Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Bipartisan Policy Center and to our event this morning about positive solutions to the Central American crisis. First and foremost, you know, weve heard about the Bipartisan Policy Center and the immigration project. The Bipartisan Policy Center exists to bring in ideas from both sides of the political aisle to be able to address countries challenges. The immigration process seeks to do this in a whole host of different ways and i think this event is very much in line with the work weve been doing on convening individuals, ideas, and Different Actors to the immigration challenges that this country faces. The genesis of this event was in a report that was just put out that has policy solutions to addressing the crisis. You know, what we were thinking was how can we come up with a very proactive, pragmatic and comprehensive solution to whats happening at the southern border, but not only the southern border, but throughout the rest of the region . And so in order to do this, we actually brought together several round tables with the stake holders. First of all, if youre watching this, thank you for your help that you contributed, but we brought in individuals to be able to have discussions whats happening in the region, how can we address them. How can we address them both in shortterm, medium term ang longterm dealing with this crisis and the factors that have brought and generated them. So that was the whole idea is really bringing in together that. We also helped develop these things through research and having our own internal conversations and basically what is the most pragmatic way of developing this. Bringing together the whole host of experts and dealing with the problems were facing at the border and not just simply at the border, but also in mexico and also honduras and guatemala. With that i want to introduce our moderator for the morning, mr. Otoole. With the los angeles times, remiss to say im actually from l. A. , nice to see somebody from my hometown paper and nice to have you here. So, molly. Okay. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for coming out on a friday in the summer in washington. Its start to go look like a ghost town here with the weather, so i appreciate it. Obviously, we have a very esteemed panel here, their bios are lengthy, abbreviated versus. She has a long career of writing and thinking about the issues. And human rights first, she was an associate handling federal litigation. Shes also coordinated mentoring programs at a variety of places and International Human rights committee, Immigration Committee for the association of the bar of new york, and the board of advisors to the program, International Human rights at Fordham University of law. And we have Theresa Cardinal brown here at the Bipartisan Policy Center. She came to bpc from their own Consulting Firm and in immigration and border policy, and gives the perspective of immigration as well. Associate director of business immigration advocacy at American Immigration lawyers association. And then a variety of positions either advising or within the department of Homeland Security with the customs and border protection, and Michael Chertoffs review, and the policy in dhs, and so on. And then we have, excuse me, ambassador Gutierrez Fernandez who is presented his credentials april 24th, 2017, interesting time to serve as ambassador to mexico to the United States. Hell have a lot of insight for us today and very extensive career, 15year career in the Mexican Federal government from trade, finance, diplomacy, National Security under four different president s. Lastly, but not leastly, weve got ashley the director of policy the United States conference of catholic bishops. Shes also taught at Fordham University school of law and Columbus School of law and Catholic University of america, and she previously clerked for the honorable evan j wallace at international excuse me u. S. Court of International Trade in new york. So very much looking forward to this discussion today. My plan was to start with some of the recent news that weve had, obviously, it never stops, really, when we are talking about migration and particularly this sort of new migration that were seeing to the United States over the last several years. Last single adult, mexican males, and now we have near record totals Central American families and unaccompanied minors. So, let me start with the newsier items and then dig into some of the policy solutions at that bpc has recommended. So ill start with you here. But, please, anyone, feel free to weigh in. Well have more of a freeflowing discussion. Obviously this week, im sure that everyone is familiar with president trumps threats specifically against guatemala, suggesting that they had backed away from a deal or a Safe Third Country Agreement so in response, that the administration is considering steps ranking from a travel ban on guatemala to tariffs, sort of akin to the threats recently against mexico to prompt their action. So the question is, when you have an administration whos taking this approach, from the president , you see very much the stick approach, from other sides of the government, you see more of a carrot approach. How are policy makers and members of the various administrations within Central America, how do they navigate this environment to a way that actually brings you to some kind of solution . Well, i think the Trump Administrations approach is really counterproductive here, i mean, to start with, Safe Third Country Agreement with guatemala would be a total violation of u. S. Law. Guatemala does not meet the safe third country requirements of u. S. Laws, not safe for refugees and theyre going to be at risk returned back to their country for persecution. So the president is in essence issuing threats because guatemala is failing to enter into an agreement thats illegal under u. S. Law. Plus, its counterproductive. One of the chief reasons that people are fleeing from guatemala is because of the crippling corruption and the lack of rule of law and were sending a message that its a problem to be complying with an order issued by a court in guatemala, that directed the president not to enter into the agreement. So theres very clear issues potentially with the Safe Third Country Agreement being signed by guatemala when it comes to perspective and working on issues. Theresa, i wanted to ask you from the diplomatic side of things and interesting to see the department of Homeland Security sort of take on this role that may have been more traditionally part of the state department, really the department of Homeland Security negotiating u. S. Foreign policy and broader western hemispheric policy. So, whats the role of dhs here and how do they sort of navigate . Certainly for the whole u. S. Government, the State Government is a that every government has negotiations in their area of agreement. When i was at dhs i was actually an attach in canada and they had attaches around the world on the immigration side and with countries along the way. Secretary nielsen was in the process of Security Cooperation with the triangle countries before she departed. And that level what theyre trying to do is see what level of cooperation, primarily on Border Security, particularly with mexico and guatemala and securing your own borders and offer them Technical Assistance and support in understanding how best to secure the borders and also how to improve their immigration institutions. Thats another thing that dhs has expertise that they offer to other countries and was working on and last but not least, going off criminal and smuggling elements that are facilitating the migration. So thats sort of the realm theyre working on and it does seem sort of contrary to sort of the way the president is conducting diplomacy via tweet, but a lot of this is ongoing series of meetings. So just yesterday the security ministers, interior ministers of all triangle countries were meeting with secretary mcleanen to talk about these things and apparently had a fairly productive meeting. Those are ongoing, but longer term negotiations, its not that the president is to shut off the migrant flow, if you will. What hes trying to do, i dont think a safe third, i dont think he cares if its safe. Hes looking for a country of first entry agreement. And from what we understand of the negotiations with the jimmy morales, the president of guatemala. It was about guatemala accepting back anybody who had travelled through guatemala to get to the United States. It doesnt require guatemala to take applications from asylum from them or process them 0 are require them to be safe, were going to send them back to you and its one way. Well its more akin to possibly what the eu is trying to do with turkey. Right . Like you keep everybody there and dont let them into our territory, and similar i think thats what they were talking about in mexico. Thats different from the Safe Third Country Agreement we have with canada, which is reciprocal and we think each others systems are relatively similar, coming from one country to the other and asking for asylum were going to send you back and say go apply there. It works both ways although the majority of the travel is going north so canada sends more people back to the United States than the other way around. Theoretically its reciprocal. That doesnt seem to be what were talking about. Its a perfect transition to the ambassador not to just sort of go down the line here, but you know, youre someone who has been in the room for these negotiations and relatively recently. I mean, at the beginning of the Trump Administration and so i would ask you, what advice do you have for guatemala and other countries within Central America right now. Obviously, mexico is in a very different position than guatemala. What advice do you have for them right now sort of in the midst of the negotiations with the u. S. About potentially taking on what could be a very large burden and may not, maybe not having the systems to accommodate it . Yeah, well, precisely given that those negotiations are still very fresh, i wont go into too much detail, but ill say whatever i can. Mexico has always, you know, tried to convince the United States that we should approach immigration in general as a shared responsibility, from a shared responsibility to perspective. And that beyond the narrative implies, i think, two or three things that are important. And im not anybody to recommend any government anything, but i do believe from our own experience, that shared responsibility, trying to push to that concept is important. And that implies basically, number one, you know, that first, its impossible to solve anything unless the sites really work together. And to be perfectly honest, i think that some people worldwide see migration as simply as a you know, a human right and some others see it as a problem and as a challenge and were never going to have the same vision. I think we have to recognize that. So every solution is going to be imperfect and not going to leave all sides happy. I think that needs to be recognized and i think thats precisely about, you know, approaching as a shared responsibility. It implies, i think, that the countries from which the immigration is coming should do its utmost to make sure that people are not forcing to live in their countries. And that is simply not happening or at least not to the level necessary in the northern triangle countries and i think thats something that is broadly recognized that these countries do have socioeconomic challenges that are not being met and therefore, a lot of people are being forced to leave. And thats not on the United States. That should be whether its on mexico or in Central America. And those countries, our own countries should do its utmost to make sure the migration is not a forced decision and thats not happening to the extent that it should. Right. And at the same time, thats the second part of the equation is the United States in my view, and respectfully, should recognize that there is a growing demand of people to come to the United States. Now, how is that done, its simply up its something that the United States should decide by itself according to its own legal system, democratic process and the like, but until that is also recognized here which is not always fully recognized, we have a problem. In Central America we see what people are talking about, around 80 of the people that are coming to the southern border, would meet or actually meet the credible fear interview requirements, but that the vast majority of these people that meet those requirements then dont really meet the requirements for being offered asylum fully and im quoting figures. Im not saying im validating. And that, you know, its also important to recognize that a big chunk of the people that are coming here from Central America are coming here because of socioeconomic conditions, which its not evident that would have them meet the asylum requirement. So, we need to open avenues. We, the region needs to open avenues. I think theres two things and ill stop there, two things, one is to find some sort of solution, regional solution, whether its a third safe country or whatever you want to name it, but a reasonable solution in which the countries that are involved agree that theyre going to have a common approach to dealing with people that are truly seeking asylum because they are fleeing for their life or whatever. That is not there. And we need to work on it. And i think its crucial that that happens. I cannot believe that the United States government, or the United States does not want to, you know, continue with its tradition of offering people that are fleeing from violence, persecution, attempts in their country. Im not sure, but i hope not. But the point is, but i also believe that there are people that dont want to have their own asylum system abuse, quote, unquote. There needs to be a solution and that solution needs to be regional. On the other side, i think its in the benefit of Central America and mexico and the United States and everybody to sit down calmly and say, okay, what is, you know, what is the level of movement of people we want between our countries. Are the legal avenues to do so sufficient and efficient enough so people can actually choose a legal avenue . I think we need to have a serious discussion about that and since the last 50 years, ive heard, you know, lets get Border Security first. Right. Well, weve been working on Border Security for the past 15 years and at least since 9 11 from what i can remember very seriously at least with respect to mexico. When people talk about Border Security here, what exactly do we mean so we can get to that point . I think you took one of my questions coming up, but thank you for that. Less work for me, but so theres a lot to dig into there with what everyone is talking about. But one of the things he said, id actually like to say to you, actually ambassador. You say some people see migration as a human right and other people see migration as a problem. Theres clearly differing views between United States, mexico and the northern triangle countries and attitudes towards migration as a human right versus as being a problem. You seem to suggest, ambassador, that those two sides were never really going to meet. I dont think theyll ever meet fully, no. Right, so actually i want to ask you, how can you take steps to address this migration crisis, whatever you want to call it, this migration surge, this changed migration . How can you take practical steps to address that when if youre starting with the premise that those two sides are never going to meet, migration as a human right versus migration as a problem . So, i think its a really good question and i think that a lot of people here in washington and then also obviously in Central America, are grappling with that right now. How do we make kind of policy solutions that can help immediately, but also give a longterm system . Obviously, everybody here acknowledges that theres a regional situation, its not a u. S. Only for a mexicoonly situation so that involves cooperation with other governments. But i do want to just kind of n