this is -- 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, got everyone excited, everyone had an opinion about. well, immigration has become a wedge issue. wedge issues kind of come and go, and depending upon the year, and clearly since 2015 when 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 democrats and republicans, it divides republicans. in fact, there is an nbc/"wall street journal" poll out today that has fascinating divides within the republican party between trump supporters and people who were -- 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, telecommunications and things like that. really, people don't -- normal people don't have strong opinions about those issues. this is one where people do have strong opinions and, therefore, it is of interest to everyone. the issue also runs the gamut from what i call a heart issue to a head issue. in other words, people have very 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. so, john hudak, my colleague who will be moderating this panel, and i, we just a couple months ago took a look at the practical side, okay. 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 becomes so hot is that often it is not exactly fact based. remember, i think it was senator money han, the late senator moynahan, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. and, so, in this immigration debate, we have been treated to a series of statements, some from the president, from his team, we simply don't have anything to do with reality. and we'll talk about that, i'm sure, too. so, thank you very much for joining us today. we're going to have our panel open up and give some statements, give some -- have some discussion. and then we will open it up to you in the audience and we will also open it up to people who are online. okay? so, again, thank you very much, and would our panel please come up? [ applause ] >> all right, good morning, everybody. welcome to brookings. my name is john hudak. i'm the senior fellow of studies and 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 in the current political environment. before i begin i'd like to thank the carnegie corporation for their support for our research and for the event today. i'd like to welcome our viewers who are tuned in via a live webcast from the brookings website as well as the viewers on c-span watching this live. any of you who want to engage us on social media, you can use #us immigration to get into the conversation. now on to our panelists. immediately to my left, janet napolitano is currently the president of the university of california system, a post she's held since 2013. prior to becoming president of u.c. she served as the third secretary of the department of homeland security during the first term of president obama and a little bit into his second term. prior to that she served as the attorney general of arizona, and then the governor of arizona. immediately to her left is carlos guevara, senior policy advisor, previously larasa. he leads the advocacy. previously he served in the obama administration from 2014 to 2017 where he focused on developing and implementing immigration policy for the administration. and last but not least on the end, doris misner, senior fellow and director of the u.s. immigration policy program at the migration policy institute. from 1993 to 2000 she served as commissioner of the immigration and naturalization service. and throughout a storeyed career she served under five presidents. i'd like to thank our panelists for what i hope will be an engaging conversation. i'm going to 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 that 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 4,000 students who are undocumented, many of whom 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? >> well, i certainly can. i'm very familiar with daca. we did 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 enforcement perspective should be able to stay in the country without fear of deportation. and, so, deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca, was the resulting program that we initiated. and it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. each applicant is reviewed individually. they have to have a clean criminal record. they have to meet a whole host of other requirements to qualify. and at the university of california, you know, we estimate that we have around 4,000 undocumented students and the vast majority of them are in daca. indeed, about a quarter of the 800,000 daca recipients in the country are in california. and these young people are, you know, they're 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. you know, they have the brains, the energy, the initiative. they're exactly the kind of people we should want to stay in our country and contribute. so, the president's decision to rescind daca was wrong on a number of grounds, and one of the reasons the university sued was to seek and get judicial relief from the decision. it's wrong as a matter of law. it's wrong as a matter of immigration enforcement policy. and it's inconsistent with our values as a country. whether congress acts, who knows. you know, one can always hope. and we hear that there may have been a deal negotiated between the president and senator schumer and representative pelosi over chinese food and chocolate cake at the white house. but reducing that to legislation and legislation that will be brought to the floor and passed that the president will sign, and to get that all done in six months is why we're going to advocate for it and believe strongly that congress can and should act. we also think as a matter of law the court should step in and protect, you know, these 800,000 young people. >> sure. well, thank you for those comments. carlos, president napolitano talked a little bit about the university community at u.c. and the important role daca recipients play in that community. can you talk more broadly about immigrant communities nationwide, what daca has meant for those communities? and just as importantly, what this uncertainty that has stemmed from the president's announcement also means to those communities? >> john, thank you for the question and the opportunity to be here, and to my co-panelists. it's an honor to be here with you both. daca in many ways, i think back to where i began my legal career, once upon a time i was a line attorney doing a lot of these cases after the previously mentioned daca announcement. and i remember doing about 100 of these cases and thinking through the difficulty and the conversations that must have happened around the many kitchen tables across the country before coming to meet with me to do a consultation about what attaining daca may actually mean for a family and what doors might actually open. i mention this because, you know, daca recipients today by definition of the program have been here at least ten years. at the time the program was announced, there was a lot of uncertainty in the community even then about coming forward, submitting to criminal background checks, providing information about your residency -- excuse me, your residence, family members, and then oh, by the way, having to come up in many instances when you're a low income household with the money and take off the time to come and meet with someone like me to prepare your application. so, in many many ways what i'm trying to convey is the decision to apply to daca in the first instance took a lot of trust in the federal government. those telling you, look, there's a small piece of the grand bargain here if you come forward you'll have relief from deportation and have an opportunity to work and opportunities for your family. so, when we have the decision, john, about the rescission that the president took on september 5th, to put it mildly, the trust that was violated there and part of the deal, if you will, that was undertaken by many in the community was completely eroded. so, i think in this context we have to understand not only what we have ahead of us and what i believe truly to be a window and momentum to get to a legislative fix, but really have the empathy to consider what these families are going through right now. even as we drive to get folks who are eligible between now and october 5th to come and meet with an attorney, to come to community meetings to learn about their rights and so forth. i was talking to some colleagues at american immigration lawyers association recently that are reporting. we see ourselves in our own network. we have a network of 300 affiliates across the country including in california. reporting that folks aren't showing up for interviews or are not attending these opportunities to renew -- these clinics to renew their daca status, the foerks that are eligible. they are really concerned the environment, and we'll talk about this later, that has been created in the wake of this decision and the wake leading up to the election of the current president and since will have a chilling effect on folks coming out. we encourage strongly people do come out and we continue to create the momentum for a legislative fix through the congress. so, i'll stop there. >> great. doris, you've worked under both democratic and republican presidents on issues surrounding immigration. and i know recently you've done some work on presidential rhetoric around this issue. could you talk a little bit about what the president's rhetoric both on the campaign trail and once he's been in office has meant for politics, what it has meant for voters, what it's meant for advocacy communities around issues of immigration? >> i'll try. [ laughter ] >> thanks for the invitation. i think i'd like to take off from what elaine said about this being an area that is not exactly fact based, because what we've seen here is really new on immigration in the american experience, at least in modern times. and that is, a presidential candidacy fundamentally based on immigration as a top tier issue, that has never happened before. others have tried it. pete wilson tried it in the 1990s. patrick buchanan tried it, it's never been successful. this time it was successful. and, so, a result of that candidacy, of course, has been the rallying cry of build the wall, which characterized virtually every event that took place during the campaign. and an amazing drive as the president came into office to really pursue that agenda aggressively, quickly, initially through executive orders but with loots of other implications for budgets and possible legislation, including what has happened on daca, and daca is really the first issue that's come along in this agenda where there's been any rethinking whatsoever. virtually everything else is straight out of the campaign play book, which is also quite extraordinary, you know, in our political experience. so, you have the build the wall rallying cry and of course the promise of aggressive enforcement, obey the law, enforce the law, everybody who is in the country illegally is subject to removal because they are in violation of the law. well, the facts on the ground are incredibly different from that overall picture, and from that agenda. because what we see just in two areas -- i'll talk for a moment about border enforcement and then a moment about interior enforcement. in border enforcement, we are at a 40-year, going on 50-year lull in the numbers of apprehensions coming across the southwest border. it's an absolutely historic low. we've come from a peak in 2000 of 1.6 million apprehensions at the southwest border to an 88% drop by fiscal year 2016, and it will drop further when this year, fiscal 2017, numbers come in. 88%, that is an enormous percentage in any policy realm and certainly in law enforcement. and along with that we've come to a point where the original flows, mexican flows, have been supplanted by central american flows. so, there's a real change in the character of what is taking place at the southwest border. and that change is -- it peaked in 2014. we've been coming down since then. but even though it has supplanted the mexican flow, it's had very much lower numbers than the mexican flow ever was and it is declining and it is a very different flow. it's what we call a mixed flow in immigration terms, in that it is made up of economic migration but also claims for protection, fleeing violence and persecution, with people in it that are, to some extent some of the them, eligible for refugee status in the united states. and dealing with that kind of a flow is a very different enforcement issue than dealing with the mexican flow because these are people that need to see judges and asylum officers and are wanting to turn themselves in to the government in order to pursue a possible claim for help rather than evading and trying to slip through the southwest border. so, if ever there is not a picture that looks for a wall as an answer, this is that kind of a picture. and even that central american flow is now falling dramatically between -- since this administration came in office between then and now, we've seen a 40% drop even in the central american flow. again, a very significant percentage, particularly in light of the push factors for that flow. so, that's one set of numbers. the other set of numbers is in the interior where, of course, there is a much more muscular approach to enforcement, a very different philosophy of enforcement than you have just described that has to do with prosecutorial discretion and obviously things like holding people like the daca recipients harmless. and this approach has created an enormous climate of fear, an enormous uncertainty in the country, and it is certainly true what we read in the press that the numbers of arrests are up and that the composition of the arrests are different. you have a larger share of noncriminals to criminals than was the case at the end of the obama years. but the shift is only over what we saw in the last two years. it's only over what was begun in 2014 with very strict guidelines that at the end of the obama administration were issued. if you look a little more broadly back to the earlier years in the obama adds morgan stanley -- obama administration, the record now falls short of what it was taking place between 2008 and 2012 and '13. so, what's currently happening is actually falling back to being on par or less than what it is that was taking place just a few years ago. and it is also resulting in less people actually being removed from the united states. 13% less people actually being sent back to their countries than had been the case under the prior administration, and that's because the border numbers are so low. there just are not that many people coming across the borders. so, the experience for countries that are source countries of immigration is less pressure of returns than had been the case earlier. now, that is a huge gap between perception and reality, and it just seems to me -- i mean, there are lots of take aways from it, but the most straightforward take w straightforwa straightforward take away to me is what leadership tone matters, what the power is of the rhetoric and the message, because we now are in an era where immigration is being portrayed as a threat to the country, as a danger to the country, not as an asset to the country. and, you know, the result of that is that we are seeing changes in behavior on the ground because of the perceptions rather than what it is that's really happening. >> thank you. what you've touched on, what each of you has touched on with regard to the daca rescission is that if congress doesn't act, 800,000 individuals, about 800,000 individuals are supposed to be deported. now, each of you have worked in some capacity, in different capacities on issues of enforcement around immigration. so i'd like to hear from each of you something that a lot of people don't talk about, beyond the rhetoric, beyond a lot of what ends up in political analysis, and that is the administrative cost. that is, what do you see as the challenges, the real burdens of suddenly telling the department of homeland security, you need to go out and deport 800,000 people. i think in this conversation a lot of times, this is seen as a quick and easy cost free process that no one needs to worry about, but in a era of budget cutting, in an era where congress and the president are committed to smaller government, can you talk a little about the challenges that homeland security secretary will face and the agencies in dhs will face in carrying out that order? >> well, let's not forget that if congress doesn't act, the courts may. >> sure, sure. >> so, there's both a belt and suspenders approach to preventing the rescission of daca. but, you know, you don't just pickup somebody and all of a sudden they're in another country. there is a whole administrative procedure that goes along with that, beginning with the i.c.e. agent who has to find the person and detain them. and then an administrative procedure by which they are adjudicated whether they are deportable or not. then you've got to transport them and the country to which they are being deported has to receive them. so, there is a whole chain of things that happens. and each of those things requires resources, and each takes time. and, so, the notion that you just felipe switch and remove 800,000 people is a myth it doesn't work that way. and that's the, kind of the reality. the perception, however, is one i think instills a lot of fear in immigrant communities. and, you know, one of the virtues of daca was that these dreamers didn't have to walk around always looking over their shoulder wondering whether there was an i.c.e. agent trying to find them and deport them. that assurance is now -- would be gone. so, you have entire communities that, you know, live in fear and apprehension. and when the rhetoric is, to use doris' word, so much more muscular, it just ups the temperature and makes everybody live, not just in fear and trepidation, but reluctant to do things. like, for example, reluctant to report when they're the victims of crime. it's one of the reasons why local law enforcement agents, agencies are so opposed to some of the actions being taken and the words being used on immigration enforcement. and so these are all things that must be taken into account. >> i would add to that an important piece of that puzzle is where the immigration courts fall in, and the opportunity that individuals have, which is also part of this process, to seek relief if available to them under our law. so, that also adds a dynamic in terms of how these things play out. and, again, to the perception and reality of what enforcement actually means. i do want to talk, if i may, john, some of the other costs. that is an aspect that is maybe less talked about. we know as the largest latino civil rights and advocacy organization in this country, that in fact, nearly eight out of every ten latinos in this country is a u.s. citizen. most of these individuals that we're talking about -- what we're really talking about here is millions of american families. so, it goes beyond, when we talk about the enforcement construct here, it goes beyond the impact to an individual, but also to the broader fabric of who we are as a country. interesting reporting recently coming out has shown there are 5.7 million u.s. citizen children in this country that have at least one undocumented parent. six out of every ten registered hispanic voters in this country know at least one person who is undocumented. in many cases it's a family member. so, i just want to provide that context when we talk about cost of what muscular enforcement may mean. it's really these -- not just the individual, but the broader family context. and then you start talking about and thinking through what are these so-called collateral costs of ramped up interior enforcement. we have, as i mentioned earlier, a broad network of affiliates in the country. an affiliate out of los angeles, in california, of an individual who was in this country for 30 years, long-time member of his community. he's been raising four u.s. citizen children in the los angeles area, but most of them in the high school age. he had an incident that involved a misdemeanor and was ultimately picked up by i.c.e. on the way to dropping off his kids to school. i don't mention this issue to discuss or this case to discuss necessarily, i hope folks would have some sympathy for the individual in question here, but what it must be look as the daughter, as it turned out, was recording the incident and it is now viral on youtube. you can check it out, of i.c.e. officers on the way to school picking up your father. what that might mean for your mental health, having to replay play that every day, what it might mean for your attainment in school. are you going to be fully vested in school? and by the way, two of the daughters were training for the los angeles marathon with the help of their father. so just the aspects of trying to be a normal teenager. i think about running a marathon i get tired. folks are trying to do other things in their day to day. so, i think it's important to think through that it's not just the community member that is impacted, which there are real significant costs associated with that. but what are the collateral costs to the families? in many instances the american families that are left hand with the ramped up interior enforcement that we are living through right now. >> let me pickup on one other point on daca, and if the daca deal does not happen. i mean, i totally agree. as dreadful as that would be as a general public policy matter, i think one does have to be realistic, this is not an automatic deportation that takes place, yes, it is somewhere between 700 and 800,000 people, but the far more likely out come is 7 to 800,000 young people who are -- who will find themselves in an extraordinarily more vulnerable circumstance in this country. some will come -- law enforcement will come across some of them in one way or another. i don't believe that there will be a targeted effort to go out and look for the daca population if this -- you know, if daca ultimately is removed. but the perception and the concern about deportation is, as has been said, incredibly real in these people's lives and in their family lives. if you step back from it, probably the far more important characteristic of daca is work authorization. the work authorization that comes with daca is what has made this community, this population of people -- has showed, actually, what the importance of a legalization program overall would be because if you have people that are legally in the labor market, they are on an upward mobility track. i mean, the data are clear that the daca population got better jobs, earns better, are able to get driver's licenses and therefore have much more mobility and ability to function, are able to go to school because of tuition assistance programs in many takes, et cetera, they are able to be productive. if that work authorization goes, they fall back into the underground economy. and balling back into the underground economy is not only a real vulnerability for them and their families in addition to the possibility randomly of deportation, it's a real loss for labor markets and particularly the locations that are concentrated, california, texas, there are six or eight locations that are the dominant locations for the daca population. and that's a very big loss in general to our productivity, you know, in those parts of the country. >> so, doris, pickup a little bit on costs again. one of the issues that we address in our paper and that the president has talked about is a lack of capacity to enforce immigration law. and the president's plan is to hire 15,000 ice and border patrol agents. that's what he's set forward as his goal. now, we talk a little about the financial challenges, the administrative challenges and just the basic hr challenges of hiring that many people specifically to those jobs. as the former commissioner of the ins can you talk a little about challenges that exist in terms of hiring, retention, et cetera, as well as the costs of hirg and what the likelihood is of an administration able to boost those numbers by 15,000. i'd like to start with you and -- >> i had a more recent experience with that. well, i can capture it in maybe one ratio, 27 to 1. in order to hire up in the border patrol -- and this may be different today, but during the period that i was there, we had to have 27 candidates at the beginning of the process in order to get one coming out at the end of the process. that was in the border patrol. that's an enormously expensive undertaking, and a very big recruitment challenge. and the reasons are that, you know, you don't just hire anybody to be a border patrol agent. there are physical fitness requirements. it's the only agency in the federal government outside of the foreign service that has a foreign language requirement. people have to speak spanish and pass a spanish test. the physical training requirements and the immigration law training requirements are significant. these are really very well trained law enforcement officers. and the security clearances, lots of people fail the security clearances. frankly today, the labor pool that is available for these sorts of jobs is a real difficulty because of drugs, because of other background clearance kinds of issues. the locations in which these people work are remote their salaries are good for those locations. we have more than 20,000 border patrol already. the border is saturated with personnel. the border patrol numbers, though, are the smaller of this agenda. the larger are i.c.e. agents, 10,000 on a work -- you all did the numbers in the report. but it's a much bigger percentage of the work force. when you are absorbing that level of work force, your whole supervisory structure, your physical facilities, tremendous ripple effects to that kind of a ramp up. so, if that sort of a ramp up does happen it will happen over the course of 5 to 10 years not 2 to 4 years because it's simply not doable in a first turn time frame. >> yeah, i would concur and i don't think the numbers have changed all that much, doris since you were the commissioner. and you are right that you have to have an enormous applicant pool to harvest one agent. the training at the academy takes a number of months. you've got to have, you know, the physical facilities in which the training ka occur. you've got to have stations out of which the agents operate need to be properly sized. and as you say at the border, there already had been such a significant ramp up. i mean, i think the real issue at the border is the greater use of technology. and both at the ports of entry and between the ports of entry, and air coverage over the border so that agents are better able to detect where unlawful passage is being attempted and in terms of enlarging the interior enforcement, i.c.e., that, too, will take a significant period of time and require a lot more resources than people anticipate. >> john, if i may. >> please. >> at one point there. i think to the credit of the leadership at d.h.s. in the past eight years or so, agencies like the border patrol had been moving in the direction of greater transparency and accountability in things like establishing an internal affairs board and authorizing that division with more powers, publishing, use of force, data, instituting or looking at instituting body worn cam pilots and so forth. the reason i mention this is there is an inference, why don't we per caps look at the standard. why is it so hard for folks to get into the border patrol and the i.c.e. agent as well. i would caution moving too far in that direction. the credit to the department they have been moving in the right direction to enhance accountability, to -- they are up to par. the hiring challenges, it is fundamental from our community's perspective that those things do not get lost. >> great, thank you. so, we've talked a little about the costs of hiring. doris, as you said, the saturation already at the border of having agents and a little bit about technology, and all of this really folds into another topic that exists in the immigration debate, and that is the border wall. as homeland security secretary and his governor, you opposed the construction of a physical barrier at the southern border of the united states, president napolitano. you often were quotas saying show me a 50 foot wall and i'll show you a 51-foot ladder. [ laughter ] >> i said i wouldn't get on a 51-foot ladder, to be honest. [ laughter ] >> could you talk us through the challenges of this policy and what types of policies are more effective if not more attainable if the heated rhetoric died down a little and people entered this conversation in a more level headed way? >> yes. so, you know, i think the notion of building a wall across the southwest border -- i mean, i just, first of all, just doing it, that border from a geography standpoint, you're talking about going through riverbeds, ore 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 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. >> sure. >> 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. >> sure. would anyone else like to add? are we good? >> 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 mar shaulz' 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 expenditures? 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 quarter earnings conference call i have 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 has 2000 miles and barrier of one sort of another. it is assistance to the border patrol. it requires repair. it is the most expensive technology. it has to be combined with agent technology and over flight. it is simply a method of channeling the flow and deal with certain types of terrain. it's not a one size 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 advocate 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 8th and a little bit-badal about what has happened with unidos. a lot of times when there is a disastrous policy situation on your ride ar, it can bring groups together that other situation may not. can you talk about the advocacy environment? >> yes, 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 the advocacy space for a loop. i think the profile or positioning of a lot of groups today was one of a 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 ram racked up interior actions. it feels like we are all 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 decision now. there's 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. we'll get to a place where we talk about debt ceiling and 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 just the 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 purpo -- are law-abiding individuals. >> over the past several electi election cycles we've seen your home state of arizona trend toward purple. 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 five and a half months as congress mulls over what daca, 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. >> 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 hope at 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 that has works in the past for other types of measures. [ laughter ]. >> that the motion arises, you know, what kind of a -- you know, would you agree to anything on the enforcement side for those who have that interest paramount in their mind in order to get success for the dreamers. and there, there should be some 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 represents wrepresen 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 one party. immigration legislation historically has required bipartis bipartisansh 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 points 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 center back into -- 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 questions via twitter. you can tweet the thethem 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 an intern at the department of homeland security working for the office of civil rights and civil libs. 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. >> well, i think the office -- it's interesting. dhs is the only federal department that has a civil rights office that looks internally, not external ly. and i think it important that that office have visibility into the policies and practices of what is happening at i.c.e., at cbp, that it have an effective mechanism by which complaints can be received and resolved and that that property in and of it be transparent. >> all right. right up front. >> thanks. i'm a congressional correspondent for the hispanic outlook. in 2013, the judiciary subcommittee considered -- this was in july, after june, after the 2013 bipartisan immigration bill passed. the house considered a bill called the kids act, which was a stand-alone dream act. every democrat on the panel opposed it. luis gutierrez said it is un-american to legalize just one segment of the illegal immigrant community. so the democrats have been completely against the stand-alone bill. now the tables have turned. they want this as a stand-alone and they don't want to add anything. i think the republicans would like to add everify. what do you think about that? >> i'll maybe take a shot at this. i think to the first point of your question moving away from perhaps the more comprehensive bill to something a little more specific, i think there's a reck nation we are not just in different times but there's a sense of urgency and momentum as we speak to resolve this issue and get it done for this population. so i think that's what some of the democrats that you speak to are reacting to. not just democrats, republicans as well. so i would offer that. in terms of e-verify, look, i will maintain and we have said publicly that we are one of the organizations that is pushing for a clean dream act or a vehicle that is clean that contains the essential policy provisions of a dream act. and the proposals that we have seen to date or what we see percolating in the background are frankly unacceptable to the community. why i say that is, remember one of the themes is we're not just talking necessarily about the 800,000. we're talking about the parents of daca recipients and the broader undocumented population. i think e-verify is one of these issues that i would submit we really can't have that conversation unless we talk about broader pieces of the population. >> right here on the end, this gentleman. >> earlier this morning you mentioned prosecutorial discretion. on february 20 dhs rescinded prosecutorial discretion. now there's over 300,000 pd status in the united states. what do you think that's going to do with current status and how that will affect work authorization renewal for those immigrants? >> if i understand your question, during the obama administration there were directives issued to i.c.e. 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 don't have the resources to deport them all, just as the justice department doesn't have the resources to prosecute every bad check case, for example, in the country. the executive branch has the authority to exercise what's called prosecutorial discretion and have priorities. and so the obama administration set forth those priorities. the current administration has basically undone those directives and creates a greater sense of free for all in immigration enforcement. you know, i don't think that's a wise use of executive branch authorities. i think it has all of the impacts that carlos has talked about in terms of the community. you know, i think that it is a misuse of the resources that the department does have. >> also on the aisle in 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 do to combat the human cost that mr. gavaro was talking about? >> thank you for the question. i'm glad to hear from a fellow alum, uva alum here. >> i went to uva too. >> great. there you go. thank you for the question. one of the points i was trying to describe in terms of the collateral impacts of increased interior enforcement. one of the places that we here time and time again from our affiliates and folks on the ground is this very issue of 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 very helpful and i'm 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 case, 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 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 em pe emperically. 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 instate 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 topnotch 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. 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. >> thanks. >> 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 is 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 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 it anin't going to include a pah to citizenship. if i'm 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 that frankly 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. >> right in front of you. >> yes. thank you very much. president napaliano -- questions 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 channelling energy and whin whad be said to be the wrong direction. in state and local level and off year 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 orb to g 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, certainly 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. >> in the pink blouse or purple. i don't know colors that well. >> i think it's -- >> fuchsia? >> yeah. >> 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 five 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 four months, i guess between now and mid january, we'll have decisions on the top three countries in terms of populations to include honduras. 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 and 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 who may influence folks in this administration on this particular issue to elevate the importance of that issue. >> we have about five minutes left. if we're efficient we can get a couple of questions in. gentleman in the back. >> she's the one with the question. i just have longer arms. >> oh, 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 wo d 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. >> tomorrow morning you get a call from chuck schumer who tells you nancy and 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. well, 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. >> yeah. >> 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 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 panelists for a great conversation today. [ applause ]