following on to john's reference how the media treats iraq, covers iraq negatively. my impression is that there is the sentiment in the united states, strong desire to see iraq succeed. and, americans may feel some responsibility for success in iraq, understanding that we pulled back too on our responsibility and yet we spent a decade there and we want to know it was worth it, both for u.s. objectives and for iraqis themselves. so i guess i would ask you, what is, was it worth it to you to have the u.s. intervention? was it worth it to the average iraqi citizen? what are the benefits that iraqis may experience now despite all the challenges that came with intervention? . .

>> than saddam hussein. that's one aspect of it. the ore aspect -- the other aspect of it is that people used to have pride in their country. now they are alienated internationally. more u.s. sanctions than anybody else, chapter seven and everything else. many class moralists are no longer there. moralists evaporated outside the country or internally. you have the university professor doing taxi service in

the evening to supplement. that was the extent of the household. so that was an aspect. the question, i think, is many for american -- is more for american historians to answer than iraqis, that dimension of it. but for iraqis, we now have an opportunity for democracy. we have challenges, and nobody's underestimating that challenges. but we have the big project ahead of us. we have extremely ambitious project ahead of us. to achieve that, people want to do it in their lifetime. i think it will take generations because of the legacy took generations. it's always harder to build than to demolish. in that sense, i think united states provided us with opportunity. was it all up to the americans? i think i will leave it to our american colleagues to translate that and so on. but i think for iraqis we have a

chance, we have a reality we have to work with, and also the legacy doesn't help us to sustain. so even now people are saying b b -- that's doubtful. people say we need to be more effective. let's have a just dictator. a just dictator. so even the dictator they have, they want him to be just which is impossible to do. so i think this is, people are somewhat educated better at a cost, and we're going through that painful process. but as i said in my talk, it's -- [inaudible] for someone that's not an american, it's not an easy rite. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. dan yell serwer from johns

hopkins/sais. i wonder if i could ask you to solve a problem for me. you've emphasized inclusivity as the outcome of the election. the prime minister's made no secret of his desire for what he calls a majoritarian government. this his campaign -- and his campaign has, frankly, been a campaign of law and order, security but very heavily focused on an appeal only to shia. there will be very few sunni and kurdish votes for the prime minister. so how do you reconcile his campaign and his interest in the majoritarian government with what you have emphasized here which is the importance of inclusivity? >> the prime minister is, at the end of the day, he's a politician, and he wants to be voted into power. so i don't see any contradiction

or any anomaly there. and he also is fully aware that the formation of the government you have to have the inclusivity, and you have to get otherwise into it. other bodies into it. so he's coming from that direction as well. you also have a situation in which people are saying we need to have a better sense of ace for decision make -- sense of pace for decision making. we can't have pull and push between the various institutions of the government. and be let me give you the a momly which -- anomaly which may reverse it. you have a cabinet which is more cohesive and at the same time a mirror image of that cabinet at the parliament which is very disfunctional. dysfunctional. so at the end of the day, the system depends on parliament for legislation and monitoring. and that's somewhat dysfunctional, how would you

expect the government to be effective? i think the prime minister is coming from that point. and it's not just the prime minister. i have not seen anybody who says we need to have a government in which every segment of iraq and no opposition party should be forming it. nobody's calling for that again. because everybody knows that they need to get more votes so that they have more power so that they can become more effective in governing. because the key question we have now is we've tried for the last ten years to be inclusive but also not to have anybody excluded. and i do mean that, nobody. now we're saying this is not working for us because of the challenges, because of the pace, decision making, security, regional issues and so on. and we these to be more effective in our -- we need to be more effective in our governing. however, the prime minister at the same time is a politician, and he wants to get more votes.

i don't see any surprises there. but can he form the government by his own bloc alone? i doubt if he even promote that. i don't think he -- [inaudible] and he's saying we need to get more parties, but we need to get some of the kurdish parties, we need to get some of the provinces' parties such as anbar or the others as much as i need to get parties from basra to be involved in the government formation. i think this is where he's coming from. if you look at it from a pure binary way, it won't work. but if you look at it as two stages, one for the election and one for the government formation, i think it can resolve the issue. >> we only have a couple minutes. why don't we just pick up on that, if i can. >> sure. >> one of the large goals the united states had in sort of 2004, 2005 was bringing people together. what i might take from your last comment is, actually, if there's less solidarity in the shia

community and less solidarity in the sunni community and in the kurdish community, that may actually lead to better outcomes. and it goes to what you were saying with the party formation. there have to be people in opposition. is perhaps one of the outcomes we should hope for out of in this election -- out of this election is not that people come together into blocs, but that none of the blocs prove sustainable, and there is a process by which people of all variety come together, there are lots of shia this opposition, there are lots of sunnis in the government, and we move into a post-sectarian organization for iraqi politics. is that something -- >> yeah. that's what i'm saying in a way. it's necessary for us to evolve into one in which policies are the issues not the background or the color of your skin. that's essential for us.

because we also know that -- let me tell you the reasons behind that. team building or teamwork is not a core characteristic of our people because of various other reasons. and, therefore, for them to form the government in bringing -- that which we call national -- >> unity government. >> that won't work. that no longer is the case because we have tried it. it has been a painful process for us. it might have been a necessary process for us, yes. but for us to be more effective in governing, to address the core issues of providing better services, the country is rich, but we need to move away from these numbers which -- [inaudible] people are realizing that. and they are saying we need to

address these issues, and that's where we're coming from. >> mr. ambassador, you have a busy week ahead. you had a tiring week behind you, but a busy week ahead as you get ready for the elections. we wish you luck. we appreciate you coming to join us, and we look forward to hearing more about iraq in the years to come. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> president obama warned moscow today that the united states has another round of economic sanctions teed up even as he did acknowledge that those penalties may do little to influence vladimir putin's handling of the crisis in ukraine. the u.s. and europe have already issued asset freezes and visa bans targeting officials in response to the kremlin's annexation of the crimea peninsula. russia's defense minister today announced new military exercises i long the border. president obama is in japan.

the president will then head to south korea, malaysia and then the philippines. he's due back here in washington next tuesday. dozens of suspected al-qaeda fighters were killed over the weekend in yemen according to yemeni officials. the american enterprise institute here in washington will hold a panel discussion on al-qaeda and u.s. security. you can see that live starting at noon eastern on our cap onnetwork, c-span -- companion network, c-span. and then at one eastern, we'll be live here on c-span2 as secretary of state john kerry will address the export-import bank conference here in washington focusing on the global business environment and prospects for growth. again, we'll hear from the secretary of state at one p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and afghanistan and india are going through elections that'll shape the future of both countries. the brookings institution is hosting a discussion of events in pakistan that could have effects on the outcome of both elections. c-span will have live coverage, and that'll start at 1:30 eastern today.

>> for more than a year, there have been allegations and insinuations that i knew about the planning of the watergate break-in and that i was involved in an extensive plot to cover it up. the house judiciary committee is now investigating these charges. on march 6th i ordered all materials that i had previously furnished to the special prosecutor turned over to them today. these included tape recordings of 19 presidential conversations and more than 700 documents from private white house files. on april 11 the judiciary committee issued a subpoena for 42 additional tapes of conversations which it i contended were necessary for its investigation. i agreed to respond to that mean that by tomorrow. >> forty years ago on april 29th, president nixon responded to a house judiciary committee

subpoena for additional watergate tapes. his response plus reflections from former washington post journalist carl bernstein sunday night at 8 eastern, part of american history to tv this weed on c-span3. >> a discussion now on immigration policy and border enforcement. a panel of immigration policy experts will examine president obama's record on border and immigration enforcement focusing on the potential for congressional action on immigration legislation. it was hosted by a washington think tank called the new democrat network. this is about an hour, 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> hi. welcome, everybody. i'm simon rosenberg from ndn. if i could ask everybody to make sure you turn off your ringers on your phones, that would be terrific. we have a wonderful event today,

one that is both, i think, is very timely and also will be very informative and, i hope, eye-opening to many people here. it's on a very hot topic here in washington right now on the obama immigration and border enforcement record. this is an issue that is driving the immigration debate right now. the republicans have said that they won't work with the president to pass immigration reform this year because the president has not followed the law and that in the beta he's enforced -- the way that he's enforced the immigration system has given them pause that he's a trustworthy partner in passing immigration reform and will stick with the things that have been outlined in pote the house and senate -- both the house and senate immigration reform bills. so the issues we're discussing today are central to the way the republicans are approaching the next few months and whether or not we will actually have an immigration bill or not. second is that, clearly, on the center-left, where i come from, the issue of deportations and

the president's record on this is a hot topic. and, in fact, just down the street in front of the white house right now there are dream, dreamers who are demanding that their parents get returned back to the country. it's gotten a lot of press today. so the issue of what is really happened with the, with border and immigration enforcement is really the singlemost important topic in the debate around comprehensive immigration reform in washington right now, and we're really pleased to have with us today, you know, three experts from across the political spectrum, people who are well regarded by people on all sides, independent thinkers who have done a lot of work on these things over a long period of time. these are no newbies today to this debate. i think what is new is we have a lot of data. dhs, let's acknowledge, has not always been the most transparent

and easy to understand institution in washington, and recently they've been putting out new data cut in new ways that has helped give us a brand new window on many of the issues that we're going to be talking about today to give us a fresh perspective and a new look at some old topics. and i think that's part of what you're going to hear about today. so in the order we're going to hear, first, from mark rosen bloom from the migration policy institute. any of you who have worked on these issues know mark's work well. he's been a longtime thinker and leader in this arena and, in fact, next week npr is publishing what will probably going to become, i'm going to predict, sort of the definitive take on many of these things that we're going to talk about today, and mark's going to preview a little bit of that paper but not all of it, because he's got to save some of it for his own event tuesday which i encourage everybody to go to. mark's going to lead us off, and then we're going to be followed by ted alsoen, he's been --

alden, whenever we have questions about any of these thing, we call ted to make sure we were getting things right. ted published this little pamphlet last year on illegal migration and the border, and he'll be complementing what mark had covered. and then finally, tamara ya coe by who is a great friend of ours, somebody who comes at this from a slightly different perspective, a leader on the center-right for immigration reform and for that alone i really want to applaud her for her courage and her steadfastness in trying to bring along a part of our politics that is not always anxious to move in some of the directions that we want to go in. tamara runs immigration works, it's a network of small businesses who have been advocating for a sensible solution to our broken immigration system, and we're really glad she's here today. she's going to bat clean-up, and then we'll open it up for q&a to

all of you. so, mark? take it away. thank. thanks. >> thanks, simon. thanks for having me and everybody for being here. so i am going to preview the findings from this report that we're going to release next week and refer you or encourage you to come and check out the full version later. and i'm going to focus mostly on three key trends that have occurred in the last couple of decades in the deportation system. first trend is that the deportation -- you know, u.s. deportations, the system has moved from one that focuses mostly or that mostly employs informal returns to one that postally employs formal removals. so let me explain what that means. when an unauthorized immigrant is apprehended in the united states, they can be deported in two main ways. one way, an informal return basically means the person is put on a bus or a plane and sent home. and the alternative is formal removal, and that's a more formal process, obviously.

and it has more significant, long-term consequences for the individual. in particular, it means they become ineligible for a visa for at least five years and in most cases longer than that, and it also means if they get apprehended in the u.s. in the future during that period that they're ineligible, they can be subject to criminal charges as a result of that removal. so previously, before the mid '90s, 95% of everybody apprehended in the u.s. was deported through informal return, put on a bus and sent home. last year that was 33%. so we've gone from 5% formal removals to two-thirds formal removals. so that's a big change. and that all by itself explains a lot of the confusion about whether this administration is setting new records on enforcement because we're talking about deporrations on one hand and formal removals on the other hand. in terms of deportations, the overall numbers are down, and the reason the overall numbers

are down is there's a lot fewer unauthorized immigrants coming to the united states. so there are people being ap rehended at the border and fewer overall deportations. but because so many more, you know, such a higher share are getting formally removed, the formal removals are setting all-time records. so more formal removal than ever, but not more deportations. that's what a lot of that confusion is about. but the difference matters a lot. so more formal removals than ever, you know, is significant. okay. second trend is that previously just focusing on those formal removals, previously almost all formal removals involved a judge, an immigration judge, it involved the immigrant going before an immigration judge and having a chance to sort of seek relief, and judges had some discretion to offer relief from removal. now most formal removals are administrative removals that are

handled exclusively by dhs. so in 1995 97% of the people formally removed went before a judge before they were removed and had a chance to seek relief. last year 25% went before a judge. so we've gone from 3% nonjudicial to 75% nonjudicial. the third trend is that a lot more unauthorized immigrants who are apprehended at the border are being charged with criminal offenses, immigration-related criminal offenses. so there's been a law on the books since 1952 that crossing the border without permission is a crime, and being in the united states following a removal order is also a crime. but those crimes were very rarely prosecuted in the past. when i say very rarely, in 1997 about 1% of people apprehended at the border faced criminal charges for it. last year that number was 25%. and, obviously, these criminal

charges matter because when you're convicted of a crime, you go to jail, you get incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. you have a criminal record, you become for the rest of your life, you know, a convicted criminal. so that's a big change also. so, you know, let me just recap quickly. three big changes. one is that we've gone from commonly informal returns to mostly formal removals, we've gone from mostly judicial removals to mostly nonjudicial removals, and we've gone from mostly not facing criminal charges to increasingly facing criminal charges. so those are all three sort of long-term trends. they go back to the mid '90s. the obama administration inherited programs and funding that supported those, and he kept all of them in place. so all of those trends have continued, and really all three of them have accelerated under the obama administration. so that's, you know, that's the sense, and it's a broad sense in which this administration has been very tough on immigration

enforcement. the other thing that the obama administration has done is create these new explicitly-articulated enforcement priorities and guidelines for prosecutorial discretion. and what that's done is while keeping in place those high-consequence enforcement tools, this administration has focused enforcement on its priority cases. and, you know, just sort of cutting to the bottom line, that's resulted in very different systems at the border and within the united states. so let me just mention that the priorities that dhs has identified, there's three priorities. one is recent illegal entrance including people crossing the border, another one is repeat immigration offenders, people who get formally removed and reenter, and the third one is convicted criminals. so the reason -- you know, the main reason this that is produced such different systems at the border and within the interior, at the border by

definition, virtually everybody who's apprehended falls into a priority category because they're all recent illegal entrants because they're apprehended at the border. so almost everybody at the border gets put into one of these high consequence enforcement pipelines. they get formally removed or face criminal charges or both. in the interior, many of the seem who get identified through programs like secure communities are not viewed as enforcement priorities, and they are not getting put into these tough consequence pipelines. so this set of priorities and these tools for prosecutorial discretion have really played out very differently at the border where virtually everybody who gets apprehended gets the book thrown at them versus in the interior where a lot of discretion is being exercised. so that's, you know, that's our broad overview. i can talk a lot more in q&a if we want to. [applause] >> great. it's good to be following mark

and thanks so much, simon, for having me here. i want to focus primarily on the issue of border control which is the ability of the u.s. government to prevent illegal entries, especially at the southern border with mexico. pretty much all of what i'm going to talk about here comes out of this paper that simon mentioned. there's some copies over there. it was co-written with brian roberts and john whitley. john was the aide of program analysis and evaluation for dhs in the second term of the bush administration, and brian is a fine economist who was working on border security issues for john. so these are people who spent a lot of time thinking about how do you measure the effectiveness of immigration enforcement efforts? so i want to make two points. first, there's no question that border enforcement today is more effective than at any other time in u.s. history. fewer people are trying to enter illegally than at any time in the past 40 years, and a higher percentage of those who try are being caught, and as mark said,

are facing much more serious consequences when they are caught. my second point is that the numbers and measures needed to make that assertion are difficult to gather and explain which is why there's so much controversy over these issues. and the problem is exacerbated because administrations tend to want to have it both ways. they want to do two things that are in tension with each other. one is they want to gather and report credible measures of progress, but on the other hand, they want to claim constantly to be making progress. so what do you do if the measures don't seem to show progress in and that's been a real problem not only for this administration, but for other ones. so as i said, the broad story here is absolutely one of progress. fewer people trying to cross the border illegally than any time since the early 1970s. and our research suggests the odds of being apprehended are much higher than in the recent past. so be you go back to the 1980s and '90s, you probably had a one in three chance of getting caught. and, again, what would happen is

you'd be put on a bus and taken back to mexico. today it's probably at least 50%, perhaps even a little higher depending on how you measure it. much of that is an economic story. we have a weaker u.s. economy, fewer people trying to cross and a somewhat stronger mexican economy. but there's little question that robust border enforcement, which has been steadily building up since the mid 1990s, is making a difference. it actually does matter that we have 21,000 border patrol agents now compared with 10,000 a decade ago or 3,000 in the early 1990s or that we have 700 miles of fencing that we have aerial drones monitoring much of the border 24 hours a day, on the ground surveillance systems. all that stuff does have a real impact. so why do many still claim that the border is hopelessly porous? some of this, i'm sure, is just politics. tamara's going to talk more about the politics of this. some of it is there are certainly places on the border where there are still high levels of crossings. ..

it was a problematic measure for many reasons partly because it relied on those subjective judgments but more because operational control to be was an inappropriate standard for all parts of the border. there are still very remote

parts where you see very few incursions into you don't want to be placing border patrol agents to respond quickly in those areas that doesn't make operational sense. the problem for the administration is that operation control didn't play very good story. so the gal came out with a report that said only 44% of the southwest border was under operational control, and that became the headline statistic and fed into the story that the border was out of control. so, the former dhs secretary decided in 2011 to stop using the operational control method. i supported that decision and i thought it was a good idea because i don't like the operational control metric, but the replacement was very badly mishandled. she promised something called the border index kibosh or any of us have understood that it was designed to somehow kind of throw together the low crime rates in the u.s. cities on our side of the border and real estate values along with traditional enforcement that

checks and come up with index out of 100 so use a border control * 73. those of us that never thought of it is a good idea fortunately and never saw the light of day but the result was that the administration didn't have a set of measures to tell the story and what it fell back on is what we call the afghan jet of the data which is simply a measure of the number of people arrested by the border patrol. it's a measure of the number of arrests by the border patrol in any given year. so there are individuals that are arrested multiple times. it goes back to 1925. since 2,000 the border patrol has been taking fingerprints so they know when people are trying multiple times what we call recidivism. the m3 engine is very good but they are hard to interpret so if the border patrol is making more arrests, is that a measure of better enforcement? that's the way the drug seizure data is reported, so more drugs

seized at better enforcement. but on the people cited is more logical to read the other way which is that falling apprehension means that enforcement is better because fewer people are trying and being detoured. they may not be coming for economic reasons because they don't see opportunity and they may be deterred by enforcement. i think that is what happened. if you look at the apprehensions member in the border is down dramatically. if you go back to 2,000 there were 1.6 million apprehensions to the southwest border. that fell after 9/11, and rose a little bit from 2004-2006 and since then fell to a record of 327,000 in 2011. that was the lowest number since 1971. so that has been a good news story for the administration, suggests the border is under more control than it's been in decades. as mark explained that small number has a lot of the border patrol to get tougher with people to impose formal consequent is one sort or another.

the problem for the administration with the apprehensions member is it started to pick back up in the last year. the economy has gotten stronger, the numbers have risen up over 400,000. most of that is central americans coming from the texas corridor but it makes it harder for the administration to tell the story of consistent progress that wants to tell. so to conclude, with brian and john and i argue in that paper is that this administration and future administrations should be gathering and reporting a large number of data. what is the help to be preemption rate at points of entry because they try to get between the entry not just between. between. what are the number of the vsat overstays? that isn't reported regularly. all of these should be a part of the annual performance report. there are challenges and i'm happy to talk about it in the q-and-a but it could be done. there is a pretty good model for how to do this. the border security results act

that was passed last year by the homeland security committee and the chairman of texas who is no softy on this issue that bill sets out achievable goals and how the administration should assess and evaluate progress towards those goals. and in case anyone thinks it is impossible to find a consensus on the topic that the bill passed the homeland security committee in the house unanimously. every single democrat and every republican on that committee was in favor of that bill. so there is an approach that we can agree on. thanks very much. [applause] >> hello everyone. thank you simon and everyone for being here. i'm going to talk a little bit, these guys have done a good job talking about the numbers. i'm not the kind of expert they are. i'm going to talk about the political ramifications of the numbers into the political ramifications of the debate. the first thing to understand

about the debate is you have one side saying we are not doing enough to enforce and the other side we are giving too much. the truth is the reason it can't get result is the reality resoly underneath it i kind of think of it as a riptide. there is a tide going one way and the obama administration has the tougher but the administration has decided to use discretion in places. and so it is hard to often tell people look at the data. which of those current system of those conflicting crosscurrents is what they are reading and what the numbers are as a result of. so on the one hand there is a big spending buildup and secure communities, there has been august the eighth of august to -- audits and the workers that were caught and there has been a very important move from end of permanent harassment of people in the interior to the much more targeted approach that we have been hearing about focusing on criminals and on the border. and to me, the most important --

that is harder to understand. there is this tightening and loosening what am i seeing and what is the result of that data. the most important change i think is the change that both of our predecessors have talked about the change on the border from the formal or the informal sending people back on the bus to fingerprinting them and putting them in the system come a calling it a formal offense so the next time they come if you get caught the first time, okay. but because you were sent back in a different way when you try the next time you are committing the same crying all over again and it looks more serious. they taketh much more seriously and then you are committing them real-time and the consequences play out the way that they are playing out. and, you know, in my view in the ultimate point here is there is more of a deterrent and the border is more secure.

ultimately i think that is a good thing. we want a system where they are ample relatively easy ways to come and go but it's extremely difficult to come here illegally and that is what the obama administration and all the changes we are talking about that is one of the consequences that we are seeing. i'm saying enforcement is good. i want to take a minute and speak in defense of enforcement as somebody who is a longtime advocation advocate and spent more than a decade looking to advance i am also somebody that believes that strong and effective enforcement is necessary. we live in a globalized world where high skilled and low skilled workers are coming and going. but so are the workers. 10% of all mexicans work in the u.s.. silicon valley would never have happened without immigrants. people talk about a day without

mexicans, imagine next to the scope without mexicans were chinese, the economy would come to a screeching halt. but the american people are not going to support that kind of interconnectedness and that kind of coming and going no matter how good it is for us economically and in other ways unless there are rules and unless we feel in control and unless they feel able that are coming in are people that we decided to let come in. they aren't going to support immigration unless there is a system of integrity and that means rules that are the foundations of a good system so today wsurgery we are in the erh data rules and on the consequences of the decades, unrealistic quotas and that sort of thing. as of today we are in the era that is prohibition where they rules are totally unrealistic and so enforcement seems to be onerous to the point of almost evil because we have these bad rules. but we need to be aiming for the

day that we have good rules and meaningful enforcement. and even in the climate like today, the prohibition climate, you can't expect people to say a total flooding of the rule is okay. i mean, reasonable people can disagree about where the lines are and what the obama administration's discretion should be. there are republican senator sessions that say there should be no discretion. we should be doing everything. i think that is unreasonable. of course the government is going to have discretion and allocate resources and it's going to decide what to do and what's nowhat not to do. and i think more effective border patrol is the more effective use baby republican policy of attrition through enforcement. for the deportation. but i also think that there are emergency situations. there are emergency situations where one side is going to say that is unacceptable into the other side can say that it's unacceptable that i think that there are some circumstances but

pretty much it seems to me at least most of the american public agrees that importing violent felons who think that is a priority, there are not many people that think -- i think the situation on the border is very important because once you have done something once you have been called to the crying and you have been sent back and then you do it again. most people think that is unacceptable. it's one thing to cross once but to make it a way of life is the law on the border and i think a lot of people say no no. looking the other way doesn't really pass the test of the public on that. so in the bottom line when you think immigration is good for america if you want america to remain you have to be leave in smart and effective enforcement. so in closing i want to step back and talk about the political ramifications in the congress of these ideas that i'm talking about. are the republicans giving obama enough credit for what i'm standing here saying is a good improvement on the border? simon says no they are not

giving enough credit. we are doing much better on the border why can't republicans recognize that. and i would like to put that in context because i think that there is a difference for many republicans in congress between a president having some priorities and making some obligations of resources. i know senator sessions and others complained about the location but that is one thing having priorities for having allocation will resources. it's another thing i have to take the law into your own hands and say that it doesn't matter i'm going to do what i want to do and that is what the republicans in congress feel that we are doing and not just making priorities criminals instead of, you know, mothers we are seeing this not an immigration but lots of areas created the president calls it a ten minute phone and the executives called imperial presidency and they see a whole pattern of it and it isn't just about the administration but it's about the labor relations board and the epa and the drug sentencing and we have a whole long laundry list.

there are 33 issues taking the law into his own hands and so the point is that when we can talk about it as well that's something where the president might have but instead of going to the senator didn't work unilaterally. i think in some ways it is justifiably so so i don't buy the argument and it is good to be here but i don't buy the argument that obama's record is really good now and the problem is that republicans don't appreciate it. i just there is some complexity to that. but even in those focusing on the criminals and adding to the deterrence to the legal entry to that doesn't make obama trustworthy were an appealing partner to make a deal.

so to be clear in case anybody has any doubt the road to the fix on immigration runs to the congress. there is no fix that doesn't include legislation. he can't do real reform allowed. and further the action on his part is going to be the kiss of death for getting bipartisan action passing the legislation in the republican-controlled house. it's going to be the kiss of death for this year and the next two years and if obama acts alone it's just over. you have to see this from the republican point of view. they see this as a trade. they see that they are going to accept legalization of some kind, and they are going to get enforcement. but if they feel like they are not going to get enforcement like it is a sham and it's just

talk, then they aren't going to want to give up because they won't do it anyway. so, you know, i suppose you can say and maybe simon will, they don't look like they are going to ask anyway so why shouldn't the president just act. i guess we can have a long discussion about that. i believe they are getting closer and the leadership wants to act. more republicans understand we need to act and the question is about when, not if and that is what we ought to be fighting for, not pressuring the government to do things that are going to get in the way of the possible legislature or eventual legislative fix. in the long-term there is no solution other than the legislation that we ought to keep our eyes on the prize. [applause] we are going to take an intermission at move the chairs around a little bit. hang tight. i know there are a lot of people that want to lay on the suggestions and i want to remind

everybody that you not only are going to be on c-span, but you are going to be on the internet fee for ever. give us about 90 seconds and we will be back with you. thanks everybody. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] do you want me to use your microphone? okay >> before we go i want to also

thank emma and andrea has been an amazing intern for a year and has done a lot of the charts that we have been pushing all over town. and helping to together it is his birthday today. we aren't going to sing him happy birthday on c-span. but thanks to all of you. we are going to open up for the audience, which is in all resource, one of the things that we have included from looking at the way that we have a graph showing the increase in the border removals and the decrease in the interior removals in the latest that came out of 2013 there are only 12,000 people deported from the united states

who neither had a terminal record in interior or were a border crosser, and meaning that if the 370,000 or so only 10,000 fell out of the priorities. meaning that the question i'm going to ask is do we believe it is true now that off if you are in a documented immigrant in the united states you do not have a terminal record and you do not lose the country is a chance of deportation eliminated. as to make it is a lot lower in that case than if you are a border crosser or fall into one of the categories. i wouldn't quite use the word eliminated about very much reduced. i would say one is that many of the people apprehended at the border likely have roots in the

u.s. because we think the casual crossing has gone down. so there are people who are affected by border enforcement who are definitely tied to the immigrant communities. and the other thing i think is that with secure communities in particular the program when people are arrested in every jurisdiction in the country now when the fingerprints are sent to the fbi for background checks and also to the vhs and they use that to identify people that might be in the removal, even though the program doesn't deport a lot of people who don't fall into those categories, i think that's because it is so seamlessly integrated with law-enforcement id has a sort of broad ripple effect and i'm not sure that people understand how focused it is. so i think that it has had a much bigger impact than the numbers probably suggested that it should. it's been that i would agree with your general conclusion and certainly your odds of facing

deportation if you do not run in the interior of the united states are fairly small. in the border region the 100 miles of the border you have the checkpoints so there are people who may be there for a long time who could get apprehended in the interior checkpoint and fall in that category. i think the point about the border crossing certainly anecdotally from people that work on the border and looking at some of the ages a lot more people that lived here before me have been deported or they have returned we wouldn't necessarily think of them as priorities as trying to reunite themselves and when you look at the senate bill a lot of the people would potentially be eligible for the legalization. so there are challenges. you have got a fundamental dilemma which on the one hand you have to show serious and credible enforcement systems to address the republican concerns

that tamar was talking about some of the people that are targeted, the democrats think they are eligible for the legalization and so is it appropriate to be targeting those people. so the administration has moved in a good direction on this. but there are still issues out there. there. >> i don't work with the data on this step i only know what i read in the newspaper but i would agree on the assessment. where i would push back is a little bit on the notion of these people who are caught a second time crossing the border. in the past maybe they went back and forth across the border repeatedly and there was a way of life to cross the border repeatedly in the border didn't mean that much and we basically treated it as a string of barbed wire and probably not even that and everybody kind of knew it was a joke and so crossing repeatedly have a moral significance. once you start to say we are going to apprehended you and put you on the records and call it a crime and defense if not prosecute criminally and then you keep doing it over and over it has a different significance.

it's another thing to make it a way of life to break the law that they and i'm not saying they are evil or criminal but it does have a different in the way that we regard it if we believe in the rule of law. i am sympathetic as anyone but there is a different way. >> i think that you and i would agree that if you have better legal channels to allow people to become and emigrate and work temporarily in the united states and if you have a legalization, then you deal with it a lot of these people who are trying to navigate their way through a dysfunctional system and so we have this problem trying to establish the credibility of enforcement without having made some of the changes to the system that are necessary to create properly functioning system so i would agree on that front as a timely question. >> one of the things i heard today in the research that we have seen is one of the messages to be community in the united

states is that you should really leave the country because the consequences of, you know, first of all the chances of you getting caught entering data used to be there's been a significant change and the enforcement mechanism is working better. when you get caught consequences are much greater and to the point you may not even be eligible for the legalization in some cases when there is legalization. it's about what actually remove you from the ability to become legalized when the legalization process begins. so i think one of the things we have learned in this process is that for those advocates that are talking to the immigrant community, we have to be more honest about the fact that leaving the country now is far more dangerous than it used to be and that it can end up breaking up your family because if you've been here for 20 years and went back and forth and saw your cousins twice a year and now if you got caught he would

be returned on a bus and could return a few days later those days are gone and we have to be honest about the consequence of leaving the country for all of the undocumented immigrants we care about. >> i'm not saying good but they can't go home for christmas or whatever but i just think that it's a reality. >> let's open up to this wonderful group of people. we know there are a lot of folks -- if you could identify your vote and speak into the microphone that would be great. >> im tag from fusion. my question is for ted that anyone can answer. if there is good data from homeland security on things like apprehensions and whose crossing the border how can we get those numbers and what can be done to actually make the dhs more comfortable for that sort of thing? >> i think the data has been improving and i want to give

some credit. one of the big pieces of the data that was released kind of a year and a half ago in the gal is the record that the border patrol collects on the sector by sector station by station basis on the apprehension, what they call turn back which are people who are seen trying to enter the united states and to change their mind for whatever reason and they go back to mexico and then what they call they got away so these are people that are cited visually. we knew there was a group of ten people and we only caught five of them or what they call + cutting which his footprints and other things. they are very good at saying this was a group of people that crossed. all the data was released as an important -- and this was 2012. you know, it gave pretty good data on the apprehension rates and turn back. i think that the data for a lot

of reasons is optimistic in the report we used other methods including survey data and what they called the recidivism method by looking at people that are caught multiple times and making assumptions out how many people will try again attend back into the apprehension numbers. most recently what we have is a result of the aerial drones. you can actually fly over the region for months and watch the people cross and if you are not actually communicating with agents on the ground, you can do a proper scientific experiment and say actually this was the percentage that we can't. there have been press reports in the times and elsewhere that suggests the apprehension rate of about 50%. i was not able to verify that with people in the government, but the data is there. it's not perfect, but it's better than it used to be and i do see in particular it isn't clear to me that this is going to penetrate to the dhs leadership and in particular i

see the commitment to improving the data gathering and reporting this in a more regular systematic way and i think that will be a big step forward. my question for you all i am an undocumented immigrant and my parents brought me here when i was a year old, originally from brazil, overstayed a tourist visa. my dad passed away last year and i wasn't able to bury my father but that's beside the point. my question for you all how is it that the numbers that you have been talking about today reflect the actual reality of the pain families are suffering and on the ground of the separation of families how do these numbers reflect my father's situation and reflects the fact that i couldn't bury my

father? >> i will say something about that. starting with i'm sorry. the answer i gave is that the administration had been pretty successful at focusing on enforcement of the people they say they are going to focus on. they've also been deportin depor removing about 400,000 people a year so that's a lot of people. even though those categories exclude a lot of people, they include a lot of people and they have deep roots in the community and families here so you really can't have it both ways. you can't do robust enforcement and not have a major impact on these deeply rooted long-standing immigrant communities and your story goes to that point. i don't know the conditions under which your father deported but most people that are deported have lived in the country for a while and many of them have families here. they've also been previously removed or convicted of a minor

crying or another crime and the apprehended at the border and in this case they are defined as a priority so there is a lot of people that fall into the categories who have deep connections in the u.s. and so both storylines are true the administration is focusing on those categories and it's havina huge impact on the communities. >> personally i'm somewhat surprised that i ended up doing this kind of work. the situation is one where a lot of people in the room what a sensible legalization program that would have allowed you to go back into bury your father. the only way that is good to happen is if the congress acts and there are a lot of people in the congress that have insisted that they would only act they were not going to end up in the little that we would end up in 96. in the problem but this was going to be one off and a decade

later we have 12 million people so you have to be able to say to those people we do have a credible enforcement system in place. now, my hope has been that at some point the republicans would be persuaded. i don't know anymore. i am not sure that they are made and then the logic changes. a lot of the reasons i do this is to make it right in the properly positioned program and the only way that you do that is with credible enforcement. sadly the timing i think this needs to go hand-in-hand. >> i did with both of them have said is that it's a terrible story and it's awful and i think everyone can understand your pain very well, but any metaphor is sort of inappropriate that we do live in a time that his omission where we have rules that are unrealistic and wrong and people are there for breaking them and that's the situation you're in in a way. ..

there are people who are coming up for deportation today originally apprehended six years ago, seven years ago, under a completely different system than what we have now. and what you saw in that data was that far fewer of those

people are actually being deported than they used to be. the courts themselves are, are implementing the prosecutorial discretion standards and letting far more people go because they weren't apprehended under the same set of standards that we're applying today. that is the whole thrust of julia preston's really thoughtful piece in the "new york times," using a lot of data that came out of doj but the key thing is that the anecdotal stories, many of them that we here are things that happened three years ago, three years ago, four years ago, five years ago, under a completely different system than we have now and i think both of these things can be true. your story can be true and also this can be true. that the system has also changed. my basic contention that the president deserves far more credit from the immigration advocacy community being responsive to their concerns changing the civil, virtually almost impossible if you live interior of united states, and

have no criminal record, it is virtually impossible for you to be deported today. that is completely different from 2009, when all 11 million undocumenteds were under threat iminent deportation anytime. day, right? a completely different system than what the republicans passed in the house. the house republicans want to roll back the morton priorities and make sure i.c.e., re-establish a day when i.c.e. would create imminent threat of deportation for all 11 million people. the republicans on the house voting for the kingment votings for that 2013. the contrast, speaking as obama supporter here, between somebody only deported 10,000 people, non-criminal, non-border crossers in 2013, responsive to your concern and a republican house leadership who want to undo all the reforms, and put i.c.e. deportation back into the system immediately. there is enormous contrast there. this is something we have to unearth. this is again very different

than where we were a few years ago which is why i think we're having events like this to sort of unearth new data that we have to put a clearer picture we are today. >> just for the record, i'm not going to rise for the bait. i could, but, i am in your house. so i won't take the bait on that one. maybe later in the conversation. >> thank you for coming into the devil's den every few months. >> i enjoy it. it is a privilege. ii want to. >> i want to get to a couple reporters in room and we'll go back to other folks. >> thank you. i'm jim mcteeing, "barron's" financial magazine. this is a very important issue for our readers. the question i have, is this purely republican versus democratic disagreement? or is it really a geographic disagreement? and if it is geographic primarily, how is it experience

of people in border states will legal immigrants different than people like us who live in the d.c. metro area where immigration seems benign? is there a difference in experience? >> who wants -- >> let me talk about the politics and someone else can talk about the regions. i wouldn't call it, part of what we're seeing here there is less of, in some ways despite the partisan, you know, butting of heads and gridlock, in some ways there is less of a partisan divide thaw might argue. i think, any administration will prioritize. any administration will stay say the border is really important. when the republicans look at that honestly and without putting pressures adding deterrent to bored surreally good thing. adding deterrent to the border is a good thing. that's what obama has done.

in spite of ways that they can't do anything and simon are standing here agreeing we're adding new deterrent to the border and that's good. yes, we talk about the politics don't work. that is a long conversation. that is kind of where we started. you know i think people in the government, you know, i think both of them realize, both sides realize we'll not get to a fix unless we have a sense of rules that work. you know, maybe more agreement than there looks. >> yes. >> just one other point on this, i think 20 years ago the answer to your question was morph yes than it is now but one of the major things that's happened in the last couple decades unauthorized administration has become a 50-state phenomenon. there are districts all over the country even though the numbers are not as big in rural pennsylvania as they are in arizona the rate of change is very noticeable and it is a newer phenomenon. it is not the case only border districts are concerned about immigration the way it was for

many, many years. >> there has also been, in if you look at history of geographical impact what we had to do enforcement and really effective and enforcement that is where the outcry was in el paso and gatekeeper in the '90s. shut down the corridors. the result of that all the traffic went into arizona. you want to understand why arizona became ground zero in our national immigration debates. you guys started first in california and texas and all the traffic came through arizona. that corridor has been largely shut down. the numbers coming through arizona are very, very small compared to a decade ago. >> place where public opinion is most upset, the southeast. where it has gone from zero to 60. basic increase of 300% in some recent decades. so -- >> it is interesting, that zare own historic role in debate, john mccain and senator flake and senator mccain, two

republicans being the most outspoken advocates for comprehensive immigration reform in this last senate round. and the congressional delegation in arizona is 5-4 democrat. we're coming out of the other side of the sb 1070 politics even in places like arizona in part because the flow has been significantly diminished over where it was a decade ago. >> chief, i will go to you. if we can get a mic over here. we have a actual, legitimate expert, if you want to -- instead of us pretending up here on stage. >> first of all, let me congratulate you and this panel portraying a complex situation this nation is facing in very succinct fashion. all these things are very important that we take into consideration. what i got out of all three speakers, you talk about stuff we've been struggling with since the late '70s when immigration, illegal immigration

started climbing at a dramatic pace. the strategic approach you described, how we move forward, what we were successful at and how we got to where we are today. measurement of what's happening out there. how can we actually get to the level of detail and grand granuy that will be meaningful not just to specific pockets of the nation but to our nation as a mole. the absolute agree the need for legislative reform, rule of law, policies, standards that need to be set. so having said that one of the things that think is critical here is that the strategic approach we took has in fact worked. to andresa put together depictions here, outstanding job because it depicts exactly what it is that has happened. 1.6 million apprehensions at the peak of illegal border activity. there was all of about 8,000 united states border patrol agents on the border at that time. we fell to 364 in 2012. a 72%, to, 78%, depending which

numbers you looked at, drop in cross-border illegal activity. imagine for a minute that new york city had a drop in crime at half of that? we would be giving the commission, the chief of police, the mayor, the governor a parade, tickertape parade down main street. look at what has happened. and we have held at that point. so there has been that evolution. 1981, when you were brought in, the border was climbing at a dramatic rate. yet, to get to its peak. it was about 18 years from its peak. to it peaked out at 1.6 million. this nation was an outcry. something had to be done. we approached it strategically, measured. even we're talking about data, we're talking about numbers, we're talking about statistics. critically important. what this young man describes here what about all the other considerations? measuring what i refer to as

environment. some things are deafening in their silence. the border, trade is up dramaticsly. nafta passing. $500 billion worth of trade. 444% increase i believe. my friend here from the mexican consulate. tremendous growth. with a border out of control being supporting that kind of growth? population growth. growing dramatically along the border. crime has dropped dramatically. two of the largest cities in the united states are now on the border. rest of the cities are tremendously safe. it goes on and on. projection economically is tremendous with the border. all of these things going forward. so i urge we get away just the facts and data. it is the environment of the border. what is it supporting? what is it leading to? where is it taking us as

north america, not just america? canada, mexico and the united states. all of these things need to be taken into consideration. measurements, i could go on for hours on this. i won't. >> thank you. >> but looking at the border through the appropriate lenses. we all hear the horror stories. the horror stories, i've heard so many times that, stories about 20 years old. it is the same one. now there are horror stories out there. there are localized stories that make the national news. how do we capture the national national environment of the border? what is the true national environment of the border? i'll close out with a legislation, rule of law, we are a country of laws and we should be. we need to continue to be that. the only thing i would add, comprehensive immigration reform. had to do it all over again i wish we would go back and

entitle this comprehensive border security reform. that is exactly what it is. if we pass this as a nation, it will be the largest force multiplier from an enforcement perspective that nation will ever do in support of its borders. thank you. >> thanks, chief. okay. and, we're growing to be able to get in like two or three more. is that working if. >> yeah. >> two or three more. after that, i will do a lightning round and we'll all kind of, thank you for coming. >> [inaudible] what i want to talk to y'all is, i think that [inaudible] how many of you actually -- [inaudible]

that's completely incorrect. there is not one week that goes by we don't get a news story someone getting deported. [inaudible] i would like to talk to you miss tamar. people didn't choose this way of life of break the law. they get deported and going right back to their families. [inaudible] >> no. i mean we can't deny that reality. and it is an important part of the discussion. we appreciate you having, being here and adding that to the discussion but our, you know, i mean i stick to my argument. we're never growing to get it fixed if we go to a situation now of anarchy and american public looks at what they see anarchy of no control of the border. americans will not accept the level of immigration we want to

have in this country if we say before we get to a fix we have to live with anarchy for a few years. we're not going to get there. so, yes, there are horror stories, we're not denying reality of those horror stories. you both are bringing them here painfully. we all in the room feel the pain we're describings, but it doesn't mean, if we were to listen to that pain, okay, let's everybody come and go until they pass the law, they will never pass the law. >> the republicans are not doing anything. they will not do anything to border enforcement. >> i think republicans will do something. >> just one other, i mean, i really, you know i do sympathize. i have sat down with people. i haven't experienced it personally so i don't know directly your pain at all and i will say just two things. one is that certainly the case that a lot of people who are, who technically fall into one of those priorities categories don't necessarily look like real

bad actors when you look at their lifetime record. maybe they got convicted of a minor crime many years ago. maybe previously deported and came back in. those are defined as enforcement authorities. somebody deported 20 years ago and comes back in 19 years ago and is back here with their family ever since doesn't seem like a bad actor. one thing the obama administration is looking at maybe adjusting those priorities. of. what i would add to tamar's come men, not ultimately a problem the administration can fix by itself. even if we decide well, congress will never do anything, the administration does not have any authority under any scenario you could possibly describe as legal to start issuing green cards. the best, what all it does it buy you two years but somebody with daca commit as crime or a bad run-in in dhs they're still vulnerable. that is not something the

president can fix without congress. finding a formulation that allows a bill to go through congress has to be part of the conversation if you're trying to get durable solutions for unauthorized immigrants. >> the political process operates on multiple levels. the d.r.e.a.m. act movement has transformed the discussion of this issue in discussion. jose antonio vargas getting on cover of "time" magazine with all those folks is transformative moment. it is equivalent to the civil rights movement, gay rights, whatever else you want to put in. if you look now, look at the senate bill or house republican principles that came out, everybody agrees we should pass a real d.r.e.a.m. act, not a daca, with path to citizenship the whole bit. we have the republican leadership in the house on the regard, not admittedly with support of people in the party, saying they favor legalization with some path to citizenship for a fair number of those people. there has been extraordinary progress. a lot has come from the energy

of people like this who feel this at very personal level. the reason i have worked so much on border enforcement stuff, it is missing piece, sort of the last thing we've had to sway the republicans of trying to get them over the finish line. i'm pretty disheartened what is going on with the house republicans right now. i'm trying to tease out a little bit of optimism maybe they're still there to move. i think on all of the issues that you care about, we actually have a pretty substantive agreement in the congress which is not where we were five or six years. we weren't there in 2006 and 2007. we are there now. the question can we get it over the finish line? that wouldn't really change your situation as opposed to what mark said which is kind of a deferral. >> let me say a word about house republicans some ways the elephant in the room there. i'm not growing to pretend i'm not disappointed. i'm disappointed the i thought this year we had a really good chance going into the house principles we were really close. it has inhappened and i'm disappointed as anyone but i think if you compare where we are to where we were in '06 and

even at time when romney was running you used to have the hell no people in the republican conference. we're the majority. there were a few outlyers who hardly dared talk about and hell no people ran the conference and were the conference. recently as tom delay took people in a room in '06, we'll hold up. we're not going to do it and hold on to the house and, standing ovation. recently romney was running self-deport that basically represented where a lot of house republicans were and veto the d.r.e.a.m. act. that basically where a lot of house republicans were. now house leadership is saying legal status for millions of people. basically what they used to call amnesty. the majority of leader writing a d.r.e.a.m. act. eric cantor is writing his own d.r.e.a.m. act. i'm sure you don't prefer that and prefer the administration's version. i think there is republican conference, even the hell no

conference, something will have to happen and republican party will have to be part of the solution. it is not about when, but now. they're in denial when it will be doable. like like people going to the dentist. i know i will have to go eventually. they don't really want to do it, not embracing it root way but i can put it off around go next year. they're probably in denial how doable it will be next year. i'm not saying there in a place that is good. we have to recognize how far they have come. we basically are at the last, you know, 10 yards. and so, throw that way ahaving the president do a unilateral act that gives them basically, you know, an excuse to say, forget it, we're not going to do it, i don't think that's smart. >> i have, i'm going to ask, we've got a lost hands. let's do three quickies and we'll all sort of take those questions and make our final comments. then we'll let you guys go.

susanne. you had a question over here. yes here. we'll go through these here, here, there. >> [inaudible] -- doesn't happen, are you -- [inaudible] is that the right way to go for the government and the republicans and democrats. i will ask at tamara, because -- [inaudible] at what point does it become where the people basically have to stand up and say, we're enforcing rule of law, that's it. [inaudible] much like president bush did

when congress didn't pass immigration reform? [inaudible] >> okay. [inaudible] >> hey, how is it going. thanks to the organizers. and everybody for the very interesting type discussion. i'm with the national daily organized network and d.c. coalition on immigrant rights in d.c. we fought hard for local licenses and end compliance with the component of scom. a two-part question. i think one of the important things that to think about the numbers is, is the question, specifically of washington, d.c. a border city? there's a really great map put out by the aclu, find it on their website which has, what is 100-mile border around the u.s.? is new york city, is los angeles a border city, right? because i think that it is a little bit misleading we say,

only border removal, and we don't have, 100 miles is huge. and so that's one. the second one in terms of how do you, that would be, for you. for the gentleman at the end, in terms of criminality, i think, the question is, really, when we say we're, the president is deporting, only the dangerous, dangerous criminals and terrorists, how do we explain the huge momentum and consensus growing across the country against compliance with secure communities and the specifically the component? you know the oregon federal district court decision which ruled that local compliance was actually in violation of the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable seizures. in california the passage of the trust act. connecticut, philly, baltimore, massachusetts right now. former dhs head napolitano in

support of the trust act and against key components of obama's deportation dragnet program. thanks. >> [inaudible] >> why don't we just go straight down the line here. want to make closing comments. >> so i'll address the first two questions and let tamara answer the third one or tamara and ted. but, you know, on the first question, really the piece i want to talk about the difference between prosecutorial discretion understood as, you know, prioritizing who's going to be focused on, versus what you were describing which is the executive branch exercising the authority to choose certain laws not to enforce because they're

not, they're not in the national interests, that is a much, a different understanding of prosecutorial discretion and none of us here are lawyers but i think constitutional scholars have sort of written on both sides of that. you know, how far the executive could go if it decided, you know, it will never happen in congress and we'll handle this as much as we can on our own. you know, that's, in terms of the politics of making a decision like that, that is, you know, it is, it is a very confrontational, it would be a very confrontational position for the administration to take. it would, much more so, even dhaka, or the -- daca, or types of discretion we've seen so far. certainly become a self-fulfilling prophecy, would say, not one more deportation. congress would say certainly not one more piece of legislation because why wouldn't they at that point? just on your question, i think

that, there's no question that there are convicted criminals who are defined as priorities who are identified through security communities who are not seriously criminals and terrorists. i think that is part of what has motivated, you have seen a broad reaction to secure communities across a lot of different jurisdictions. you have had jurisdictions going the other way and very much embracing secure communities. it is right at the heart of the different views that people have about, you know, how we should be using enforcement. there is no question that the administration has focused in on its priorities and that those priorities are not as narrowly defined as many people in this room would like them to be. >> quickly on the border question, correctly if i'm wrong, the border zone is only operative at land border, mexico border, canada border. there are some on the northwest border too. so our coastal borders don't fall under that definition.

that is just sort of technical answer. i want to talk about the executive action question. this is really much more of a personal opinion. i'm not a political strategist but i have worked closely with people very active on both sides of this issue. i was the project director for the council's task force u.s. immigration policy and co-chaired by jeb bush and matt ma chartty. they were very active on that. for the president it become as calculation can anything happen with the congress. i would look for time frame up through the summer. if the republicans have not made some movement, i don't really think it will happen this year. if it doesn't happen this year, i don't think it will happen the next two years. i don't see congress doing this in 2015. so i think it then gets pushed off until after the presidential election. i think at that point the question is what can the president do? potentially he can do quite a lot. i'm not sure that the politics of it are necessarily bad. i mean the message that sends to

the republican side, if you're not willing to legislate, i will do everything within my executive power to fix this problem. you know, dare the congress to challenge him in the courts. i think you could equally plausibly make a claim that might force action on the republican side. you can go to the political strategists to see what they say but i can see the arguments both ways. obama has tried very, very hard to go down the road of addressing republican concerns on each of these issues, particularly enforcement. a at some point you have to probably say, enough is enough. i don't think we're there yet but i think we could get there pretty soon. >> i've been predicting it happen soon more than a decade. not sure why anyone asks me anymore. for what it's worth it's not a cold corpse up there now. it is on life-support. i would not bet anything. i would not bet you a cup of coffee it will happen but it is not a cold corpse. speaker boehner wants, as he

said the other day, hell-bent, he wants it worst way. there are republicans powerful republicans, not talking about back benchers, people in leadership positions and future leadership positions. boehner is future leadership, positions understand they understand it needs to happen and want it first way and even as we speak with meetings trying to make it happen. it is not a cold corpse. i'm not giving it high odds. but it's not dead. next year is going to be hard. assuming republicans take the senate, certainly the first act is not going to be immigration reform and it will make it difficult but it is not impossible. so you know, again i think, everyone understands this dynamic. it's the, for republicans national prospects this has to get done eventually. for, if you're a local guy facing re-election this year there is not much advantage doing it for almost anybody. but next year, the hope would be

some of those bigger concerns would start to have immediacy. there are a lot of people up there say we'll do it next year. hard to do it next year. i think this year is better opportunity. there are a lot of people who would not necessarily expect. yeah, we have to do it and we'll do it next year. i think they find it harder than they think. it is like going to the den t i will be on vacation next year and hard to get an appointment and stuff like that. 2016 seems unlikely to me. let's imagine the presidential debate, right? let's imagine whether jeb bush or someone else very pro-reform candidate, talking about this and making it kind of safe for republicans to be for it. the dynamic we'll be in a big year. so i don't totally rule it out this year. i don't totally rule it out next year. if i was president making calculation, if you think you might get it next year, why kill it by acting this year? i hope someone makes the argument this year.

my fear he would act. if i had short-term calculations like finding money in the street. what are the latinos going to think? how could he not pick it up? if making long term calculation there is chance getting it done this year, it will be my legacy i hope he would say i'm not going to act unilaterally. republicans acting unilaterally, advocating for unilateral, you know, hesitation on enforcement? never. i mean it's one thing, the president bush, when president bush acted administratively he toughened enforce main and thought there were reasons for that strategically. besides getting to, to better position to get legislation but i don't see, you know, really anyone i can think of coming out publicly, yeah, you know, we're never growing to get it done. let's start making it easier for people to go back and forth illegally. >> so three points, just to end, building on these last questions. one is that, i do think that the

folks who talk about the 100 mice and so on, in my conversations with dhs and folks in customs and border, chief, you may no this know there this, there aren't enough actual agents positioned far outside the border itself. from a statistical standpoint i talked to the person that wrote the i.c.e. report ad end of 2013, looking through the logs, only several thousand of the 200,000 plus removals from the border were actually people caught not physically crossing the border. and so, there's, we don't have good data on that. this is one area where i would recommend for the groups who are foiaing dhs to get data, the logs of where these folks were caught and whether they were within the 100 miles or being caught at the border itself, this is a material thing that just needs to be answered. there has to be, it is an answerable question, and it should be answered as soon as humanly possible.

to get this frankly resolved quickly as possible because it has become a very important part of the conversation in our family in particular. second thing getting to the politics, right? i, my concern, one of the reasons that, jose vargas's first meetings in washington to organize his campaign happened in this office over there in at a table. jose is one of microssest friends of mine in the world. i've been a stalwart advocate for immigration reform nine years. maria who is here today, know there are few non-late teens knows spend as much time in washington fighting over this as i have for the last decade. i'm concerned about the way the community is attacking president. every day that john boehner gets up and see democrats and latinos, attack a democratic president he has less incentive to move this-year. attacks on obama this year on deportations made it harder for us to pass comprehensive

immigration reform. one of the reasons i've been so vocal in the past several months explaining that he has done exactly what you wanted and he needs more credit for it. every day you're in the front of the white house there is less incentive for john boehner to actually do a deal. he wants there to be division and equivalency between a republican party blocked reform for nine years and wants to reinstate terror regime of i.c.e. over all 11 million. the president, son of an i am my grant himself who moved on daca power down interior enforcement, fought hard to get immigration reform. false equivalency created by friends on our side damaging to the cause, my own personal belief. third thing we can't let republicans off the hook. how many times, what else can we do here? 68 votes. got all sorts of stuff on enforcement side. as the chief said, everyone in this room cares about the border, the border will be far more fortified after the senate

bill passed than it is now. it will get much more, the tools that customs and border are going to have for apprehension will get much more sophisticated after we pass the senate bill. i don't think we're getting this done in 2015 and 2016. if you look at republican field, ted cruz is a leader, champion against immigration reform. rand paul, despite his recent sort of portray himself as more ecumenical leader on this voted against comprehensive immigration reform. jeb bush, i don't think will run. chris christie who may have been a champion is severely damaged. republican primary will look a lot like in my mind what we saw in 2007, 2008, and 2011, 20 telephone, anti-immigrant forces pulling the republican party towards the anti-immigrant position not allowing debate we would all want to happen in the republican party. the truth for everyone in this room, republicans could win the presidency in 2016. we could have a republican senate and republican house and

republican senate in 2017. what would the it look like with a republican like rand paul running everything. i don't think we want to see that. we have to put all the pressure as we possibly can on the republicans taking it off the president who has been champion of these issues and force them to do the deal now. my concern it may not be until 2024, after redistricting and after democrats win house back we actually get a bill any of us would be happy with. so it is now. that's why this organization has stuck our neck out an taken some risks and tried to break a little china here, because i think political imperative we get this done now and keep pressure where it deserves to be which is on john boehner and republicans. thanks everybody, for being here. let's continue the conversation. let's thank our three guests. [applause] i just want to once again thank tamar for coming here and sharing her views.

despite the fact we don't agree, she has been a great champion of immigration reform from her side and deserves a lot of credit for that. thanks, everybody. >> dozens of suspect the al qaeda fighters were killed over the weekend in yemen according to yemeni officials the american enterprise institute will hold a panel on al qaeda and u.s. security. you can see that live beginning at noon eastern on our companion network, c-span. at 1:00 we'll be live here on c-span2 as secretary of state john kerry will address the export-import bank conference taking place today here in washington. the bank focuses on the global business environment and prospects for growth. again that will be live here on c-span2 today starting at 1:00 eastern. afghanistan and india are going through elections that will shape the future of both

countries and the brookings institution here in washington will be hosting a discussion today on events in pakistan that could affect the outcome of both elections. c-span will have live coverage that begins at 1:30 eastern. >> i remember on saturdays the first conversation i had with a group of people at that table with the two on it, it wasn't about where you're from, what's your school like, but it was about ukraine. it was about politics. it was about our beliefs on education and religion, and i was actually at that moment, i was like wow, this week will be intense. but it has been cool to see evolution of all our friendships and and our bonds talking about politics. talking about our experiences what we learned, who we met and this is an experience i will never ever forget. >> i've always been kind of really cynical about it. i always thought i could never really go that far in politics and politics is such a caustic environment, but slowly throughout the week, different speakers and different people i met kind of chipped away at that

opinion. it has been so ingrained in my head, i thought, maybe i do want to make a difference and run for something local and stay local in my community because, like president obama said yesterday, he told us, don't get cynical because this nation doesn't really need anymore cynical people. that will not help us relief the props that we have. >> one of the things, and i know that gets brought up a lot about our generation is our social media. we're able to express our opinions very easily. you know, we can just send a tweet about what we think. i think that starts conversations and we like to talk a lot. so there is conversation on social media and we like to get our opinions out there. >> i think this whole week has been about learning. i come from a small town called witumpka where it is very politically home again nick. and there is not much chance for people who don't think the same to get their opinions out without being ridiculed and being here with the other delegates has really given me an

opportunity to learn other viewpoints and to also get my ideas without the fear of being shunned for thinking differently. >> high school students from across the country discuss their participation in the u.s. senate youth program. a week-long government and leadership education program held annually in washington. sunday night, at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> if you were to come up with the most influential people in the world who would be on your list? well "time" t magazine has doneo and ben gold merger joins us on the phone from new york. he is the nation editor for time.com. thanks very much for being with us. >> guest: good to be with you. >> host: let me ask you who made the top 10 announced earlier this morning? >> guest: we don't actually rank the list. one of the parlor games you can do it yourself. it is list of 100 most influential in absolutely no particular order. there are four covers to theel

issue. they are beyonce, robert redford, marry berra and jason collins, the first player in one of the u.s. major pro sports leagues to come out as gay. >> host: let me ask first about robert redford, best known for his acting capabilities but also a leading activist when it comes to global warming and the environment. why did he make the list? >> guest: very much so, although he is really on there certainly for his acting. without a doubt he is outspoken and incredibly involved environmental activist. this is the 30th anniversary of the sundance film festival. redford is there, we kind of take for granted, he is the godfather of independent film in america. the vast majority of all these incredibleer features that have come out in the last decade and populated local movie houses would not have existed ha he not created this incubation platform for them with sundance. >> host: "usa today" is out with a story this morning looking a the "washington post" is

re-energized withh jeff bezos as owner of "the washington post." why did he make the list? >> guest: bezos is one ever figures similar to president obama you could make a strong case for every year. amazon remains incredibly influential. every year they seem to dig deeper and deeper into our lives. whether simply the soap we buy for theer family on, or cereal r new latest gambit to deliver by drone. but his purchase of the post is really what catapulted him this year because we have this venerable journalistic institution that was, sort of listing a little bit and in purchasing it not only did he imboo it with energy and vitality, we're already starting to see fruits ofed that, but kid of renewed its sense of purpose too. >> host: story of future of "washington post" is available today on usatoday.com. go to other names on the list. probably no surprise that pope francis is on the list. in political circles, democratic senator kirsten gillibrand and

republican senator rand paul. >> guest: the gillibrand piece is wonderful. al d'amato, former senator from new york wrote it. more of appreciation. actually, one of her earlier forays into politics was intern in his office. they're on other sides of aisle. he says she wail make a great president and he dares anyone to underestimate her. >> host: hillary clinton once again on the list. and speculation in 2016, more immediately her book comes out in june. >> guest: indeed. her book like everything she does read of something of a precursor whether she runs or not. she is on there for a reason as heonr accomplishments as secrety of state. her book is attempt to look forward to chronicle the achievements of the past year. we're very much anticipating will she, won't she, shadow boxing has the entire political class as something of a stand still. >> host: ben gold merger, of

"time" magazine, walk us through the history of this list. when did "time" start developing it? >> guest: we began in 2004. it was to chronicle the most influential people of the year, rather than most powerful. that is perhaps a worthwhile exercise strikes us as wrote and boaring. leaders and central bankers and this was attempt to get it influenced inth a number of way. the act lights, the actors, the musicians, the economists, the scientists whose break throughs contributemi immeasurably to medical research, to create a snapshot of those who are shaping our world, who shaped our world in the previous year and weap think will do so in was we can barely yet predict. each year we've done it. the process begins around november. we reachct out to our correspondents and editors all over the world and ask them to begin ginning up ideas. one of the great things about it, as it has gone on and we're

many years in, alumni come up with their own selections and write about previous winners and so on. it's a fun rolling club in a way. >> host: secretary of state john kerry on the list. president obama is on the list. who surprised you the moist? >> guest: that's a greatnt question. you know, i really do like jason collins entry. thatt? is because if you look merely at his stats, there is absolutely no way he would qualify. he averages something like two points a game at the end of the bench for the brooklyn nets. in having the courage to be first man to come out in major pro sports league, his influence will be felt for generations to come, far beyond the stats of his basketball card. >> host: you of editors of "time"st magazine and time.com t to select the 100 and you also havele a few viewer poll, and lt check, about three million people weighed in. >> guest: oh, yeah. it'sbi a wonderful way to reach out. we absolutely pay attention to it. but as we say at the outset it

is another fun way to sort of gauge influence in a number of the plays but it is not not have any bearing on final decision we make on the list. >> host: ben goldberger, last question, not sure you can answer this, if you want to put somebody on the list that did not make thee time 100, from yr stained point who would it be? >> guest: that's a tough question. i will have to pass if only because there is always next year. the folks at wrigley are fond of saying. >> host: wrigley commemorates its 100th anniversary and somebody said there, anyone can have a bad century. ben goldberger. thank you very much for being with us from "time" magazine. >> guest: great to be with you, steve. >> reuters is reporting that ukrainian forces have killed up to five pro-moscow rebels today as the ukraine military close in on separatist strongholds under an international agreement signed in geneva last week, illegal armed groups are suppose to disarm and go home.

russian president vladmir putin calls it a punitive operation and threatened consequences. yesterday the atlantic council held a discussion with former russian prime minister, mikhail kasyanov. mr. kasyanov is current co-chair of republican party of russia people's freedom party. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone, i'm damon wilson, vice president of the atlantic council. we have conversation on putin's foreign policy and long-term interests. the discussion with mikhail kasyanov, former prime minister and finance minister of russia. welcome to washington. we're delighted to have you here. the relevance of today's

discussion is really driven home by the crisis in ukraine today and i think we'll focus on that this evening. we'll focus on trying to better understand putin's destablizing actions and what that means inside russia as well. the origins of today's conversation trace back to last fall when our guest of honor as well as his introducer, david kramer of freedom house and i were, three of us on an island in the baltic sea having debate on future of europe, future of europe whole and free in fact and where russia's place was in that vision. it was challenged even then by russian foreign policy action. we had pointed conversations even on crimea at that particular time eerily present. it was then that mikhail kasyanov came up with the idea of washington panned raising a president of all tern tougher russian foreign policy view.

david, was part of those conversations but he is also part of a long time voice in washington's debates on russia itself. the president of freedom house, david is a former top state department official dealing both with russia and ukraine and but also served assistant secretary for democracy. let me invite you to the podium, david, please. >> the floor is yours. >> thanks very much, damon. it's a real honor and privilege to be here and introduced introduce my good friend mikhail kasyanov. you're not hear to from me but mr. kasyanov. current crisis underscores how a regime treats its own people is often indicative how it will behave in hits foreign policy thus we shouldn't be surprised when we see putin supporting bashar al-assad in syria and in the slaughter of the syrian people. nor should we be surprised when

we see putin trying to block efforts by his neighbors to move in a more western direction, to try to demock advertise, to try to move toward politicalization, respect for rule of law, respect for human rights, all the things frankly anathema to vladmir putin. these are examples where we see in the latest crisis putin professed saying concern about the welfare of ethnic russians, or russian speakers or whatever phrase you want to use in crimea and in ukraine when he doesn't give a damn about the welfare of russians living inside russia itself. so the paradox i think is quite striking the situation inside russia perhaps focused an as much given current crisis in russia is getting you letterry by the day. we were seeing legislation

consideration of blogsers with more than three thousand visitors a day. possible travel ban on police enforcement and law enforce manner authorities. further penalties for participating in unsanctioned demonstration or publishing information that is deemed as harmful to the russian government or the russian military. mr. durof, left the country, latest among many russians who decided that the situation is untenable for them to stay there. the second highest number of asylum-seekers comes from russia. professors, getting dismissed for voicing criticism of the current situation in ukraine. alexi naval, the latest conviction yesterday. the, we just heard the party that has run into its latest set back in a court decision just today. fifth column and national traitors, this is the term that putin used in his speech on

march 18th, and this is the eerily reminiscent of soviet rhetoric and soviet language. but i must say that i'm very proud to be here today with one of those people who has now been identified as a national traitor. mikhail kasyanov, who is, called that because of his bravery and his courage. because it is easily for people in the united states, including myself, to stand here or to write columns and articles that criticize putin and his behavior and his actions. it is so much more difficult for people living in russia to speak out and to criticize and to offer alternative views. we've seen turnout of impressive numbers, a few weeks ago, 50,000 people protesting russia's war against ukraine. but there are also political lead that's have to step up and have to muster the courage against serious threats of

harrassment, arrest, detention, possibly worse and sadly there are far too many examples of that. so for those who criticize the russian opposition for being too disunited, for being feckless, for being unappealing to russian voters, put yourself in their shoes for a moment and think about how you would act if you were in their situation? so it does take a very brave soul to speak out these days against vladmir putin. mikhail kasyanov is one of leaders doing so. former prime minister in russia from 2000, to 2:00. minister of finance before that. currently co-chair of the republican parity of russia, freedom, people's freedom party, parnas, one of most consistent and brave and courageous critics of vladmir putin. it is my honor to introduced mikhail kasyanov. [applause] >> thank you, david.

thank you, damon. ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me to be here with you today. here in washington, this afternoon and to share my views on foreign policy. foreign policy, on baltic island, we wanted to discuss in length here in washington to describe how we could deal potentially in bright future with different, different challenges taking place from time to time in different corners of our world but today unfortunately this is squeezed so much and whole world is being concentrated on some events, russia-ukraine relations. i would start just of saying that a few years ago we had some kind of, we have some kind of deterioration on international arena too. i mean, several times mr. putin stated that newly established

states and territory of former soviet union, new independent states, had not quite full legitimacy, not just quite full, i would say energy. and he promised if he would feel something should be changed there, that he would step in. and in fact it has happened soon after 2008 nato summits in bucharest when two countries like georgia and ukraine just wanted their applications to be considered there in the summit to join this organization and they didn't get the appropriate answer. a few months after russian troops invaded territory of georgia, and it was a real

disaster. it was a real war. there were a lot of casualties and special plan designed by european with the support of the united states, designed to regulate all this activities of these problems and it happened so that a few months after, business turned to be as usual. and french government continued to, continued to implement so-called conflict with the military equipment. german companies consolidated present day government just to continue getting profitable contracts, et cetera. the whole world forgotten about these undertaking at that time. and mr. putin understood that there is absolutely right that the west is weak. their leaders just cynical and they thinking only about the elections and the him, he could

perform in that manner he wanted. having in mind that his legitimacy is in doubt because the elections were not recognized as free and fair at least by european parliament and russian opposition, he, feeling the lack of legitimacy inside the country, he need to draw this legitimacy outside. initially that was just i would say, kissing and hugging sessions with european and other leaders, but these days it's a little bit different. he created another consolidation too like extol enemy and having in mind that west is not consistent in implementing the promises, implementing the, i would say pursuing the tough policies vis-a-vis violators, especially human rights violators which is what putin's

regime is about, and european court of human rights is full of claims by russian citizens claiming violations of their rights. having this in mind that is just, became absolutely clear that putin is free of any, for any activity. he got a special ticket issued by the west for undertaking those efforts and such activity. today what we have now, putin again thought before making the decision on ukraine and crimea, he thought the west again, would digest everything he could undertake. and will continue to have lip service to so-called universal values. only, in the paper it sound like such a way that all politicians elected in their countries

devoted to universal values, but in the practice, when it happens with russia, they don't perform this way. they don't criticize enough. russian government for not implementing its international obligations. today, the situation is a little bit different. mr. putin and his team, they didn't expect that the west would react so immediate manner and i would say with effective measures. effective measures means, individual targeted sanctions. me and my party, we're for such sanctions. the sanctions not against people of rush is a. those sanctions are not against the russian federation, our state. the sanctions against those people who wanted to destroy european security established

after the second world war. and in fact, i would say the sanctions are already bringing appropriate effect. it's not, it doesn't look like already just changes are in place but it is an effect and there are people who already, fewer people but these people are already creating some kind of a the moss fear inside and i feel this through my friends abroad who got some kind of contacts with those oligarchs or people in caucus with them and these foreign friends suggest this to me. what will be next? will other state officials and leaders of state operations will be put in -- my recommendation would be for u.s. government, of course, tomorrow, that is the major undertaking should take place these days. immediate enlargement the list

of these sanctions. that is very effective measure. and i would present, continuing further on and discussing promising just to implement tomorrow's sanctions against russia. me, when i was finance minister, i was prime minister, i fight with your politicians for many years just to stop application of rafsanjani amendment. and the --. .