when we alluded to it at the end. could the panelists talk about the secured communities because, of course, the arizona law addresses enforcement efforts. and it's kind of a splashy news issue but secured communities designed instead of doing workplace raids on illegal immigrants under the bush administration now we're ostensibly going after immigration criminals. it seems, you know, this has been a program that's been expanding steadily, surely. and we've had a debate recently in the washington area about this program. it would possibly expand into d.c. and in the washington and hispanic newspaper, a free spanish language paper had an extensive article about this expansion. and it enumerated all the offenses for which people would not be -- not be brought into the, you know -- have their background checked against national databases under security communities so it

included things like minor traffic violations and traffic violations. it seems it's actually picking up a lot of people who are brought in for broken taillights and speeding tickets and things like that. and, you know, the national immigration law center is preparing a lawsuit against ice for these -- you know, for these violations of the policy that seem to have the best of intention bus in the end in practice it's actually having some negative consequences in terms of law enforcement and their relationship with the immigrant communities so i was hoping that you could speak a little bit about how you feel in your localities, your cities, about this -- about this program. and how it's affecting the immigrant community but also how it's affecting the administration of law enforcement. thanks. >> terrific question. gentlemen, who would like to take that first. >> you know, to me security communities -- if you look at shootings and homicides in new haven, of which we have too many and it's a continual challenge of them, 80% are committed and

the victims are reentry population, prison reentry population. you want to talk about secured communities, to me talk about what we're doing with reentry population. everybody comes back. talk about secured communities. 70% of them all involve narcotics. all involve narcotics. trafficking of one kind or another. you want to talk secured communities, domestic violence is a powerful issue, violence against children. none of these are driven by a failure to adopt an immigration policy or what we're seeing with a significant undocumented population. so i'm sort of dodging your question. but when i go out and stand up in front of hundreds of enthused and animated citizens, and you look at what i see happening in their neighborhoods and in their homes and on the ways to their schools, it tends to deal with

narcotics, reentry population and abusive partners or abusive adults. >> mayor gordon? >> i have to say that when you first hear it, secured communities and going after the hardcore criminals, elements that no one has any just about any sympathy for, it sounds like a good thing. it sounds like i ought to be -- it's been a justice who supposedly be more focused and target that particular element. the reality as the young lady mentioned, the policy and discussion we have whether at the elected official level or the chief of police level or the sheriff is one thing. the real life in the streets is another reality. and then the example i gave you about the undocumented mom who's driving her u.s.-born child to school and get stopped by a broken taillight and then ends up being deported with no prior record or no conviction or anything like that, is that what we want? it's a real thing. i did ask that question of an

ice person in one of the conferences. they did not want to answer that question. they talk about the different categories of hardened criminals and so on. now, in my state is what we call a deal and rule state. and that essentially is that localities cannot do that which the state doesn't authorize. so in other words, the state gives authority to the locality to do certain things. apparently most recently they entered into an agreement with ice. the immigration and citizenship enforcement to then impose secured communities in certain localities without having the due process, the public process that ought to happen whenever there's going to be a new assignment or a new task into the locality. i have to tell you if they had come through the county board this board member would have rejected this position because it's just not conducive just as we went through this budget one time around. one of the proposals in my locality was to cut community policing substantially. community policing.

now i mentioned earlier that today we have one of the lowest crime indexes in the nation, the lowest since 1960 for our community in large part it's because we have invested in officers being out on the streets mixing in the community as members of the community. in all kinds of meetings gaining the trust of all the residents that they serve and they have been sworn to protect. now, i'm not saying only protecting people of certain race or ethnicity or color but all the residents of the community having gained that trust and we prevent crimes. and when you have punitive approaches where it causes fear in our community, it is the wrong way to go about it. the many adjustment and more review of that secured -- so-called secured communities needs to take place. i'm glad to hear about a challenge in court. it may not be the other one but possible others if it's supposed to be doing what it's intended to be done.

if justice needs to be made, it needs to be done. >> any comments? >> well, just briefly. you know, arizona's law if it goes into effect at the end of july would mandate the opposite. while i tried to give it a line that we became a sanctuary state using the far right language because now officers will have to be arresting people that they have, quote, reasonable suspicion to believe their status is not legal. that then again prevents people from coming forward testifying. it becomes a haven for the criminals. i do believe that what phoenix had and most major cities had used to be known as operational order x in our case 1.4, officers don't ask about immigration status. they go and they don't arrest people based on civil violations, traffic stops.

criminal stops, duis. or crimes, felonies, yes. but they also make a decision on the street as to whether that person -- not because of their race or their language is going to appear in court. we call it sight and release in arizona and phoenix. if the person is likely not to come to court, they don't have papers, they don't have a license. they don't have a paycheck on them. then people are going to be taken to jail because that's the obligation. no matter what their legal status is. if they have a driver's license, if they have work stubs, if they have a telephone number, if the officer can call that they live somewhere, then why would you put somebody in jail for jaywalking or for that matter, petty thefts? that system isn't perfect. no system is perfect.

but that kept our city safe and secure for the fifth largest city in the united states for five years, even in this economy, even with the proximity of the border, part 1 and part 2 which is property and personal violent crimes. every category has gone down for five years. 15% last year alone in homicides. 25% a year before. despite all that. that's what keeps a community safe. so if there is -- by the way, an aggression on the part of an officer -- and no department is safe, our laws require until a state is going to prevent us from documenting all these arrests and stops and then turnovers to ice. does that make it perfect? no. but if officer gordon has 52 stops in turnover to immigration because of criminal arrests and officer jones in the same squad has one every six months, that's what we're tracking whether it was gay, black, brown, white or whatever.

i think that's what keeps our community safe. 90%, if you take a national average of all crimes, violent crimes, felonies are committed by repeat offenders. so, you know, somebody that's committing a crime, that's where we should focus. >> all right. thank you. let's take a few more questions. >> thank you. charlie ericson with hispanic link news service here in washington. question primarily for mayor gordon. what you've reflected on here is the same rhetoric that everybody has been talking about wanting to have things changed. but all seem to let the president off the hook on this. and i think you've done it here with this group here. here's the guy who can really

make change, who made a promise to the people, to the 12 million people who are really suffering because we don't have any law at this point or any amnesty if you'll permit the dirty word. when you came to washington, did you ask for a meeting with the president? do you feel you could have any impact if you talked to the president about this? do you feel that he is being let off the hook by the -- by the people who are saying they're for immigration? >> i can answer that directly. number one i've been to washington, d.c. three weeks in a row. 198,000 in the last two years. every trip is to work with the white house and congress and justice and homeland security. i met with the vice president 2 1/2 weeks ago.

i talked to, many of you know, the governor. and david agnew who's in the white house, the deputy. as well as homeland security. and i want to acknowledge, first of all, i don't think we've let the president off the hook. that's why you're hearing what you heard today including my call that he has the ability on the executive order to put justice in the department. i know for a facts that he is intimately involved. i will leave it at that. and that i have talked to him. and that i -- the words i can use is i am very optimistic that the justice department will be filing a lawsuit shortly. can i guarantee that? no. but i'm very optimistic. and it's because the president has directly interceded on this.

>> could you answer my question. >> i thought i did, charlie. >> did you ask for a meeting with the president? do you think you would have any impact? do you think that would be helpful? >> i've asked for a meeting with the president. i've met with the president. >> i think it's important -- we are not letting the president off the hook. on this or any other subject we need to take him with the press. with a stroke of a pen the president can do his part to get us on the road by putting it in. that's something that innocent people who may become u.s. citizens later may be victims of being deported at this time. remember, the president committed publicly in private and publicly and via video during the march 21st rally at the mall, he came on video to address hundreds of thousands that have gathered there to say

he is committed to enacting comprehensive immigration reform. the president does sign a bill to come to his desk. that is a goal that we have to continue to push. he can influence. he can push people along. and we need to influence him so he knows he has the backing of the vast majority of americans to move this forward. remember, the civil rights fight was not won overnight. it took determined concerted effort throughout the history, throughout the '60s and earlier to make sure that we move to the era of equality. we still have some challenges to go. but this is an issue that we will continue to work hard. and we can't just throw up our arms or also feel that, you know, this isn't going to go anywhere. now is the time to rise up. be optimistic. and keep taking on the fight and encourage the president and others to move forward on immigration reform. >> great, maria in the back. >> yes.

thank you. just a follow-up to charlie's question. yesterday on the hill religious leaders met with senator mccain and he repeated his talking point about border security first. although later he also said that he would be willing to participate in a white house summit on immigration. so i was wondering, mayor gordon, if you would press for such a summit, number one. and the second question, if you could tell us what's going on with the investigation on the rancher's murder because groups on the right are using that as, you know, yet another talking point for border security. and i don't know if there's a question on whether or not this was possibly linked to drug trafficking because apparently his ranched some marijuana storage areas there. i was wondering if you could address that part of the equation as well. thank you. >> well, number one, i

definitely have asked and pushed for a white house summit. and there have been meetings behind the scenes. and there is a lot of discussion on this with senators. with several republican senators that are publicly not supportive. but have been working on it. i know that firsthand. number two with respect to border security maybe i should lay first of all in my view on what i've testified for and what i continue to ask for and what i think makes the most sense. is, number one, people should understand the border of arizona is, i think, 800 miles long. in most cases between the border of mexico and populated areas of arizona, you have several hundred miles. maybe 120 miles as a minimum. so you have thousands of square miles of desert.

that include canyons that are thousands of feet high, mountains and rivers and topography. it's almost impossible physically to secure but having more agents and more helicopters, which is what i've asked for, and more intelligence and more cooperation with the federal mexican police which has been going on for -- these operations that you read about taking out the syndicates, which have been very successful, which have kept the crime down and lowered it not only in arizona but across the nation -- some of you may remember there was a big operation that phoenix police and the state police and the feds broke up three weeks ago. >> uh-huh, uh-huh. >> the largest in the history of the u.s. and it was u.s.-wide. so it's those operations that are the target where we need the

resources to secure the border. but even with that, unless we get immigration reform, it's not going to happen. with respect to the ramblers, you know there was a lot of allegations made. it was drug runners. it was immigrants. i don't think at this point based on at least last week there's nothing been released publicly. again, to picture what our border looks like, you can't tell the border. it's not defined. there's thousands of them. and whether it was immigrants or nationals, one doesn't know. but it's being use as a catalyst. i would say clearly the arizona law would have no effect had it been in place in terms of protect this rancher.

it dealt with only urban cities. it had nothing to do with securing the border. it's really -- it's a tragedy. and by the way, tragedies are happening all along the border. land is being destroyed. people are smuggling drugs and guns both ways. but it's being used to keep the immigration reform policy from occurring. >> the gentleman there. if you could identify yourself. >> thank you. my name is josh. i'm with the jewish council for public affairs. on a personal note i'm an arizonan native who recently moved. the faith community has been mentioned. who's been actively working on comprehensive immigration law. my question is what can folks

who's concerned what's happening in arizona who don't live in arizona do about this? and i guess by extension, what can we do to support communities that have done positive proactive things? there's been discussion about boycotts. i know there's controversy about that. >> you know, i'm going to be direct here. pressure your republican representative. both house representatives and the u.s. senate. they have been reluctant and basically have not want to engage in meaningful conversation of putting together a bill -- some kind of a frame that can have some debate on the floor of the senate and move forward. there's a bill -- there's some versions in the house representative through the leadership of congressman lee gutierrez. but i think by and large that's the ultimate solution that we have got to pressure republican lawmakers representing u.s. centers to get on the ball and

then start having meaningful conversations to debate a meaningful bill. now, at the local level, you know, it's widely known that legislating whether it's a town, city, county, state -- anything -- anything related to immigration is unconstitutional. it's been proven by several proposals in the country. it's been thrown out of court. i have to be more watchful today and always have been where we use our money and where do we spend it. i don't want to spend money on protracted lawsuits that go on forever that will divide our community. and we need to encourage those to put your resources and issues generate economic development by encouraging immigrants to open businesses, start developing more educational perspectives that people can engage in their community, civic engagement, citizenship classes to challenge the community. to be part of the community. this is something funny in a way to say. it's a play on words.

it's not what the county can do for you. it's what you can do for the county. it's a chuckle because it's a play on words. but when i hear what does it mean? it means the government doesn't have all the answers. they will in the participation of the people in your community makes it a better community and understand they are wanted. they are part of the fiber of society, that's the kind of thing that makes us is better community. we lower employment, we lower unemployment. those are the kind of approaches that, you know, in our local official world where through the natural association of counties and hispanic council around the country we focus on and not on the divisive rhetoric that we don't have the authority to len late. -- legislate. >> in politics i think there are times when issues become and

they're going to be dealt with. this is what you would call a right issue. and i think, in fact, a good place -- particularly for faith-based organizations, which are membership organizations, is whether republican or democrat is to create opportunities for citizens to engage this issue. and i know it's sometimes hard to imagine how little meetings out of the way places where there are -- well, i don't want to -- they're supportive federal politicians in place, i think any way to introduce this in a positive fashion into a public dialog is a good thing. and i think that's where we should all be focused. where could we create positive dialog about what kind of nation do we want to be? how did we get to be where we want to be? and we should take nothing for granted. when we were doing the card -- i'll never forget one sunday afternoon. and i sort of saw my job as

preaching on this and i worked it on my remarks and they started booing me. which was not in itself unusual, right? [laughter] >> the group i had spoken had been found as an immigrant aid society in new haven. i was like, guys, i don't think you could take it for granted. i think there are a lot of great organizations for faith based organizations. >> and i would say having followed this issue for years. it's republicans and democrats, there are some democrats that have been heroes and champions but a lot of them are hiding under their desks and hoping this issue doesn't come up. so as an equal opportunity advocate i'd say go for both. >> a lot of republicans have been good on the issue. >> it's a bipartisan issue, right? it's a weird one. and john mccain seems to have lost his bearings but maybe the faith event that happened yesterday will get him pointed in the right direction again. suzanne, i see you leaning there. emma, if you could just -- right there. >> hi, i'm suzanne from the

associated press. i have two questions. you sort of touched on this, mayor gordon, when a lot of the outrage are mentioned the tortures and kidnappings are mentioned. but we don't hear about any kind of federal, state, local effort to really focus in on that. and i think if something like that was going on in washington, d.c. -- in fact, when slayings happened in a little neighborhood in trinidad there was a big change in the police way of doing things there. so what i'm wondering is, enough being done not border security wise but within the state at those different levels to really focus down on it? i mean, if 300 kidnappings are happening, what -- is that still happening that that many kidnappings are happening? and the second question i have, you have a law about an antismuggling law, and when that was passed there was criticism that it would affect law enforcement relationship.

has that affected the law enforcement relationship with the community? can you tell me if you've seen any consequences? thank you. >> turn. -- certainly. one with respect to with talking and promoting the violence that does occur in arizona in this city of phoenix. we do talk about it. unfortunately, because it is primarily immigrants, undocumented, locally probably every other night you'll see some 15, 30-second coverage on the local television. but it became so common place it's not even in the local paper most of the time. it's just not getting covered nationally. a lot of these individuals by the way are police who have to come at the last minute because they're getting calls from seattle or new york or tampa saying their loved one is going to be killed or raped if they don't get more money and they ran out of money. so you understand the coyotes

are bringing them across the border, stashing in all types of neighborhoods, upper class, lower class, locking them in, in very unsafe conditions after they paid money to come across somewhere probably in the $5,000 range and then a new crew then extorts by call their family members for more. and in some cases more. so we are talking about that. and i hate to say this, because unless you're involved in the smuggling business, or you're an illegal immigrant, undocumented, you know there aren't very many citizens that are affected despite the fact of the potential for gunfire and other things that are going on. number two, with respect to the antismuggling law, any time arizona has been passing more and more laws and the sheriff does his sweeps which are just

as bad, unconstitutional. where he just goes into targeted hispanic areas and sends his deputies in and makes up reasons for stops, broken taillight, jaywalking, you name it, it chills individuals legal and not legal to come forward and identify where drug dealers are, where smugglers are, where these drop houses are. why because they'll be arrested and deported. yes, it has -- phoenix police have worked decades for a campaign called trust. and very successful. i'd like to say that, you know, we got 3,000 police officers in 540 square miles. that's about a police officer per square mile because of three shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. one officer per square mile. but for all the residents that are there, i then say there are 3 million eyes helping our

officers. ... the smugglers are going across orders. they're going across states. their very violent and now with the federal mexican police taking out a lot of the organized leaders, it's even more violent in the potential for real violence in any cd is great. and if not for the moral reason, if not for the legal reason, if not for the economic reason of

solving deliberation reform, it certainly for the public safety reason that we've got to stop this idiotic rhetoric and get a bill passed. >> on that note, i'm stopping idiotic rhetoric and getting it bill passed, i declare this done. but the issue is far from done. i'm hoping the panels can stay for a few minutes afterwards of people by choice questions. thank you very, very much for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> which are basically

chihuahua, and, all of these states are governed by