The reagan tax reductions we talkd about this huge underground economy that was created by too high tax rates and too complicatedded a tax structure. All those people were technically law breakers. I didnt hear a lot of conservatives arguing we cant possibly reduce tax rates and simplify the tax code because that will simply make all those people legal again. We said this is the way of putting an end to illegal activity generated largely by an unenforceable set of laws in this case the tax code. I think we have a similar situation with regard to immigration. We dont have a set of laws that can be enforced with people who are determined to get out of the situation theyre in at home and want to come here. We continue with the discussion of morality and politics. Im joined by frank bruny of the New York Times, Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post and film maker alex gibney. A broader question. Is all of this going on with the scandals with anthony weaner and Elliott Spitzer and what happened with mark sanford more of a commentary about them or more of a commentary about us as a society . I think you could make either argument. What fascinates me is what it says about them or what it says, to be more precise, about the kind of people who are drawn to politics. If you look at the sexual scandals of all three of these men you see very narcissistic personalities. You see men who seem to need a whole lot of affirmation and attention. Certainly and especially in the weaner case hes in cyberspace saying anyone out there want to admire me and feed my ego . They fall and then all of them want back in. I think because its really hard if youre that personality type to give up the microphone. Immigration reform, politics and forgiveness next. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Im al hunt in washington. Charlie rose is on assignment this week. The debate surrounding Immigration Reform is reshaping the nation and also the Republican Party. After the 2012 election, the prospect for Immigration Reform seemed more likely than ever. Republican candidate mitt romney lost the hispanic vote by more than 40 perng points. It was a wakeup call for a party at risk of alienating a fastgrowing slice of the electorate but eight months later the chances for reform look dicier. While a comprehensive immigration bill passed the senate with bipartisan support, House Republicans are resisting. Former president george w. Bush has urged lawmakers to reach a positive resolution to the debate. But there are a number of other voices opposed such a measure. Conservatives like bill crystal and rich laurie are arguing that House Republicans should kill the bill. Joining me now is senator bob corker of tennessee, one of the 14 republicans and the chief architect of that senatepassed immigration bill. Senator, let me ask you from the Vantage Point of a conservative, why is that immigration bill the Senate Passed a good deal . You know, al, this has got to be the strongest Border Security bill that ever has been looked at and certainly passed. Its nothing short of a border surge. This bill scores from a c. B. O. Standpoint. You put 46 billion dollars into putting all these security measures in place. C. B. O. Scores 197 billion dollars coming back into the treasury. Al, since ive been here, ive never had the opportunity to vote for a bill where you spent 46 billion making our country stronger and more secure and had 197 billion coming back into the treasury without raising anybodys taxes. I think from an economic standpoint, this is what a conservative should support. This is going to be a progrowth policy. As a conservative republican i think this is sound policy. Hopefully the house will make it even stronger. Thats the way legislation works. They can look at the product we produce. They can start from scratch themselves if they choose to do that. I think we can end up with comprehensive reform that is great for this nation and makes it stronger which is what conservative republicans want to see happen. Let me focus on the Border Security. Two prominent conservatives this week, bill crystal and rich laurie the editor of the National Review wrote a piece saying that the bill ought to be defeated and rejected. They say the Border Security provisions in the senate are riddled with loopholes and exceptions and that president obama can waive all those requirements. Al, that has been so much misinformation about that. I wish people would just sit down and see look at this 115page amendment. Number one, you cannot get a green card nlts you go through five tangible triggers as a nation. One is you have to add the 50 miles of fencing that republicans have been pushing for, for years. Youve got to have a fully implemented everify system in place. Youve got to be a fully implemented exitentry visa program which is a big problem for our nation today. You have to have 4. 5 billion worth of technology that gives us 100 awareness on the border. You have to have 20,000 Border Patrol agents in place. There are no loopholes. People have been saying that from the beginning but candidly, al, the criticisms were getting is that this is too much. Its a border surge. As you know, governor brewer from arizona has declared this a victory for arizona. The Mexican Government has protested over the strength of these boardedder security measures so, look, people. There are a lot of people, al, as you know, that just are not going to support Immigration Reform for whatever reason. But in this particular case, it cannot be about the border protection. Senator, on that question though, how about the charge that president obama could waive the everify and other requirements the way he waived the obama care mandate for employers . Thats why we crafted it the way we did, al. First of all, the money is all appropriated for this to occur. One of the criticisms in the past has been appropriators havent funded the policies. In this case thats not possible. And secondly, if the president waives any of these things, then there is no green card status achieved so, you know, the trigger, al, is tangible. You can see it. Every american can understand whether weve actually met these requirements. If the president were to waive these and by the way, president obama is only going to be here for three more years. Were talking about something that is 10, 12, 14 years out, ten years at a minimum but the fact is that these are tangible. Unless these requirements are met, you cannot achieve a green card status. So i dont know how much tighter you could get. And one of the things we overcame in this debate was that very issue that youre getting at. How do we know that these are tangible, to weve achieved them and everybody in america can see whether thats the case or not . So i think weve done a good job of overcoming. Again the house can make this bill better especially on interior security issues. I hope that they will. But i think this is a very good product. I know we can improve upon it and hopefully well end up with comprehensive reform. Senator, some conservatives say the highskill workers that youre letting in its a good idea. But the lowskill workers are going to bring a lot of pressure on lowskill current workers and drive down wages. Yeah. Krrk b. O. Has looked at that. I know that c. B. O. Makes mistakes, but we all rely upon it. There is some negligible, like one tenth of one percy fect in the beginning. But then over time wages increase. So, look, we have a problem in this nation. Right now, al, people are especially at the lowskill level are being paid under the table. Theyre not a part of our system. Any bill, theres going to be pieces that could be made better. But again i think the balance is good in this bill. Again, the house can make it better. But, look, candidly, i think one of the problems that could be overcome is that im not sure that any of these quota levels are high enough. I mean, the reason we have so many Illegal Immigrants in this country is we had more people wanting to work here than we had slots available. So we ended up having people who didnt go through the legal system as a result and so from my perspective, what we need to look at doing is maybe raising some of the quotas. So, i think thats going to end up being a bigger problem down the road and hopefully again we can address it through the house and in conference. I reject that argument. Let me bring in some politics. Senator, laurie and crystal say you can take back the senate, you being the republicans in 2014. Why not wait until then with a Republican House and you can pass a bill thats better for conservatives . You know, al, you know, i deal with issues as they come up. So we had an immigration bill for republicans and for democrats worked together for a long time to bring to it the floor. The opportunity is here today. I think its time for us to solve this problem. And people are always saying things like that. Look, i came here to solve problems. This has been a major problem in our nation for a long, long time. I had the opportunity to play a constructive role in advancing a piece of legislation that, as i mentioned, can be made even better. Im glad to have done it. You have to take advantage of those opportunities when they arise. The senate has done that. Hopefully, the house will take action. And what do you say to those republicans who say youre just going to create a whole bunch of new democratic voters . Again, al, i came up here not about politics. I came up here trying to put good policies in place for our nation. And at every level, economically , fiscally, securitywise, morally, this, to me, was the right thing to do. And people are always calculating politics. Ive always said that good policy is good politics. If i ever lose sight of that and start thinking the other way, i think its time for me to go home. Senator, finally, as you look across that chamber to the other side, the house, the reports are pretty pessimistic, what is your expectation as to what the house is going to do in the ensuing months . So, al, i actually am not near as negative as other people are. I mean, the way legislation works, as you know, the house can pass a bill that maybe deals with Border Security, maybe it deals with high tech workers. Maybe it deals with other aspects of immigration where theres a lot more, you know, solidarity, if you will. When they pass the bill out, you end up having a conference. So, look, i think that the house really wants to do something on immigration. I dont think they want to just stall. I think they may well pass something out. When they do, you have a conference. Certainly the houses imprint on it will be huge, but you can end up in conference coming out with something that is even a better product than we have coming out of the senate so i know there are people over there who really want to try to solve this problem. Ive spoken with a few of those. Hopefully they will carry the day. So im a little bit more optimistic than most on this. Certainly i hope that as a body collectively, well rise to the occasion and put this behind us. Senator corker of tennessee, you sure were a key figure in this bill. We thank you very much for your time. Al, always good to be with you. Thank you. With me now are two important conservative thinkers vin weber, a leading political strategist and former member of congress, ramesh pan uwe rue a writer for the National Review and bloomberg view. They agree with each other 97 of the time. We have fortunately found one of the 3 of the issues upon which they disagree, namely the Immigration Reform bill passed by the senate. You heard bob corker. He said basically its a good bill. Its going to actually help the treasury and its going to secure the border. Yes. And i think that all of those claims are dubious. You know, the Congressional Budget Office did their budget estimate. Basically what they found is if you exclude the two largest federal programs, youve got a positive impact on the treasury. But thats not the real world. They did an artificial wind owe where they exclude when these immigrants retire and theyre likely to be net drains on the treasury because it is a heavily lowskilled population. And these are redistributive programs. You have a redistributive federal government. Arent all new workers draining the treasury . If you want to make the argument that senator corker is making that we need to bring in these people in order to improve our fiscal situation, thats an argument for moving towards a more highskilled immigration flow. Because, yes, immigrants can help. But it depends on what youre taking and the c. B. O. Says this will be more lowskilled than highstilled individuals. Youre not convinced that the 46 billion is really going to buy much more Border Security . You know, the amendment that senator corker put on was all about Border Security. But 40 of our illegal immigrant population are people who come here legally and overstay their visas. No amount of activity on the border is going to prevent that. Vin weber, youre a longtime bloomberg contributeor. Tell us why your colleague is wrong. This bill is not perfect. Not every claim made for it is perfect. But the c. B. O. Study does talk about enhancements to economic growth. I think thats beyond dispute that immigration will contribute to economic growth. What youre saying is the contributions to growth dont produce a revenue flowback that exceeds the expenditures were going to make on these people when they retire which is exactly als point. Thats an entitlement state problem on which you and i probably agree. We have too many benefits we promise to workers whether theyre immigrants, lowskilled, highskilled or anybody else over the long term. We ought to fix the entitlalment culture. I agree with that. We look at japan and place like that and we find out with economies that stagnate for lack of population growth. There was news just out today that the United States population growth is declining again. Were not quite as bad as europe and japan but we need additional workers. We need more highskilled workers but we also need lowskill workers. The entire American Economy will not be high technology. We have an increase in agriculture. We still need lowskilled workers too. Ingly a lot of nativeborn americans dont want to do those jobs. On balance this is a good bill for the economy. The problem of excessive expenditures through our entitlement programs is a problem we can agree regardless of what we do with immigration. The Congressional Budget Office is suggesting that under this bill our immigration, legal plus illegal, over the next ten years would be double what its been over the last ten years. It seems to me that that is a solution to a problem that doesnt actually exist. We have had a extremely loose labor markets for several years. We have high unemployment. We have particularly high unemployment among people who are low skilled. In these circumstances to say we need more workers, we need slacker labor markets i think its a hard case to make. I would also point out that even though theres a bipartisan consensus that senator corker reflected for more immigration every poll ive seen when you ask people do you want more or less immigration, the less side wins. I dont see why the public preference on that shouldnt be accommodated. The Border Security became a huge issue in the senate. Is that driven by politics . Is that driven by reality . It strikes me that the. That illegal immigration, people coming across the border illegally are more a function of the mexican and the u. S. Economy than whether we have, what, 20,000 additional troops on the border. Of course the facts are that weve seen a decline in immigration from mexico over the last several years and basically a stable rate for about the last three years. Youre right. Its largely due to the basic basically the deteriorating economy in this country and some improvement in the mexican economy. Long term if the mexicans have a Strong Economy a lot of this problem goes away or goes away substantially. I think that theres a legitimate argument to be made for doing more to secure the borders. I think in my view were going to extremes on this bill. Im diametrically opposed. I dont know where you are on this. Some of the critics say it doesnt do enough in terms of Border Security. I think were doing an awful lot in terms of Border Security. Were going to have a 700mile fence along our border which is every inch of the border that can reasonably be fenced. Were going to deploy droans and sensors of different types. Its a big investment in securing the border. I think that it goes actual hell further than we need to go since its almost, in my judgment, impossible to totally secure an almost 2,000mile border through deserts and mountains and things like that. But some reasonable increase in security along our border and certainly monitoring of it makes some sense to me. Were going to have almost as many people on that border as we do in the d. M. Z. The mexicans arent the threat the North Koreans are, are they . Lets get back to this point that everybody talks about Border Security but about half the problem isnt at the border. This bill creates these new temporary worker programs and doesnt really have strong enforcement for people who stay over past their term. Thats one of the reasons why the Congressional Budget Office was saying at most this bill reduces illegal immigration by 50 . At most. And part of the reason is theyre saying people are going to overstay that temporary work program.