all in immigration enforcement area i do not think that is a wise use of executive branch authority. i think it has all of the impacts that carlos has talked about in terms of the community. that it is ahink misuse of the resources that the department does have. >> on the island the back. >> hi. i'm claudia. i spent a year at the uva school of education. where, of course, immigration became a huge talking point. my question is, what can schools that combat the human cost was talked about? >> thank you for the question. fellowad to hear from a uva alum here. >> i went to uva, too. [laughter] >> thank you for the question. this is one of the point i was trying to describe in terms of the collateral impacts of increased in enforcement, and one of the things we hear coming from our affiliates and folks on the ground is this very issue, what do we do in schools, which are seen kind of de facto in many ways as a safe space and so forth? i think something that has been helpful and i am not advocating folks to do certain things and what not, but i think schools provide an opportunity to have that convening power, if you will, to bring communities together to discuss the broader context of what folks' rights are, something that we're very interested in and have been pushing as an organization is using these venues as opportunities to screen folks for additional forms of relief. in many cases, individual's life circumstances may have changed or it's a long time since they talked to a lawyer about this stuff. so if there's ways that schools can work to facilitate that in a kind of de facto understood place that's a safe space, i think that would go along way. we have heard the anecdotal reports. we're looking at a way to provide in information empirically. that is something to be mindful of. but i would encourage schools to really use that space for the broader, the know your rights, the screenings and getting information to people that is much needed at this time. >> and i would just kind of list what we do at the university of california. undocumented students pay in-state tuition. we have undocumented student centers on our campuses. we provide a dream loan program, so it's a loan program for undocumented youth who can't get federal loans. and we provide legal services for our undocumented students and their families. so those are just some concrete actions we've taken over the past years, preceding the daca rescission for our undocumented student population. >> carlos, quickly before the next question, for students or school administrators or whomever who are looking to do more in this space or see what opportunities there are, are there any resources that you could let them know about? >> yes, certainly. folks should feel free to reach out to me. we have a top-notch team that covered not just immigration issues but education, health care, housing, so forth. and we're looking at this question. please, if you'd like to share that information, i'd be happy to point people to those directions, including one piece where as we've driving to asking folks who are eligible to renew to renew resources and information about assistance possibly that might be out there to cover fees for daca renewals. >> this gentleman. >> my name is dan melnick. i'm retired from the congressional research and national science foundation. my question is i'd like to ask , you to relate what you've been talking about to the broader stance of america and the world, and specifically you discussed immigration but you never mentioned or actually discussed the role of the united states in aiding refugees. and secondly, when you talk about the changes in the flows into the united states, i'd like you to address the issue of how this reflects perhaps an impact of this rhetoric on immigration and does this mean or doesn't it mean that the policies are succeeding in a way, because they're stopping the flow. >> i think that's an extremely interesting point. there are so many things that one could talk about. the refugee realm is an entire topic of its own, on which one could do a panel. and of course if we are hearing, i mean if the rumors are correct, the numbers that the administration will request or propose are going to be dramatically lower than they've been in the past, and of course, this year they were lowered dramatically from 110,000 to 50,000. the 50,000 cap is written into the statute. we haven't gone under that since 1980 when that statute was written. but this fits with the overall world view that is being expressed by this immigration, as i said, of immigration as a threat and a danger to the country, not as an asset. of course, the irony where refugees are concerned xis if is that if there's any group in the world that's the victims of threats around the world, it's of course people that are outside of their own countries. and that's a historically high number now since the second world war. the u.s. of course, has always , been a leader where refugee policy is concerned. we are abdicating that role. and we are also in the process of that along with so many other things that are going on, really changing america as a brand around the world. and i don't say that flippantly in pr terms. part of our image and part of our ability to be leaders has to do with our immigration stance over time and refugees are part of that, but the rest of it is as well, that this is a welcoming nation that benefits from immigration. obviously, properly managed, it shouldn't be chaotic. it is indefensible to have run a system for as many years that we have that's relied on illegal immigration in the way that it does, those are all important caveats. but nonetheless, all of those things are now being cast in a very, very different way. but one of the ironies is what you point out, that some of this is working. there is no other good explanation right now for the job in just the last six months of crossing at the southwest border than what's being termed the trump effect. it is against all historic norms of this season of the year. it runs against what we know the causes of the flows from central america have been. it is most likely a function of this climate of fear and of the information flows through the informal networks, among the smugglers, from families in the u.s. back to countries of origin that things have changed and it's a dangerous time. >> how about this gentleman here? >> dan marcus. i'm a retired lawyer and professor and an alumnus of the clinton administration. one of the fundamental principles of immigration reform, both comprehensive proposals and the dream act over the last couple of decades has , has been a path to citizenship. i'm sort of optimistic that something's going to get done on daca in the next six months but isn't going to include a path to citizenship. you, if i am right, what does that mean to the long-term prospects for immigration reform for undocumented immigrants in terms of path to citizenship? >> thank you for the question. look, i still maintain that we have a window and we are pushing for a vehicle or a measure that includes a pathway towards legalization. i think that there is support. i think there is recent polling done by our friends at ford u.s. that addresses this issue that there is support among republican voters for a solution that includes a pathway towards legalization. we could talk about what that might mean. but i think it's important from our community's perspective that we continue to push for that and that we insist on that because of concerns that we have of, you start introducing notions and ideas of second class citizenship and under classes and so forth, which reminds me of another group of individuals frankly that we have a little bit of historical precedent with, which is the group of individuals that are on temporary protected status, that have been in a limbo state for, in many instances, over 15 years. we continue to believe there's a window to get that done. in terms of the broader question of pivoting to immigration reform, i think that we need to get past this initial conversation first. i think this could lead to more momentum for that broader conversation and perhaps include, should we not get to that point of legalization, we'd certainly have to include that discussion at that time. >> in front of you. >> yes. thank you very much. president napaliano mentioned the possibilities of voting. whether it's for governor or house of representatives in off years, last week we saw nancy pelosi being attacked at a town hall meeting. and yet there is something like seven or more republican congressmen in california who are not on record as supporting a dream act provision, sort of channeling energy in what could be said to be the wrong direction. in state and local level and off year representative elections, they respond to who vote. and latinos have not been known to vote in off year elections and in state and local elections. so i'd like you all to comment on the degree to which you can complain or fight a system in which you don't use the tools that you can to not elect an attorney general in texas who brings a suit against dacas. i mean, it's convoluted, but my question relates to the non-federal focus that i think is lacking in some of this discussion. >> well, i think any effort to vote and to support voting is a good thing. and when people go and they get their ballot, it will have federal and state offices on the same ballot. so the question is to get them either voting by mail or to go to the polls on election day. and i think it also would be helpful for some of these state offices to do a better job educating people about what impact those office holders can have on them. for example, state attorneys general have a big impact. you know, with state attorneys general who have filed to hold up dapa in the courts, it was the threat of state attorneys general filing suit that led to the trump decision to rescind daca. so i don't think from a turnout perspective, like i said, the ballot includes federal and state offices. it's all together. but elucidating what impact some of these state office holders can have i think would also help stimulate turnout. >> just briefly if i may, certain organizations like ours are looking at this issue very closely and making the push to register and so forth. i will just say that the latino population is not monolithic and perhaps the views of some folks in california maybe different than folks in texas. there's also the question of political maturity in certain states versus others. but certain organizations like ours are looking closely at this issue and will be at the forefront to push folks to have great understanding of what's at stake not just in generals but in midterms as well. >> reppo. b-- purple. i don't know colors that well. >> i think it is fuchsia. >> fuchsia. >> hi. good morning. i'm with the national association were equal opportunity and higher education. we represent historical black colleges and universities and predominantly black institutions. and just wondering about the effect of the african and caribbean students on our campuses and you just mentioned tps, but what we need to be doing to protect some of those young people as well. >> since i opened that one up, look, i think as an organization we are acutely focused on this , very question of tps. we know that in the next 5 months, so usually 60 days before an expiration date of a tps designation, the department of homeland security will make an announcement as to what they're going to do with a current designation. we know that in the next 4 months, i guess between now and mid-january, we'll have decisions on the top 3 countries in terms of populations to include under us, which we expect will have a decision in the beginning of november, and in terms of numbers, thousands of individuals based on recent estimates. haiti, which will be around thanksgiving time. we've already seen an extension back in march, i believe. and some of the messaging after that has been a little concerning. suggestions being that they might not extend. but we're watching that closely. and then the big one, so haiti's 50,000. and the big one and certainly from the latino perspective el salvador represents something like a quarter of a million individuals who are currently protected and have been in this country by definition at least 16 years and in many cases much longer. we are working hard to elevate the importance of this issue. in terms of the population, we are talking about 400,000 individuals or about half the size of the daca population that will need a decision to be made. we're working hard to elevate the importance of this issue with our friends in congress to try to get some momentum going in on this issue. but we are very concerned about the state of play with these countries and the future of folks who have been lawfully in this country, work authorized, paying taxes, committing to criminal background checks, having essentially the rugs pulled from underneath them. i think the most important thing if i were to give an action item to folks here interested in this issue is to help elevate the importance of this issue and working with your partners and constituencies to reach members and folks who may influence this administration on this particular issue to elevate the importance of that issue. >> we have about five minutes left. we are efficient, we can get a couple questions. gentlemen in the back. >> she is the one with the question. i just had longer arms. >> good plan. >> so with the exception of possibly canada, mexico is one of the countries that has the highest levels of cooperation with the united states, whether that be issues of trade or environment or national security. and all of these affect both countries and require extensive bilateral cooperation. i guess my question is, what is the administration's rhetoric and policy on immigration mean for diplomacy with mexico? >> i think the timing of your question is good given the pendency of the nafta negotiation and the position about nafta. you know, the whole u.s./mexico relationship is, in my view, a value add to the united states. it's a value add to our economy. there are at least a half a million jobs in california alone directly related to trade with mexico under nafta. it's a value add for a historic and cultural ties. it's a value add certainly on the security side, where over the past decade we've seen stronger and stronger partnership and cooperation with mexico. and so we run the risk under the guise of rhetoric of really diminishing that relationship. and from every possible perspective, that is the wrong way to go. what we should be doing is working ever more closely with mexico to really look at ourselves as an economic region as we face the rest of the world , as we look as a security region and deal with our common problems in a linked up fashion. and again, as we appreciate the other ties that we have with mexico. so i'm quite concerned that we are putting that key relationship at risk. >> time for one more quick question. richard. >> this is particularly for secretary napolitano. tomorrow morning, you get a call from chuck schumer who tells you nancy and i are meeting at the white house with the president and ryan and mcconnell. they want to do something on daca but they need something on border security. what could i give them on border security that would not be detrimental and might actually be helpful and, c, they would like? [laughter] >> tall order. that would be an interesting call. [laughter] >> you know, i would say a border technology package that would include funding for sensors and for border surveillance devices that would be a force multiplier for the border patrol. >> i would agree with that. i mean, we always used to say that in order to have an effective border enforcement regime, you need people, equipment, technology, infrastructure. and you could do some plussing up on all of those. that is reasonable. i would definitely put most of my eggs in the technology basket. i completely agree. and in addition to that, to a part of the border that never gets the attention that it should. and that is the ports of entry. the ports of entry are absolutely essential. and the more effective enforcement you do between the ports of entry, the more pressure there is on the ports of entry. and that is a big long-term infrastructure effort that could also align with what it is that this administration wants to achieve that is very much in our interests both from the standpoint of enforcement and mexico and legal flows. so there is a conversation to be had about the border that is short of a border wall and short of the kind of heated rhetoric that has been in play now. >> so i'd like to encourage all of you to look at the work being done by doris and her colleagues at the migration policy institute. we're looking forward to more leadership from the university of california system, particularly on this issue. i encourage you all to visit the brookings.edu website to check out more of our work on immigration policy for some shameless self-promotion, read the paper hitting the wall that my colleagues coauthored with me as well as the latest brookings essay by our colleague that looks at security issues specifically around the border wall and the debate around that. with all that said, i'd like you guys to join me in thanks our thanking our panelists for a great conversation today. [applause] [indiscernible] >>; president trump will attend a campaign rally for the alabama senator in huntsville. you can want our live coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. right after, a rally for senator strange's opponent in next week's primary. surveillance polkadot event thursday evening after the two candidates held a debate. tomorrow, organizers are holding a march in washington, d.c., the march for civility. musicians, authors, and public figures are excited to speak at the rally, which will begin at the lincoln memorial. c-span's coverage begins live saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. monday, the senate finance committee holds a hearing on the latest republican hous health care plan and affordable act repeal.that measure sponsored by bill cassidy and lindsey graham. they are expected to testify on their legislation. live monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. earlier today, john mccain came out against the republican health care proposal after kentucky senator rand paul announced earlier this week that he will oppose the bill as well. senator mccain released a statement saying in part -- republicans control the senate 52-48. with all democrats in opposition, just three gop votes would block the measure. >> sunday night on afterwards, new york times magazine contributor suzy hansen on her travels abroad in her book "notes on a foreign country, an american abroad in a post-american world." she was interviewed. >> there is a phone that question of why we exceptional? there is a question of, why have i never thought this was a form of propaganda? why had i not thought to question where was this concept coming from? what was the job that it was doing for individual americans? i think that one thing i was realizing is this took a long time to realize that the very language that we use when we talked about for a countries have been kind of determined for us a very long time ago because we tended to look at especially muslim countries and countries in the east as were they catching up with us or behind us? is prevent you from being able to see the country on its own terms. >> watch afterwards sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span 2's book tv. earlier today, british prime minister theresa may delivered an address on brexit. and the future of the united kingdom. she said at the uk's position on future brexit talks with european leaders and attempted to calm concerns around eu citizen's rights and security. this was held in florence, italy. it is about 50 minutes. prime minister may: at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the united kingdom and the european union. it was here more than anywhere

Related Keywords

Mexico , New York , United States , Arizona , United Kingdom , Texas , Washington , Italy , California , Lincoln Memorial , District Of Columbia , Houston , Canada , Haiti , America , American , British , Suzy Hansen , Theresa May , Chuck Schumer , Luis Gutierrez , John Mccain ,