tv 2013 Year in Review Immigration CSPAN December 31, 2013 12:00pm-1:01pm EST
successful fundraisers in congress, for that reason. >> but at a certain point, it's sort of is throwing good money after bad, right? >> ultimately, and the presidential election, they cancel each other out. when you are both spending millions of dollars. iowa is a swing state. both parties are spending tens of millions of dollars and saturating the airwaves. they are canceling each other out, it is not doing anything. >> ok. great for television stations. >> before we think the panel for that discussion, i have a couple announcements to make. break -- we will take a for a few minutes. those of you who are signed up for lunch will have lunch next door. right in the room through the wall, don't go through the wall, go through the door.
[laughter] some students that are interested in the masters in applied politics program here at the university of akron. they are preserved tables at the front where we can provide you with information. finally, as you may have noticed in your toe bags, -- tote bags. i have been told on pain of death to ask you to fill out your a violation form. -- your evaluation form. klees joined me in thanking linda and the panel -- please join me in thanking linda and the panel. [applause] >> all this week, but tv is in prime time. tv.ook tonight, memoirs and biographies. malala," "men we
reaped," "book of ages." book tv, all this week in prime time on c-span2. 50th anniversary commemorations. eastern, highlights from the ceremony remembering the march on washington. after that, an event held in memory of four african-american girls killed in birmingham, alabama. finally, we take you to dealey plaza in dallas for a ceremony or numbering the 50th anniversary of the assassination of president john f. kennedy. american history tv, all this week in prime time on c-span3. ladies" continues tonight with a look at the life and career of pat nixon.
she traveled abroad more than any first lady before her and let efforts to require -- to acquire art for the white house. she offered her husband support when the watergate scandal broke. the life and times of pat nixon, tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can listen on c-span radio. on fire.rld is moving extremely fast. in computer science, my education expires after five years to 10 years. everything is new, facebook and twitter are new. new programming languages. historically, we have sliced human life into three or four or five slices. a play phase, a learned phase, a work phase, a resting phase afterwards. maybe eventually dying. what we should be doing is interweaving these phases, play, rest at the same
time. the world moves so fast, we cannot afford having a single set of education and we have to stay up to date. >> new year's day just before 1:00 p.m. and through the udacity,n, ceo's of footer, and others on the future of higher education, robotics, and data as the new industrial revolution. header tv, former texas -- texas senator on when the new helped shape texas. tv,merican history daughters of civil rights leaders and a segregationist share memories of the civil rights era. >> this morning, "washington journal" asked viewers what they thought the top news story of .13 was. the republican shutdown of the government. chris, the irs targeting tea party groups. spying.a
now more about key news stories in 2013 a look at immigration. >> from the west of front of the u.s. capitol, where one year ago, january 20, 2013, president obama was sworn in for his second term. during his inaugural address he , talked about changing immigration law and talked about it a great deal on the campaign trail. he also talked about it in 2012. over the next hour here on c-span, we will bring you more comments from president obama and hear house and senate debates on the immigration issue. and a conversation with alan gomez. he has been reporting for "usa today." >> you wrote earlier this year about the senate gang of eight. is it fair to say the senate took the lead legislatively this year.
>> absolutely. right after the election that the senate came together and decided they wanted to tackle the issue. what happened was, mitt romney got a 27% of the hispanic vote, you saw a lot of republican senators get together and forming this coalition and a couple people dropped out, a couple people came in. it ended up being eight senators , four republicans and four democrats that took the lead. , >> it seems to have a lot of energy early on. what happened throughout the year? >> they ran through it. in this climate we are seeing in congress, very difficult to get anything through, they had a regular committee hearings and vote and pass the immigration bill on the senate floor. that is something we have not seen too much of. after they passed that that is , when things stalled. >> they seem to have a lot of things going in their favor. you mentioned the president and his desire to see immigration change. you wrote in "usa today," an
article about congressional budget office that the senate bill could cut illegal immigration in half. did it help their case or move it forward? we will talk about the house in a bit. did that have resonance over there? >> it did, incredibly. one of the reasons immigration failed in 2006 or 2007 was from the heritage foundation that found immigration reform would cost the u.s. quite a bit of money in the services we provide to them and health care and education. this year, that was flipped on its head. heritage came out with a similar study. but the congressional budget office came out with a steady that it would reduce illegal immigration and the and credible financial them -- an incredible financial boon to the country. the taxes they would pay and contributing to social security and medicare. once the republicans saw it, they could say it is an economic argument for us. >> going back to your comments on the politics. mitt romney got 27% of the
hispanic vote. a number of senators must be up for election in 2014. who are some of those senators? for whom it is key to get .mmigration change done >> one center we saw was orrin hatch out of utah. once they werehe trying to get at the last second. he came over because they were able to do some things for visas.ch in utah, that is very important out there. he is one -- utah -- and hispanic population is increasing. you get one of those senators, southwestern, arizona, nevada and places where the hispanic populations are growing. they are really affecting the statewide votes. folks like hatch and others are coming from the region it has become very important. >> we will show some the floor debate in the senate and key hearings held throughout the
year including the judiciary committee. some testimony on the path of -- a path to citizenship. peter, i know you are deporting all the 11 million here illegally. assume that cannot happen. most people do not they are not happy about illegal immigration, isn't it better to have those who are here illegally able to work legally because they will be able paid a higher wage and wage rates for every body else will go up? in my neighborhood in brooklyn, as i ride my bicycle early in the morning and i see on street corners people were waiting -- day laborers who are waiting to be picked up. i guarantee you the construction workers picking them up are not saying i will pay you two dollars above minimum wage. they say here's $20 for the day.
these folks, because they are living in the shadows and desperately need money, they take it. my question for you is very simple, if, assume, we cannot support -- we cannot deport the 11 million people is it not better to have a system in our bill where people can work legally work as opposed to work here illegally which pulls down wage rates even more? >> thank you, senator schumer. 2 things. i do not think i testified at all that i am in favor of deporting 11 million people. i do not think we know how many are here. i am not in favor of deporting. i'm an immigrant's son. i support immigration, i am fully in favor of immigration. i'm here to tell you today that even if you regularize and legalized across the board, everybody who works, subject to the same standards and everything else, the construction workers you are talking about are still going to
exist. we are still going to have a sizable cohort of individuals that will take advantage of people regardless. >> isn't it harder to take advantage if they are legalized than illegal? that is very logical. >> yes, senator. on the margins. i live in this world and do this kind of work. i see it on a regular basis. -- we in a finished the are in a fantasy land if we think by a stroke of the pen because when something on paper, people are not want to take advantage. >> people always take advantage. you admit it will get a better but marginally, some of us think more. >> great questions. let me say, the important aspects go to the heart of the program. we really are creating in many ways -- in some ways, three brand-new programs. you have the blue card program. then you have a year-round contract part of the guest
worker program. and then the at will part of the guestworker program. we know this is going to be administratively difficult and there will be bumps and bruises on the implementation. this ensures that for agricultural production which is so important in terms of timeliness seasonality that there is going to be a maximum amount of time here before the e-verify system is kicking in and fully operational. so we can make sure that in these three new apparatuses are working and the caps are being set in adequate amount to provide the workers we need. time,es time -- it gives remember senator franken, these are small businesses out there on our farms and ranches. more than anything else, want to make sure that the small producers know the program and what it takes to get the legal workforce here before we get to enforcing this thing on every single farm and ranch.
and that is only fair. >> especially for the small operations. we need to make sure that e-verify system has an accuracy -- higher accuracy rate than it has now. i am worried that as we introduce millions of immigrants into the system, the error rate tends to get higher when you do that. when you run a dairy operation or other small businesses for that matter, you do not have a huge hr department like you might at other businesses. i think this is very important -- that we understand how this all fits together and we deal with our eyes wide open. to me, it is absolutely
essential that we do it at one time because everything is so interrelated. i am very pleased with what this is going to do again for our dairy industry -- half of all dairy cows in america are milked by florian -- by rather -- by foreign, rather immigrant labor. i have called for this to be fixed for years and i am glad that senator feinstein has made efforts to do that. in your mind, mr. connor, in addition to dairy -- by the way, senator, the chairman said something about you said cows we are only going to milk you seasonally and they don't like
it. they do not know what you are saying. >> they do in vermont, maybe not minnesota. [laughter] >> well, ok. i know the chairman is a dead head. no comment on where he got -- >> that will come back to haunt you. >> sorry, senator. >> has the senator finished his questions? >> i have no idea where i was. i wanted to -- aside from dairy, what are the two most important aspects of this agreement? >> again, senator, we have a problem in american agriculture today reflected in the fact that so much of our workforce is currently undocumented. for anything else that we have recognized the problem exists today. the status quo is intolerable. across all of the agricultural
sectors, the notion you are going to give us the ability to actually have a legalized workforce and that we know is legal and can verify that. farmers and ranchers are the most law-abiding people on this planet. they want to have access to the workers. they want them to be legal. more than anything else, fundamentally, this bill gives us that ability to be legal. that is huge. the status quo again -- what are the alternatives? i challenge those who suggest it. the current system is broken. we have to change it. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the chairman and thank the witnesses and thank all of you and senator feinstein for working so hard to get an agreement here. those of us working in the broader agreement were kept aware of the progress being made and the hurdles to overcome.
it is not an easy task. we all know. congratulations for working together on this and getting it done. when we launched the broader bill last week, i grew up on a farm and working alongside migrant labor. i know the motivations that they have and how difficult it is. and i know that they were here to make a better life for themselves and their families and for the life of me, i've never been able to place all of those who come here across the border undocumented and some criminal class -- it has never run true to me that way. i want a solution here. farm work is tough work. i made it off the farm with almost all of my digits. i lost the end of one. in an alfafa field.
i am in politics because i got tired of milking cows. it is a tough job. you cannot tell a cow we are not going to milk you today. i have tried. it does not work. i appreciate what you have done here. mr. connor, i appreciate working with you at the usda on issues and appreciate the work you have done. let me say in your experience, i know you have been working on a solution for ag for years. why is that so difficult and important to have this as part of the broader bill? why is it the easiest part? -- why is it easier as part of a comprehensive package? why hasn't it been possible to achieve on its own? senator, you are correct in that agriculture agriculture -- it is not a realization that has come about in the last few months. we have known we had a problem for a very, very long time.
we worked with senator feinstein on solving just agricultural problems for a very, very long time as well. i would say that history suggests that did not work. that the agricultural problem in and of itself probably was not going to produce successful legislation. being a part of this comprehensive effort. our negotiations have been very limited to the agricultural piece. we appreciate the fact that it is part of the broader package. there seems to be some momentum to get something done in this year. we have been talking and proposing solutions and in some cases, producing legislation for a very, very long time. this is been a problem for a long time. we believe 2013 reflects what i have described as the best chance in a generation to stop talking about it and finally fix it. >> can you just go on with that?
if we fail to reach agreement here, there is no agreement just with the subset of agriculture. what would the consequence be? how much of our industry do we stand to lose if we cannot reach an agreement here? >> the consequences are substantial. some of those i put in my opening statement. the status quo means large largemeans that a percentage of the american workforce doing nothing means a large percentage of the workforce is going to continue to be undocumented workers. people not here legally. it is untenable to the american producer out there. somehow we cannot get him or her a legal workforce. that is first. secondly, we do have labor shortages in this country. it is resulting in crops going unharvested and agricultural
production and i cited the case of the california study of tens of thousands of acres moving to another country. that pattern will continue if we do not fix the problem. >> in the remaining seconds i have. some would argue that if we do not have a foreign labor force, that simply means more jobs for americans. how does the lack of a program like this affect u.s. jobs or american worker jobs? >> several have raised this point. comment,rturo has a too. i know time is running out. this has been studied and looked at exhaustively. senator feinstein has been involved in efforts to demonstrate -- are we replacing u.s. jobs here? are there people out there that would really do this but we are just not paying enough or something is wrong and therefore, we are turning to foreign workers. it has been proven time and time
again, study after study, that is not the case. they will not to do this work. without this workforce, again, food production and crops will -- food production will go off leftnd crops will be unharvested in the u.s. period. >> why are we tying the pathway to citizenship to a guest worker program? i am not going to get 11 million illegal immigrants a path way until i get something i want. i want a new immigration system. i am not going to trust the afl-cio to give it to me after they get on a path to citizenship. our democratic friends are not going to trust us to hold everything up until we are satisfied with border security. you live on the border. i know you are as sincere a -- as sincere about this as possible. we have to talk about the elephant in the room.
every time we have this debate, there's always a reason the border is not quite secure enough. we spend billions of dollars and we got 21,000 border agents on the border and we're spending $4.5 billion more. we will have 18 drones and we're going to have technology that we used in iraq and afghanistan. we are going to have as a traitor that -- as a trigger that the comprehensive strategy is substantially deployed and operational. we are going to have terms that are flexible because at the end of the day, people on their side believe we are going to use 90% or 95% to find one problem after another at the border and we never quite get there. your desire to secure this border is my desire. the southern fencing strategy is substantially completed. to me, that makes sense. as senator corgan has expressed
-- as senator cornyn has expressed numerous times, fences are not the best security available to the country in some parts. in my view, the mandatory e-verify system is the ultimate border security because they come here to get jobs. as to the land-based exit system, the seaports and the airports have not had the attention the land-based system has. that is why we created a new system. that is a gap in the system. at that airports and seaports look at boston, that is the gap. on the land side, we are improving every day and want to do more. i am not against metrics. here is what i am against -- i am against having systems that can never be achieved. in my lifetime. i am for moving forward and make our border more secure. the reason we have 11 million illegal immigrants, none of them coming from canada, it's because the people come here from the south end of your stay their
visas. they come from very distressed parts of the world. if you can control who gets a job, you are going to control illegal immigration. you cannot build a fence high enough if you are still having availability of jobs in america to illegal immigrants. so we are going to do two things we have never done before. we are going to enhance border security by spending more money and technology and finally, address the cause of this problem -- controlling who gets a job. under this bill, if you are an employer and you hire somebody illegally, you are going to jail or lose your business. that is long overdue. >> mr. chairman. >> on schumer number five. we could have a voice vote. >> if i could respond briefly to my friend. drug cartels and human traffickers do not use e verify.
>> what did he say? >> drug cartels and human traffickers do not use e verify. they do not use entry/exit system. i do not doubt the sincerity of what the gang has proposed. here is even more fundamental problems. the border security trigger calls for a plan. it does not call for results. >> willie gentlemen -- -- will the gentleman -- >> i am david vitter and i am really pleased to join the tea party patriots here today and all of their guests you are going to hear from. in particular, once you hear from them, you will see that we all support america as a nation of immigrants and fixing, truly fixing, our broken immigration system.
this is where we are in regards to this bill. this gang of eight bill was supposed to come to the senate and essentially sailed through with over 60 votes. then, once it was actually introduced and debated, that support started to erode and a lot of legitimate concerns started to arise. i do not think it has the 60 votes right now as we speak without an amendment. now, we are going to plan b. is to bringplan b evenhis corker-ho amendment very quickly and have a lot of hoopla about border security and try to pass it and then with that amendment over 60 votes. again, it is important that we look at the details. let's read it before we vote on it. once the american people do they , will understand and the same
thing they came to understand about the underlying bill, it does not truly fix the problem. for two main reasons. first of all, an immediate amnesty and the legalization happen first and only after that are their promises of enforcement. secondly, because all they he --certainly, and secondly, in the corker-hoeven bill, all there is is spending money. there is no measurement of success of results of actually securing the border. they have rejected our having any verifiable measurement of securing the border. those are the two big problems with underlying the bill and that remain the two big problems with this amendment. i will be pushing so we can read and understand the amendment. the american people need to be able to read and understand and the amendment. then, let's have a full debate and vote. thank you.
>> anyone in the chamber wishing to change their vote? before the chair announced a vote, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate. the yays are 68 and the nays are 32. the bill as amended is passed. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander? [chanting] >> yes, we can! yes, we can! >> the sergeant of arms will restore order in the gallery. the sergeant of arms will restore order in the gallery. >> we are back with alan gomez
of "usa today," talking about immigration. our year in review. we sell the senate floor debate. what about in the house, you conservatives trying to sway members of the house gop. how far did they get? >> not very far. at the same time, for them to say it is not dead is progress for them. what you saw was a different tactic that they were pushing this year. in previous fights, it was a traditional hispanic advocacy groups. immigration supporters pushing for reform and that was counterbalanced by people on the traditional right, u.s. chamber of commerce and other groups like that. what you've seen this time around is a collection of bibles, badges and businesses. you have religious leaders, law enforcement leaders, and business owners putting the pressure on republicans.
this has created more space for republican to give them cover. they can say my pastor is on board, it is ok. the chamber down here is ok with it, let's go forward. that has been a big change. it has gotten to the point that house leadership still said that at the end of 2013, they wanted to get something going moving forward. >> in terms of that, they want to get something going, what has stopped them from getting something on the floor? >> who knows? the senate passed their bill in june. ever since, the house has looked at it and what they refer as a piecemeal instead of a big, comprehensive a bill that is everything into account, they pass smaller bills. three of them have to do with immigration enforcement and 2 have to do with revamping the legal immigration system to bring in more workers. have considered those and they are ready to go to the floor. they have not introduced the bill that deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants. it has been stuck there.
for the last few months. >> on that point, it seems to be a key point of real opponents. the undocumented immigrants. what is going to happen to them? what is the argument of people like steve king of iowa? is, at ahey are saying time when unemployment is very high, why are we going to bring in all of these workers from outside? why are we letting these folks who started their lives in this country by breaking the law and give them amnesty? the counterbalance is saying it is not amnesty, it'll be a very long process. the one set out at least in the senate bill, a 13 year pass have -- a 13 year pathway they have to pay taxes and have to learn english and jump through all these hoops. before -- they get is the opportunity to apply for a green card. and then later for u.s. citizenship. the argument is saying why are we breaking in of these guys are
letting these folks stay here when there are so many america unemployed? >> you mentioned senators who have concerns in 2014. every member of the house has reelection concerns in 2014. are there key members in the house trying to work and those in favor? >> we are starting to see change. there was a bill introduced by democrats and the house that has garnered 190 cosponsors. not very surprising that all democrats would be on board. it has picked up three republicans. jeff denham in california, a couple of others have followed on. what did they are seeing, they come from heavily hispanic districts, some of them have their own personal stories about immigration. the problem comes down to the huge chunk of the house does not have a big hispanic group in their district or does not have to deal with the issue very much.
at this point, house republicans districts are 75% white. that is increased since 2010 redistricting. for a lot of them, it is not have a lot of hispanics. >> there is not as much on the line. we will take a look at some the house action from the past year. starting with representative steve king of iowa. >> it grants amnesty to everyone who is here. it's is an invitation to everybody who is been deported in the past and says to them re-apply. we really did not mean it. reapply to come back. it is an implicit promise that everybody who comes or after the deadline, they've also get amnesty. that is the package. everybody here and deported and everybody that gets here are going to get it unless they are convicted of a felony. by the way, nobody is coming out of the shadows that does not want to come out of the shadows. the people they think will be sorted out felons will not come
, out. they will live in the shadows. here is how bad it is. you know how badly i despise obamacare. i spend years of my life fighting against obamacare. i have stood here many times. i despise that bill because it is unconstitutional taking of our bodies, our health and everything inside it. it is terrible and it diminishes the destiny of america. if i have to choose -- if it came down to this, if there was an offer that you will do one or the other and you have to choose one. i would take obamacare and try to live with that before i ever accepted this amnesty plan. the amnesty plan is far, far worse. that genie cannot be put back in the bottle. we can repeal obamacare or pay for it. it is amnesty goes through, there is no undoing it. the genie of the left would've escaped.
he will be as amorphous as a puff of smoke. >> ultimately, the american people have little trust that that an administration that has not enforced the law in the past will do so in the future. immigrationreal reform needs to have mechanisms to ensure the president cannot simply turn off the switch on immigration enforcement. the bill contains such a mechanism. not only does it strengthen immigration enforcement by giving the federal government the tools it needs, it ensures where the federal government fails to act, states can pick up the slack pursuant to the act, they are provided with specific, togressional authorization enforce immigration law. states and localities can in act and enforce their own laws as long as they're consistent with
federal law. it shows how to avoid mistakes of the past with regard to immigration law enforcement especially the 1986 immigration law. the bill expands the type of serious criminal activities for which we can remove aliens including criminal gang membership, drunk driving, manslaughter, and failure to register as a sex offender. individualshese cannot take advantage of our generous immigration laws. in addition, the bill strengthens federal law to make it more difficult for foreign terrorists and other nationals who pose national security concerns to enter and remain in the united states. it bars aliens who threaten national security from receiving immigration benefits such as naturalization and relief from removal. such provisions are relevant following the boston bombing , where naturalized aliens killed and injured americans.
under the bill, no immigration benefits can be provided until all required background security checks are completed. another item that the senate bill fails to include. rather, the senate bill authorizes the secretary to waive background checks. mr. gowdy's bill it improves our first line of defense. the visa issuance. the save act lives up to his name and provide much-needed assistance to help the u.s. immigration to carry out agent'' jobs while keeping them safe. it allows local officials working in their communities to pitch in, the bill also strengthens national security and protect our communities from those who wish to cause us harm. a robustact provides interior enforcement strategy that will maintain the integrity of our immigration system for the long-term. i look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses and i think -- and i think chairman gowdy
for introducing this game changing legislation. >> the gentlelady from california. the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> thank you. over the past six months, this committee has engaged in informative and civil discussions regarding immigration law. with few exceptions, each hearing thus far has shown that members of this committee recognized our immigration system is broken and must be fixed for america's businesses and families. most of the members have recognized that deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants is not real estate and would tear parents away from children and separate spouses and leave gaping holes in businesses and communities. that is why today's hearing on hr 2278 it so disappointed. -- so disappointing. portions should be familiar to the committee because they draw heavily on bills we consider in the 112th congress.
provisions in the bill would allow people to be detained indefinitely and deported they -- based on nothing but the discretionary decision of the secretary of homeland security without due process. i am confident some this language would never survive constitutional scrutiny. the bill troubles may more because of how similar it is to a bill we consider in the 109th congress. hr 4437. this bill contains many provisions from that bill including provisions that essentially turn all undocumented immigrants in the country whether they cross the border or overstay their visa , into criminals. and every day they stay in the u.s., they continue to commit a crime. under this bill, every day and undocumented father or mother stays in this country to feed or care for a child, he or she would be committing a crime. under this bill, their family members may be committing criminal acts for living with
them or driving them to the doctor. this bill goes further than hr 4437 by unleashing states and allowing state and local offices to enforce these laws. every beat cop would have the ability to detain a person based on mere suspicion that the person may be unlawfully here. and be put in jail for being here. it is impossible without thinking about the lessons we have learned about what happens when local police officers are turned into federal immigration agents. we now know that interesting immigration enforcement to local police damages community policing practices and leave community less safe. it breeds distrust in the community from u.s. citizens, legal residents, and undocumented persons alike. four years, we have heard this from major organizations.
police foundation, international association of chiefs of police and the major , cities chief association stop -- chief association. salt lake city police chief testified last year that placing local law enforcement officers in the position of immigration agent -- excuse me, it undermines the cooperation essential to successfully community oriented policing. recently, we heard from a survey of latinos. 44% said they are less likely to contact the police if they are the victim of a crime out of fear officers will inquire about their immigration status or the immigration status of people they know. seven out of 10 respondents who are undocumented said the same thing. when victims of crimes and people who witness crime are afraid to contact the police, crimes go unsolved. crimes go unsolved, communities lose faith in the ability of police to keep them safe.
rather than making our community safer, something the bill purports to do. this would decrease public safety. placing enforcement authority in the hands of states and localities results in unconstitutional racial profiling and prolonged detentions. the poster child for this bad behavior is maricopa sheriff. the self styled toughest sheriff in america. just last month, a federal judge ruled he engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional racial profiling and the lawful while unlawful detention participating in the agreement with the federal government and the enforcement of arizona immigration laws. arpaio is not alone. last year, the justice department concluded that north carolina engaged in routine discrimination against latinos which included illegal stop and detentions and arrests without probable cause. the justice department entered a
settlement agreement with east haven, connecticut, following an investigation into widespread racial discrimination and abuse against latino residents. the case involved the federal criminal arrest of police officers on charges of excessive force and conspiracy. immigration law is complex. even federal immigration officers, highly trained and with decades of experience immigration law, sometimes make mistakes leading to the detention and removal of u.s. citizens. imagine what would happen when we turn over this power to people who cannot possibly understand the complexities of immigration law such as the rules surrounding acquisition of u.s. citizenship, derivative, extension, adjudication, withholding and removal, and it goes on. this bill turns a blind eye to these problems. that is a gross understatement. >> ms. velasquez. i think all of the witness that
have made reference to 11 million. i hear it everywhere i go. as if it is a homogenous group. we know it is not. you made reference several times to the 11 million. would you agree with me that those members of the 11 million who cannot pass a background check should be on the path of anything except a deportation? >> maybe those people do not notaybe the people that do pass a background check. i believe that there should be a pathway for the majority. >> that is very different from what you said earlier. my point is, all 11 million i pass any background check. all 11 million of any category of people, from preachers to members of congress, cannot pass a background check. why persist with 11 million, we know that is disingenuous. all 11 million do not want to be citizens.
all 11 million cannot pass a background check. even if you can't see that, we get to the details of what the check is going to look like. if you were sitting where he is sitting, if you have a conviction for domestic violence, should you be on a pathway to citizenship or deportation? >> i can only argue for my sake and my parents' sake. >> no, no. with all due respect, you advocated for 11 million aspiring americans. ms. rivera is not a back patter, the talking point of aspiring americans. i am not interested in that. i am down in the details. what does a background check to look like? do you think a conviction for domestic violence should disqualify somebody from being on a pathway to citizenship or path -- a pathway to citizenship? >> i am going back to that is up to you all to decide. >> if it is up to us, why do i
hear 11 million if it is one monolithic group? why? why not say what you said? there are subgroups that warrant different levels of scrutiny. for instance children who were , brought here with no criminal intent warrants one level of scrutiny. the parents who brought them here warrant another level of scrutiny. those who have misdemeanor convictions have one level of scrutiny and those allow -- those who have multiple misdemeanor convictions have another level. felonyho have convictions have a different level of scrutiny. why is that not most honest response? >> honestly, i am in no position to tell you who deserves what. i don't know what you would do. how would you decide that one -- 1% deserves something that the other does not. >> it is not hard for me. i spent 16 years prosecuting people for domestic violence. that is a disqualifier. even though most states consider that a misdemeanor.
with all due respect, the devil is in the details. the bright line, people do not have any problem with that. the devil is in the details. i am out of time. i will say this. all 4 of you who were good, persuasive witnesses. even if i do not agree with everything that is said, you are here in good faith and you contributed to the debate. uotes like i did today from somebody named dan pfeiffer who works for the president, i think the same who said the law is irrelevant. he tweeted out today that our plan is to allow some kids to stay and to deport their parents. he summarized his entire debate -- this entire debate with that tweet. i want to complement -- i want to compliment you and thank you
for not being a demagogic, self-serving political hack who cannot be elected to an advisory committee much less than congress. which is what mr. pfeiffer is. i want to thank you for not doing that and understanding these are complex issues where reasonable minds can perhaps differ. >> when the government shutdown and in mid october, the white house could turn its attention to other public policy issues. we will show you comments from president obama on november 25. we will bring you our conversation with jeff denham of california. he was the first house republican to indicate support for a path to citizenship. he was our guest on "washington journal." >> if we get immigration reform across the finish line and it is there, it would give folks in
washington to go ahead and do what needs to be done -- we will grow our economy and make our country more strong. we will strengthen our families. most importantly -- [shouts] we will live up to our character. [shouting] >> i need your help. please use your executive order to stop -- we need -- >> that is why we are here. >> obama! obama! >> you have the power to stop deportation. >> i do not. that is why we are here. [shouting] >> stop deportations! >> what i would like to do. don't worry about it. let me finish.
these guys do not need to go. let me finish. no, no, no. he can stay there. [applause] hold on a second. hold on a second. i respect the passion of these young people. because they feel deeply about the concerns for their families. what you need to know, when i am speaking as president of the united states, and i come to this community is that if in fact i can solve all these problems without passing laws in congress, i would do so. but we're also a nation of laws, that is part of our tradition. the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like i can do something by violating our laws. what i am proposing is to use
our democratic process to achieve the same goal you want to achieve, but not an easy as just shouting. it requires us lobbying and getting it done. [applause] >> immigration is one the challenging topics not only -- it is so diverse across the nation. the biggest issue is that there is no fiscal cliff. there is no debt ceiling deadline. there is no milk prices are going to go through the roof if you don't get the farm bill done. there is no date. we have to get the country to focus on this, we have to get the house focused on this and we are doing that with this new bill that i co-authored and offered amendments. to make a bipartisan. >> does congress need that kind of pressure to get something
done? will we see a vote by the end of the calendar year? >> i am confident will see a by the end of the year. they made a commitment will have a full debate on the issues and a floor vote this year. our challenge is we had so many issues, recently with syria and the fiscal shutdown. we are running out of time. we are trying to make sure that not only does house leadership know how many members are really motivated on this issue but a -- but really engage in the entire public. this is a huge issue. we have something out there, several bills, one in particular. that can show what we are for. it is one thing to talk about how many democrats will support something or how many republicans will support a pathway. until you actually have a bill, and you start collecting co-authors that makes it a , challenge. we are getting them now. it is bipartisan. >> earlier this week, you signed
on to a larger democratically led bill. that would include a pathway to citizenship. explain your decision-making. as well as the response. >> this is something i've worked on for many years. when the senate bill came out, i always said that was one major issue and that was border security piece. both republicans and democrats have come out after the fact and said that was a flawed issue. the republicans in the house had a good border security package. it passed out of committee unanimously, bipartisan, but has been added to the bill. we address border security and guest worker program and a path to earned citizenship. >> talking about order security, "the new york times" had a rundown of these issues. senate increases spending by $40 billion over the next decade to bolster border security.
adding 20,000 new border patrol agents. a 90% application -- a 90% apprehension rate. is that enough for you or would you like to see further action? >> i think there will be room for amendments as we move forward. there are a number of members that we continue to talk to. if you have an issue with this bill, tell us what it is an last -- and lets him then the bill and make sure we have a good working product. an example of that is my in list act, to allow dreamers to be able to serve in our military just as we always have. with that openness and bipartisan support, being able to change a bill, not only rare but refreshing in this circumstance. >> alan gomez of "usa today." some the house action from earlier. as a wrap up 2013, looking
ahead, senate has passed its bill. where are things going in 2014 legislatively? >> the first thing they need to do is figure out what the house wants to do with undocumented population. we have seen representative issa floated the idea of not allowing citizenship for them but in between where they have legal status of but can never reach the point of citizenship. representative cantor is working with the chairman of the judiciary committee on a bill to deal with the young undocumented population. those brought as children. those are the big things they need to figure out. they need to figure how they can deal with the population. everything else when it comes to border security and the system, there is a surprising amount of agreement between the two chambers. that is what makes it so difficult for the house and that is what we will see them working through. >> you mentioned 75% of house districts are white majority. you point out eric cantor and
darrell issa. some republican leaders. certainly, their districts have larger proportion of hispanics. alan gomez, thank you for joining us. people can read your articles at usa today.com and follow you on twitter as well. thanks again. >> thank you. in wrapping up this year of -- this year in review, we will look at a recent conversation on the history of american immigration and why the u.s. continues to see unlawful immigration. >> what we call comprehensive immigration reform comes out of the experience. it is a formula that says we will try to stop and solve the problem of illegal immigration by legalizing those who are here and putting in place mechanisms to prevent any future unlawful immigration. as we know, that did not quite work out. there's a lot of discussion as why that is.
irca was too idealistic and too lenient. in fact, the reason we continue to have unlawful migration is because the system put in place under hart-cellar, which has the same maximum for every country, 20,000, that means belgium has the same quota as mexico. it means that new zealand has the same quota as india. when people talk about being a long lines for visas, only four countries that max out on visas every year. only four. it is the same four every year. mexico, india, china, and the philippines. if they say you should go to the back of the line, for some countries the line is 20-40 years long. in 1990, congress raised the ceiling on migration by 40%. that is a lot. that was in response to the
economic expansion at the time. because every country gets the same 7% limit, the 20,000 limit went up to 25,600. a 40% increase in ceiling meant, for a country like mexico or india, a small increase. you still have the same problem of visa backlog and unlawful entries. i want to end by saying a few words about the most recent period of economic expansion and recent recession and how it has affected immigration. one is that the economic the structuring that took place at the end of the 20th century was continued to draw migration and fed anti-immigrant sentiment. you had a decline in manufacturing industries and
growth in the service sectors so native whites and blacks suffered greater unemployment and there was a new sector and service economy as well is agriculture and agricultural processing that drew a low-wage immigrant labor. the same period saw declining strength in organized labor. and a shift to subcontracting in get away froms to unions, which then hired a low wage immigrants. another feature of this economic restructuring was a reversal in the trend of distribution of wealth. from 1947-1974, we had a steady trajectory of declining gap between the wealthiest and poorest in the united states. since 1974, we have seen a steady increase in wealth inequality.