tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN October 3, 2016 2:18pm-4:19pm EDT
assessed. the whole premise is court compliance, and compliance with a removal order that comes into play. we're using a set of tools with the case managers who are trained in this area to have people comply with their obligations to attend court. so we're not dealing with the high extension tlat we have seen historically. >> at one point, the operation, first of all, they were given access and however you have to keep in mind, they have an g 28 on file from their attorney. we they are represented by it attorneys. but we work through that. and i think we got to a good place. as far as 100% success, that's not accurate. it was 100% success on a group of families from el salvador that the va took untimely appeals which is outside what have they usually would be. it certainly surprised us. . surprised a lot of people. aerothey are still being litigated. settled in pennsylvania in favor of the government. so again, we certainly want
everybody to have the due process. we do not to want remove anybody from this country unless they had due process. we pay very close attention to that. >> first question. >> yes. just really quick, i'm one that the city. >> reporter: gosh. i don't know what to say. >> i was actually just hoping, mr. homeland, you could comment on something that was mentioned in passing. an apparent disconnect between guidance coming from the top and what we're seeing on the ground some. and just some examples that you give. i wanted to add just a personal perspective too to see if you could comment on and it's your idea of having enforcement voice at the twabl executive actions happening versus officers bringing suit, you know, individual officers bringing suit against the administration. like you mentioned the implementation of secure communities where i can see the value of having that when you show it that way, having the connection with the fingerprints, but then the use, the decisions getting made on
the ground of who gets it. and then you medical examinered alsos that having that extra line to catch claiming fear when it's not claimed at the boarder. >> a lot of three-year-olds saying they're coming here to work nap disconnect between those agents that are meeting first. having you been here so long, in things with air force base curious, have you seen it? that change and also in your time there and what's being done to address that. it is an issue. >> couple of issues there. first of all and i mean, they're all doing a great job. >> 90% had a criminal conviction. we do the one-offs.
the men and women executing this policy, perfectly. are mistakes made? they are, but as an agency, we're performing very, very well. the numbers are the numbers. i don't make them up. these are numbers up to the department every year. as far as those claiming fear. 32 years experience. i can tell you, and i testified against, in front of congress about it is do i think some of these families are escaping fear? absolutely. do i think all of them are? no. do i think some are taking advantage of a low threshold system, absolutely. i think the numbers are supporting that. not all these families claiming fear win their cases because they cannot -- they do not have the case to support it. and again, i want to make sure they all get their due process, immigration judge but at the end of the day, my job is to execute that final order. i don't think 100% of the families are's creping fear.
i don't. they've been to guatemala and honduras. they're not nice places. and you know, so there's, again, we're a nation of laws, we're a sovereign country, and we 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 for a minute. in nq why 12, 235,000. we're removing half of what we moved several years. it's not enough. when is enough enough? we have to enforce the law. if people don't like the immigration laws on the book, that's something you need to speak to your congressional representatives about. we're just simply trying to execute a mission that makes sense. and i think prioritization make sense. yes. law enforcement professionals who were at table and being talk abouted. like i said, did all my input make it in?
certainly not. basically the criminals, you know, making sure that all levels of criminals, some people say well kmeerns aren't that serious. if you're a victim of the demeanor, it certainly makes a difference. so for people that enter the united states illegally, first of all it is a violation of law. it's not an administrative issue. and on top of that, to commit another crime against citizens in this country and if it's a demeanor, that is the public safety threat. a lot of times we talk about duis, people don't think they're serious. i take doimpbs that. i think dui is a public safety issue. so i think what the secretary's done is given us a set of rules that makes sense to prioritize the worst of the worst first. i leave it every time. the numbers speak for themselves. people with can have opinions and mistakes are made. the numbers speak to themselves and the men and women are executing a mission pretty close to perfect. >> thanks, tom. >> we have time for one more comment, what would you have
asked if you could have? >> well just a little question. >> yes. >> i'm from washington college of law and also presenting the african christian correlation in the region. one of the issues that have pledged law enforcement is how the community that is that has served feels about the work that the law enforcement is doing? and we see how much you're trying to do help. and even picking and choosing in order to implement the policies that have been given or done to you. but, the reality is, those of us who practice immigration law,
when you go to communities, immigrant communities around the country, you mentioned i.c.e. it sends a shock wave. people are fearful of the officers, even those who don't have immigration problems. how -- i'm having trouble reconciling the effort you're making to do your job in a way that is humane and then how the community feels about the work you're doing. and so, my question is, do you recognize that one, and second, do you have any plan or policies to make sure that the communities that you're trying to keep safe, including immigrant communities are understand the policies that you are implementing, are you including them into the implementation of this policy so
they may feel that this is not just to oppress us, but it is directly to remove from among us those who might come around and harm us. >> thank you. and unfortunately we do not have time for an -- >> that's why we started our community engagement office. thanks for the question. >> and i want to encourage you, thank you panelist for a lively presentation as promised. please stay, our next speaker. we're fortunate to have senator durbin. so please stay put and that's our next show. [ applause ] >> we have more road to the white house coverage. donald trump is holding a rally in pueblo, colorado, c-span will be live at 5:00 p.m. eastern. some polls in that state show secretary clinton with a small lead. others give mr. trump a slight edge. and secretary clinton will be holding a rally in akron, ohio,
this afternoon, live coverage starting at 5:45 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. real clear politics lists of september polls show donald trump leading between # # sce1 . and back now to the conference on immigration. here republican experts look at next month's election and what it could mean for the future of immigration policy.
which is a small business group that pushes for immigration reform. and changes to laws and policy. she's a loeng time writer, journalist like myself who's worked for news week and the new york times and spent quite a while in manhattan institute in new york. next to her, we have danielle garza who is the director of initiative. he's also a white house official under president george w. bush. and immediately to my right is
linda chaz vez who's the president of the institute. well-known indicated columnist and white house official in the reagan white house. so a number of different republican administrations here. i was thinking as we're getting ready for this panel about the ark of the republican party and republican white house on this issue. and it reminded me in a previous job being in the white house on a thursday morning in early saept 2001. >> one of the true points on immigration reform. and then low and behold, that was a thursday afternoon in the next tuesday morning which was equally beautiful here in washington. we had smoke coming up from the
pentagon and the attacks on the world trade center. and that was the i think in some respects the end or dramatic change to that chapter in the immigration reform discussion, but it's interesting because hopes were so high at that time and then now we have this will phase. i don't know if it's the valley of death phase or exactly what it is people feel they are going through with the trump campaign on immigration issue. at least people pushing for the comprehensive bill over the last two decades. i thought we would start down the end with al on if zoe who has assort of, i guess, falling in and out of love with donald trump. maybe that's too long. >> reporter: nev-- >> never in love. >> than maybe existed in my point. you have a personal journey with his campaign. and i'm just curious if you tell us a little bit about what it was you thought and doable with
the trump and the trump campaign on immigration front. and i take it you no longer hold to that view and what led you not to hold to that view. >> what was i thinking? >> i was a year ago one of the early voices within the republican party and the conservative movement. along with my good friend van garza and others. not many were criticizing trump at the time. we're talk about july of last year. we thought he was not going to win the nomination. i would get calls saying why are you criticizing trump he's getting attention because of you. he's not going to be the nominee. well, but i announced because of what he said about mexican immigrants and policy proposals and immigration. then he won the primary. and as a conservative, to me the alternative is truly
unacceptable. i think hillary's policies on the economy and how to deal with terrorism on issues important to me in terms of life, family, i think her policies will be the same. what would somebody like me do, and i looked at trump and said, let me see if we can somehow work with him but see if he can support a form of legalization. now i don't know what donald trump really thinks about immigration, i don't think he knows what he really thinking about immigration. but i do know that he was surrounded, during the primary, by a group of restrictionists. very close to jeff sessions, and i assume behind jeff sessions people from center from immigrations and others. steven miller, one of his senior advisors spent many, many years with, with senator sessions. so clearly i knew what he was
trying to do during the primary considering that there were 17 candidates. try to get that 30% of the republican base that indeed proposing immigration reform from different reasons. there are many indeed, perhaps not half of the bucket that are races, but there are many concerns about legislation. and he was getting their support. so once he won the primary, i thought that there was a chance of working with a campaign to get him to support, embrace some sort of legalization. and so i followed hard and i said, okay, i'm going to support mr. trump and figure out if there's a way. i had noticed two things from the very beginning of his campaign. he had said that with deportation that people would have to leave or they will be
massive deportation, but the good people would come back and come back quickly. well, to me that sounded like touchback. something that was discussed in 2006, 2007. well perhaps that's an opening to propose some sort of touchback, internal touchback. and so i started conversations with people in the campaign, they were actually surprisingly very 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, consulate, register there and then provide them a path to legal status, short of citizenship. i have to say, by talking to several people within the campaign, senior advisors, they were receptive. there were people that were receptive. now, trump out, you know, said many things during the primary, many offensive comments, his immigration policy in the
website was clearly written by some of the restrictionists groups, then he kept changing his mind. remember with h 1 a's, in his policy statement, he went after zurk and saying that h1a, it's an unfair program. these people are taking away jobs from americans. and then he supported and reminded -- he said i just change midmind. so and just recently last week, apparently he now supports some sort of dream act for individuals who want to serve in the military. i don't know if he's aware of what he actually proposed in that forum. the same thing when h1bs. confronted in the fact that in florida he recruits h2bs, non-agriculture gas workers. he defended the program, even though he opposed it. hard to figure out.
he said he wanted to -- he created the hispanic advisory board. i was never a member of the hispanic advisory board. i was offered a position but because of previous commitments, i could not. i kept in communication with the campaign. and it was clear in that meeting and other meetings that he said that he wanted to deal with undocumented immigrants in a compassionate and humane way. and that meeting of the advisory board, he did ask participants what they thought about immigrants going to register at their consulate or embassy, so i'm assuming that they were considering the idea of internal touchback.
and then he did a pretty high profile town hall with sean hannity where he basically said, you know, i'm softening my position. i think at that time, restrictionists got really scared and there was an intervention, and clearly mr. sessions intervened and that's how we ended up with the speech in phoenix. and after that speech, i could not -- there was any room for me to continue supporting donald trump. not only because of the policies but even the vision that he outlined, restrictionists made sure in the speech that the language was there. questioning even how positive immigration is. i mean, he talked about going back to historical levels of immigration before 1965. as if we have too much immigration, immigrants are taking jobs away from americans. so we have to -- and that's code language from the groups. from restrictionists groups who feel that our country's overpopulated and it's all about
numbers. he's going have his advisors, people who are restrictionists and don't believe in immigration reform. is he going to be loyal to that group? i have no idea. this is my journey with the trump campaign. it was short lived, but at end, to me, i care deeply about the issue. and quoting jacob, an immigration lawyer from texas who immediately resigned after the phoenix speech, he said, in the nature of the vision, he
said in spanish -- [ speaking foreign language ] i'm willing to sit down and negotiate with the devil. to me, that is a commitment that as conservatives we have. at the end, this is about building consensus to republicans and democrats to achieve immigration reform. we tried, it didn't happen, we move forward, we'll see what happens. >> thanks, alfonso. tamar, it seems like as alfonso was pointing out, this immigration issue is as much part of trump's brand as anything. regardless of whether, which policies are being advocated or what he says on one interview or in one forum or mexico or whatever. you've been looking at sort of what his supporters think on these issues. is there some daylight there and how can people respond to his brand on specifically on immigration while disagreeing
with him on the point by point policies that prove people like jeff sessions and steve miller and others he's advocating. >> thank you so much. it's great to be here. thank you to mpi. i've not been on any kind of jour noi with donald trump, i am going to pivot and talk about the rest of the party. including his supporters. and you know, it is always smarter to be cynical in washington. we heard a lot of really dire scenarios on the first panel this morning, and i'm certainly not here to say it's going to be easy or get this done next year for sure. there's many more ways it can go wrong and probably one narrow path that could take us to a good answer. but i want to raise questions. and about other republicans on the hill. so, you know, if you were a martian and you dropped down to the u.s. and you watched the headlines, i think you would think, you know, that trump has
kind of, we're watching a historic wave of xenophobia if you were martian and dropped down. that trump has found something beneath the surface that we didn't know was there or much bigger or more powerful than any of us thought. this underground reservoir of hate, fear, bigotry. i think we need to question that. i think that is a misleading sense of things. i noticed it first during the ten days of the softening. and let's not make too much of the softening, i don't think, i don't think trump knows what he thinks and i don't think he believes anything, and i think he'll say anything. so trump's journey is not what's important to me. but i was very interested in what happened with the followers, what trump's followers seem to say during the ten day us of the softening. and the jeff sessions and ann coulter and laura ingram and all the -- sarah palin, the pundit class that's been behind trump has been pushing was outraged. and they smoked came out of
their ears and they said this is a betrayal and outrage, but if you read the media stories about the actual rank and file trump followers, they kind of shrugged. you know, they said, well, you know, we're sure he'll do the right thing and we don't know and, you know, we're not upset, and i'm still behind him. and so i started to wonder what that was about. and he's done a 180, and the supporters don't seem to mind, you know, what does that suggest? i started digging into the polling that's been done of the questions that have been asked of trump supporters. and i found some interesting surprises. i'd seen polling, but i hadn't put it together. yes, they want a wall. 80% want a wall. 60% of all republicans want a wall. there's no chickens in the armor about the around the wall. excuse the pun. but trump voters are surprisingly divided on what to
do about the 11 million. and a pew poll in march said should we allow people who meet certain requirements to stay in the country or should they be deported? and the answer was almost half and half. it led slightly on the deported side, 47% said let them stay. and, you know, when you ask of course -- and only 40% wanted to take active steps. we want them gone, but we're not willing to do that much and half are willing to let them stay. meanwhile, i'm sure you've seen the polling republicans in general, 75%, every poll, consistent, support some kind of comprehensive reform with the path to legal status and indeed many support a path to citizenship. and of course, this is just a few anecdotal poll questions, but, you know, to me, it started to add up to maybe at least a question, if not a picture, you know, could it be that these people are frustrated, angry, they're angry at their own circumstance. they want control. they do miss an america that
thinks they're gone. and they're willing to blame it in a general way on immigrant dpops they support trump's policy down to the letter? i'm not sure they do. i think there's a general sense that there's something wrong and they want control of immigration, the same way they want control of their lives, but i'm not sure they're aware many people think they are on the immigration in particulars. and so i think the question will be, you know, assuming as many people were assuming this morning and i don't necessarily know that this will be the outcome, i don't think anyone does, but let's assume hillary is the president and knows about the senate. let's assume a democratic senate and republican house how is this going to play out. obviously there's a danger, a danger that republicans will hear what the martians spaup think there's a great level of hate and we have to speak to it and becan't vote the way we believe. but, you know, i think there's also kind of a broad
misunderstanding of where most congressional republicans are on immigration. you know, i think the conventional wisdom, there's an over my dead body camp, and then paul ryan and a few supporters, you know, trying to tame them. i think it's just the opposite actually. i mean, i look back to the may 2014 whip count when 140 congressional republicans, republicans in the house, told paul ryan and mario diaz that they were prepared to vote for a path to legal status. 140. and, you know, i don't think those people, you know, they had a lot of different reasons. they are worried about latino voters. they're listening to the farmers in their district, they're listening to the i.t. businesses in their district, whatever it is, but i don't think they necessarily changed their views. again, i think they could hear what they think is the trump vote and be afraid to vote their views, but i don't -- i think there may be some more troop maneuver there than we think.
i don't think those trump most trump voters i think they do want a wall, but i don't think they necessarily want to deport all 11 million people and i think they could be sold basically sensible immigration reform that had tough enforcement, a wall, interior enforcement, and a lot of things a lot of people in this room won't like, but would have some answer for the people already here and some fixes for the future. i'm not sure the political class can get there. d's and r's can compromise km, i think there might be more room to maneuver than we think. >> thanks, ta mar. i'm going to skip over daniel for one second if that's okay with you and go to you, linda, to talk about this. it seems like implicit in what tamar's talking about is what the role of leadership is in this issue.
our public malleable as tamar is suggesting that the same people that were going to go for the program for george w. bush, immigration reform on september 6, 2001, are now falling in line behind donald trump and these are the same voters? is there change in sentiment? what's your take? >> first of all, in terms of a voting issue, immigration today, immigration yesterday, and my guess is immigration tomorrow will never be a big voting issue. it's not what people vote on. it never has been.
it's probably a larger fraction of voters vote on that issue today than they did say 20 years ago, but that isn't what has been driving this issue. and i have been involved in this for a very long time. probably longer than anybody on the panel. i wrote my first book was published in 1991 called "out of the bario." and i wrote about immigration. there was a whole chapter. federation for immigration reform. 1986 law, and i wrote about the, english language movement because i had been for a brief time period president of u.s. english that wanted to have a constitutional amendment declaring english the official language. but my position on immigration was then and is now that m it's really quite simple to solve illegal immigration. we simply need to change our legal immigration system and is
flexible and allows people to come in and provided they have the skills that we need and we need those skills not just among computer engineers and doctors and scientists and mathematicians, we needed at the lower end of the scale because frankly we are an educated population and it is very hard to convince somebody with a high school degree or two years of college under their belt to go work in a chicken processing plant. so, i've always had the same position, what is interesting to me is that at the time that i wrote this that book, i was attacked by the left. the left thought that when i said that his pansics were like every other immigrant that had come in before, they were assimilating, learning english, intermarrying and even voting not in a majority, but in a fairly significant minority for conservative candidates. that was considered heresy by
the left. i say the same things together and i'm called a rhino. i'm, you know, i'm no long aerorepublican. and in fact, what's interesting, i just recently had the not such distinct pleasure of speaking of summit directly after donald trump spoke. in july, and i was following to do a panel on immigration reform. and danielle has been, you know -- has heard me talk about this issue before public form in colorado and elsewhere, others here know my position and know the kind of stance i take. and usually in republican circles, it was taken pretty seriously. it was often the first time that conservatives heard that latino immigrants were learning english, graduating from high
school, going on to college, intermarrying, becoming successful in part of the middle class. but they were willing to accept that that was happening. e well, i went and i gave the same speech as i always give before an audience that was made up of trump supporters and my husband who was in the audience and had -- he's disabled, he had a cane with him. he thought he was going to have to fight people off. i was basically told, i think they would have liked to tell me to go them to mexico, but i knead clear that my family came in 1601, it was a long time ago. and, you know, it was just such -- i had never had that kind of hostile reception. so i think while you're right, tamar, there is -- this is not a huge voting issue. there is a fraction of the republican party and certainly the alt-right for whom this is
the single biggest issue. and i do believe that they are very effective. and one of the most important things i think is to follow the money. the way in which this issue, when i -- in all good conscious in 1991 have the same position i have today and be, you know, folk hero among conservatives, and now i'm, you know, i'm a rhino, is that there is a very well-funded network -- republican in name only. >> not a compliment, no. the federation for american immigration reform, center for immigration studies, numbers usa, and a plethora of other organizations that raise money on this. so do some of the big conservative think tanks. the heritage foundation which once had a position on this issue in distinguishable from mine now does a lot of mail fundraising. it has become an issue that you can raise money on.
and it has become an issue in which you can get listeners if you have a talk radio show or viewers if you have a cable tv show and your ratings will go up. gets people mad. it gets people angry. and the problem with that is those people are highly motivated and it may not be a large fraction of the party, but it's enough of the party that when a bill comes up, rush limbaugh or sean hannity and get on the air waves and you have a flood of calls into members of congress. >> i am optimistic on the question of whether or not they can be turned around on this. i think the best way for conservatives to be turn ud around on this and for donald trump to -- >> let's go to you next. there's somebody bending the
curb on this issue it seems in terms of trying to attract latinos to conservative philosophy. i understand you don't want to say explicitly republican, but that's what you've been involved in. i was down at christmas time in florida and somebody was handing out frozen turkeys. was that you guys? >> we do give out frozen turkeys because people can afford them. >> so tell us about the outreach that you're undertaking and tell us whose fwooind because linda's suggesting there's money being spent, i guess, and raised on the more restrictionist side of the immigration issue. i take it you guys are coming from a different perspective. whose money is it and how are you trying to attract latinos to a more conservative political message? >> a little bit about myself, i was born in '68 in california and the central valley.
i believe they were very strong pro-immigration because we feel again that it addresses market forces when we have a flexible market-based immigration form. we to want induce that instead of ripping families apart. and of course we just to want make our communities diverse and rich. we have been very much driving ideas that advance immigration reform. now 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, you know, issues at the border and, you know, whatever so that there is a sense of order -- i mean, i live in mission, texas. i live blocks away from the bring where the surge was
happening. it's a nice neighborhood, by the way. but i am concerned about both sides. this isn't being an apoll gist for the republicans. legitimately, there is one candidate on one side who presumes to define what immigration reform is and who promises more than she can deliver. and she knows it. a president of america does not get to impose law. you don't get to promise a law with somehow, some of a mags that you're going to make it happen on your own. you don't get to do that in america. the president of the united states has to take due care to execute the laws that have been passed bay congress. the legitimative arm of our government. that means that democrats don't get to define what immigration reform is and neither do republicans. they both do. they have to come together and reconcile their differences.
they have to reach consensus. they have to be pragmatic on an issue where you have one side where one is promising everything under the sun to get a vote, and the other is distancing himself from the issue or from any kind of reasonable approach to immigration reform for votes. we were the first ones out of the block that actually condemn donald trump's policy positions. we felt it was crazy to want to rescind birthright citizenship. it's part of the constitution. wanted to intercept remittances of hard-working immigrants who are sending their mother back to grandmothers and mothers and their family. that's cruel. as far as we're concerned. do you want to deport 11 million folks when really our economy needs to address market forces. and we need to allow our private sector to hire who they need to hire. not who politicians want them to hire. and that means sometimes you need to hire very basic skills
and high skills. linda who i'm honored or it sitting by was talking about the folks that, americans that don't take these jobs. in my ten years of working the fields -- literally working the fields -- i can count to you the number of non-lath knows -- on one hand, i saw in the fields. that's orchards and fields. so i mean, come on, eight nol 11 million currently work. of the 8 million, 2 million are agricultural workers. we need them. desperately. they're an asset to us. but it strikes me that when i think the political environment turns on democrats, they turn on immigrants. what i mean to say is five democrat senators told barack obama to hold off on executive action because it wasn't in their interest during that
election season. and he did. two, lunder and grimes and landrieu in louisiana attacked their republican opposition for their support of amnesty in commercials. democrats flee and they'd be on the other side of the issue. so we need to find a way to reach consensus and we need leaders who are going to negotiate in good faith. i love that paul ryan is one of those people that is pulling people towards the middle. and morris rogers and goodlot and mccarthy and balart on the republican side. we need more of those folks. we need more of those folks on the democrat side in 2007 right after i left the white house, the senate under frisk republicans had passed a senate bill. you know who was the speaker of the house at the time on the
house? nancy pelosi. they were protected the democrat congressman because the youth were going to pull and they killed it. there's blame on both sides, on the republicans and democrats, and i think as a people, we need to hold both sides accountable and demand they come to the middle and reach consensus on this very, very important issue. >> danielle, but do tell us more about specifically what your group is doing with the latino community in terms of conservative causes and advocacy. is there money behind it the same way linda is talking about with numbers usa and heritage and so forth? >> so yes, there's money fwooind. in america the way we advance any kind of social change is you need people. and you need resources to sustain the efforts of those
people. and so there's money. we're in ten states worth 79 full-time staff. who are helping us drive a free market agenda to the latino community. millions and millions just got sick and tired of the liberal le left. hay do not and neither do conservatives represent all latinos. we need to have an honest discussion about economically and culturally and immigration. i got tired also of the restrictionists on the conservative side representing latinos who are not restrictionists who see immigration as a value to our country. we're part of an organization that finally has some muscle across the country where we mobilize latinos across the country to also get behind an agenda that is going to lessen the tax burden, the regulatory burden that's going to reverse
the irresponsible spending in washington, d.c., support's skeel choice, but also drive the issue of immigration reform. now for us, this has been critical. to give a different face. not for the sake of giving a different face or just to gain the appeal and the support of the community. we honestly believe that these are good dwlads are going to make america stronger. so in 2014, you saw republicans who actually engaged with the latino community at way higher level than they had in the past, colorado, for example, you had a state where barack obama had won in 2008, 65% of the latino vote. in 2012, he won 85% of the latino vote. michael ben nit won 90%. hfs going the wrong direction as far as the consumers were concerned.
did nothing to engage them. and well, maybe that's an anomaly. in kansas, brownback and roberts got 45% of the latino vote, each. deihl and perdue got 45% of the latino vote. 44 and 47% in georgia. you had cornen. 52% in texas, and greg abbot for governor, 44%. scott in florida, christie 52%. will herd in san antonio district 23, a black republican challenger u took out a latino democrat incumbent in san antonio 23, a predominantly latino district. that's a maturity of the latino
voter. of course brian sandoval in noef. and flipped the house and the senate harry reid's state for the first time since the 1920s who got 63% of the vote. flipped the house. and colorado who also flipped the senate since the 1950s. so when you engage the latino vote, you'll be rewarded. >> maybe any of you can answer this question, but have there dmsh your view, have been a lot of profiles that encouraged within the gop within the last year or two since we've been going through this trump phenomenon of people who have spoken up and said, i have a totally different view on this issue. it strikes me it's not only donald trump as a person that you can excoriate, but there were many other people in the republican presidential field for example whose position seem to either go silent or prove far more malleable at the outset. people held um as heroes for the immigration reform movement found themselves almost mute in
the face of the trump onslaught. i'm curious if you think there are such people. and also if the election goes as many people expect at the moment. if clinton were to win trump gets beaten. does that affect some change to this dynamic or has trump proven that you can get an awful lot of attention and at least some votes by staking out a fairly extreme position son immigration? >> i think property files are less interesting and less important than people behind the scenes who say i want to get it done and going to work next year. my organization organized small dinners with senators policy dinners off the record. we had a dinner with a senator last week who is on nobody's list as an immigration reformer. who when harry reid asked him if he was going to run again in his next cycle said only if i can get things done, and the thing i pick is immigration reform. he has a whole different version of how it's going to work. gang of eight bill and it's a whole different road, but there are people in both houses who
know we have to put this behind us. and again, for various reasons, it might be the latino vote, it might be the economy, might just get it off the table. i'm not saying they share this audience's view of why it needs to get done? there are a lot of people who do think it needs to get done. we'll have the battle of our lives over the part on david from that this morning and certainly right. there are bigots that will come with a lot of strength. there are a lot of people who take a different view. and, i don't expect -- no one, doesn't make to stand up now and push back against trump. i think there are a lot of people who will stand up. again, it won't be easy and i'm not saying that again, i'm skeptical that shint going to come with the right offer. i think a if she tries to do, you know, i mean a gang of eight again in the senate and throw it to the house, that's crazy.
and if she says my way or the highway, you can forget legitimates for how many ever years in office. there are ten scenarios that are roads to disaster and there's one narrow way you might be able to do it that does i believe as frank sherry said this morning start with probably schumer and hillary clinton and paul ryan sitting down in a back room and figuring out the shape of a deal and then going forward and will that happen? i don't know. >> if she goes forward with what you might call a doka on steroids as an executive action -- >> i don't think the legitimate on anything in the congress as long as she's president. >> correct. >> briefly say, i mean, this idea -- we had about 17 candidates. and practically all of them, with the exception perhaps of trump and ted cruz were supportive of a formal of legalization. some make that point. and this is politics.
the left for a very long time has been trying to create this perception. very simple perception. it's all about the latino vote. they're bad, antiimmigrant and immigrants are good. hillary clinton, during the primary said, you know, we talk about trump, but the reality is that more or less, all of the candidates, all of the presidential candidates are more or less like him. and nobody challenged that. but i agree, the reality is different in congress. and i think that it's not within the republican side, it's not well we have some establishment probably since candidates like politicians like john mccain or mario and then restrictionists. that's not the case. in the middle off majority of republicans who are good, conservatives, blaef in the constitution, and want to deal with the immigration in a constructive way. perhaps they don't agree with what was in the gang of eight, they're willing to negotiate. now, i think, frankly, some in
the left, and some advocated for immigration reform have really discounted and not paid attention to those conservatives. they think that bilateral effort is, you know, just working with people like mccain and lindsey graham. look, i love those guys, but we have to go beyond them. and there are good conservatives, tea party conservatives, who want to do something on immigration, and part of that discussion means also talking about guess workers, but there are democrats that don't want to talk about that. having a workable guest worker program. no one in the gang of eight which was not workable, but let's have that conversation. and then we'll find room to negotiate. that's diversion of the left. there's room, but the question here is if hillary becomes president, will she be willing to build consensus? because at end, the only way we're going solve the problem is by passing legislation not
through executive action, i don't know if exec tuf action is constitutional or not, but i will tell you this, right now is the biggest obstacle to achieving immigration reform and the only way is through legislation. m the problem is the need of workers. that is the reality. and do we need more or less immigration and there's a divide that goes beyond left right. big labor agrees with that. there are many in big labor that are actually happy with some of the positions of donald trump. and if you say no, i mean, it's a reality. some of the leadership with the national labor movement was saying that they have members that are willing to vote for trump because precisely that idea. i think that as we move forward an argument, you know, we can't
take the trump phenomenon for granted, realize that there is some validity there. we have a middle class that is decreasing, income inequality expanding, and it's easy to blame free trade immigration. one of the big problems that we've had in argument for immigration reform, i haven't made the case, i know tamar has made it, but not everyone. certainly i don't think the chamber of commerce made the argument convincingly. that immigration is good for the american middle class. because if we only argue about compassion on one side or about business, we need to grow business. a lot of people who represent working class americans are going to say, why are we going to support this? how does this benefit america? so the entire idea of america first or -- that's, that's a valid point of view. how does immigration help the american worker? there are studies that show that more immigration helps create jobs for americans.
that's a very powerful point we need to make more forcefully, and that is the argument to help bring in those conservative republicans that to want work on immigration. >> i can jump in for one second? i want to hear from danielle and lane da on this point what have they see is the most likely path forward particularly if we do have a clinton administration, just saying, you know, people have to work together and people -- well, people have had to work together on this for 20 years and haven't done a great job. >> what i want to do is call out the hypocrisy. right? here you have hillary clinton, who said i am adamantly against immigrants. look at them, nobody should hire those people. i'm not making it up. you can look it up on youtube. >> 2003 in a radio interview. as senator of new york, she also said send the children back to central america when she was asked right when it was happening in the midst of it. she also has been -- has voted for 700 miles of wall.
numerous times quote/unquote, she told somebody in a town hall. which is donald trump's position, by the way. she also as candidate for president, the first time, spoke against issuing driver's licenses to undocumented folks. so, here you have somebody who has been -- who has spoke with contempt and der rigs against immigrants and now says here's the incoherency. the incongruent part of what was talked about. she promises immigration reform in the first 100 days, but she's going to go beyond barack obama and executive action. which is it? you're already tipping your hat. you know you're not going to get immigration reform because as was just said, here's the thing. she says to latinos, if you vote for me, i will promise you immigration reform. what she doesn't tell latinos is this, if you vote for me, as long as i get everything i want. well you're not going to get
everything you want, are you? and so you need to call that out i zbesz my point. it's not just to say it. we do need to come to the middle on these issues. >> linda wufb thoughts and people have questions, we're going to take questions from the audience in just a minute. >> my biggest fear is that this is going to be 1986 all over again. and that we are going to get some form of i don't call it amnesty if you have to pay a fine that we're going to get a legalization program, whether it's legalization that will ultimately lead to citizenship or simply legalization that that will happen, but that we don't fix the real problem, which is greatly expanding the number of legal immigrants we take into this country. and again, not to do it out of humanitarian reasons, although that's a good thing. we need workers, we need people. the irony is that the restrictionists, you know, a lot of people say oh, well they're
racist. they're not racist, they hate all human beings. they want to make the united states go back to a country of 150 million, and as i always tell my conservative audiences, which side of the room wants to leave? and go back to your an zest roll lands. that's what they're about. they want to go back to 19th century kind of a economy where everybody does their own work and yew taupe yan fantasy. it's not particularly right wing. it is out of the anti-population control movement which is why where all of them came from. my big fear, 1986, legalization program, but we're not going to fix our legal immigration laws to be market based to be flexible, to include a guest worker program because not everybody who comes wants to come and become americans. some people, you know, there are a lot of workers, both male and female who would gladly leave family behind, come work a few
years, get a stake hold, be able to go back home, start a small business or whatever and they ought to have a path to be a able to do that because we need those workers. and that is my big fear. and i will tell you that if hillary clinton tries to do a daka/dapa on steroids, that'll be the end of any discussion for legislation. that was the single most destructive thing that barack obama did with the dapa program. i am very, you know, sympathetic and understanding that for a lot of people it represented hope, but i will tell you, it killed the chance of any meaningful immigration reform as long as he is in the white house. >> tamar wants to make a quick comment. >> you asked for a path forward, do other things first, build trust on infrastructure where you do actually do something with republicans that you can find a way in the middle, not as inflammatory of immigration. do infrastructure, do something else.
i don't know how you handle the supreme court, but try to be compromising. build trust. show that you want to work together. then start in a back room with schumer and paul ryan and come up with a shape of a deal, and then sell it. and it's going to probably be, you know, it's not called comprehensive, republicans hate comprehensive. they are willing to move small pieces glounz a short period of time, i'm not saying one piece and then wait a year, but break it up into pieces, path of legal status, not path to citizenship, and it's going to have tough enforcement and enforce that time includes not just walls, but, you know, probably something sangt cities, all that stuff trump brought up, but there's a path, but again, it's a tricky path. >> give us your name please. >> you answered my first question which was have the
advocacy groups done disservice to the immigrant community by not advocating the things that they should be advocating instead making this immigration issue about one voting black, one group of people and primarily i understand that most immigrants in this country are today from a lack of origin, but by making it just about them is doing a disservice to immigration reform. second, addressing the fact that i came to this country ten years ago and probably viewing what is happening during this election and probably came down from mast, so i am removed from the whole thing. not democrat, not republican. seeing a candidate who has taken
you along this head spinning ride on just one single issue, and i have talked to many other people on different policy issues who have had their heads spinning as well. and we're not electing a president of a country like west africa, who has no power in the world. but electing the president of the united states who can make one decision today and destroy the whole earth. >> let me try and put the question. i think that the question, if i'm not mistaken, is there too much focus in this debate on the latino community within the as subdivision within the overall immigration debate or have them receive as much focus as they do? that the first part? >> my last comment and question is just two word, few words, in a republican party, what is the
debate right now in terms of if we are state men or state men and women between these two candidates, which one is the best choice in terms of -- >> correct, correct. thank you. they are not easy questions. let me see if i can provide a short answer. you know the first question is something that i've thought about. the problem with washington with any issue is that movements are created. and sometimes the movements have a reality of their own. and because i am part of the group, i have to agree with what the consensuses of the movement. rather than thinking of the principles. look, i've, you know, what is immigration reform movement? i know a lot of advocates. i see that there's an immigration reform movement that is of the left where there is a lot of agreement, a lot of consensus. i disagree with many of the
things that they believe in. i think that there are people in the immigration reform movement that have views, yes, the issue of immigration politically in alliance with the democratic party to push this simplistic vision that republicans are bad on immigration and democrats are good. why not to want generalize. there are many good people in the left in immigration reform movement that are really concerned and committed to immigration reform. but sometimes i feel that there are many also who are more concerned about the movement than the issue. and look, i'm a conservative, a lot of my conservative colleagues are saying, what are you doing? you're not going to support mr. trump, what is the alternative? how can i support mr. trump? at the end it's the question of issues and principles. yes, i think a lot of advocates, not just a few, have, i think,
because of their commitment to the democratic party and liberal ideology help use immigration to for political purposes to try to help the democrats get the latino vote. that i believe. in the same way that on the republican side, there are many who perhaps believe in immigration, but have remained silent, afraid of angering rush limbaugh or laura ink gram instead of being courageous. on the second question, it's a very difficult question. and i'm not a one issue person. what i'm telling latino voters, and again, i don't represent to claim latinos. we have too many groups around this town that go around saying they are a % of latinos. i'm here only to say there are latinos that are conservative. an what i'm going to do and what i encourage others to do as latino voters is come out and vote in record in your opinions.
we have to come out and vote in republican numbers, however, you don't have to choose a candidate. i will never vote for hillary clinton, not over immigration, many issues that i disagree with her. so what would i do, i will vote and i will generally vote republican, but in the presidential ballot, i will leave that part of the ballot blank, and that's a valid vote. and perhaps it's actually a fitting vote because both have played politics with this issue. and when you look at polling of hispanics over and over again, they say the majority that they're not affiliated with one party or the other. they're voting democratic because they feel an tag nietzed by republican politicians, but they still have concerns with a lot of policy positions of the democrats. i think that's very healthy. that's what i would recommend. that is what i'm going to do. >> this gentlemen and then we're going to wrap it up. >> my name is chris, i'll present my question after an
anecdote. i was ten years old in california when prop 187 was being debated. my mother was undocumented, and i remember -- and she was actually legalized in 1986 because of that law. and i remember wondering why my people were being demonized by the republican party. and i remember my grandmother saying -- [ speaking foreign language ] and that left a very long impression for me and lifelong democrat and that will switch because of what the republican did in california. so here's my question, there are going to be ten-year-olds right now who are latinos, they're watching this campaign. they may have a similar reaction to conservatives as the republican movement. you guys are talking about ideas. but i'm talking about emotions and historical memory. their grandparents and parents will be talking about this for generations and for years to come. how are you going address that? because i think you guys aren't
addressing that question. our communities do not forget. [ speaking foreign language ] >> i think that's exactly right. and it's something aye 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. and the trend was somewhere between 30% and up to 45% or so in presidential races were voting republicans. then you had prop 187 and bob dole drew before to 30%. a senator who was previously a senator and considered a moderate republican jumped on that 187 band wagon. and it essentially turned.
california into a blue state. and it will never, i don't think, get out of that position. and it is, in large part because of that feeling of disrespect. and i think it's going to be extremely difficult which is why as a republican, as a conservative, as somebody who believes that the republican party more represents my principles on a variety of issues and the democratic party does, i really believe that unless donald trump is defeated and not by small margin because then people like me, the never trumpers are going to be blanked, it's got to be a big defeat and then only then you see a real house cleaning in the republican party and hopefully, the party can get back to being the party of lincoln. it isn't today. today it's the party of trump, and i think it is a very big problem. >> let me just say also that the
governor that year lost the latino vote by a gap of six points. the governor the next four years, candidate republican lost it by 46 points, the next four years, lost it by 61 points, big gap between the latino vote. there was a distancing that was that occurred because of 187. in 2012, barack obama got 80% of the minority vote. mitt romney got 62% of the white vote. that's quite a contrast. there's something going on. and it concerns me because i'm not even republican for partisan reasons or because i want black people to like me, you know, i have been a republican because i care about my community and because the ideas work. right. nibble limited government. i don't believe in centralizing power and money in washington d.c. i believe that parents should have school choice. i believe we should lessen the tax burden on latino
entrepreneurs and the regulatory burden. nibble all of these things because it makes my community better, right. seen, but when we don't engage and don't advance ideas and when we're showcasing the really bad ideas. that's i think when latinos are turned off. look, we're very young, we're 26 median age while the rest of the country is 37 years median age. 90% of all latinos are born in america. we're going to be a massive voting block. so the republican party has no get it's act together and start engaging and driving pro-growth ideas that are going to generate increase in productivity in the private sector that generates jobs. that's the ticket. >> i need pushback however a little bit on this narrative because. [ speak speaking foreign language ] we're not clowns, but we're not sheep either.
the latino community is not a monolivic community. we had proposition 187, then we had george bush winning what, 44% of the latino vote in 2004. latinos are very sophisticated vote, different countries of origin, we have people who are multigenerational who have been here for many, many generations, people who have just arrived who may be much more conservative on issues, immigration is not the only issue. so i think that you're not going to lose the latino vote for a generation. i think trump loses the election, if you have a good republican candidate who's good on immigration. immigration is a gateway issue, good on immigration, constructive on the issue, that person, he, she, will become competitive with the latino vote. but this requested that you're going to lose the entire latino vote, we're not monolivic, we have very different issues that interest us. we have cuban americans, we have
puerto ricans in central florida, certainly 66% of our latino voters are mexican. we have central american, we 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 part parts of the country, it's a very california experience. different from in texas. texas, we saw some terrible rhetoric, but still, jon did very well, abbot did very well, who took some position that i didn't agree with on immigration. why? because he was supposed wendy davis, a candidate, who was very radical on social issues and latinos care about those issues. so i wouldn't make generalizations. i agree with the republican party. i've been talking about this since i started my organization, needs soap itself up to latinos and be constructive on the issue of immigration. but don't assume that you're going to lose the latino vote for generations. the question is, how many
elections of the republican party have to lose to get that less son? that is the question. >> that i think brings us to a good note. whether we'd see that rise from the ashes the moment that linda is talking about or alfonso is talking about, we'll see in the course of the next year or two. wie going to move right on to the next panel of refugee resettleme resettlement. please stay in the room and give us one minute to reset. thanks to the panel and everybody else. thank you for coming. [ applause ] we have more road to the white house coverage coming up this afternoon. donald trump is holding a rally in pueblo, colorado, c-span will be live with that starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern. some polls in that state show secretary clinton with a small lead. others give mr. trump a slight edge. and secretary clinton will be holding a rally in akron, ohio, this afternoon, live coverage starting at 5:45 p.m. eastern on c-span 2.
real clear politics list of september polls show donald trump leading between 1 and 5%. ahead of tuesday's vice presidential debate. we'll look back at the candidates, virginia senator tim kaine and indiana governor mike pence, using the c-span video library. >> i've seen this story before, i've turned on the television and seen the bad news of a shooting or a weather emergency or a famine. i've seen these stories, and there will be more stories. but there was something in the story yesterday that was different, and it was you. your spirit of even in a dark day of optimism and community and hope -- >> the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often than not for good or ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and it spurs the expectations of the other people. it's powers are vast and consequence shl. it's requirements from the outset and by definition,
impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to it's purposes as set forth in the constitution of the united states. >> a look at tim kaine and mike pence ahead of the vice presidential debate tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. watch any time on c-span.org and listen at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span radio app. the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they've always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with the vice presidential debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine tuesday night, live from longwood university in farmville, virginia. beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern
with a preview of the debate. then at 8:30, the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate, watch live on c-span, watch live and any time on demand at c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> and this picture taken yesterday at longwood college in farmville, virginia. as preparations there continue for tomorrow's vice presidential debate. the debate stage here under construction. and this is the first time the college has hosted a national campaign debate. go to c-span.org tuesday evening for the vice presidential debate on your desk top, phone, or tablet. watch live streams of the debate and video on demand of every question to the candidates and their answer. use our video clipping tool to create video clips of your
favorite debate moments to share on social media. not able to watch, listen to the debate live on the c-span radio app. it's free to downtown from the app store or google play. live coverage of the vice presidential debate tuesday evening on c-span.org and the c-span radio app. well this final portion of the immigration conference is on refugee resettlement, successes, challenges, and the future of the united states refugee resettlement program and international efforts. good afternoon, i'm a professor here at georgetown law and i want to thank again my wonderful colleagues from mpi and clinic for organizes these sessions. we're all learning a lot and we'll continue to learn now about refugee resettlement issues. you heard actually our keynoters, both our keynoters talk about refugee resettlement
already. they already teed this up in some ways. if you aren't familiar with the refugee resettlement program, it's the program where the united states selects refugees from abroad and brings them to the united states. and it was actually created in the aftermath of the to rescue in the chinese at risk at that time. and then it was formerized in the freenl act of 1980. since then, over three million refugees have been resettled in the united states and as one pointed out, the u.s. is considered a leader in refugee resettlement. and not in terms of absolute per capita numbers, but in terms of absolute numbers. we are considered a leader. this is also the program that was almost shut down by the white house after 9/11. and here we are today, 15 years later with new challenges that have arisen just at the moment
when the need to protect refugees is greater than ever. we have a great panel to discuss these issues, to my immediate right is anna green whose the policy and advocacy director for u.s. programs at the international committee. she will be talking about what is going on at the state level for resettlement agencies and all the players, all the stake holders at the local level. because that's where a lot of the concerns are being raised to anna's right is my friend and colleague, alex ayala in a, my former dean who hired me here. thank you, alex. who is also the former u.n. deputy high commissioner for refugees and now visiting professor of law columbia law school. alex is going to be talking about this from a global perspective and also somebody whose been familiar with the refugee resettlement program for
a long time. it l take us back into the larger context and also talked about the implications of what's going on right now. and to his right is professor kevin who is at the temple university fox school of business. kevin has written a really thoughtful legal analysis of the challenge the actual legal challenges that states have made to the federal government over their concerns about resettling refugees in their states. indiana and texas being two of the principle ones. . give us the summary of those challenges. then we'll move to anna and finally to alex. >> thank you for the invitation. good afternoon, everyone.
so the inspiration for the article that i wrote was the number of law students that states have begun bringing the number of objections that state governors have begun making in light of what happened in november of 2015. as most of you hopefully recall, there was a terrorist attack in paris, subsequent attack shortly thereafter in belgium, and in the paris attack, one of the attackers who was killed in the raid, a passport was found on him that was linked to a refugee from syria. now, despite the fact that later on that passport was proven to be false, the reverberations of the possibility that a refugee came into europe and committed a terrorist act were severe. these, of course, reverberated across europe, caused a lot of countries to rethink whether they wanted to allow refugees at
all from the refugee region, but also reverberated across the atlantic ocean to the united states. where 31 state governors, the vast majority republican immediately raised this issue as a policy issue. this is something that the governors were particularly interested in selling to their people that we should rethink whether we to want allow freengs to come into syria. we don't want paris to happen here in the united states. so this concern, a terrorist and refugee is clothing and these objections that states were raising got me thinking. what type of authority do the states have? what ability do they have to object to the placement of refugees that had been lawfully admitted by the federal government. and one thing andy didn't mention, but you see in my pie owes. i spent many years working at the dp of homeland security most recently for i.c.e., some of my colleagues are here speaking, and i got to see a lot of
immigration policy from our own perspective. and i really came to understand well, i think, the federal perspective on immigration. but what i didn't completely understand was the state perspective. and that's what really led me to dig deep into this research. so, let's start with the recent news that just this month we admitted our 10,000 refugee from syria. that's achieving the goal that president obama had set fourth to bring in 10,000 refugees in 2016. now of course this is a far cry from what many other countries have done, this is very modest, enlight what have we've done in the past to admit groups of refugees fleeing civil conflict and andy mentioned the inspiration for the refugee act which largely coordinated with our admittance of indo chinese, vietnamese and individuals following the vietnam conflict. we could look at the port crisis in cuba in the 19 owl when we
admitted about 100,000 cuban refugees. typically what's happened over time is that when the united states has been somehow directly or indirectly involved in causing a conflict, we tend to feel somewhat responsible for protecting refugees from that conflict. in syria, it's been a bit different. our commitment to 10,000 has been much, much lower than in these past situations. and that's, of course, we're under no obligation to admit any number of refugees, our obligation as you probably know is simply not to return them to the conflict once we have admitted them. but we do end to admit 1,000 and various places around the world. why not from syria, iraq, where we have significant involvement? a lot of refugees this becomes a political question. states are concerned about these particular individuals being in
their communities. so let me focus for a moment on what the federal government is doing to try to ensure that states are protected against potential terrorists and refugees clothing. first is the federal refugee program, which has screening process that allows us for up to almost two years to go through a very extensive background check. do a number of different agencies. a number of reviews, a number of interviews, before the refugee is admitted into the country. now that is much different than the background evaluation for other immigrants, non-imdwrant tourists coming to the united states in my opinion, there is a much more significant tlask there you would find a potential terrorist and refugee clothing, but certainly not through the refugee program. which is much more rigorous. now once a refugee is approved overseas by the office refugee resettlement, orr, they are the
fromt then will coordinate with agencies in the local states to try to find an appropriate place for that refugee to live. this has gone on very well for almost 40 years now. and with syrian refugees, it's been particularly amenable because we have about 150,000 syrian former refugees already living here in the united states. all around the world. a large portions in california and texas and here in the northeast, seen, matching up incoming refugees with communities or family members, it becomes a much easier process. facilitates the integration and as you heard on the last panel, the assimilation of these individuals. but this program is completely federal. throughout time, we -- since the late 19th century, the supreme court has been very clear too immigration is a federal issue and throughout the next 50 years
a number of states tried to get involved to play somehow in the immigration game and i go through a full case analysis in my article. but this is a little bit different. because here we have refugees being brought in by the federal government. background check being conducted by the federal government. and the decision on where to place them made by the federal government. and yet, the interactions are all occurring at the state level. so the interaction of the refugee and the public schools and the public hospitals, public libraries, the use of some limited government benefits. the assimilation programs, all of the integration is happening in a state and local communities. and obviously this is this has caused some concern in these local communities. so the question becomes, what can the states do? what opportunities do they have to request information about these refugees before they're placed to decide who they would
like to be selective about the freenls that are going live in their communities. and the answer is pretty simple, none. they have very little opportunity to make those types of demands on the federal government. but, they do have an opportunity to coordinate. so i'll just let you know, this is what the act says, the federal government is required to consult with states concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the states and localities before their placement in those states and localities. the burdens obviously falling on the state or so coordination is required. as well, the federal government will reimburse the states and localities for any costs associated with the placement of the refugees in their communities. and this has been working out very well. but now the states and communities want more. they don't want simple consultation, they want the ability to say, if you can't
guarantee us that this refugee is not a security risk, we don't want them placed here. and this is where it crosses the line. so, a lot of strategies were attempted, i'll just mention a couple here, the first there were some bills and entered, introduced in the senate and the house, the senate bill introduced by ted cruz last year immediately after the paris attacks would allow a state governor to refuse a refugee if in their sole discretion, orr fails to give adequate assurances that that refugee poses no security risk. so orr, the office of refugee resettlement is being asked to affirm that this individual will never commit a terrorist act, is not a security threat to the state, obviously it's a pretty high burden for orr and they're not going to do such a thing. the house took up a similar bill, the safe act, oh, the senate bill i should mention is still in committee in the
judiciary committee right now. i don't see much hope for it. the house bill we already have some results here. this is the safe act, the american security against foreign enemies act. and this one would increase the already rigorous background checks specifically on iraqi and syrian refugees. and they would require not orr, but the heads of dhs, fbi, director of national intelligence, and others to certify that the refugee poses no risk. this one passed overwhelmingly in the house, largely republican and some democratic support as well. but provisionally failed in the senate and the president has threatened to veto it anyway, so again, this is relatively dead. but there's been another approach that states have take than you'll probably hear my co-panelists refer to and that
is to sue the federal government. texas brought their lawsuit in november of 2015, demanding more information about refugees that were going to be placed in texas communities. now texas communities. now, again, orr already consults with texas prior to the placement of any refugees there. but texas wanted fuller background information. they wanted to know in much more detail than orr was willing to give. in this case the district court judge entertaining the case dismissed the cases saying the terrorists could have infail rated syrian refugees and could have carried out attacks is hearsay. not to be one upped, alabama brought their suit shortly after texas did claiming that president obama violated the 1980 refugee act by failing to
consult properly with states about refugee placement. the government refused to accept any until fullback ground checks were provided for each individual coming to their state. the government dismissed this case just after texas was dismissed but alabama filed an appeal with the 11th circuit of a week. tennessee fassed senate resolution 467. this would allow their general assembly to sue the president in an interesting twist on violation of the state's amendment, state's rights. many georgetown students have been studying this in their com law practices. the tennessee attorney general who normally would have brought the case is there is really merit to make a challenge under the 10th amendment to say the federal government is abusing
its power to allow refugees to come into the country and place them in states. but nonetheless, outside council is likely taking up to this as we speak. yet there is one more approach that is being taken. and this is by our indiana governor mike pens who directed his voluntary agencies, the ones responsible for receiving and placing refugees in the states, to withhold funding. so he is not going to allow them to get reimbursed by the federal government. he's going to stop the flow of funds until he gets some additional information from the federal government. threatening the government in a sense. what made the news in this case was that one agency had already been in the process of placing a syrian family in indiana. the agency was exodus. exodus ended up going to court against this directive. and the district court in
indiana said this is a clear violation of the protection clause, given the directive was specifying people by national origins. yet despite all of these legislative proposals and lawsuits and threatened lawsuits, there's really no amount of vetting that i could find that would know for sure, that would prevent for sure the possibility that a refugee might commit a terrorist act in the future. we have a very rigorous system in place already. and so i came up with a couple different arguments in the article. the first one is of course federalism. the federal government under the united states -- confirmed later on by a number of supreme court cases. this is largely indisputable. extensive background checks.
unlike in europe, what we we saw in europe, the united states does not allow a refugee to come into the country until these rigorous background checks are completed. so we don't have any threat until we go through the full screening process. coordination with states is very extensive. orr already coordinates very well with the states, giving them information about the potential placements. and of course those screenings have already been done so there is no reason for them to provide any additional information to the state's governments. this is not an area -- the in my conclusion, this is not an area the state can act. they do have the ability to consult. they have the ability to quest certain placements. they lack the resources. they lack the community, for example. however, i surmise that any of these attacks, through proposed legislation, executive orders,
or even amends to the constitution are ultimately going to fail. they don't have the political support. and this issue is likely to blow over in the next year or so, in my opinion, as politician thes move on to something in a nonelection year. with that, i will turn it over to my esteemed colleagues to provide morin sightful information stkphrfplt thank you so much, kevin. >> thank you so much. i wanted to start by explaining to you a little bit about the irc, because most people associate the irc with overseas crisis and humanitarian assistance, delivery internationally and not with the u.s. we're best known for our international work. but we do have 29 field offices here in the united states. we have been assisting refugees, exiles to integrate and adapt to life in the united states since the 1930s when we were founded. we've assisted many hundreds of thousands of people to settle here in the united states.
this year, by the time we end this current fiscal year we will have assisted 14,000 people to resettle here in the united states. plus, additional clients that we serve from the a saoeulee community as well as other categories. so is i've been asked is today to speak about resettlement from the vantage point of what has been happening at the state level. so i wanted to start by repeating the statistic that the professor mentioned at the start. the u.s. has resettled over 3 million refugees to the united states through this program since this work started. even before the 1980 refugee act. 800,000 of those individuals have been resettled here since 9/11. and for the first several decades of this program there were a few constants that we could really rely auto. the first thing that we could reasonably rely on with this program is it was obscure,
unknown, and you no one really knew about it. this is a program built on a strong private/public partnership, on a strong foundation of community support. much of that support has come from a diversity of faith communities and congregations around the country. and for that reason, as well as for the simple fact that it is a managed and legal pathway to protection here, it's also a program that is long enjoyed very strong bipartisan political support. in that context of obscurity where not that many politicians even gave that much thought. from 1975 until the late 1990s, most refugees resettled were coming from conflicts such as the vietnam war, the conflicts behind the iron curtain,
dissolution, refuse skwraoeus from cuba, et cetera, where the ideological links and the understanding about who these refugees were or are was clear to your average american. what began happening in the 1990s, the program moved away from being a program which was really focused on resettling refugees along these ideological lined line toss the a program that began to diverse any and work along the lines of resettling the most vulnerable and most at-risk refugees regarding of their location. eventually the program embraced all of these refugees equally based on their need. and so we went from a program that was pretty accessible and understandable to your average american to one that was less accessible and less understanding perhaps. as we have more diverse populations arising.
certainly post-9/11 you have new national security concerns. you have a post-9/11 period where you have an economic recession where resettlement ass began to find the need for a graphic scope. so we're resettling refugees into really large gateway cities of immigration. we began to diversify. so we began to look for new places for resettled refugees perhaps in smaller metropolitan areas where arrivals of this population become more visible. perhaps from our visibility, housing costs are lower, et cetera. but where you start to create new dynamics around how this is view. and in the 1990s, particularly with the arrival of the iraqi population, you begin to see these anti-resettlement actors
come to the fore. some of you may have heard of refugee resettlement watch or other organized attempts to advocate against this program. and you start to see in the last several years the real growth of this movement and their alignment with other anti-eupl groove actors. so it essentially begins to morph in the agenda at large. with that being said what is happening at the state level. the professor described some of the attempts here in washington for the federal level. but we had probably even more activity at the state level in the last year. so many of you are aware that there were 31 governors who made statements against the program. seven of these states of the 31 took additional actions. for example you had four states, georgia, kansas, alabama, and
louisiana whose governors actually took their statement opposing this and actually issued an executive order basically instructing their state administrative agencies to do something differently. whether it was to cease providing certain types of federal benefits to refugees. all refugees or certain nationalities, et cetera. you also had one state, texas the, that put out an anti-refugee regulation. i wouldn't say an anti-refugee regulation, but a regulation that makes it much more onerous to take place. in these states where once the state refugee coordinator was essentially reporting to the
governor and was a state employee, you have governors that have said our state will no longer directly participate in this, which has induced the federal government to have to assign a nongovernmental agency such as the irc to actually take over the state coordination with the withdrawal of the state. so a lot of these actions have not been particularly implementable. as our previous panel mentioned, some don't stand up to legal challenge. for example, in georgia, when we had one of the first syrian arrivals who was denied federal assistance after the governor issued his executive order, the actual attorney general of the state came forward and issued an opinion saying this was simply not legal. so unfortunately -- or fortunately for the refugee, we were able to make sure that they were able to access that federal aid.
so all of has really been the executive action. but probably even the more active problems we have seep in the last year have taken place more at the state legislative level. so in 2016, the first six months of this year, we had 52 anti-refuse zee bills that were introduced in 19 states. a substantial number of these bills were copy catted. they were distributed through anti resettlement actors who had become sophisticated and well organized in their outreach whether they are state or federal. and also really accompanied by a very aggressive communications effort through some of the media outlets that are more sympathetic to this anti-immigrant effort. now, all of this legislation only resulted in one legislative effort in tennessee that was successful.
but it certainly required a tremendous amount of effort on the part of the local agencies and allies to try to stem this. so i wanted to mention a few of the main things in these anti-refugee bills. so what have they been trying to achieve? well, some of them have been trying to pa prohibit the state agencies from participating, prohibit passing funds through the state to actually support refugee resettlement. some have tried to restrict not all refugees but specific areas. asserting the right to veto. as our previous panelist mentioned is challenging the federal authority in this area. some of the bills that have been most trouble to go us as refugee advocates and people who are working directly with this
population, some of the bills mandated that refugees's personal information be shared in the public domain or suggested that the state could monitor in clear violation of privacy standards. one would make irc liable in civil court for any crimes or acts of terrorism by the refugee which would place them in an untenable position in terms of the insurance we would need. some of the bills have been suggesting that states have the ability to audit our programs in ways that are more, much, much more detailed than is required under the federal program.
having laid out that depressive scenario, the local response in particular has been quite different to the syrian refugees. we have seen a disconnect between the national and state level discourse and the actual welcome that refugees are receiving. so throughout a lot of this period, and particularly since the photo of the syrian boy on the turkish beach went viral last september, we have seen a dramatic eupbl increase in aid from the other resettlement agencies. and partners who have stepped up to come to the table to partner with us. if you look at the corporate partnership for refugee resettlement you'll see many big names like airbnb, trip adviser,
western union, microsoft, linkedin. but there's many, many corporate partners that are lesser known names that have really stepped forward in different locations to support refugee resettlement agencies, whether it's through donations, trying to help us find more affordable housing models, et cetera. we have also seen amazing community responses in the face of what we do believe are still isolated incidents of hate against refugees. we had a syrian family in tucson who unfortunately within a few weeks of arrival had to be moved from their house because they received a very threatening note on their door from an unknown person in the community. that provoked an outpouring of support. we had a family receiving dozens and dozens of letters
responsibspontaneously sent by f the community that they were welcomed there and the wider community wanted them to be there. the other element which this whole situation really provoked is perhaps new ways of working at the state and local level. you know, before the threats against the resettlement program, really a lot of advocacy, certainly the lobbying that this community has done, was quite separate from our immigrants rights colleagues. and what this fight has really proven is we really need all the allies at the table. well, all of the resettlement agencies really around the country, especially in light of these state legislative threats, have really found the need and the utility in reaching out to allies from the immigrants's rights community and the wider civil rights and civil liberties community.
we have demonstrated in a year how have we can go in those partnerships. it was partnerships we were able to mobilize to make sure only one of those 52 bills or resolutions was passed. just to finalize by saying, you know, what has really worked in the face of all of these threats. in terms of advocacy tactics, the first thing that we would have to occur to as a tactic is rampant in misinformation. misinformation and misunderstanding of who refugees are, how they are screened, what happens when they arrive, what kinds of assistance they receive, how quickly they become self-sufficient. how quickly they move off government assistance, et cetera. we have had to stretch ourselves in terms of national information gathering and national sharing across the network. again, in order no mobilize this pro immigrant and civil rights and civil liberties partners we
have had to really double down on intel gathering and our analysis of these state bills to share with folks so they can really use that information as they would like to at the state level. we have done a lot of support of local actors to make sure that hral rights organizations want to be active on this issue have the access they need about refugee resettlement, which is an obscure topic. and human rights first, they have done a great job at mobilizing novel voices, security validators, veterans that are pro refugee resettlement. a lot of this type of work of trying to mobilize notable voices that can speak to the utility and importance of this program and why refugees are not a threat. finally, just a tremendous amount of media work we have
been doing. we need to do much more of lifting up that community support and demonstrating how much support there is a lot a community level, as well as telling refugee stories. not just about why they fled, why they're deserving of protection, but telling their stories as they integrate here and as they have the successes, as they become not just economically self-sufficient but really contribute to our communities of this is all to say we have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us. the political narrative placing refugees at the center of this toxic -- i'm a little bit less optimistic than my colleague kevin about whether this will go away in a year. i think to a certain extent, to the extent there is anti-immigrant grassroots activism in the states, many of those state's refugees will be part of that agenda. so i think we have quite a bit of work ahead of us. thank you. >> thank you, anna.
alex, help us understand what's going on. >> yeah, thanks. kevin said we had no obligation to admit refugees. that's curious. it does a norm against return. think about the cost of resettlement. average of 10 and 15, 20 thousand dollars a refugee. the united states takes in 80,000 refugees, that's a billion dollars a year spent on refugee resettlement. the budget is $3 million a year for the care of 15 million refugees.
it is an interesting question why we have reis settlement. let me start with those. first of all, resettlement obviously improves human lives and well-being. for 100,000, 120,000 settled worldwide, they're in much better shape being resettled. they are called a protracted refugee situations, situations that go on more than five years. the most vulnerable for resettlement and those taken in by other countries of the world. so huge gain in the welfare of
people who are resettled. secondly, there's an international duty on all states who are part of the refugee regime. and that's more than 150 nations who have signed a convention or protocol to participate in international burden sharing. right now we have a situation where peter sutherland describes as responsibility by proximity. refugees flee to a country near their home country and they tend to stay there. in the middle east, there are 4.5 million refugees in turkey, lebanon and jordan. lebanon, a country of 4 million citizens has 1 million refugees. so when kevin talks about the low number of 10,000 syrian refugees that have been taken it, you can contrast that to the 1 million in lebanon. so there is a duty to spread some of that around the world.
you can do it in a couple ways. do it by having noncontiguous countries give money. paying 40% of the operating budget. the other way to do that is through dramatic resettlement programs. i think if you had dramatic resettlement out of turkey, lebanon, jordan since the beginning of the refugee flow out of syria, you would not see the 1 million people attempting to bibi boat and smuggling if there had been an orderly settle. program. thirdly, there is a benefit to the receiving states. we tend to think what's the cost of bringing in a refugee. but there is a big benefit to the receiving states.
unhr used to have shirts that said einstein was a refugee. so people come in and work in all levels of society. but 80,000 a year has no impact on the economic system of the united states. it is not a cost to the u.s. but not an obvious benefit. it goes much more to our values as to who we are as a country. imagine the governors saying we will not take refugees into our state. this is not a serious political position. they are plainly illegal under the constitution of the united states. it's purely political. but what an awful and ugly political statement to be making in a country built on the notion of protecting refugees. to say no to refugees. we know all the history of st. louis and all the way back through our history when we have done that. it is one thing to talk about
building walls. it's another thing to the talk about torpedoing ships, it seems to me. anyway, let me move on. in saying we should be taking refugees, resettlement does have a cost in the global system -- if there are robust resettlement, first asylum will provide disincentives to return home. many people in refugee camps around the world who will stay for a long time upon the hope they will be resettled. their chances are like winning the lottery. if it's 100,000 a year for 50 million refugees, it's a slight chance. but the benefits are so huge, it may have an impact. and perhaps it induces departures. people may leave and go to a
place where they can apply to the resettling country. we have to be realistic about the costs but on a much larger picture it seems to be the benefit of resettlement programs or much larger than any of these kinds of costs. >> i actually want to talk about an opportunity in the remaining here. that's a private sponsorship of resettlement. the program being described is our public model which brings anywhere from 50, 80, hopefully next year 100,000 refuse zees to the united states. i hope demand and supply for refugees is far higher. what i mean is the number of people who would like to be resettled in the united states obviously higher. and i think the generosity of the american people is far more generous. if we could tap in to say to