tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 13, 2016 3:31am-8:06am EDT
room and known personally by many of the people in this room and that's because heels always gone the extra mile in forging relationships and very importantly, in listening. we first met in 2009, when he reached out to me, having just come to town help was to be taking over uscis. it had not yet happened, and we had an incredibly productive first conversation, which grew into a very productive relationship over all of those years since, and of course, after having served for several years as uscis as the director, he graduated, he was promoted, through a rather difficult process but nonetheless promoted to becoming the deputy secretary of the department of homeland security, where he has been since, administering a $60 billion budget with 240,000
staff. think about that. but i think it's fair to say that even with that sprawling mission and the incredible range of responsibilities at the department of homeland security has and is responsible for, he is probably spent the bulk of his time of any one issue on immigration issues. so, he has for the span of this administration almost uniquely been in places where policymaking and policy execution meet, and that is an extraordinary van -- vantage point. so we wanted to at this opinion, when the obama years are coming to an end, to provide an opportunity for him to reflect on that perspective and to tell
us about this -- the record of this very activist administration, during a very demanding time. so, this is really an opportunity to, as i said, inviting him, write the first draft of the history of this era. we're very interested to hear it. we're very interested and placed to have you with us, ali, please come to the podium. [applause] >> thank you very much for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. i should comment on a very previously on my relationship with doris. thank you very much for the too kind introduction. doris is more than a mentor and
adviser to meche it's a little bit more unique than that. she's actually my role model in terms of what it means to be a fair, just, and a dignified government servant, and so my friendship with doris is extraordinarily important, not only to my life but to my work. i'm a political refugee. i was born in cuba, and my parents brought my sister and me to this country to flee the communist takeover of cuba. my parents did not want to raise their children in a communist regime, and my identity as a political refugee was extraordinarily important to my
upbringing and my parents were very focused on instilling in me a deep sense of what it means and what it meant to be a refugee to be an individual displaced from one's home and the country in which one's parents dreamed of raising their children. in 2010 and '11, i had in the course of my work as the director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services the opportunity to learn a great deal about our administration, of the refugee system and to learn about refugees displaced all over the world and there was one experience in particular that quite frankly shook my identity as a political refugee. i went with colleagues to
nairobi, to view our refugee operation there, and from nairobi we took a small plane to the kenyan-somali boredded and visited the refugee camp. at the time back then, just about six yours -- years ago, the daab had originally been developed for the placement or about 90,000 somali refugees on their way to resettlement in third countries. in 2010, when i visited, there were just over 300,000 people. and i would describe them as poor, except for the fact that poverty suggests that individuals have something, but just not enough to make it through. and these individuals had absolutely nothing. i had never seen anything like it.
they lived, dwelled, they slept, on the sand, and some of them had plastic bags hoisted on sticks as their only cover, and the others who didn't have those plastic bags had nothing. and i remember sitting in on an interview of a refugee family, conduct bid one of our refugee affairs officers, and the family consisted of a bus and wife, father and mother, and four children. and very close knit family. and the eldest of the children was a young 17-year-old, a woman, and our refugee affairs officer asked her where she had been born itch thought she was going to say somalia, and by the way, around the camp, for as far
as the eye could see, there is sand and there is heat. there is really nothing. and it's -- it was inconceivable to me how these individuals can even arrive at the daab safely, and of course many did not. the 17-year-old woman in response to the question where she was born, here itch -- here. i was born here. she had lived her entire life, 17 years, in this camp. poverty would actually be an exaggeration. daab and i came back from that trip and i had a very difficult time identifying myself as a refugee, political or otherwise, understanding the depth of despair and loss that others who
seek the benefits of our refugee system have suffered. and i won't -- please, doris, won't seek to draft the first iteration of a look-back at the obama administration but i just want to share a thought on the notion of identity. because it is identity that has to serve as the foundation of our approach to the difficult immigration issues we confront. we have to give thought to the fundamental and foundational question of who we are as a country and who we should be, and how we answer that question on the subject of immigration should be our guide post in traveling through and managing the very, very difficult and sensitive and too often divisive challenges that we face.
and so let me give an example or two. the syrian refugee crisis. there were and remain at least two different approaches or priorities that are in tension with one another, and people come down on different sides of that tension. on the one hand, there are many who believe that it is one of our proudest traditions as a country to be place of refuge for those in greatest need, and certainly the individuals fleeing the horror that too often occurs in syria qualify in that category, and there is a strong sentiments among many we
need to open our arms more widely and more receptively and embrace more strongly a greater number of refugees than we have historically, and historically, of course, we have been the leader in the world in resettling refugees. that leadership numerically we can no longer claim, given the fact that we're speaking of over 4 million individuals displaced from the middle east in this time of great turbulence and terrorism. on the other hand there, are individuals who believe that the syrian refugees, as a population, bring a component of concern for our security that is correct a component of that population may very well present a threat to our security, that
the vetting of these individuals is especially challenging because we don't have the wealth of background information about them, and we must be, therefore, much more circumspect than the president has expressed as our intention as an administration. and how one answers that tension and the challenge of those competing considerations in my opinion, should be answered by how one defines who we are as a country, who we should be and who we want to be, not only today but also tomorrow. and so i don't necessarily suggest what my view of the answer is, but i just think that we must reflect on our identity and what it needs to be as we seek to answer that question. on the issue of security, by the
way, one of the things that has developed in my thinking over the last seven years is to frankly add an additional pillar to the three foundational pillars of our immigration system, the three traditional ones are, of course, humanitarian relief, family unity, and economic prosperity. and i do think that the notion of security, the scooter of -- security of our country, northeasts to be explicitly articulated as a fourth pillar, given the realities of the world in which we find ourselves. i have found that the community -- that is, of course, not a monolithic entity but the community prepares presents us with the greatest challenge, the community, individuals and advocates and leaders challenge us in the administration most
aggressively when the community believes, and whatever the community's views or diverse tonight views are -- when the community believes we are turley acting inconsistent of our identity of who we are and who we should be as a country itch think the rhetoric becomes strongest and the indignation becomes most acute when people perceive a gap between our behavior and our character and our identity. the issue of migration from the northern triangle, from the central american countries of honduras, guatemala, and el salvador. many have taken great issue with the administration's removal of individuals who have not qualified for refugee status or asylum status in the united states, and our practice of removing those who have not
qualified for relief under our law. the criticism has been that we should be more expansive in how we welcome individuals who i think, without controversy, everybody understands are fleeing despair, great violence, great socioeconomic challenge, and great challenges in their lives. we are a nation of immigrants and we are nation of laws, whether we expand the bases on which we seek to welcome these individuals fleeing a better life is a question that is answered by thinking of who we want to be as a country. understanding that we have to manage our borders, are we proudest when we manage those most effectively, and with some
orthodoxy to the standards are kick latest in the law or are we most noble when we exercise our discretion with greater generosity and welcome these individuals. i don't mean to suggest an answer but i pose to you the questions that bear on the issue of what one thinks our identity is and should be, and, therefore, the answer to that tension and those somewhat divergent questions or at least the answers diverge from those questions, how does one resolve it? i, of course, have my views. some mike describe me as an opinionated individual. i would hope so.
i have an opinion on just about every single issue under the sun. that's not say i'm unwilling to change my opinion, but i hope that people who are interested in the issues of our day and the challenges of our times have views and strong views about how best to resolve them. recently the department of justice announced it would be moving its contracted penal institutions to government-run institutions. the department of justice primarily runs through the bureau of prisons the majority of its institutions already, but some are contracted out. immigration and customs enforce. relies a great deal, much more so than does the department of
justice, on contracted facilities, and the question has aarisen in the descourse whether homeland security show fool suit and end the contracted facilities and we in the federal system should run them ourselves. i think actually one editorial writer captured what i think is a more fundamental question, more fundamental question of identity, which is the question of, are we detaining the right people, and are we proud of the conditions in which we house them during the period of their detention. straying a little bit from the question of the day, of whose
operating the facility, to the more integral question of who is in the facility and what are the conditions of their confinement. those two questions i don't articulate a guiding thought in terms of my opinion, but those two questions to me go more to the issue of our identity, and that is how we answer that identity should be the guide post of how we resolve that. i will -- because i can't help but opine on this last example, and that is children in the immigration system. having prosecuted criminal cases, having observed removal
proceedings, having seen first hand the meaning of a removal proceeding on the life of an individual, when removal has been imminently deserved, and clearly compelled by the law, it's a very consequence shall event and in an individual's life and should be, therefore, consequential event in the life of our country, and i have seen very young children in removal proceedings without guidance or without representation of counsel. and i harken back to the supreme court decision of plile revs. doe which gave all children, regardless of their -- the lawfulness of their presence in the united states, a right to an education and i profoundly
believe that every doe has a name, is a person, and is entitled to a future. wherever that future might be. and it is hard for me as a former federal prosecutor, as a lawyer who has maintained his bar status active, and 0 who views himself as an officer of the court, to think of a very young child in a removal proceeding, not understanding the meaning of the procedures and the consequence of what is about to happen. as i look back for a brief second on the last seven years, one of the signature achievements of this administration is the deferred action for childhood arrivals program.
daca, that impacted the children as well children who were brought here by no intention of their own, but by the acts of others, and i think how we treat their presence here as they reach the age of maturity throughout the years, is a question of our identity as a nation and how we view our immigration system. it is in fact the twilight of the obama administration. i think that a very significant immigration issues will confront the new administration, and i do hope that the new administration confronts the very challenging and consequential immigration
issues that will be before it. most notably, of course, the incontrovertible fact that our immigration system is broken, needs to be fixed and what should that fix look like and hopefully me a it be implemented, and as we look at that issue, i hope we think of our identity, who we are as a nation, and who we want to be, and how we answer and respond to that issue hopefully will be a reflect how we answer the question of our identity, and on that i will end with just a very brief quote of robert kennedy. our attitude towards immigration reflects our faith in the american ideal. and i hope we live up to that. thank you very much. [applause]
>> well, thank you so very much. we have maybe ten minutes for q & a, which is going to take place from the microphones in the aisle. so meese feel free either in this aisle or this aisle to come to themake crow phone if you have a question, and. >> this is frankly t good to be true. >> this tends not to happen. >> really? >> it's early. >> i guess so.
i'm awake. >> mr. secretary, thank you so much for those very thoughtful remarks as you're looking back, and i'm really glad you have raised to the questions. i'm just going to ask you about one those of areas because it's one that has troubled me a great deal during this administration, and that has to do with the reaction to the arrival of larger numbers of central americans from the northern triangle, particularly women and children, and we have had in a number of years. and the question on my mind, when i think of a refugee, a humanitarian emergency or crisis or something like that, as you have seen, in different parts of the world, i think that the best tool the government has to address that is temporary protection. it's not to throw people into quick asylum procedures or anything else, but really
results in our government getting overwhelmed, whether it's our asylum officers you're in charge of, or the immigration judges that the justice department is in charge of. to me the more -- both the humanitarian reaction, the leadership needed in this administration was to use temporary protective status as a way to receive people, and then in time, if the crisis continued, and people could want to apply for asylum they could do that in meantime we wouldn't be removing people to the situations where the government itself, dhs, has said now, publicly, in federal register notices, that the violence is significant in these particular countries. and, therefore, we've continued to protect those with tps from salvador and honduras 0 who have
been here since '99 and 2001. so, long-winded question bud identity here to hear your comments on that approach. thank you. >> thank you. very much. so this is has been a very, very difficult issue and let me speak to some of the things we have done and respond quite squarely to the issue of temporary protected status, which i know has been -- is now the subject of a great deal of advocacy. quite a number of organizations through clinic, i believe, and extraordinarily wonderful institution that i have got to know over the course of the last seven years, i think submitted a letter, if i'm not mistaken to the president very recently. and as i understand it, temporary protected status, protects those individuals already in the united states as of a certain date, and the question will be, what does that mean with respect to the
continuous flow of individuals from these countries because the conditions in these countries continue to be very challenging. and so i don't know -- when i say that i mean that -- whether temporary protected status is actually the right solution to the problem. and so that i think is under study. but the administration has done some very, very important things that were announced within the last two months. early on we developed a central american minor's program that allowed minors to be brought here without having to take the perilous journey because a determines was made there in the central american countries they
could qualify for humanitarian relief and could qualify as refugees or, alternatively, that given the compelling equities their case presented, extraordinary humanitarian relief should be extended and they could be paroled interest the united states. importantly, we've worked with the u.n. high commissioner for refugees to actually build the first of many, many years, of a formal refugee program, also on viating the need for people in despair from taking the perilous journey from those countries through mexico, trying to reach the southern border of the united states, and now will have the u.n. high commissioner for refugees administering a formal refugee program in those countries, in country, which is an unusual paradigm for unhcr
but an extraordinary move in light of the problems and challenges there, and also costa rica has agreed to serve as an emergency safety zone for those individuals who cannot even wait for unhcr to respond in country. and so i think over the course of the last year, the humanitarian programs have expanded, significantly, i think the expansion will be even greater in the coming months, and we have under study the solution that you present that others have proposed and support and we'll see what comes of that. >> the solution, the ultimate solution, of course, the ultimate solution is to address the fundamental push factors to enable these countries to
actually beat down the sources of violence so that children are safe walking to school, to address the socioeconomic disenfranchisement, the root causes of this migration. >> one more? >> we can take a few. >> so, every issue is pressing. there's so many people with such great need, but are there -- what issues do you see that haven't arisen yet but are going to? what are the up and coming issues? what what is the fewer of immigration policile. things not addressed now, problems that you can foresee. i don't know. [laughter] >> so, know nostradamus i am no.
that i would have to really geoff thought. to in other words, what's around the corner? what's around the corner is what has come around the corner a lot so i would say it's around the block, over again, which is comprehensive immigration reform and what are we going to do? i will tell you this, too. when i was a federal prosecutor, i was a federal prosecutor for 12 years. i would look at the statutory framework in which we operated as criminal prosecutors and i would say, this makes sense. it is a dynamic. it's not without tension. but it's a rather orderly set -- statutory framework that is driven to the three goals of criminal justice: punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.
i look at the immigration statutory framework and i find it to completely lack cohesion. that sometimes some provisions have been drafted at one time in our country's history and we go left, and another provision is drafted at another time in our country and we go right itch don't mean that left and right politically. just men in -- mean in direction of our identity, and i the two coexist and are not reconciled. and so, for example, an individual who is eligible for removal may also be eligible for naturalization and sometimes the individual is removed and sometimes the individual is naturalized, and i don't understand. yes, ma'am. >> okay. we need to let the ali go but let take the final question.
>> good morning. my question has to do with the requirement that congress has placed an your department year after year to maintain 34,000 beds to immigrant detention per night. my first question is, do you feel like that is a fiscally responsible policy, second more important question is, do you think it allows your department the flexibility to address the question you raised earlier of who, if anyone, we should be detaining, and ensure we're not causing undo suffering from the family separation and community disruption that immigrant detention inevitably causes. >> so, let me answer that if i may how precisely the secretary has answered it in response to congressional inquiry, which is that there's not a statutory -- in the secretary's interpretation, there's not a statutory mandate that we keep 34,000 people in custody at all
times but, rather, we're funded with 34,000 beds and, therefore, we're funded with the capacity to have 34,000 individuals in detention at a particular time. the things are in tension. many have expressed profound concern with the detention of families, with the detention of children. those in enforcement have expressed profound concern that in the process of removal, there's a very significant failure to appear rate, that individuals do not appear for their hearings, and therefore removal orders are issued in absentia. that people do not -- that are fugitives from the removal court.
and so where one comes out on that, one has to give due consideration to all of the factors, and answer it fundamentally with what you think is most important. one more question. >> we need to let you go. >> okay. i'm sorry. >> i've been told. so, ali, trick. >> thank you all very much. [applause] hour.
>> okay, well, we're now going to begin with the panel for the day, and as those of us who -- as those of you who have been faithful friends at this conference every year and others who may be new here, we characteristically have begun with a panel that's become a real institution, and that's a panel we call the state of play, and it's basically what is going on with immigration in politics and in the broader policymaking and where it touches the political world. we obviously -- this is like -- this is an attempt at a political science kind of a panel rather than a partisan panel, but every year we think, oh, well, we've probably really exhausted the issues this year, and then the next year comes
around and it gets even more heightened and even more hyper charged, which surely is the case this year, with the way in which immigration has hit center stage in the election campaign that we're having. so, i am particularly pleased to be able to introduce and work with the next hour or so with this group of people because they're wonderfully qualified to be talking about these issues from various different vantage points. what we're going to do is what we have done in the past which is that i'll ask an opening question to each of the panelists and they've -- they'll give us their take on the issues, but then we'll try as much as possible to have some give and take and i encourage the panelists to be asking each other questions and reacting to
each other's competentes. doesn't just have to be questions and that of course will open the floor to q & a so you all can participate. the panel this year is karen, who is the national political correspondent at the "washington post". david from, senior yesterday for at "the atlantic" and randall gold, from the national association of latino elected officials and frank sherry, the executive director of america's voice. so, we're going to good exactly in the order that we have seated people here, and start with this question, karen. you're a veteran. you have covered lots of elects. you've covered a fair number of immigration battles. tell us why in your reporting and in your experience you think
that immigration has become such a top tier issue in this election. is it simply that donald trump has put it there? obviously he has based his candidacy on this issue, or was there something deemer -- and is their something deeper going on that we need to really understand better in order to come to terms with the way in which this issue is being discussed in our political life today. >> well, thank you, doris and thank you for the opportunity to be here. i always think back to the days right of after the 2012 election when it was absolutely accepted wisdom -- i certainly knew -- i wrote it a number of times -- that given what had happened to republican party in 2012, given what happened to mitt romney that some kind of comprehensive overhaul of the immigration laws
that it was really not a question of if, it was a question of when. and you might recall at that time the republican party conducted what later became known as the autopsy, they, too, came to the conclude that they were going to have to do something to sort of reflect the diversity of the country marco rubio made an entire bet on his presidential campaign that being part of that would be an asset, but interestingly enough -- you can find this on the web site of the u.s. patent and trademark office. six days after the 2012 election, mind you, the whole party is freaking out over how are we going to appeal to hispanics. a resident of fifth avenue in new york named donald j. trump wrote out a $350 check and sent in an application to the patent
and trademark office to trademark the phrase "make america great again." and he -- it included -- he submitted exactly what it would look like and me block letters. it's kind of extraordinary to go back and look at this now because i do think that whatever and however you can fault trump on his lack of depth of policy issues, he clearly had a sense of what this campaign was going to be about for him, and how he would run, even that far back. so, yes, i think it's absolutely trump is a huge part of this, but what he sensed was, i think, in the disarray of the financial
meltdown, in the recovery that left a lot of people behind, that people were going to start looking for explanations of this, and one quick explanation, and especially you hear it a lot, in the upper midwest and places like that, where particularly noncollege educated white working class people have been left behind, is that people are coming in and taking our jobs. the fact is that, as has often been pointed out, that the benefits of immigration are very widely disperse but -- and globalization in a larger sense, but that there are people out there who see themselves as real victims of this, and so it is donald trump but it is also something i think that it speaks
to something larger and, again, it is a real sense of people feeling like they're being left behind. >> okay. david, let's have you add perspective here. i'm struck by the fact that when you see the stalemate that exists over immigration and that's existed as karen says, she would have thought it was not a question of if but when we would do something about immigration reform. when you look back we have in presidents reagan and the first president bush and president clinton, presidents that all signed bipartisan immigration bills. they were bills that had things in them that none of those presidents would have wished if they could have done it on their own but at the end of the day there was bipartisan agreement in the congress and they signed those bills. since that time, we have not had anything. we have had paralysis and we
have had extreme partisanship from the conservative side of the political spectrum. what can you tell us about what has changed that's critical between that time and the time that we have seen in the 2000s, and what do you think, in looking ahead, it's going to take to bring conservatives back to the table on immigration legislation. >> well, i'm not sure conservatives should be back at the table. with immigration reform as it's been conceived for the past a 15 years. think immigration as we have been doing it is a program that is largely lost its purpose from the point of native born americans. it had purposes in the past. today it as program that is run almost entirely in the interest of newcomer and prospective knewcomes and i say that's
naturalsized person myself. you visit hillary clinton's immigration web page, every argue. is to the interests of immigrant and zero to to native bornmers and children. that's why it has run aground. we have seen a resort on the republican side against the rank-and-file and on the democratic side a steady drift in a very radical direction where any enforcement at all against noncriminal aliens, who interillegally is regarded now as unacceptable and that's a point that hillary clinton has hit very, very hard. unless the person has committed some kind of felony, they shouldn't be removed. and that is true if they've been here for ten years or if they arrived this summer from central america, claiming refugee status. i think this issue has become so white hot and conservatives have moved on photo three main reasons. the n first this way immigration
enter acts with social welfare programs. one way to keep the figure to -- don't want 0 you a lot of statistics because in 2010 before the affordable care act went into effect, 27 percent of the unshard were foreign-born. that many of them were citizens, some residents, but' the affordable care act was to a great disproportionate extent a response so at the problem of the foreign bon population of the united states and its children. through the 1980s and 10990s when the american social insurance network wag shrinking, the costs of immigration to the social welfare system became progressively less important an issue. but in the 2000s, beginning of medicare part d and bush administration and the obama administrations the american social insurance system has begun to grow again and with the affordable care act is now growing in a very dramatic way. and so the costs of a population
that is less skilled, that are going to be net recipients over their lifetimes from the treasury, not net contributors that's correct become very explosive, especially when you have a native born population that is ebb creasingly nervous of stability of the programs they depend on, medicare and social security. that's reason one. the second reason is the interaction with wages and jobs. we're in a time of tremendous constraint on american wages, and great insecurity about american jobs, quite unlike the period before 2008. and i don't think, karen, would rephrase what karen said about the immigrant packet of immigration, immigration is a program -- a policy that shares its costs and benefits live live but wheres they benefits are received by people basically at the -- the immigrants themeses s and the people at the top, the harms are received with the people on the bottom third of the population, and as in a time of job constraint, when immigration numbers have become so very big the wage and job
effects are very broadly experienced. the last interaction with national security. less an american problem and more something we experience second hand, watching europe, but we just mark the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and what is striking is all 19 of the killers were foreigners. who were not many of. the violated immigration laws to get into the united states. since the middle 2000s, we win look at our allies and partners in europe, more and more of their security challenges comes from from foreign ares but the children of ims in their countries. the acculturation mechanism that people once assumed would work automaticallys' smoothly, american seize in europe that has broken down and they're worried the similar kind of breakdown would happen in the united states. the steroid problems here less extreme than europe. are those the reason why the intense is so intense, the issue is waiting there for donald trump.
he, as karen said, he had for all his many faults, one of the world residents greatest marketers and the acute to see a marketing opportunity that the leapeddership of the republican party moved air from it based the leadership of the democratic peat had to taken then immigration policy in a direction where enforce. is so unusablable and justice rage yous any compromise is unease no to imagine as accept teen anybody. >> that give us a lot to talk about and follow up on but i'll try to get all the issues on the table first. so thank you, david. roslyn, it's well known that latinos and other foreign-born and minority voters were important in the prior two elects and important parts of president obama becoming president and being re-elected. can you tell us when you look at this election, and when you're
looking at the trends, of what is taking place, what do you see about the possible impacts for these voting blocs in this 2016 election, what can we say, if anything, at this point, about turnout, which is a classic problem and issue with foreign-born voters and other minority group voters, despite what the numbers may be. what's been going an with naturalization, witness voter registration, and how about some of the keefe states where some of the key states on these issues that will make a difference. >> thank you. first, thank you so much, doris. i very much also appreciate catholic legal immigration network, georgetown law center and the migration policy institute for invite knowing be here this morning. a great discussion. you're absolutely right that
latino and naturalized citizen voters played pivotol role in the last two presidential elects and poised to do the same in election 2016. if we go back to 2008, these voters essentially flipped states, such as colorado or new mexico or florida. they helped flip those states from states that have supported president bush in 2004, those states became democratic for the presidential election in 2008, and latino and naturalized voters also helped significantly contribute to the margin of victory of president obama in other states such as nevada, or virginia, or indiana. and as we look ahead, one possible scenario in this elect is that history is going to repeat itself. i want to take everybody back to the 1990s and proposition 187
and pete will son's ad where it shows immigrants going over the border and solemn voice intoning, they keep coming, they keep coming, and then i want to take you to 2006 and 2007 where hr-4437 was enalaskad and you have another time of very inflammatory and divisive rhetoric about immigration, and in both of those points in history, we saw a record number of naturalizations followed by record numbers of participation by naturalized citizens in voting. so, a key question that we're looking at is, we're once again in a time where it's not just the fact that immigration policy is being debated, but the tone and the divisiveness and the rhetoric about immigrants is front and center in the campaign dialogue, and so we're going to be watching to see what impact
that is going to have on turnout. right now, we don't quite have enough data. ... in in... voter registration. we are hearing about anecdotally a great deal of energy around increases in voter registration but this is a story that's still unfolding. if we look at the states that are important, it's important to
realize this isn't just about the presidential election. latinos are poised to make a significant impact in a senate race such as john mccain in arizona, mark in illinois, north carolina has both very competitive senate and gubernatorial races. nevada may see its very first latina senator, catherine cortez, and florida has its own dynamics where you've got a growing puerto rican population that tends to vote democrat. you still have a very politically active population where some of the population has traditionally been republican voters but younger voters are a little bit more diverse in their political attitudes, and you have marco rubio running for the reelection. so, these are all states where latino naturalized voters are
going to play a key role in the outcome. i want to go back to your comment about turnout in general among latinos and naturalized citizens. yes, we still have a way to go to realize the full potential of the latino electorate. this is in part because of what we would see as a dysfunctional component of how our political system works. candidates and campaigns come around and invest in voter outreach and voter education every four years around the presidential elections and a target battleground or swing states. in doing that, latinos in places like california, texas, illinois, new york, they are completely ignored by the candidates by candidates and campaigns. so you end up like 57% of eligible to vote lived in those
states that you don't see any today in the investment outreach, any kind of sustained investment in the voter mobilization. the deputy secretary talked about our identity as a nation and part of our identity is to have a robust democracy, we need to have sustained investment in bringing out latinos and naturalized citizens to vote in every election the matter what state of the union they are in for the long term if we want to have a healthy democracy. so we are thinking beyond election 16 and well into the future. >> i put you forth in the list because you have been at this for so long and have seen it through so many administrations and congress of both parts.
so, we are in the middle of this battle at this point but it will be over and then there will be the future to deal with which brings us back to congress and the kind of thing kerry and talked about and we will have a new congress and there will be some in both parties that want to do things and others that won't. give us your best thinking of the effects of what we are seeing in this campaign of what immigration might be. can you see any scenario in the new congress where immigration reform would be tackled? are we in a kind of scenario david paints of people simply being so divided that there
isn't room for a conversation again? what can you tell us about how you're watching the congress and what are the things we should be paying attention to that might be coming out of this campaign that affect what the congress will do in its next iteration? >> okay. it would be a little naïve to expect that congress would tackle big things and get them done, but i am naïve. i do think there's going to be a moment of truth. look, if donald trump gets elected, get ready for the barricades and civil unrest. if hillary clinton gets elected they maintain control of both chambers, forget the legislation will be talking about what kind
of administrative and state and local progress can be made, and the fights will mostly be there. but if the scenario -- a -- if e congress voteif thecongress votc control of both chambers, i think it is a matter of negotiating with the lindsey graham of the world to get to the senate and we will have reform. but most likely the prognosticators will have a democratic president, senate and republican house and that's the scenario i think most people are trying to gain out are what are the prospects for reform or not reform, what kind of progress can be made through executive and administrative actions as well as state and local policies and bad weather is not the short-term prospects, the long-term prospects. my view is there will be a moment of truth if hillary clinton is elected, chuck schumer is the leader and paul ryan the speaker of the house. i doubt you will have a replay of 2013 where the senate is going to go first i think you
will probably have a situation where the president and majority leader and others sit down with speaker withspeaker ryan and whr speaker ryan and whoever he brings to the meetings and they say are you going to act or not? i don't think you will see the e senate democrats running into action only to wait for the house to act because we know how that turned out in 13-14. there was no action and it was very frustrating. if the house can't act and set up a conference committee and a possible final deal, there is not much point other than optics to move forward in the senate. but i do think it matters that hillary clinton said this is one of the to top priorities, one of the top three legislative priorities along with the justice reform and jobs infrastructure build. she's going to introduce legislation in the first 100 days. there will be a marker so i suspect, and the real question
is whether the house republicans will move or not. is paul ryan defrantz and john boehner? i think they both support reform and want reform. but paul ryan and i think gets it. if he's going to be the leader of the modernizing forces of the conservative movement, they've got to deal with immigration reform before it's too late. maybe too late is in for five or ten years, but you can't divide public opinion into demographic changes in the country as long as the republicans seem intense without paying a heavy price. they are already paying a heavy price at the presidential level and it's a matter of time and redistricting for them to pay a price at the house level as well. the question is will paul ryan exert the kind of leadership that quite frankly we haven't seen much evidence of today but the idea of him standing up even if he falls on his sword and gets ready to run for president as the person determined to lead
the republican party out of the wilderness and into the future, maybe. but at least we will have that moment of truth. if you have a senate an to necrc majoritand acritic majority andk schumer with a track record in a basic commitment he's restated it publicly and privately many times. so there will be maybe a six-month intensive effort to press to see whether in fact there is some possibility of movement in the house that can lead to a final vote. but none of us would be smart to put all o our eggs in one baske. i know for us as advocates, we are looking at how to make good on her promise on the administrative reforms and executive actions. there is a huge list and we are not just talking about the chords that may take some time before it comes back. we are talking about a whole
range of issues in the priority is an implementation to the detention issues and the treatment of americans who are fleeing violence in the northern triangle and on and on. so there is much that can be done that would make lives better that wouldn't require legislation. let me say that the reason i think there's lots of eyes watching trump and his rallies and david with all due respect i think you are very thoughtful conservative indian immigration skeptic in part and fight the economic issues but i think in this election without mentioning race into demographic change is a big factor, we are missing a big part of what's happening in the right-wing of the republican party or at least the populist wing. the fact is this debate has become extremely polarized and racialized and i think the question is what is going to
happen on the republican side of the aisle? we look at every public opinion poll that's done on this issue. in the past two weeks there've been three polls come independent. gallup polled said 84% of the american people supporte supporh to citizenship as part of reform. "washington post," abc out just 78%. cnn had one last week, 88%. american people generally are more than ready to reform and legalize undocumented immigrants as part of an overall reform but also improves enforcement and modernizes our legal immigration system. but you know, the fact is where the debate is this on the republican side of the aisle. there is a tenacious, highly aggressive, very mobilized anti-immigrants waiting and needed to swing in the republican party. there's certain groups be all know that there is also the conservative infotainment talk
radio folks, rush limbaugh, laura ingram that are using this issue to increase ratings and anger their listeners, and it's a very formidable force. in the past three rounds of immigration reform that i've been a part of, each time the populist right has outdueled the pro- immigrant reformist republican right. and that is going to have to change. people say it's reform going to happen next year. it depends if the party can outdueled the populist. so they don't have a very good track record. maybe that will change. in the meantime with the strength of the rights movement getting stronger every day there's going to be lots of advances even if they don't happen legislatively. federally you'll see a lot of advances and states you will see a lot of advances, cities as well. look at california today.
drivers licenses in the in-state tuition, funding for in-state tuition, access to the program for kids up until the age of 19, more and more cities are doing id cards. the situation where undocumented immigrants live a fairly normal existence. the trust act which says police shouldn't be turning over people unless they've committed serious crimes. that's i think california is obviously exceptional in many ways and you will see more states and cities adopting policies that will say this is where i disagree again i don't think there's been a collapse in enforcement. i think there's any recognition. there is any recognition. when barack obama became the deep order in chief deporting people each year the president has deported or immigrants than ever he did it for one reason. he wanted to show republicans that he was serious about enforcement so they should be serious about voting for reform. it didn't work.
it didn't happen. and when he finally decided this why are we deporting people who 88% of the american people think should be here legally maybe we should focus on the bad actors and a situation where they lead a reasonably normal life until we can returhe can return to a y normal legislative and political set up. i will stop there. >> well, let's talk about this a little bit. this issue of as you put it the anti-immigrants force among republicans on that side of the spectrum as compared to the way you talked about it as immigration having lost its way, having lost any real sense of purpose and basically the
contenders being american citizens, and america's interests of immigrants that assumes those are different and in opposition to each other. and frank is talking about something far more political and basically driven by a smaller xenophobic part of the population that has been there historically throughout but that isn't reflected in the broader public opinion when you look at the polling now for many years. let's just have comments on that and talk about that. >> let me say something about this attack on the republican party. one of the things that's peculiar about the way people talk, immigration is so central in such a matter of consensus among the american elite who are
the beneficiaries of it, it's a redistributionist program, and probably everybody in this room is a net beneficiary, quite a big beneficiary from this program. the people who pay for the program are not here. in the republican world if you say i share this consensus on immigration and on the other hand on health care my view is nothing. i want to take away health care from 23 million people. and you are a hotter nicer and is in rest. one of the things i've been arguing the republican party is that it's upside down. the future of the republican modernization means not saying let's have excellent number of immigrants and ever shrinking social insurance network, but the other way around but it's unhealthier where republicans need to modernize and compromi compromise. on immigration they need to keep up with their voters.
and once you go through that doppler shift, paul ryan stops looking like a moderate and looks like a representative of some pretty narrow economic interests. and meanwhile, the people who are putting their sadly abused and misplaced faith in donald trump, your fellow citizens have problems that are not being addressed at all by responsible governing elites, so they are putting their faith in demagogues and they offer no constructive solutions. and one of the things i -- when you hear the proposal of what is to come, where the democratic party has gone he may have seen on the godfather part two where he explains his offer and it's zero, nothing, there's going to be no enforcement, no heading
off this new surge of immigration from central america that is bigger every summer. there is no plan. it's a shocking and unacceptab unacceptable. and there is no discussion about what is the right overall number. one of the places i think the first question we would not build dams with as little cost-benefit analysis as we do. how many immigrants in a year what is the number, what impact does that have on wages? it's not an exception to the supply and demand. how are we doing with upward mobility? are we choosing the right immigrants because it isn't just a matter of more or less but different countries. the united states and sweden have different immigration policies viewed very heavily to the low skilled, low-wage people
who are not doing well in upward mobility. other countries they take almost as immigrants as the united states did some take more illegal to their population and have people with higher levels of skills and education. canada and australia immigration is a redistributionist policy, only redistribute down and in the united states it redistributes up. >> i just wanted to mention that if the dialogue on immigration policy were taking place in the kind of calm and learned discussion about costs and benefits, i think we would all be feeling a little bit different about what is going on in our nation right now and what has gone on in the past. but that is not how the discussion emerges whenever you have these periods of extremely
inflammatory rhetoric because what happens is the dialogue becomes one that is extremely disrespectful to immigrants, extremely disrespectful to latinos. as i've mentioned in california during the time of the campaign for proposition 187, you had these arab you could just look at donald trump's comments about new mexico is sending to the united states. these are not reasoned discussions. these are inflammatory divisive comments, attempts to reach people at the worst places they are at, and this is a reason the community responds because there'thereis a level of disreso immigrants and their contributions to the country when this issue becomes red hot.
>> one point david brought up that we moved passed pretty quickly that might be worth revisiting as the security component. i grew up in south texas, and i remember sort of being mystified during proposition 187 because there was no kind of sentiment like that at all in texas. immigration had been such a part of the fabric of life, and that was in part because the network of social services in texas, in californiandcalifornia it was at the redistribution of public resources. but now i go home and it is very different and i think in large part, it is the security question in the mid-2000's, as the mexican government and the drug gangs started going to war with each other and it was
beginning to spill across the border again maybe not necessarily in the overall numbers but a kind of hair-raising incident that again when i was growing up, the same ranchers that used t to use to t blankets and food on their ranches so that people coming through on foot would have provisions suddenly produced absolutely terrified. so i do think there needs to be sort of -- and i think that's also a big part of what you have seen in places like arizona and new mexico. so there does need to be that conversation as well and especially in the post-9/11 world. >> it's so interesting when you raise the point about security. the first speaker raised the point and typically when we talk about security, we are talking
about national security, terrorists, who comes into the country in ways that might create like a san bernardino, not the southwest border and people coming across that are basically crime and drug which has been there for a very long time and of course it's become much more intense with the cartels in central america etc.. do you think of those in the southwest border security and the drugs and crime as being synonymous with the way we talk about national security post 9/11? >> i know people in that part of the country talk about it a lot and that's why again, going back to texas as part of the republican party platform they
used to have with a call to the texas solution on immigration which was a kind of liberal approach to it. rick perry got in trouble for in-state tuition. but i do think in the last, it was 2014, the texas republican party repealed a part of their own platforms but a lot of republicans have been very proud of. and again, there are a lot of reasons for it, but i do think it was definitely much more security related and a sense of danger whether it was again the overall numbers i don't know if there's a definite sense that this -- there was this danger in the chaos coming over the border not just from al qaeda agents but also from mexico's own security problem.
look at fast and furious. i think all of this kind of seeped into people's consciousness. >> we have invested such huge amounts of money in the southwest border and in fact the numbers are as historic lows and yet, the fear is greater than its been in office time that we've watched. >> i would like to comment a little policy here. the debate is easily caricatured as the open crowd and the xenophobes into people that care about immigrants and americans etc.. let's be clear when we talk about what is referred to as comprehensive immigration reform. we are talking about increased border security. did anyone see the 2013 bill, record increase that just wasn't enough for two thirds of republicans in the senate even
though they said we've got to secure the border first. record an employer sanctions. for some reason, everyone is focused on the walls and fencing and borders at the us-mexico border when the key to reducing illegal immigration is a functioning employment verification system. but to do that with 8 million workers in the labor force will exacerbate all the problems we have in the status quo to drive people underground, lead to more exploration and in favor of the employees etc.. the idea is to legalize the good actors in the labor force, to have an employer sanctions become a new labor market norm that is effective and to have effective border enforcement and not just how do we ramp up enforcement but how do we modulate legal immigration levels at the low end, family-based, and employment-based. i'm happy to put it all up for
question is the question is what is in the interest of that economic growth. but at least we will have to levels to deatwolevels to deal n just enforcement. when we ramp up enforcement as we've done without any corresponding change in the legal immigration system where that growing numbers now leveled off at 11 million, what we do is press immigration stupidly rather than regulating it intelligently. so to me, the idea that comprehensive immigration reform is somehow a left-wing fantasy thathat's only in the interest f immigrants when it would have capps and more effective enforcement, it would make immigration legal and hiring more legal and make it more accessible to go after people violating those norms. what's not to like? is a centrist i part is an approach and why ted kennedy and john mccain worked on it and george w. bush was in favor of
it. but the republican party has gone to the right not on policy grounds for the most part. it's because there's too many of those people. i think if we don't be honest about the fact that we are dealing with a racial backlash not from all the people that oppose immigration reform, not thoughtful critics that say it's skewed in the wrong direction. let's have those debates. the idea that the best way to enforce the law is increasing repression as if that's going to work has been proven wrong on its face for 30 years. so in this room at least we can talk policy. in this room we don't have to believe the talk radio guys come at the borders are getting more out of control and those agents are coming across. there's nthere is no evidence ot all. what we have more people screamed and affected if we have immigration reform? yes. should all the central americans free violence come to the united states? no.
is it the central americans fleeing data protection in the region? yes. this is just a sensible, modern immigration and refugee policy that increases the lawfulness and orderliness and increases batting in this activity and increases mortality and decreases disorder. so i just want to rent because of the record straight that if you want open borders, i'm sure that republican opposition will create more and more incentives to people on the left to get more open borders. but right now it's on the table is something that is in the national interest and in the interest of the law and order and the economic realm. just had to get that off my chest. >> there are many definitions -- [applause] many ways of looking at what is in the national interest. it's very easy to say what's in the national interest, but it's
also often in the eye of the beholder so the difficulty that we are facing it seems illustrated by the panel and the comments made is how do you even have the conversation. obviously we are not having a productive conversation in this campaign. but the issue is right there squarely in the middle of it. it's not going to be done. it will carry over after the election because of the way that it's been highlighted. and i am very struck by what's been said along the way. what should our immigration policy before and whose interests should be? what is the national interest. you can say that it ought to be as donald trump says for american citizens and in the best interest of the country.
you look at immigrants and immigrant families and communities and they are totally fused. there isn't a p. and they. it is a mixture, so we have to be clear about who it is we are talking about, but at the same time, the policy has lost its way is an absolutely fair and valid critique it seems to me. you listen to what the deputy secretary said earlier today and gave some examples of the lack of cohesion and the lack of coherence in with the system does and calls for today, and it is no question problematic. before we open up the microphones, which i will do in just a moment, i would like to know whether anybody would have a final observation or would
want to make an observation on how actually to have that conversation structurally, mechanistically. we just go past this election if one does assume a democratic victory, indigo right back into the partisanship that has characterized the congress in the past or is there a way to step back? is there a way to have the more fundamental question? what are the questions you raised, what do you think? >> i think it's going to be worse. i think what will happen -- let's go with the consensus view that it's probably a democratic president, possibly democratic senate, probably not a democratic house. i'm not so sure about the senate. hillary clinton comes to office with a more stronger commitment to immigration than barack obama
in 2008 but more central to her reinvention of herself as a left democrat. she also has much less with president obama who thought he could work with people in this way. hillary clinton is much more ideological but more partisan and she will use the power of the presidency to try to drive things through administratively and that will make that supreme court seat a red button and she will lose a lot of republicans senators agree with her on the merits of immigration reform. most republican members of the house won't. but where you will unite as he realizes they are not, they will be much more nervous about these high-handed executive actions and especially that of vacant sue court seats there will
be tremendous rancor over that. meanwhile, assuming they lose the seat they will be ripping themselves to pieces with incarnations over whose fault was this, and the identity. should they be read by extra traditional business who had a scornful attitude towards rank-and-file republicans. immigration is what we are focused on here but another is health care and wages and jobs. the party of paul ryan has been a party that's been focused on the economic interest of a small number of republicans, never mind the small number of americans. other republicans have -- there hasn't been leadership by this and that's why they were waiting for a cynical person might donald trump to seize it, but there will be better contenders. once donald trump is identified, there will be more contenders to take the space but he explored.
so it will be a part that has a difficulty. the she will be subject to more criticism and i think just because her view of the way the politics work. >> would you like to give a final comment? >> i do agree it's going to be a big part of this and also the internal republican party, ted cruz's hand tested and ready. [laughter] it is really hard to get next year and not just to see on this issue had any number of issues.
>> on that note, let's go to the younger generation question. >> thanks very much. from the national skills coalition, my question has to do with which aspects of immigration policy capture the public imagination. over the past ten years, tens of millions of dollars have gone to help train american workers and those grants come from fees paid by immigrants typically from the visas and also others. yet those kind of training programs and the fact we are using immigration policy to strengthen american worker skills is something that is just never discussed. it's not part of the who should we let in or the point system debate. i'm curious for any of the panelists if you have thoughts
why some of these issues captured the public imagination and remained in the realm of the immigration policy and haven't gotten farther out. >> i think you are absolutely right. we don't just need a policy on immigration that looks at enforcement and looks at the modernization of the system in terms of deciding who comes into the country. we need an immigrant integration policy and that is part and parcel to whatever we do in terms of modernizing the immigration system. if we want the communities to feel that immigrants are bringing their talents and skills to the table, then the investment in integration with job skills, english language
instruction. there are greater economic abilities and acquisition of english-language. we need to do more of that and we hope this is something everybody can agree upon no matter what they would be thinking about the enforcement issues in terms of who comes to the country. >> but any kind of government program getting anything right into the workforce training programs are not exactly a model of either efficiency with grants the public imagination.
>> the idea of immigration is one factor in the capital development strategy, that is exactly the wavelength and on. let's have them select themselves and once they've come to the country and realize it is substantially lower in skills if we are serious about human capital as the consideration that is where the screen should be a.
one reason immigration is soulless and canada take takes m to legal immigrants a higher portion of the grenade dates it is less controversial at all levels and not just the clerical workers but the doctors and nurses and especially if you are in a smaller center you wouldn't get this surgery and he wouldn't get the blanket and the meal. people get fat. in the united states it's done in the opposite way. it's very much a pattern in thee post-immigration education. the more globally superior it is by far.
universities, pretty good, and then after that it just deteriorates. that seems backwards, doesn't it? >> we have just a few minutes left so i will ask the people at the microphone very quickly, you, you and you to state your question and then i will give the panelists selected opportunity to answer. >> my question is directed primarily he made a very good point that obama has deported more immigrants really as a member than any other president has ever. i looked at the numbers and i think he's deported to 23% more than the second george bush has. and made a claim of saying in general the democrats have moved far to the left when it comes to immigration and enforcement of immigration laws. i would like you to clarify th
that, and claiming with the fact that obama has deported more immigrants. >> it's a statistical artifact caused by counting removals of t the border with the deportation numbers. if they totally fake number. >> my question is the changes and rhetoric you mighinrhetorich parties. so with the republican party, donald trump had a huge upset on the platform saying more things to get media coverage, because the media coverage donald trump was able to get support the party like bernie sanders able to mobilize younger voters bringing up issues that they feel have been ignored for them in terms of what's going to happen in the future with us and things we may be more concerned about and the older generation may not be as much. >> my question is about the way
that we are discussing immigration. it sounds like it's something happening in particular to us if the u.s. has no other interest outside of it. so, for example, frank mentioned the demographic shift into the ear of the culture. number two, i think that he mentioned about the cartels. if the consumption and that's what's leading to it, there are no guns built in those countries into the central american migration to assume that people are just coming because they woke up one day and not because of an interventionist policy over the years and continues to have, i think it takes away from the discussion because there is a kind of break. the u.s. has broken many things and i'm not trying to excuse the government origin up with the need to do to fix their own policies but to the extent that
it shares the responsibility we would like the panel to discuss it in that context not just in the u.s. native context. [applause] these are all important points, and this is a good indication of how there are so many directions one can take a conversation like this. we will be able to take any further. i would invite those that would like to talk with the panelists to come to the front while we have a break until 1:00. please be back for the next panel was pleased join me in thanking this very lively group. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
enforcement and immigrant detention, a complex controversial politically charged etc.. before we do that, before i introduced the panelists didn't open up for questions on that, i want to give a short background. i started out in the late 70s when the immigration enforcement was a very low priority both at the border and also internally. immigrant detention was almost miniscule. that changed in the 80s when enforcement suddenly became an issue coupled with of course amnesty. the 1990s the double down into the issue in 1997 whereby 2001 you hav had about 200,000 people detained on any given year for immigration enforcement purposes. into that had more than doubled by 2013 to where now we are at
440,000 people being held in immigration detention. that is five times the number of people who entered the federal prison system and based on criminal issues. complicating this whole issue has been the use of private for contract contractors. the corrections corporation of america, you may have read the two long in-depth articles in the nation and mother jones this year, an interesting spotlight on the problems inherent on these issues. department odepartment of justiy coincidence and maybe not. they recently announced they would cut ties with the private contracting world and the deputy secretary has hinted that in fact dhs is also doing an internal review to see if they might be cutting ties as well.
summer of 2014 as we all remember slaughter return to family detention. two facilities opened up and got refurbished in new mexico and texas to handle mostly central american women and children, this notion was returned to the bush policy that obama originally ended when he took office. currently, there are facilities operating in texas as well as pennsylvania, but they are also covering mostly central american women and children. they are subject to pending litigation with compliance in california, nationwide class action of the florida litigation so that an issue that's going to be working its way up. as far as interior enforcement, the obama administration showed a willingness sort of late in the game to curtail
controversial programs such as secure communities and is now replaced it with the 2014 men 2o secretary j. johnson wrote on particular enforcement categories as well as a new priority code priority enforcement program. that is in the title to the program if you didn't know. dhs has made a voluntary and certain major jurisdictions that have been opted in yet. the hope is that up to two thirds. to talk on different aspects of these issues the first speaker is stephen manning, whose partner of the immigrant law group and director of immigration innovation.
to his right is thomas homan, the associate director for enforcement and removal operations at icd command to his right is elizabeth cedillo-pereira and then finally dree collopy who's the partner and codirector of immigration litigation clinic at the catholic university school of law. so, let's start with you. i didn't ask specific questions. i decided to have the panelists talk for a few minutes on issues they thought was most important. >> thank you. this is really great. i'm not sure whom i was telling this to tom i don't know if it is more intimidating being in front of you or the court of appeals talking about these things. in what seems like a lifetime that's only been two years, i don't know why when i get in large groups when i talk about
this i still have some reaction. i've been a volunteer lawyer representing women and children who've been detainehave been dey detention centers, first new mexico, then carnes. a lot oa lot of others we devela crowd source defense model that's been used in the detention centers. right now i'm also involved in creating centers of excellence using a legal organizing model that focuses on the education systems in particular under resourced areas for example in atlanta and charlotte. we created this technology platform tidying all these people together and we are about to deploy the next that's going to connect porter shelters, the center of excellence, to create a seamless approach to the division of legal services and make sure that every case came when every time and this sort of model. as of yesterday, the project
that operates represented more than 35,000 women and children. that's a little less than two years. i've been involved in the case representation of the actual individuals. -before all levels of the agency and i've done extensive programmatic data and analysis and have been involved in the litigation. so that rather broad and interesting viewpoint across immigration agencies and departments and court jurisdictions into the administrative space, the legal space, the political space and detention. but the expedited removal program and its corollary in the family detention and how it operates and what it means comem that vantage point i would like to address the question. it is expedited removal and hasn't been a succeshasit been .
expedited removal is a policy choice rooted in a prosecutorial discretion to remove a person from the conventional immigration court system and maximize the authority of the government to order detention and inflatable action from the judicial review so without that removal there is no family detention as we know it. so family detention as it is implemented today is only possible because of the policy choice to use section 235 the the expedited removal statute and the attention to the detention authority. so the administration flipped the switch on expedited removal and instantaneously, we had carnes. so has expedited removal then at least against the population has been a success and the answer is maybe. that is the perfect answer. it's maybe because it depends on the policy that is driven to
address. so what is the purpose behind the policy? i would like to offer a couple different possibilities of why we have the expedited removal. the most obvious is to expedite the removal. that is the purpose of the expedited removal program in the family detention. i think the numbers would show that it's failed. of the 35,000 women and children probably less than .01% have been removed. so it's important to note that nearly all of them, there was originally an expedited removal and heard that universally to all of those expedited removal orders are later rescinded so from the programmatic perspective if i were administrating this policy program where nearly all of my front end processing was being undone and i think that is an important metric to assess whether or not it's been successful. if the removal program is intended to support the program
and bolster the system by separating the border and trends from the credible claims from those who don't, i also think the numbers don't show that it's been successful. so by choosing to use expedited removal, it now requires us to do three adjudications. so we have a threshold of screening, and affirmative asylum program for the incredible fear screening and then we set it up for an adversarial judge. i think the policy choice created a system shock in the program because of the resources that it takes to maintain our incredibly fierce systems. the asylum program has a much stopped functioning in large parts of the country southern oregon we wait years for the interview and los angeles five years, miami and new york is three, charlotte and houston.
those resources that normally would have been available to manage and maintain are now being diverted because of the policy choice. >> and so is it about border enforcement? i don't think the metrics hold up here so we cannot detain folks to deter other central americans from coming to the united states. we learned that in the class-action litigation. but even if we could detain to deter, the program actually doesn't have any meaningful real-world impact determines values, so there is field of studies done that measured whether or not the policy is on detention and removal for people that are leaving and it's not even a close call. as a detention program i also think if we look at the numbers
again, it is a policy choice that also seems not to function right. it's only constitutionally authorized when it's in the furtherance of deportation so here we know at least from the 35,000 women and children that have come for the program analyst in 01% so it is 113 have actually been removed. so, we know we can't detained to deter but we are not detaining to deplore either. so the detention through the removal program seems to be a policy in search of a purpose. it also begs another question with the expedited removal program subjecting children to the prolonged detention or family units to detention, what's happening to those human beings? like our empirical knowledge of the effects and impacts on the family units and children of the effect of the disingenuous at an
early stage. are we causing irreversible damage or something childhood development? we know right now we have the data showing that there are children who are contemplating suicide so there is aggressive developmental behavior. to fill in the picture we are beginning a robust analysis in the project. i will have to figure out some of the long-term impacts. the two other things i want to mention. one other useful metric in determining whether or not the expedited removal program has been a success might be whether it adheres to the rule of law. so if it is the implementation of the policy choice and if we look at the state of play and impact litigation, every time the merits of the governments policy choice have been judicially scrutinized, the implementation has been found to violate the law, the only thing
the government survived in court is when they use their structural advantage to preclude article three jurisdictions in actual judicial screenings. the very final thing i would like to mention is the expedited removal policy for the fiscal lens. i became a lawyer cited in the studio with them. i'm not a math person that i i disable the analysis. and here's where the picture becomes more. the expedited removal program then is a success so the direct cost of the border deployment of the detention center, that is a lot of money, but the fiscal impact on the office and the entire adjudication ecosystem as i call it is being weighed down by the expedited removal program into this policy tries to expand the border. border. but we also know that some have benefited. so there are some positives. the "washington post" recently reported that the private prison industry has benefited enormously from the expedited
of us at table with executive actions you bring the law enforcement because you want to hear from the law enforcement perspective what that meant to us. based on our experience. with the prairies. but i do have some input to. this is why the priorities make sense. luscious except that 12 million. most aliens do the math. 4,090,000 is less than 3%. with the budget and the resources of that percent
population it needs to cow. that should not be the first 400,000 in the door or the first 400,000 we find we have to pick and choose. with those parties are currently working. and with those press releases and then just by the right thing. it just speaks to what i know. melissa is not working. ninety-eight% 235,000 was 98 percent that is pretty close to perfect.
ninety-one% of the people that we arrested interior had a criminal conviction that is almost perfect. class 959 percent of everyone removed at a criminal conviction sell those that say they are not pay attention to their priorities are not looking at the numbers because those speak for themselves. we know that route is an issue. but by is to execute the mission within the framework policies resources our budget. execute the mission. you don't have to like it but the numbers. so i supported that program
and let me tell you why i have 8,000 law-enforcement officers for every one that is not andrea knocking on the door. we are concentrating on the worst of the worst we don't know what is behind the door. and the manner woman that works for me is knocking on the door that is a safety issue. said that could bring back jurisdictions to the table. are they back in full form? no purple even the most difficult jurisdictions only want to work with the most significant dylan at one dash balances one must i have to worry about. it is better than where we were last year.
from the safety perspective date priority perspective. bob that the biometric capabilities was the biggest plus a real-life example we arrester we are found people that were here illegally. when we found them we arrested them. if they're illegal and not put in detention. meanwhile that is better for 20 years with the child's serving end of military. because there is no meaningful way to staff over 4,000 of this city jails or the precincts. what the secure communities
did was give us a virtual presence. said now we don't have staff. and now concentrating with whoever we find the area of food we put our hands on so the security committees gave us those. and let me just explain if any of us get arrested to nothing difference with a criminal history check it will be bounced off said vhs data base and we decide. the sideways when somebody is illegal here maybe with a traffic offense.
me for love me the bottom line we are a sovereign country. for those who want to question of the family attention operates have been to multiple facilities many times. through the educational program with a significant health program. with other organizations also. and then running around 14 or 15 days today want to make up claim? but back before we have this
whole lot of the families were not claiming fear. so we really have a claim to fear and more have the opportunity now. and the asylum seekers, i think because that is a valid claim. as a parent and as a father and denied in joey detaining families that i try to enforce the law. and that it goes out the same time it is very simple in that regard, that my job is so my role basically is
transportation where rick tell us to take the child is where we take them so that basis spent millions of dollars to compete uh criminal conspiracy in to say i have 8,000 long for some officers and it is clear what the job is and congress appropriates me to do that in my yearly funding . so the men and women are doing with their funded to do. i'm sure they will come up for january and february. and come up with an operation targeted
enforcement operation that had the due process. that people have their rights in court but remember in from the immigration judge my job is to execute the order. isn't matter of if for canada should so those that wanted to process of law to stem by the laws of this country, once you have that my job to execute nothing needs to be done.
of targeted enforcement actions in know exactly who we are looking for. we don't go to schools or community events. we go to an address that we have looking for a specific person. so there is no neighborhood raids. one thing you did not read during the operation is to walk away from many families with the mother was pregnant or breast-feeding a child. many families we chose not to arrest them for detention because of health issues of breast feeding babies the mother may have them pregnant. the whole detainer issue
that program makes sense and as a convicted criminal and the altercation to ask the law-enforcement agency do not hold them one minute longer than you would. so i think that gives them a different option. and the detainer issue altogether them let the courts work that out but i will share this with you. pet bottles lot of people back to the table i am grateful there are some jurisdictions that are not. we will keep working to bring them back. but at some point there needs to be a mandate to work with us. because on one hand you
cannot have the department of justice funding not cooperating with the others with enforce immigration laws. i'm sure i have a lot of questions coming but this is my talk. and it is emotional for me. and all of these decisions are based on fact were the rule of law if you don't think have a tough job come sit with before day that is where i met and more than happy to take any questions. >> i think he deserves a round of applause sitting at a table full of lawyers. [laughter]
some images both candid and transparent. thanks for being here. but as charles said dash senior adviser from the immigration and customs enforcement come from dallas texas original and immigration advocate previously prior practicing where was very happy with my family and kids the director calls we have to say to join me in washington d.c. and i thought about it and the idea to serve the public good and it is quite eye opening to see all of the nuances of the decisions that must be made and it is
a uh tough job but he does every day and with the strong leadership it is good to be back and asking at least 20. i am one of the fan club members when working in early in my career he was on the offline pack when mandatory detention was coming back into play. select call him steve jobs of the immigration law. [laughter] so when is good to be here you may not have known him before but now you do.
>> bet you may not recognize his face or name he is signatory like the treatment of transgendered and pregnant women and wine coming about custody relations one dash city may talk a tough game but he looks at everything to balance in ways that are n our custody. in with that discussion and to make a foreword. and with that family detention of a bite to elaborate little bit on that exercise of general discretion or where i played a role but it do we even use it? sometimes we ask for a road
map however the truth is there is no magic formula or miracle care as they exercise this on the case but case basis with the individual matter and notes to cases are the same but we made the facts of these cases and back in dallas texas i was known as does wearing them down knowing how hard it was to give before the courts cyano sometimes it like the decisions that we make but what i want to do is to encourage the lawyers and stakeholders and law students who are practicing to work with local field offices to see if additional information cannot be presented.
idea with colleagues at d.h. us and we ask them to take another look. and looking at the of memos. the deal the way to know that is to have the decision because the director credits the field with being able to handle the cases. and to respect that process with the chief counsel and once the determination is made then you can use the system to escalate the process within e-mail address. board to the mailbox signor
area that can be found on the website and we will take another look at that. and to be as transparent with those stakeholders in general. and digging of transparency that is what they have vast to make sure that we continue to grow our engagement. so being interactive and asked me to build up the office of the engagement and office of public affairs and now community engagement. with it team of officers in
each of the field offices. he said we need to in every field office. we have the resources for that but he is serious that he supports the special agents to have a conduit to be heard in the with the issues that the of local level but they don't become giant issues at the headquarters level we want them to communicate with our community and bring back information with the community itself. about halfway there we should have 24 community relations officers. so do less the favor and reach out to see how that might be a way to light in them for the issues in your local community.
>> i am honored to be on the penalties feasting wished to -- distinguished individuals. and to keep our country say five fully understand that not many people will take on that task. and also from our perspective our job is equally important. and so i hope you will receive my remarks from that one is. and then to prioritize the removal.
but i do believe there are problems in the implementation of that. but there seems to be a connect with what is happening on paper with policy members and additionally one of those enumerated parities for enforcement and many of these are refugees and asylum seekers. i have a private practice here in d.c. and i focus and then with a family detention context. and that is a priority that is problematic to focus on
criminals and the results of that is the criminalization of asylum seekers. for the bonafide refugees. so want to leave my remarks to show you what this is looking like on the ground and ask that you consider in the of lands to frame a question in the beginning of the day about who'd want to be as a country? as they relate to the asylum seekers and for me this in is a serious refugee crisis in the northern triangle and
it has resulted in women and children and when they get there they are faced with expedited removal and all of these enforcement policies that have merit to end their idea but in the implementation have failed. and that has banned interesting from a policy perspective is the inconsistency to deal with that refugee crisis based on where the people are located the people are outside of the u.s. the obama administration calls this humanitarian crisis. but then to meet with leaders to address of violence.
and even suspended the peace corps operations it called for increased refugee assistance to develop and country refugee referrals also program. so with at happening in the region but those that seek protection is a complete the different rhetoric and a completely different sets of policies they are facing. and in june of the world refugee day of the obama administration announced it would increasing the use of the asylum seeking families on the border specifically stating of illegal crossing into the united states.
secretary johnson states we will send you back. and at rhetoric is influenced into the population to prioritize the cases of us central american family is. and then to recognize that and everybody is a refugee. and being able to access those were some of the questions that we used hour national identity as the guard at guidepost now like to share messina those facilities through the lens
those are some of the scenes that if you volunteer in the facilities that you see, and it's not just one person, it's every single person i talked to has suffered horrible violence like this and then once they get here seeking protection and enforcement. detention in peace conditions has been proven to compound the trauma that children and women have suffered in their own countries. social service providers, religious leaders, psychologists have all agreed that fact. it also has serious due process concerns, access to counsel and interpreters. if it were not for the project, it would be impossible because
these detention centers are far away from any metropolitan area with ngos and any other pro bono attorneys addressing these issues. interpreters, there's huge issues there onl not only for spanish speakers but many of the others from guatemala are indigenous and it's nearly impossible to get an interpreter and use an interpreter in the context of family detention. access to witnesses and evidence and emotional support and mental health care are also impeded by the detention projects. and so, from my view, using detention for asylum-seekers is and a policy choice that should ever be made. these women and children are not criminals. they are seeking protection and to survive to save their lives. i never would be an advocate for
open borders, but detention in my view of asylum-seekers is simply not the answer. it violates our domestic and international legal obligations not to return refugees back to prosecution and torture them and it's not effective as a deterrent mechanism. these women like i said are coming here to survive. they will not be detoured by jail. it's also quite expensive to taxpayers. one thing i couldn't help but think about when i was volunteering in the center is this is where my taxpayer money is going to detain a 4-year-old child. it costs $159 per day, per person, which is up to $5.46 million in any given day. there is an annual detention of
$2 billion. so just thinking about the financial implications of that when there are other alternatives that might be equally effective for enforcement purposes is fairly mind blowing. so for me i see this family detention concept and expedited removal as smothering of due process and a barrier to access to the asylum system. and i think the answer is who we are as a country i think no. >> thank you all. we are going to open up for questions now so please, come to the microphone with any thoughts, comments and questions. i have a follow-up to your last statement which is the notion of alternatives and maybe we can get all of you involved in talking about that but what is out there? what is the alternative to
holding people now 14 days if not longer i think another situations? what has been tossed around and what has worked? >> let me talk about a few things first of all. detaining asylum-seekers, again they can claim asylum, but at the end of the day, less than half of them are getting asylum approved by the immigration courts. once they find a positive finding, we work towards release. so certainly if the facilities as we have a good case we are not detaining them needlessly. that is fact number one. as far as the alternatives, let me say this first of all, between three to 400 persons a year come to our system. i am funded for 34,000. so we detain a very small fragment of the population we run to every year.
one in 12 people actually see detention anytime in their lifecycle. so very few. but there are alternatives to detention. many people that are released depending on the community ties and do they have a criminal history and a lot of different facts we decide if the decided e released on alternative detention from ankle bracelet down to the telephonic reporting to the home visits an office visit. but when it comes down to it, again, the numbers are the numbers. we removed people we detain. people often fail to appear in court or to get a final order we can't locate them like the latest operation port most of the people we went to go look for either never lived at the residence were moved when they got the order. so at the end after having due
process is difficult many times. i think they have a role in what we do and it's actually increased our alternative funding each year in the past several years and we have maxed out that alternative so it is an option and its successful in some circumstances but what we find in the higher levels or the appearance in court but when it comes to the final order, the numbers significantly decline so it is a option tha an option the everyday. >> the officer safety program is intriguing. i never thought of it like that. i think that is very insightful way to think about it. the alternative detention is not to detain. we don't have to use 235 b.
against the population. we can use 236 which allows for the judges to make cuts to the decisions in a more transparent process. totally believe in due process. that's like my lifeblood. just a couple of numbers, the government forced us to the merits of the cases in so they didn't have universal representation so we represented anybody that was there. we didn't mee leave out anybodyt a strong case. so we had a 98% of grant rate on the asylum and if we had a 100% on the merits. i think those are important. we are not going through the cases in strong cases, we are taking with the government gives us. on the operation border guard,
there were more than 100 women and children that were picked up generally from some of the very thought i would call hostile jurisdictions building the centers of excellence and they were taken and we asked to represent every single one that's here, can we just talk to them and the administration was actually forceful preventing our access, but we could gain some access and for every one we gained access to be represented. we didn't screen like we are representing you. each one of those cases we had a 100% when so those were all final workers and we were able to show that there had been a fundamental failure in the processing of the case. >> i would like to add me as a family case management and a special adviser. would you raise your hand? she's here today. so this program is actually a pilot program. one of five metropolitan regions
it is an alternative to the detention setting where the former abilities are assessed and the whole premise is of course the compliance with any order that comes into play that we are using a set of tools with the case managers trained in this area to have people comply with their obligations that were not dealing with the high-end venture rates that we have seen historically. >> one clarification on the operation, first of all th all y were given access to attorneys however you have to keep in mind we certainly can't just make them available. they are represented by the attorneys that we work through that and got to get placed. as far as 100% success, it was 100% on the families from el salvador to outside of what they usually would do so that surprised us and a lot of people in those cases that are still
being litigated in favor of the government so again we want everybody to have the due process. we do not want to relive anybody from the country unless they have to process. that's something we pay very close attention to. >> i am one of the trained by charles that was mentioned. [laughter] i was hoping you could comment on something new dree collopy mentioned in passing on the disconnect between guidance coming from the top and what we are seeing on the ground. just some examples of what you give [inaudible] if you could comment on your idea of having a voice at the table when something like executive action is happening versus officers bringing suit against the administration. you mentioned the implementation of secure communities where i could see the value of having
that when you show it that way having the connection getting made on the ground of who and then you mentioned also having that extra line to catch when it's not being claimed that the border pc on paper of a three af three-year-olds coming here to work so there's a disconnect between the ages and i was curious have you seen that change should in your time there and what is being done to address that issue? >> first of all, implementation versus policy. i hear that all the time. we have a lot of law enforcement officers out there all doing a great job. however, the numbers speak for themselves. last year 98% of everyone removed fro, 91% of people we
arrested had a criminal conviction. so we can do the one offs all we want, but as an agency that men and women executed the policy are pretty close to perfectly. our mistakes made? probably but as an agency we are performing very well. the numbers are the numbers. i don't make them up. we report to the department every year. as far as those claims fear, 33 years experience i can tell you we testified in front of congress do i think some of these are a scathing, absolutely. do i think all of them are? no. are some taken advantage of in the threshold system absolutely. not all the families when the cases because they do not have the case to support, and again i want to make sure they all get the due process at the end of the day when they get a final order my job is to execute order
so i certainly do not think that 100% is a scathing fear. i've been to quite a mullah, el salvador and honduras. again the nation of law we just can't open the doors to everybody in the world to come here. there are rules and if you look at -- let me speak generally firmament. we removed 490,000. we are removing about half of what we removed several years ago. even though i might throw the match metrics out it's like it's not enough. when a is enough enough? we have to enforce the law. if people don't like the immigration law on the books that something you need to speak with your congressional representatives about but we are trying to execute a mission that makes sense.
but all of my inputs make it in, certainly not. but basically making sure all the levels were criminals and some people say it's not that serious. it depends which side of the misdemeanor you are on if you were the victim that makes a difference. so people enter the united states illegally for several it is a violation of law. it's not an administrative issue. on top of that, to commit another crime against a citizen in this country it's a misdemeanor and public safety threat and a lot of times people don't think a dui is serious but i think differently. it's a public safety issue. what the secretary has done is giving us a set of rules to worklight to prioritize the worst of the worst first. the numbers speak for themselves. people can have opinions we implement this, and mistakes are made, but the numbers speak for
themselves and the men and women are executing the mission peak was perfect. >> we have time for one more comment. what would you have asked if you could have? [laughter] >> i really commend what you do. law enforcement is difficult work. i'm from washington college of law and also representing the christian coalition here. one of the issues that i've pledged to law enforcement is how the community feels about the work the law enforcement is doing. we see how much you are trying to do to help and even picking and choosing in order to implement the policies that have been given down to you.
but the reality is for those of us that practice immigration law, when you go to the immigrant communities around the country and mentioned i see sometimes it is a shockwave. people are fearful of the officers, even those that don't have any immigration problems. but how i'm having trouble reconciling the effort you are making to do your job in a way that is humane and then how the community feels about the work you are doing and so my question is do you recognize that, and second, do you have any plans or policies to make sure that the communities you are trying to keep safe including immigrant communities understand the
policies that you are implementing including the implementation of this policy so that they may feel it is directed to remove from those that might turn around -- >> thank you. unfortunately, we don't have time for an answer. >> i want to encourage you to stay. thank you, panelists, for the lively presentation. please stay. the next speaker we are fortunate to have, so please stay put and that is the next
this exposure to real-life people, real life stories can bring even the hardest hearts around. that is the best weapon we have and they have spectacular stories. [applause] >> now will look at how republicans view immigration and policies being offered by gop presidential nominee donald trump. this is from the migration policy institute, just over an hour.
>> welcome, everybody. i am a feature reporter with politico. we are here to talk about the journey within the republican party on the issue of immigration, where we stand in that metamorphosis and what the next chapter might be, let me introduce people because there are detailed biographies in the handouts. we are starting, let me make sure i get the in the right order, with alfonso aguilar, president of the partnership for conservative principles and official working on citizenship issues and testing at dhs under president george w. bush.
next to him the president of immigration work, tamar jacoby, a small business group pushing for immigration reform and change to immigration issues and longtime writer, journalist like myself who spent quite a while in new york. next to her we have daniel garza, executive director of the libra initiative, former white house official and interior department official under george w. bush and immediately to my right is linda chavez, president of the american institute, well-known syndicated columnist and white house official in the reagan white house. i was thinking as i was getting ready for this panel, the republican party on this issue reminded me in a previous job,
on thursday morning in september 2001 with president bush and president fox on the south lawn of the white house, talking about chances for immigration reform. what i think depending on your viewpoint, either the high point or low point or one of the key points and evolution of the republican story on immigration reform and that was thursday afternoon enters -- tuesday morning in washington we had smoked coming from the pentagon and attacks on the world trade center and that was in some respects the end or dramatic change to that chapter immigration reform but hopes were so high at that time, don't know if it is the valley of death, with the trump campaign
pushing for comprehensive bills over decades. i thought i would start with alfonso aguilar who has fallen in and out of love with donald trump. implies a greater degree of affection that existed at any point but you have a personal journey with the campaign and if you tell us a little bit about what it was you thought was doable with the trump campaign in immigration and you no longer hold to that view and what led you not to hold to that? >> what was i thinking? okay. i was a year ago one of the
early voices in the republican party, the conservative movement, not many were criticizing mister trump at the time. we thought he was not going to win the nomination. we have calls, why criticize trump? he is getting so much attention because of you. and what about mexican immigrants and immigration? then he won the primary. the alternative is unacceptable, hillary's policies on the economy and how to deal with the threat of terrorism in terms of life, it will be disastrous. what would somebody like me do? i looked at trump and said let me see, we can somehow work not only to moderate his tone but
see if he can support a form of legalization, i don't know what donald trump really thinks about immigration. i don't know if he knows what he thinks about immigration but he was surrounded during the primary by a group of restriction us, jeff sessions and behind jeff sessions people from center for immigration studies and others, stephen miller, one of the senior advisers, with senator sessions, clearly i knew what he was trying to do during the primary considering there were 17 candidates trying to get 30% of the republican base, immigration reform for different reasons, not half of the bucket. there are many that are legitimately concerned about immigration and he was getting
their support. once he won the primary i thought there was a chance of working with the campaign to get him to raise a public policy issue but i swallowed hard. support mister trump and figure out official way. i noticed two things at the beginning of the campaign, he had said with deportation, people -- there would be massive deportation, but they would come back quickly. that sounded like something that was discussed in 2007. an opening to propose some sort of touchback internal touchback and as i start the conversation with people in the campaign
there were very so open to the idea of dealing with the undocumented in a different way and perhaps the idea of letting people within the country go to their embassy or consulate, register there and provide legal citizenship. i have to say by talking to several people within the campaigns, they were receptive, there were people that were receptive, trump, many offense of comments, immigration policy and the website, clearly written by these restrictions but kept changing his mind, in the policy statement went after mark zuckerberg, people are taking jobs away from america and he said i support h1a when he said
i changed my mind. just recently announced a dream act for individuals who want to serve in the military. don't know if he is aware what he proposed in that forum. the same when he was confronted by the fact that in florida, recruits, non-agriculture, he defended the program even though he opposed it. hard to figure out there is an opening their. not saying there is a real chance, it is a long shot that it is dry and we tried and there was an opportunity days before, there was a real chance, he started speaking about not deporting every undocumented immigrant, only those with criminal records.
he created the hispanic advisory board, offered a position for these commitments but kept in communication with the campaign and it was clear in that meeting that he said it was a compassionate and humane way, the meeting of the advisory board he asked participants what they thought about immigrants going to register at the consulate or embassy, the idea of internal touchback and then he did a high profile powerball with sean hannity where he said i am softening my position. at that time restriction got really scared and there was intervention and mister sessions intervened and that is how we endeded up with this, after that
speech there was no room to continue supporting donald trump not only because of the policies but the position he outlines, restrictions to make sure their language was there, questioning how positive immigration is, talked about going back to historic levels of immigration before 1965, we have too much immigration, immigrants taking jobs away from americans. that is language from restrictions groups, it is all about numbers and that to me was very concerning and after that i could not continue supporting him. some people from the advisory board felt the same way and it became a big news story nationally and that is where we stand. in terms of if he were to become
president what his administration would be like, hard to say, we do know he will have advisers who don't believe in immigration reform but is he going to be loyal to that group? there is a chance he would. it is hard to say but that is my journey with the trump campaign, short-lived, brought at the end to mean i care deeply about immigration and a good friend of mine, and immigration lawyer from texas signed after the phoenix speech, he said in spanish [speaking spanish], for immigration reform, i am willing to sit down and negotiate even with the devil. that is a commitment as conservatives we have, at the end this is about building consensus with republicans and democrats to achieve immigration reform, we move forward and see
what happens. >> thanks, it seems as off fonzo was pointing out, immigration is as much a brand is anything regardless what policies are advocated, one interview or one forum or whatever, you have been looking at what supporters think on the issue. is there some daylight there? how can people respond to his brand specifically on immigration while disagreeing with him on point and by point policies through people like jeff sessions or others? >> great to be here, thank you. i have not been on any kind of journey, i am going to pivot with the party including his supporters. it is always smarter to be
cynical of washington. we heard a lot of dire scenarios on the first panel and i am not here to say it is easier we will get this done next year for sure. there are many ways it can go wrong, one narrow path could take us to a good answer but i want to raise questions particularly about trump supporters and other republicans on the hill. if you were a martian and just dropped down and watched the headlines you would think trump, we were watching a historic wave of casino phobia. trump found something beneath the surface we didn't know was there that was more powerful than any of us thought, but i actually think we need to question that.
i noticed it first during the we 10 days of the softening. i don't think trump knows what he thinks or believes anything and he will say anything. trump's journey is not important to me but i was interested in what happened with what trump's followers say during the 10 days and jeff sessions, and coulter and laura ingram and sarah palin, was outraged and they jumped up and down and we read the quotes in the media about the outrage but if you read the media story about the actual rank and file followers they shrugged, they said we are sure he will do the right thing. we are not upset and still behind them so i started to wonder what that was about if you did a 180 and supporters
don't seem to mind, what does that suggest? leading into the polling, the questions that were asked of trump supporters and there were surprises and i have seen this but haven't put it all together before but they definitely want a wall. 80% want a wall, 60% of all republicans want a wall, there are no chinks in the armor around the wall but to use the pun, trump voters are surprisingly divided on what to do about the 11 million. in march, should we allow certain requirements to stay with what they do before this and lead slightly on the deported side, 47% said let them stay you ask 40% want to take
active steps, we are willing to do that much and half willing to let them stay. meanwhile, republicans in general, 75% support some reform of past illegal status and have to citizenship. a few anecdotal polls but to me it started to add up as a question is not a picture. could it be these people are frustrated, angry at their own circumstance, want control, they miss an america that thinks they are gone, they willing to blame it in a general way on immigrants but do they support trump's policies? not sure they do. there is a general sense there is something wrong and they would like control of immigration but i am not sure they are aware of immigration in
particular. assuming this morning i don't necessarily know about the outcome, assume hillary is the president, assume a republican in the house, how will this play out? there is a danger republicans, what the martians saw, a great wave of xena phobia and hate and we have to cater to it and can't vote the way we believe, but there is also kind of a broad misunderstanding of where most congressional republicans are on immigration. i think the conventional wisdom is over my dead body camp, that is most people, then paul ryan and supporters trying to tame them. i think it is the opposite. i look back, may of 2014 with count, when 140 congressional
republicans told paul ryan they are prepared to pass legal status. i don't think those people, they have a lot of different reasons, listening to farmers in the district, whatever it is, they don't change their views. what they think of the trump the, i think there may be more room to maneuver than we think. i don't think most trump voters, they do want a wall but not necessarily to deport all 11 million people, and sensible immigration reform, the wall coming interior enforcement and a lot of things people in this room don't like but would have some answer for the people here and future so it doesn't happen
again. not just a political class to get there, if they can there might be more room to maneuver. >> i will skip over daniel garza and go to linda chavez to talk about this. it seems implicit, what the role of leadership is. is this something where trump arrives on the scene and distills a phenomenon or sentiment already out there. this was a good rallying cry for people despite the fact he tweet did theed out the republican autopsy report advocating for immigration reform, it may be opportunistic, an opportunity to focus on taking advantage for more than three years. as someone who has been watching
things play out, public sentiment is malleable as a 13 is suggesting, going with the program for george w. bush and immigration reform, now falling in line behind donald trump, has there been a change? >> in terms of a voting issue immigration today, immigration yesterday and immigration tomorrow will never be a big voting issue. it never has been, probably a larger fraction of voters vote on the issue today than they did 20 years ago but that isn't what has been driving this issue. i have been involved in this for a long time, probably longer than anybody on the panel. i wrote my first book published in 1991 about immigration, a
whole chapter in it. i wrote about immigration reform. i wrote about the 1986 law and i wrote about the english language movement because i had been for a brief time president of us english that wanted to have a constitutional amendment declaring additional language but my position on immigration was then and is now that it is quite simple to solve illegal immigration. we need to change our legal immigration system so that it is market-driven and flexible and allows people to come in provided they have the skills we need and we need those skilled not just among computer engineers, doctors and scientists but we needed it at the lower end of the scale because we are a very educated population and it is hard for someone with a high school
degree or two years of college to work in a chicken processing plant. i always had the same position. what has been interesting to me is at the time i wrote that book i was attacked by the left. the left thought when i said hispanics were like every other immigrant group that had come before, were assimilating, learning english, intermarrying, not in a majority but in fairly significant minority for conservative candidates, that was considered heresy by the left. i say those things today and i am called a rhino. i am no longer a republican. what is interesting, i recently had not such distinct pleasure of speaking at the western conservative summit directly
after donald trump spoke in july and i was following a panel on immigration reform. danielle has heard me talk about this issue before public forum in colorado and elsewhere, others know my position and the stands i take and usually in republican circles it was taken pretty seriously, with often the first time conservatives heard latino immigrants were graduating from high school, going on to college, intermarrying, becoming successful as part of the middle class, were not willing to accept that that was happening. i went and gave the same speeches i always give before an audience made of trump supporters and my husband who was in the audience thought he
was going to fight people off. i was basically told i think they would have liked to tell me to go back to mexico but i made it clear my family came in 1601, a long time ago. i had never had that hostile reception. you are right, there is -- this is not a huge voting issue but there is a fraction of the republican party for whom this is the single biggest issue. i do believe they are very effective and one of the most important things to follow the money, the way in which this issue in 1991, the same position i have today, the folk hero among conservatives, now i am a rhino, is there is a well-funded
network, republican in name only, is not a complement. the federation for american immigration reform, center for immigration study and a plethora of other organizations to raise money, and big conservative think tanks was the heritage foundation in this issue, indistinguishable from mine, does a lot of direct mail fundraising, it has become an issue you can raise money off of and it has become an issue if you have a talk radio show or viewers if you have a cable tv show and your ratings, it gets people angry and the problem with that is most people are highly motivated. it may not be a large fraction of the party but it is enough when the bill comes up, rush
limbaugh or laura ingraham get on the airwaves and you have a flood of calls to members of congress. i am less optimistic on the question of whether or not conservatives can be turned around on this. the best way for conservatives to be turned around on this and i say this as a conservative is for donald trump to have a humiliating defeat in november. >> let me go to you next to spend the curve on this issue in terms of trying to attract latinos to conservative philosophy and explicitly republican, that is what you have been involved in. i was down at christmas time in florida and someone -- >> throwing turkeys. >> tell us a little bit about
the outreach you are undertaking and who is behind it, there is money being raised on the more restriction side of the immigration issue. i take it you are coming from a different perspective. who's money is it and how are you trying to attract latinos? >> a little bit about myself. i was born in california, my parents saw america as the promised land from a small town in mexico, north of mexico, came as farm workers to the state of washington. i was a farmworker until i was 18 years of age. a high school dropout at 17 because of the work that we did. so at 17 years old i am a
farmworker, no prospects of a professional career, 17 years later i am working at the white house with george w. bush. what a country. it is 200 million immigrants have come to america or a little bit more. they made our nation richer, stronger, made our economy vibrant, they are innovators, entrepreneurs, they create their own wealth and opportunities. we are strong pro-immigration because we feel that it addresses market forces, a flexible market-based immigration reform. we want to induce family cohesion instead of ripping families apart and make our
communities diverse and rich. so we have very much been driving ideas that advance immigration reform. for us, the optimum immigration position or policy would be a path to citizenship for the 11 million that are here. let's get on with the business of assimilation and then we can address the issues of the border so that there is a sense of order. i live blocks away from the bridge where it -- a nice neighborhood. i am concerned on both sides. the political climate is concerning to me on the democrat side as much of the republican side. legitimately, there is one candidate on one side who presumes to define what immigration reform is an
promises more than she can deliver and she knows it. president of america does not get to impose law, you don't get to promise a law, some affirmation that you make it happen on your own. you don't get to do that in america. the president of the united states has to execute the laws that have been passed by congress, the legislative arm, democrats don't get to define what immigration is in the video republicans. they have to come together and reconcile their differences, reach consensus, be pragmatic on an issue, one side promising everything under the sun to get a vote and the other distancing themselves from the issue or any kind of reasonable approach to immigration reform. we were the first out of the block that condemned donald
trump's policy positions. we -- birthright citizenship, is part of the constitution. whether it is intercepting remittance of hard-working immigrants sending money back to their grandmothers, it is cruel as far as we are concerned. you deport 11 million folks when really our economy is to address market forces and allow the private sector to higher, not who politicians -- sometimes you hire basic skills. linda who i am honored to be sitting by, so that they don't take these jobs, in my 10 years of working the field literally working the fields, i can count the number of non-latinos on one hand that i saw on the field,
less orchards and fields. 8 million, 11 million are agricultural workers, need them desperately. they are an asset to us but it strikes me that when the political environment turned on democrats they turn on immigrants is what i mean to say is 5 democrat senators hold barack obama to hold off the executive action because it wasn't in their interests during that election season and he did it. landrieu in louisiana attacked the republican opposition for their support of amnesty in commercials. i promise you 70% of latinos voting republican, democrat, may be on the other side of the issue.
we need to find a way to reach consensus and leaders who will negotiate in good faith. paul ryan is pulling people towards the middle, and mccarthy on the republican side, we need more of those folks on the democrat side. in 2007, right after i left the white house the senate under frist, the republicans passed the senate bill. on the house, nancy pelosi and rahm emanuel led the charge were protecting the democrat congressman because the unions support immigration reform and they killed it. there is blame on both sides, republicans and democrats. we need to hold both sides accountable and reach consensus
on the important issues. >> tell us a little bit about how the group is doing. is there money behind it by numbers usa. >> in america the way we advance any coastal changes, you need resources to sustain efforts of those people. there were 75, 50 contracted workers, we had 20,000 volunteers helping drive a conservative free-market agenda to the latino community, millions of latinos got sick and tired of the liberal left presuming to represent all
latinos, neither do conservatives are present all latinos. economically, culturally and immigration. and restriction, to see immigration as value to our country. we are part of an organization that has some muscle across the country where we mobilize latinos to get behind an agenda that is going to listen the regulatory burden, reversed the responsible spending in washington dc, support school choice but also drive the issue of immigration reform. for us this is critical, to giving -- not for the sake of giving a different face or to gain the appeal and support of the economy, these are good ideas that will make america
strong. in 2014 we saw a republicans who engage in the community at higher levels than they have in the past, colorado for example, we had a state where barack obama had won 25% of the latino vote. 90% of the latino vote going the wrong direction with the latino community. cory gardner makes a concerted effort to reach out to latinos, a war on women message and entirely took the latino vote for granted, nothing to engage them and mobilize them, that is an anomaly. they got 45% of the latino vote, it was 44, 47% in georgia, 450%,
and greg abbott, the governor, 44%, scott 45% in florida, christie 52%, will heard in district 23, a flat republican challenger, took out a latino democrat incumbent in san antonio, predominantly latino district, the majority of the latino votes, that is something else and brian sandoval, 17% of the vote in nevada and flipped the house and senate for the first time since the 1920s, flipped the house for the first time since 1850 in colorado, for the first time since the 1950s. when you engage the latino vote you will be rewarded.
>> maybe any of you can answer this question but have there been profiles in courage within the gop in the last year or two since the trump phenomena and? people who have spoken up and said i have a different view on this issue, strikes me as not only donald trump to excoriate but many other people in the republican presidential field whose positions seem to prove more malleable or were held up as heroes for immigration reform and almost mute in the face of the trump onslaught. i'm curious if you think there are such people and if the election goes that way at the moment when trump gets beaten does that affect and change to this dynamic or has trump proven you can get an awful lot of attention and at least some votes by taking an extreme position on immigration?
>> the profiles in courage are less important than people behind the scenes who say i want to get it done and will work to get it done next year. they organize small dinners with senators, policy off the record. we had a dinner with a senator last week on nobody's list as immigration reform or. when harry reid asked, only if i can get something done and what i get to get done is immigration reform. a whole different version of how it is going to work and a whole different road but there are people in both houses who know we have to put this behind us. and they don't share the audience view of why it gets done. we have the battle of our lives. it is certainly right, some people come with a lot of
strength within the trump faction. will come with a lot of strength but there are a lot of people who take a different view. it doesn't make sense to stand up now to push back against trump. they stand up later and a lot of people will stand up. i am skeptical both hillary clinton will have the right offer, tries to do the gang of 8 in the senate, and legislating for many years, many more areas that were a disaster and when they're away to do it. start with schumer, hillary clinton and paul ryan with the shape of a deal and going
forward. will that happen? i don't know. >> if she goes forward with steroids as executive action. >> they don't legislate anything in congress as long as he is president. >> this idea, we have 17 candidates, all of them with the exception of trump and ted cruz were supporting the reform of public utilization. this is politics and the left for a long time, the latino vote, republicans are anti-immigrant and immigrants are good, hillary clinton during the primaries that we truck about trump but all of the candidates are more or less like him. and nobody challenged that.
i agree with tamar jacoby, reality is different in congress. and i think it is -- on the republican side is not we have some establishment candidates like john mccain, good at immigration, and it is not the case. in the middle you have a majority of republicans who are good conservatives, believe in the constitution and want to deal with immigration in a constructive way. perhaps they agree with what was in the gang of 8 but were willing to negotiate. i think some on the left who advocated for immigration reform have really discounted and not paid attention to those conservative. they think a bilateral effort is keep working with people like mccain and lindsey graham. i love those guys but we have to go beyond that and we have good conservatives, tea party conservatives who want to do something on immigration and
talking about guest workers. there are democrat who don't want to talk about it. and a bill that was not workable, actually let's have a conversation and find room to negotiate, and the gang of 8 bill is the version of the left. there is room, but the question is will she be willing to build consensus the only way to solve the problem is passing legislation, not through executive action. i don't know if executive action is constitutional or not but i will tell you this. it is a bigger obstacle to achieving immigration reform and the only way to achieve this is through legislation and the path to legal status to the undocumented, a symptom of the problem the problem is the need
america has for foreign workers. that is the reality. the question is do we need more or less immigration and there is a divide that goes beyond left or right. we had bernie sanders saying it is not good for the country, take jobs from americans, labor agrees with that. there are many big labor that are happy with the positions of donald trump and you say no it is a reality, the leadership of the national labor movement was saying they had members willing to vote for trump for that idea. i think as we move forward and argument, we can't take trump for granted, realize there is something there, we have a middle-class that is decreasing, and is easy to catch trade immigration. a big problem in arguing for immigration reform is we have a case, tamar jacoby has made it
but not everyone, immigration is good for the american middle class. if we argue about compassion on one side or about growing business, a lot of people in working-class americans will say why are we going to support this, and it is a valid point of view. how does immigration help the american worker? more immigration creates jobs for americans. that is a powerful point we need to make more forcefully. and republicans on immigration. >> i want to hear from danielle that is the most likely path forward, because we have a clinton administration saying
people have to work together. people have to work together and have done a great job. >> hillary clinton said i am adamantly against immigrants, standing on the street corner, nobody should hire those people. i'm not making it up. look it up on you2. >> 2003. >> has senator of new york. she said send the children back to central america when asked if it was happening in the midst of it. she also has voted for 700 miles of wall, numerous times she told somebody in town hall which was donald trump by the way. she also as candidate for president the first time spoke against issuing driver's licenses to undocumented folks. we have somebody who has spoken
with contempt and derision against immigrants, here is the incoherence the, the incongruent part of what we are talking about, promises immigration reform in the first 100 days but is going to go beyond barack obama and executive action. and you know you won't at immigration reform, here is the thing, she says to latinos if you vote for me i will promise immigration reform. what she doesn't tell latinos if you vote for me i will get you immigration reform as long as i get everything i want. you won't get everything you want. you need to call that out. we do need to come to the middle of this. >> people have questions, we will take questions from the audience in a minute. >> this is 1986 all over again and we are going to get some form of i don't call it amnesty where you have to pay a fine but
we will get a legalization program whether it is legalization that will lead to citizenship or simply legalization, that will happen, but we don't fix the real problem which is greatly expanding the number of legal immigrants we take into this country. not to do it for humanitarian reasons though that is a good thing, but because we need them. we need workers. we need people. the iron he is the restriction, a lot of people say they are racists, they are not racist. they want to make the united states into a country of 150 million and as i tell my conservative audiences, which side of the room once to leave and go back to your ancestral land to do that is what they are about. they want to go back to a 19th century agrarian economy where everybody does their own work and it is a utopia fantasy.
it is out of the anti-population control movement which is where all of them came from. my fears we will see 1986, legalization program but not going to fix our legal immigration laws to be flexible, to include a guest worker program because not everybody wants to come and become americans. some american workers mail and female would gladly leave families behind, work a few years, go back home, start a small business or whatever, they are to have a path to do that because we need those workers and that is my big fear and i will tell you if hillary clinton tries to do something on steroids, that will be the end of any discussion for legislation.
that was the most destructive thing barack obama did with the program. i am sympathetic and understanding that for a lot of people it represented hope and i will tell you it killed a chance of meaningful immigration reform. >> the path forward, build trust on infrastructure where you do actually tell republicans you can find a way in the middle, not as inflammatory of immigration, i don't know how you handle supreme court the compromise on that, show that you want to work together, start in a back room with schumer and paul ryan and come up with the shape of the deal and sell it and it will be -- it is not comprehensive, republicans hate comprehensive, they are willing to move small pieces in a short time. not saying wait a year but past
legal status to citizenship, and it has tough enforcement that includes not just walls but sanctuary cities and stuff the trump has brought up but there is a path. >> i want to thank you. >> you give us your name please. >> i am -- in that area. my first question was the advocacy group, the service to the immigrant community by not advocating what they should be advocating and making this immigration issue about one group of people and understand most immigrants in this country
today from latin origin but doing a disservice to immigration reform. and addressing the fact i came to this country ten years ago, viewing what is happening, came down -- i am removed from the whole thing, not democrat or republican. candidates who have taken you along this head spinning ride on one single issue, many people in different policy issues, have their heads spinning as well and not electing a president of the country like west africa who had most power in the world electing the president of the united
states, making one decision today. >> let me put the question, i think the question if i'm not mistaken, is their too much focus on the latino community as a subdivision in the overall immigration debate or does it make logical sense to have them receive as much focus as they do? is that the first part of your question? >> the last question, two words, a few words, in the republican party, in terms of men and women, between these candidates, which one is the best to lead this country in terms of immigration. >> they are not the questions.
the first question, in washington with any issue, movement are created, and reality of their own and part of the movements i have to agree with what the consensus is of the movement rather than thinking of the principles. what is immigration reform movement? i know a lot of advocates, there is an immigration reform movement on the left where there is a lot of agreement and consensus, i disagree with many of the things they believe in. there are people in the immigration reform movement, the issue of immigration politically, and alliance in the democratic party to push this simplistic vision republicans are bad at immigration, i want to generalize there are many on
the left an immigration reform that are concerned and committed to immigration reform but sometimes i feel there are other problems, more concerned about the movement of that image. .. i believe that. in the same way that on the republican side there are many who perhaps believe in immigration to remain silent, afraid of angering rush limbaugh
or laura ingraham instead of being courageous. on the second question, it's a very difficult question, you know, i'm not a one issue person. what i'm telling latino voters come and get i don't claim to represent latinos. we have too many groups around this town to go bouncing they represent latinos. i'm here only to say there are latinos that are conservatives. what i'm going to do and what i encourage others to do as latino voters is come out and vote in record numbers. we have to come out and vote in record numbers. however, you don't have to choose a candidate. i will never vote for hillary clinton. there are many issues i disagree with her. so what would i do? i will vote and i want to vote republican, in the presidential ballot i believe that life. that's a valid the. perhaps it is fitting though because both parties have played
politics with this issue. when you look at polling of hispanics, over and over again, they say the majority they're not affiliated with one party or the other. they are voting democratic because they feel antagonized by republican politicians, but this was concerns with a lot of the policy positions of the democrats. i think that's healthy. i think that's very healthy. that's what i would recommend. that is what i'm going to do. >> we will go to this gentleman and then where going to wrap it up. >> i was 10 years old in california when prop 187 was being debated my mother is undocumented, and i remember, she was actually legalized in 1986 because of that law. and i remember wondering why my people were being demonized by the republican party. i removed my grammar saying -- grandma sank --
[speaking spanish] that was a long impression from and i'm a lifelong democrat. so here is my question. there are going to be 10 year olds right now who are latinos who are watching this campaign. they may have a similar reaction to conservatives and republican movement. is either talking about ideas. but i'm talking about emotions and historical memory. their grandparents and their parents will be talking about this for generations and for years to come. how are you going to answer that? i don't think you are not addressing that? communities do not forget. [speaking spanish] >> i think that's exactly right, into something i've been talking about for a very long time. in fact, if you go back to the nixon white house in 1972, about a third of mexican-americans voted for richard nixon. the trend was somewhere between
30% and up to 45% or so in presidential races were voting republican. and then you had prop 187, and bob dole drew below 30%. and prop 187, sponsored by the governor in california who had been previously a senator and considered a moderate republican, jumped on that 187 bandwagon, and it essentially turned california into a blue state. it will never, i don't think, get out of that position. it is in large part because of the feeling of disrespect. i think it's going to be extremely difficult, which is why of republican, as a conservative, if somebody believes that the republican party more represents my principles on a variety of
issues than the democratic party does, i really believe that unless donald trump is defeated, and not by a small margin, because then people like me, and never troopers will be blanked. it's got to be a big defeat and i think only been will you see a real housecleaning and the republican party and hopefully the party can get back to being the party of lincoln. it isn't today. today at the party of drunken i think it is a very big problem. >> let me also say the governor that year lost the latino vote by a gap of six points. the governor the next four years, lost it by 46 points your in the next for years he lost it by 61 points, the gap between the latino vote. that was a distancing that occur because of 187. in 2012 barack obama got 80% of the minority vote.
mitterrand to get 62% of the white vote. that's quite a contrast. there's something going on. and it concerns me because i'm not even a republican for partisan reasons or because i want my people to like me. [laughter] i have been a republican because i get about my community and because the ideas work, right? i believe in limited government. i don't believe in centralizing power and money in washington, d.c. i believe parents should have school choice but i believe we should lessen the tax burden on latino entrepreneurs and the regulatory burden. i believe in all these things because it makes my community better. but when we don't engage, when we don't advanced ideas and when we are showcasing the really bad ideas, that's i think when latinos are turned off. look, we are very young. we are 27 years median age was the rest of the country's 37 years median age.
90% of all latinos under 18 are born in america. we are going to be a massive voting bloc. so the republican party has to get its act together and start engaging and driving programs ideas that are going to generate increase in productivity and the private sector that increase jobs and economic opportunities spent i need to push back a little bit on this narrative because -- [speaking spanish] we are not clowns but we are not cheap either. the latino community is not a monolithic community. we have proposition 187 but then we had george bush winning what, 44% of the latino vote in 2004. latinos are a very sophisticated vote, different countries of origin, we have people who are multi-generational who have been there for many, many generations, people of just arrived maybe much more immigration -- and served on
many other issues. immigration is not the only issue. i think you are not lose the latino vote for a generation. i think trump loses the election got a feel for your somehow a good republican candidate who's going immigration, immigration is a would issue. going immigration, constructive on the issue, that person will become competitive with the latino vote. but this idea that you're going to lose the entire length of the -- you're going to lose the entire let tunable. we have cuban-americans. we have puerto ricans in central florida. certainly 66% of latino voters are mexican. we also central americans. he cannot make generalizations that the latino vote is going to be lost forever. what happened in california i must say, it's a very particular phenomenon that could be repeated in other parts of the country but is a very california experience. very different from what could've happened in texas. texas we saw some terrible
rhetoric, but still john cornyn did very well. took some positions i didn't agree with on immigration. why? because he was opposing wendy davis, a candidate who is very radical social issue. latinos care about those issues. so i would not make a generalization. i agree the republican party, i've been talking about this since i started the organization, needs to open itself up to latinos can be constructed on the issue of immigration. immigration. don't assume you're going to lose the latino vote for generations. the question is how many elections to the republican party of the national have to lose to get that lesson? that is the question. >> i think that brings us to a pretty good note. whether we see the rise from the ashes, i guess we will see in the course of the next year or two. we're going to move right on to the next panel on refugee resettlement. so please stay in the room, stay in your seats and just give us one minute to reset.
thanks to the panel for everyone else. thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the house oversight committee takes a look to the a records are handled by the state department during hillary clinton's tenure as secretary of state. former aides to mrs. clinton are set to testify. that the 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, a hearing on the tactics used by ticket scalpers to purchase mass quantities of tickets online. the witnesses include a broadway show producer, a college sports commissioner and legal representatives from stubhub in ticket fly. th