.. >> just before summer reads as, predicate of a scottish government mandate to take scotland's relationship with the european union.

the parliament occasions inviting the information number are your deeds and both parliament as we move forward. since the referendum, our first priority has been the assurance seeking to do everything we can to reassure non-u.k. e.u. citizens living here in scotland. let me say at the outset i think it is a disgrace the u.k. government has not yet guaranteed the position he had on the prime minister. i call again to do the right thing and stop using human beings as bargaining chips. we take steps to support economic stability. last month i sent out a 100 million-pound economic stimulus plan. yesterday announced a 500 million to fund essential part of the program for

government. taking these steps will act on our obligation to mitigate the effect of the referendum was old and we will continue to do so. we also have to be realistic about the long-term consequences of leaving the e.u. complacently the sky is falling and that the economy would do well to remember the brexit hasn't happened yet. it hasn't even started. leaving the e.u. will become the economy. while the signal suggests the u.k. had been a hard brexit said the market as well as the e.u. appeared applying the u.k. government announces to scotland suggest this could result in a gdp being more than 10 billion pounds more than if he remained in the e.u. the impact that the investment in living standards. the g20 summit was a harsh remainder of the claim in the brexit.

the u.s. made clear therapy treatment in trade talks and the japanese government set out in detail the potential implications of leaving the single market for the company headquarters in turmoil at the labor market damage the financial services to research and development investment. leaving the e.u. would be an extra ordinary u.k. competitiveness then it will be compounded if the decision is to hit the market as well. it is essential to retain the benefit for e.u. membership in i sent out the national interest of our democratic and economic interests with productioproductio n and and solidarity in our interest in influencing the world we live in. as i sat in the morning after the referendum, we are committed to pursuing all possible options to protect these interests. of course our ability to assess the options will be constrained until we start to get some

clarity about what the u.k. government is seeking to achieve. that is one of the many reasons by 10 weeks of the referendum and the tories are no furtheng t brexit actually means. but we have in place of the quality is a meaningless soundbite. indeed, the position of the u.k. government became even more fascist when the only detail volunteered in a statement to the house of commons was immediately disavowed by the prime minister. the prime minister was unable or unwilling to have the simple question, does she want to see the u.k. state and the single market, yes or no? present enough syrup to u.k. government does take shape -- surely a is essential that scotland's voice is heard. to that end we've been working hard in discussions of the u.k. government officials and we

continue how the u.k. will deliver on that development for scotland. i hope to be able to confirm soon with the u.k. and other governments have the engagement will work in this. the parliament's approval of yesterday ensures you'll have a dedicated minister in this process and were also working close with the other administration and gibraltar to make common cause where we can. however, let me be crystal clear and the point that i've made directly to the u.k. government. the scottish government will not be window dressing to allow the u.k. government to simply had a boat. along with the other administrations, we will have a role in decision-making. weeks victor engagement to be meaningful. i was to commit meant by the prime minister and one i'm sure parliament takes xtc delivered.

assuming that we will enter into and take part in today's discussions in good faith, the approach we will take will be exactly as i set out the morning after the referendum, he will pursue all options to protect scotland's interest. firstly, was to choose whatever evidence we have to shape the base or more accurately the least bad outcome not just for scotland at the whole u.k. in my view, that does mean the u.k. continuing as a member of the single market. i accept the prime minister has a mandate in england to beat the e.u. but i do not accept she is a mandate to take any part of the u.k. out of the single market. indeed, during the referendum, many campaigners that explicitly leaving the e.u. did not live in the single market. i hope all parties in this chamber will back out as to make the case and i also hope we can make common cause with others of like mind across the u.k.

secondly in regard with the direction of the u.k. government, we will seek to find ways to protect his eyes became scotland's place in europe and the national interest in the uk's negotiating strategy. the second time last week is already working on a spectrum of options to protect what matters most to scotland and consider the additional parliament we need to make it work. how do we protect the benefits to businesses that the single market and how do we protect the place of our universities in 2020 and continued ability to participate and the enhanced security that comes from the european arrest warrant. as they are developed, we will assess these options i set out in the summer. we'll update the project in the coming weeks and i will also appear before the committee next week. we also intend for this series

of parliamentary debates over the next few weeks and environment. these debates will give all members the opportunity to have their say on the issues of the scottish government should be prioritizing its discussions with the u.k. development. i also wish you all parties to submit to do some options we should read supposing as part of the process and we will be happy to meet at any suggestions you wish to meet. we are determined to do everything and examine every option to protect scotland's interest. that must include the options considered if it becomes clear that our interests cannot be protected within the u.k. to give up the rate to even consider that option would be to accept the westminster decision to matter how damaging that does turkey they are, our society in

place in the world here that is not a position that anyone was scotland's best interests at heart should ever be prepared to accept. our focus in the months ahead will be very very much in seeking to positively influence the uk's negotiating position ahead of article l being triggered. as we do so, we will continue our work to ensure an awareness and understanding us out of position across e.u. institutions and members dave. since the referendum the discussion of the e.u. commission and the european parliament but the prime minister to hold the e.u. presidency of an article l is triggered when the german minister for europe. i also attend the british irish council at the end of july. not what the ambassador of a number of e.u. member states in the discussions will continue in the weeks and ahead. the circumstances i modify a

median family are certainly not at the choosing of most of us in this chamber. the responsibility for insurgency with those who have so recklessly taken us to the brink against their will. however, all of us seek to shape the response pairs that it's definitely the process but in doing so we welcome the contribution and the challenge of parliament and continues to consider my assurance is there gazing principles and the best interest of the people of scotland. [applause] >> thank you. i think the first minister for other side of her statement. may i say that there is no one here who is complacently

accruing the impact of bragg said. the first minister was that listening for the prime minister and myself have said in recent days that they mailed the anguish of valid knowledge of. specific questions about the own responsibilities. in the wake of the brexit, are leading trade bodies said they should respond control it including taxation rate. i like to ask of the first minister or routine missile discussions of the groups relating to these concerns. the u.k. government has guaranteed funding for many e.u. funded project supporting economic development across the u.k. until 2020. the scottish government makes that same commitment such as phishing. lastly on our comments today on independence in the first minister spoke to the referendum in june, we alone express our concerns that the dvds were

concerned primarily with its ongoing campaign. the summer has proved us right. they have recognized the withdrawn liberal democrat support and i note that in recent days the government as his earlier proclamations and coalitions of the u.k. government ministers and cooperation with all the u.k. administration in good faith. unfortunately despite the first minister or concerns with the first minister declared the independence will be considered only if it's in the clear in best or only way to protect your membership of the e.u. can the first minister honestly tell the chamber under what circus dances and white issues she had ever concluded that this isn't the best option for scotland. more fundamentally i repeat the question in the summer. nicola sturgeon says that in the trading block is bad for scotland, so why did she believe

won four times as important in terms of trade as any of these questions. [applause] >> and turned with a key organization in scotland in the week following the referendum and our decision can set up a referendum specifically called for. the scheme came from a desire to seek policies to boost economic growth and we will continue other aspects of the business community. we will engage closely with and trade across the spectrum of interests in scotland. secondly, we will guarantee and the interest of scotland before the u.k. government had even

begun to work out the position with situations for european union defense coming to study here this year. the guarantee given by the u.k. government in terms of structural funds for farmers is partial and short-term financial to have one that is still long-term in the not-too-distant future. in terms of the question, with the people of scotland. always seek to burst it really is i'm becoming of anybody to stand up in scotland and talk about the prospect of scotland seeking to protect the e.u. membership somehow coming back on a single market across the u.k. and colleagues are going to ireland in seeing the border with independent ireland. it does not mean one thing in highland and then say exactly

here in scotland. i will always seek to be have been the best interest of the people of scotland. i will not rule out options that may be required to take scotland's interest. bruce davison should be deemed hard on this. why was it that two years ago she said to the people of scotland the only way to guarantee membership of the european union was to vote against independent and other parties taken us to the brink of exit. still trying to see those circumstances the answer to that. it is rick davidson is inconsistent and letting down the interest a the people of scotland. [applause] >> i welcome the first minister state and on the invite to sit down with the minister. as we have repeatedly made clear, the labor party support

scotland's -- scotland's place to meet with governments around the world to find means to retain her e.u. membership. the wider still open for business. there has been a shift in the first minister's approach in recent days. they retain the membership and careers minister appeared to only be seeking access to the single market. could you comment on that shift income from whether or not they've received any legal advice on the issue of whether she intends to publish it. >> firstly, i appreciate the support she has given us and i think in a unified dances giving. there's no shift in the position. as they have seen the comment and i don't know whether it's true or not to the effect that general corbin spokesperson has said is that labor is positioned

to argue for a continued membership of the single market. i hope that is the position of the labor party. i will examine all options to take scotland's interest. there is no doubt that the best option is to receive her membership of the european union and i will be working to seek to do that. i'll also be working along the way to protect all the aspects of european union membership step weekend. that's what i mean by keeping all options on the table. that's also what i mean by not ruling out any options because if it does turn out the only way we can protect the european union is to consider whether we should be an independent country and i don't think it's right to take the option away and that is one of our positions. the scottish government would take a range of advice about the expert in the early stages and i will be as open as trans parent.

we are going into a range of different negotiations and we will have to develop our position depending on every position develops. i want to make sure we harness and offered people across the table to be involved in the local party leaders take a period >> and i think the first minister for popping uppers daybeds. the prime minister told issue is reaching out to build a coalition was e.u. conservative ministers. today it is not even mentioned. can the first minister at date your initiative? have any administration in that coalition? >> he clearly decided not to listen. what i've said is what we will do as part of examining all options is one of those options

who tried to see if we can get the u.k. into the position. in my view that is the single market and make index is doubly sad in my statement of common cause across the u.k. fact remains that the session. over the latter part of the summer he was no longer part of a consensus to protect scotland's interests. i have to say given how long it has been since liberal democrat has ever protected scotland's own interests, i don't think anybody will notice the difference. this government will continue to do everything we can come examine all options to protect the vital interests of scotland. then they tell you we have to struggle on without the liberal democrats and just have to do it. [applause] >> thank you had i welcome the

first minister's statement. given the concerns raised this morning, can the first minister confirm when they will be there find the funding requirements studying scottish universe of these in the year 27 teen-2018 to make sure we do not list the students. given its recent history in may, which should be able to clarify what confirmation she's been given regarding here after the publication in the japanese government. >> the first question which is a very important position studying here as i said twice to one of the previous questions we have given that guarantee for this academic year. clearly we are now considering an engaging with the sector of extending that guarantee to study here for the next academic year and they hope to confirm our position on that very said.

in terms of the response to the japanese, it's quite extraordinary the japanese government has managed to publish far more detail in the united kingdom government has managed to do two months after the referendum was told. we will be engaging with companies and offered investors from all parts of the world here in scotland intensively in the period ahead and make roster will be leaving up for the scottish government and seeking to use the information in the intelligence into the u.k. negotiations and that is all part of protecting gotham ventures seeking to ensure scotland remains and attract a place for people to do business because that's absolutely essential to the health of our economy. >> the first minister's statement to his new role as well. during my visits to brussels as part of u.k. delegation,

negotiations told us about others in the dark. therefore the prime minister in all fairness tears will include scotland of all formal and informal discussion negotiations between the e.u. in the u.k. in terms of intra- government relations with the u.k. ministers trans-fired of what's been negotiated and discussed in formal or informal sentence. >> thank you for the questions. will scotland be meaningfully engage in the u.k. negotiations developed at the u.k. position? that remains to be seen. as the commitment we have been given by the prime minister and that is the commitment we are working with the u.k. government right now to turn into reality. we certainly want that to be the case and if that is the case we go into these discussions in

good faith effectively a constructive and positive review. will not simply be a window dressing. we will not take part. we expect to be meaningfully engaged in a position to say martha parliament about that very, very soon. in terms of the transparency of the u.k. government and the development of its position and how it seeks to achieve that position, i think that is really important. i've been concerned by comments of the prime minister today when she had said i think this is almost a running commentary on the negotiations. i accept when the negotiations are underway but the aspect has to be done behind closed doors. i do not think it is acceptable to have a cloud of secrecy hanging over the u.k. government negotiating position. i don't think it's accessible to have the prime minister unable or unwilling to answer the simple question, should we remain in a single market or not?

the u.k. government is using that to master that it does not yet have a clue what it seeking to achieve. before we get too much further into this, there must be greater use of people across the country can judge whether or not what the u.k. is trying to achieve me the national interest is not. >> there will be time to debate the content next week. suffice to say today that was one of the most belligerent calculated in hand influence of self-defeating statements many first minister. >> her in her busy summer tours, can they confirm which e.u. member state heads of government with which she had not met or spoken directly on the 23rd and issued just to paraphrase the words earlier this afternoon testing to define herself as a window shopper in the

negotiations. >> i think actually the lack of any substance in that question really does expose just how little detail or substance there isn't a conservative position. let me see without a single word of apology it comes to standing up for scotland entries, i do get a belligerent because that's my job as first minister to stand up for this country. the interest of this country is under threat because of the actions of the server to an somebody needs to stand up for scotland and that's the job of discovering that. >> i'd like to thank the first minister for this statement this year, no guarantees have been given for key e.u. funds were

hundreds of millions supporting jobs than in first shared right across scotland. what reassurance as the scottish government had from the u.k. government in this regard? >> there is no reassurance to anybody affected by this decision from the u.k. government whatsoever. we rightly say your assurance has been given a funds or payments to farmers beyond the statement. we can even yet get the u.k. government to give them the date of the statement as. there's no great expectation at the moment that it's going to even be in autumn. there is no detail on the negotiating strategy, but there is no detail on what is fiscal position is likely to be after the statement. in place of government policy, all we have is meaningless soundbite.

you won't get us very much further. >> the first minister reports the government is in the early stage of formulating advice on a spectrum of options by the vital interest and already underway that the administrations. these are both critical areas going forward. they will outline how the work will be supported. how many officials will support the minister for u.k. negotiations in europe and how many are dedicated to what you witnessed on what is and set aside for these purposes. >> i'm happy to provide for the information. clearly we are putting together officials we have parties substantially done that over the summer. yet we will require to be flexible and become clearer.

i have made clear that i want to be in a position where we are at way to deal with. that is why i said that with a dedicated minister and we will make sure that is supported by the right to a team officials supporting the work directly. this has an impact across a word. and the scottish government and it will be absolutely happy to write to members to set up a structure in the detail. i will be pervading the work and i am happy to develop that on the members. the >> thank you. someone has benefited from the youth funding education and i have huge concerns for exchange program.

with the support for the e.u. exchange programs to ensure the international agenda to end discussions with the u.k. government and also the e.u. member states. >> i specifically mentioned the statement i made asking if she has one of these benefits of e.u. membership since very hard economic benefit, that it benefits their more intangible as well. when you speak to outnumber us have to have gone overseas on the web they tell you about the experience and the development enjoyed as a result underlay and the importance. i think it would be tragic if we lost in any way so it will be very much one of the priorities we take forward as we try to protect the interest. >> thanks, first minister. that concludes the statement. we shall now move onto the

program for government will take a few moments to change it. .. i think armstrong was probably asking for too much and sort of was willing to give too little. but he wasn't able to the treat that as a business negotiation. he thought he was betrayed. >> watch "the communicators" tonight on c-span2.

>> for campaign 2016 c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> we are going to get things done, big things. that's who we are as americans. >> we will have one great american future, our potential is unlimited. >> live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, c-span reader app and c-span.org. monday september 26 is the first presidential debate live from hofstra university. then on tuesday october 4, vice presidential candidate governor mike pence and senator tim kaine debate at longwood university. and on sunday october 9, washington university in st. louis hosts the second presidential debate leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump taking place at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the

presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, listen live on the free c-span reader app or watch live or anytime on demand at c-span.org. >> and now live coverage of a gambling policy conference on immigration with a number of legal analyst investigating some of the key immigration issues facing the next administration and congress. this is just getting under way. >> i'm absolutely delighted to welcome u.s. senator richard durbin. we are going to learn much from them as well as our other just excellent speakers. i want to thank georgetown law for the hospitality and hosting this conference every year, although it sometimes gives me the willies to come t because ts is what i took the bar exam. and want to recognize the dean of the law school, william traynor, as well as another longtime friend of georgetown, who has worked relentlessly and

tirelessly with us on this conference through the years along with his colleagues and their colleagues in the media and defense department. we are grateful to jim atkinson, executive director of the clinic who isn't able to join us today unfortunately, and her former colleague charles wheeler who is your as well as a terrific staff. at mpi i must recognize my colleagues doris meissner who lead our efforts in pulling this event together but they've done this with the absolute necessary support and fully support of our director of events lisa, and a director of communications, michelle, and the communications satellite mpi. finally, i would like to thank you all for coming, even at the early hour i can see many familiar faces in the audience and know that many of you traveled some distance to cover

every year. we appreciate your attendance, your involvement, you're smart and thoughtful and even your uncomfortable questions throughout the day. and so without i want to turn the program over to my colleague doris meissner. doors is a senior fellow at mpi. she directs our u.s. immigration policy program and is as many of you know the distinguished former commissioner of the u.s. immigration and naturalization service. so with that, doris. [applause] >> well, good morning. i am so pleased to be able to begin this day today by welcoming and introducing alejandro mayorkas.

he is familiar of course the most everybody in this room and known personally by many of the people in this room. and that's because he's always gone the extra mile in forging relationships, and very importantly, and listening. we first met in 2009 when he reached out to me having just come together just to be taking over uscis. had not yet happened, and we had an incredibly productive first conversation which grew into a very reductive relationship over all of these years since. and, of course, after having served for several years at uscis as the director, he graduated. he was promoted to a rather difficult process but nonetheless promoted to becoming the deputy secretary of the department of homeland security.

where he has been since administering a $60 billion budget with 240,000 staff. just think about that. but i think it's fair to say that even without sprawling mission and the incredible range of responsibilities of the department of homeland security has and is responsible for, he's probably spent the bulk of his time of any one issue on immigration issues. so we has for the spent of this administration almost uniquely been in is where policymaking and policy execution meet. and that is an extraordinary vantage point. so we wanted to at this point when the obama years are coming to an end, to provide an

opportunity for him to reflect on that perspective, and to tell us about the record of this very active administration, during a very demanding time. so this is really an opportunity to come as i said in inviting him, write the first draft of history of this era. we are very interested to hear it. we are very interested and pleased to have you with us, and one. please, come to the podium. [applause] >> thank you very much for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. i should comment on their grid our relationship with doris. thank you very much for the two kind introduction.

doris is more than a mentor and advisor to me. it's a little bit more unique than that. she's actually my role model in terms of what it means to be a fair but just in a dignified government servant. so my friendship with doris is extraordinarily important, not only to my life but to my work. i'm a political refugee. i was born in cuba, and my parents brought my sister and me to this country to flee the communist takeover of cuba. my parent did not want to raise their children in a communist

regime. and my identity as a political refugee was extraordinarily important to my upbringing, and my parents were very focused on it, instilling in me a deep sense of what it means and what it meant to be a refugee, to be an individual displaced from one's home and the country in which one's parents dreamed of racing their children. -- raising. in 2010 and 11, i had in the course of my work as the director of your citizenship and immigration services the opportunity to learn a great deal about our administration, other refugee system, and to learn about refugees displaced all over the world. and there was one experience in particular that quite frankly shook my identity as a political refugee.

i went with colleagues to nairobi to view our refugee operation there. and from nairobi we took a small plane to the kenyan somali border and visited the refugee camp of the dog. at the time back then, just about six years ago, it had arrested been developed for the placement of about 90,000 somali refugees on their way to resettlement in third countries. in 2010 when i visited, there were just over 300,000 people. i would describe them as poor except for the fact that poverty is suggest that individuals have something but just not enough to make it through.

and these individuals had absolutely nothing. i have never seen anything like it. they lived, they dwelled, they slept on the same. and some of them had plastic bags hoisted on sticks as their only cover. and the others who didn't have plastic bags have nothing. and i remember sitting on an interview other refugee family conducted by one of our refugee affairs officers. and the family consisted of a husband and wife, a father and mother and, therefore, children. and a very close knit family. and the eldest of the children was a young 17 year old woman, and our refugee affairs officer asked her where she'd been born. i thought she was going to say

somalia. and by the way, around the camp for as far as the eye could see there is sand and the receipt. there is really nothing -- and there is keep. it's inconceivable how these individuals can arrive at the dadaab safer and many did not. the 17 year-old woman in response to the question where she was born answered, here. i was born here. and should live or an entire life, 17 years, in this camp, where poverty would actually be an exaggeration. and i came back from that trip and i had a very difficult time identifying myself as a refugee, political or otherwise, understanding the depth of

despair and loss that others who seek the benefits of our refugee system have suffered. and i won't, please, doris, i won't seek to draft the first iteration other look back at the obama administration. but i just want to share a thought on the notion of identity. because it is identity that has to serve as the foundation of our approach to the difficult immigration issues we confront. we have to give thought to the fundamental and foundational question who we are as a country, and who we should be. and how we answer that question on the subject of immigration should be our guide post been traveling through and managing a very, very difficult and

sensitive and too often divisive challenges that we face. and so let me give an example or two. the syrian refugee crisis. there were and remained at least two different approaches, or priorities that our intention with one another, and people, down on different sides of that tension. on the one hand, there are many who believe that it is one of our proudest traditions as a country to be a place of refuge for those in greatest need, and certainly the individuals leading the horror that too often occurs in syria qualify in

that category. and there is a strong sentiment among many that we need to open our arms more widely and more receptive ally and embrace more strongly a greater number of refugees and we have historically. and historically, of course, we have been the leader in the world in resettling refugees. that leadership numerically we can no longer claim, given the fact that we are speaking of over 4 million individuals displaced from the middle east in this time of great turbulence and terrorism. on the other hand, there are individuals who believe that the syrian refugees, as a population, bring a component of concern for our security, that a component of that population may

very well present a threat to our security, that the vetting of these individuals is especially challenging because we don't have the wealth of background information about them, and we must be, therefore, must more circumspect than the president has expressed as our intention as an administration. and how one answers that tension and the challenge of those competing considerations, in my opinion, should be answered by how one defines who we are as a country, who we should be, and we want to be not only today but also tomorrow. and so i don't necessarily suggest what might view of the answer is, i just think that we must reflect on our identity and

what it needs to be as we seek to answer that question. on the issue of security, by the way, one of the things that has developed in my thinking over the last seven years is too, frankly, add an additional pillar to the three foundational pillars of our immigration system. the three traditional ones are of course humanitarian relief, family unity, and economic prosperity. i do think that the notion of security, the security of our country needs to be explicitly articulated as a fourth pillar, given the rapid of the world in which we find ourselves. -- given the reality -- i found the community, that, of course, is not a monolithic entity but the community presents us with our greatest challenge, that the

community, individuals and advocates and thought leaders challenge us and the administration most aggressively when the community believes, and whatever the diversity of views are, when the community police were actually acting and consistent with our identity of who we are and who we should be as a country. i think the rhetoric becomes strongest and in the nation becomes most acute when people perceive a gap between our behavior and our character and our identity. the issue of migration from the northern triangle from the central american countries of honduras, guatemala and el salvador. many have taken great issue with the administration's removal of individuals who have not qualified for refugee status or

asylum status of the united states, and our practice of removing those who are not qualified under our law. the criticism has been that we should be more expansive in how we welcome individuals who we think without controversy everyone understands are fleeing despair, great violence, rape socioeconomic challenge, and great challenges in their lives -- great social economic challenge. we are a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws. whether we expand their bases on which we seek to welcome these individuals fleeing a better life is a question that is answered by thinking of who we want to be as a country. understanding that we have to

manage our borders. are we proudest when we mention those most effectively, and with some orthodoxy to the standards articulated in the law, or are we most noble when we exercise our discretion with greater generosity and welcome these individuals? i don't mean to suggest an answer, but i pose to you the questions that bear on the issue of what one thinks our identity is and should be and, therefore, the answer to that tension and though somewhat divergent questions, or at least the answers the verge from those questions. how does one resolve the? i of course have my views. some might describe it as an

opinionated individual. i would hope so. i have an opinion on just about everything issue under the sun. that's not to say i'm unwilling to change my opinion, but hope that people are interested in the issues of our day and the challenges of our time have views, and strong views about how best to resolve them. recently the department of justice announced that it would be moving its contracted team of institutions -- penalty sufficient to cover rent institutions. the department of justice primarily runs through the bureau of prisons the majority of its institutions already but some are contracted out.

immigration and customs enforcement relies a great deal, much more so than does the department of justice on contracted facilities. and the question has arisen in the public discourse whether immigration and customs enforcement, a component of our homeland security, should follow suit and should and the contracted facilities. and we and the federal system should run than ourselves. i think actually one editorial writer captured what i think is a more fundamental question and more fundamental question of identity, which is the question of are we detaining the right people? and are we proud of the conditions in which we house

been during the period of their detention? straying a little bit from the question of the day of who is operating the facility to the more integral question of who is in the facility and what are the conditions of their confinement. those two questions i don't articulate a guiding thought in terms of my opinion, but those two questions to me go more fulsomely to the issue of our identity, and how we answer that identity should be the guide post of how we resolve that. i will, because i can't help but opine on this last example, and that his children -- and that is children in immigration system. having prosecuted criminal

cases, having observed removal proceedings, having seen first hand the meaning of a removal proceeding on the life of an individual when removal has been eminently deserved and clearly compelled by the law, it's a very consequential event in an individual's life. and it should be, therefore, i consequential event in the life of our country. and i have seen very young children in removal proceedings without guidance or without representation of council. and i hearken back to the supreme court decision of -- which gave all children

regardless of the lawfulness of the presence in the united states a right to an education, and i profoundly believe that every doe has a name, is a person and is entitled to a future. whatever the future might be. and it is hard for me as a former federal prosecutor, as a lawyer was maintained his our status active, and who views himself as an officer of the court to think of a very young child in i removal proceeding, not understanding the meaning, the procedures and the consequence of what is about to happen. as i look back for a brief second on the last seven years, one of the signature

achievements of this administration is the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, daca, that impacted the children as well, children who were brought here by no intention of their own, but by the acts of others. and i think how we treat their presence here is, as they reach the age of maturity throughout the years is a question of our identity as a nation and how we view our immigration system. it is, in fact, the twilight of the obama administration. i think that a very significant immigration issues will confront the new administration, and i do hope that the new administration

confronts the very challenging and consequential immigration issues that will be before it. most notably, of course, the incontrovertible fact that our immigration system is broken. it needs to be fixed, and one should that takes look like, and hopefully may be implemented. and as we look at that issue, i hope we think of our identity, who we are as a nation and who we want to be, and how we answer and respond to that issue, hopefully will be a reflection of how we answer the question of our identity. and on that i will end with just a very brief quote of robert kennedy. our attitude towards immigration reflects our faith in the american ideal.

and i hope we live up to that. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, ali, thank you so very much. we have maybe 10 minutes for q&a, which is going to take place from the microphones that are in the aisle. so please feel free either in this island or in this aisle to come to the microphone if you have a question. now, folks. >> this is, frankly, too good to be true last night. >> this tends not to happen. [laughter]

>> really? >> its early. >> i guess so. i'm awake. spirit mr. secretary, thank you so much for those very thoughtful remarks as we were looking back. and i'm really glad you raised those questions. underscored ask you about one of those areas because it's one that has troubled me a great deal during this administration. and that has to do with the reaction to the rival of larger numbers of central americans from the north triangle, particularly women and children. and we've had in a number of years, and the question on my mind when i think of a refugee, a humanitarian emergency or a crisis or something like that, as you've seen in different parts of the world, i think that the best tool the government has to address that is a rare

protection. .. -- temporary protection. .. there are situations where the government itself, dhs has said publicly in fr notices that the violence is significant in these countries.

therefore we have continued to protect those who have been here since 99 and 2001. along with your question, i would really like to hear your comments on that approach. thank you. >> thank you very much. this has been a difficult issue. let me. >> guest: some of the things we have done and respond to the status which we know is now the subject of a great deal of advocacy. quite a number of organizations are a wonderful institution i've gotten to know or the past few years submitted a letter, if if i'm not mistaken, to the president very recently. as i understand it, temporary protected status protects those individuals are ready in the

united states through a certain date and the question will be what does that mean with respect to the continuous flow of individuals from these countries because the condition in these countries continue to be very challenging. so, i don't know, know, and when i say that, i mean that, i don't know if temporary protective status is the right solution to the problem. that is under study. administration has done some very, very important things that were announced within the past two months. early on, we developed a miners program that allowed minors to be brought here without having to take the perilous journey

because the determination was made there in the central american countries that they could qualify for humanitarian relief and as refugees or alternatively that given the compelling equity that their case presented extraordinary humanitarian relief should be extended and they could be paroled into the united states. importantly, we have worked with the un commissioner for refugees to actually build the first of many, many years of a formal refugee program, also ovulating the need for people in despair from taking the journey from those countries through mexico trying to reach the southern border of the united states and now we will have the high commissioner for refugees administering a formal refugee program in those countries, in

country which is an unusual paradigm but it's an extraordinary move in light of the problems and challenges there. also close -- costa rica has agreed to be a zone for those who can't wait for them to respond in country. i think over the course of the past year that humanitarian programs have expanded significantly. i think the expansion will be even greater in the coming months and we have understudy that the solution you present that others have proposed and support and we will see what comes of that. the ultimate solution, of course , is to address the

fundamental push factors to enable these countries to actually beat down the sources of violence so children are safe walking to school, to address the socioeconomic disenfranchisement, the root causes of this migration. >> can we take one more? >> we can take a few. >> every issue is pressing, there are so many people with such great need. what issues do you see that haven't arisen yet but could. what are the up-and-coming issues what is the future of immigration policy? things that aren't being addressed now, problems that have not yet arisen that you can foresee.

[laughter] >> so nostradamus i am not. that i would have to really give thought, another words what's around the corner? look, what's around the corner is what has come around the corner a lot. i would say it's around the block over again which is comprehensive immigration reform and what are we going to do. i will tell you this too, when i was a federal prosecutor for 12 years, i would look at the statutory framework in which we operated as criminal prosecutors and i would say this make sense. it's a dynamic, it's not without tension, but it's a rather orderly set of framework that is

driven to the three goals of criminal justice, punishment, determination and rehabilitation. i look at the immigration statutory framework and i find it to completely lack cohesion. sometimes, some provisions have been drafted at one time in our country's history and we go left and another provision is drafted at another time in our country and we go right. i don't me not left and right politically i just mean indirection of our identity. the two coexist and are not reconciled. so for example an individual who is eligible for removal may also be eligible for naturalization and sometimes the individual is removed and sometimes the individual is naturalized and i don't understand.

>> let's take this final question. >> good morning my question has to do with the requirement that congress places on your department year after year to maintain 34004 immigration. is that a fiscally responsible policy and doesn't allow your department the flexibility to address the question that you raised earlier of who, if anyone, we should be detaining. i am sure we are not causing undue suffering from the family separation and community that the separation causes. >> let me answer that, there is not a statutory, in the secretary's interpretation,

there is not a statutory mandate that we keep 34000 people in custody at all times but rather that we are funded with 34000 beds. therefore we are funded with the capacity to have 34000 individuals in detention at a particular time. things are intention, many have expressed profound concern with the detention of families and children. those in enforcement have expressed profound concern that in the process of removal there is a very significant failure to appear rate. individuals do not appear for their hearings.

therefore removal orders are issued and people do not, people who who are fugitives from the removal of court. so where one comes out on that, one has to give due consideration to all of the factors and answer fundamentally with what you think is most important. one more question. >> i think we need to go, sorry. i've been told. >> thank you, thank you all very much. [applause] >> now, if you would please stay in your seats, if you want to stand and stretch that's fine but don't leave the room. we are just changing panels and we will go on to the session that begins in five minutes.

and, please, there are seats here in the front. there are some right here in the middle, but please fill in so you can be comfortable. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> we are bringing you daylong coverage of a policy conference including a number of issues

facing the next administration and congress. mike ration policy institute is hosting this event. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] we will now begin with the panel for the day and as those of us who have been facebook friends at this conference every year and those of you who may be new here, we characteristically have begun with the panel that has begun a real institution and that is a panel that we call a

state of play. it is basically what's going on with immigration in politics and in the broader policymaking, and where it touches the political world. we obviously, this is an attempt at a political science kind of panel rather than a partisan panel, but every year we think oh, well, we probably exhausted the issue this year and then the next your comes around and it gets even more heightened and even more hyper charged which surely is the case this year with the way in which immigration has hit centerstage in the election campaign that we are having. i am particularly pleased to be able to introduce and work with the group of people here because

they are wonderfully qualified to be talking about this issue from different vantage points. what we are going to do is what we have always done in the past which is i will ask an opening question to each of the panelists and they will give us their take on the issues, but then we will try as much as possible to have some give-and-take and i encourage the panelists to be asking each other questions and reacting to each other's comments. it doesn't just have to be questions. then we will open the floor to q&a so you can all participate as well. the panel this year is karen who is the national political correspondent at the washington post, david who is at the atlantic, mr. gold who is at the

national association of latino electives and frank, the executive director of america's voice. we are going to go exactly in the order that we have seated people and start with karen. karen, your veteran, you have covered lots of elections, you have covered a fair number of immigration battles, tell us why, in your your reporting and your experience, you think immigration has become such a top-tier issue in this election. is it simply that donald trump has put it there? obviously he has based his candidacy on this issue, or is there something deeper going on that we need to really understand better in order to come to terms with the way in which this issue is being

discussed in our political life today. >> thank you and thank you for the opportunity to be here. i always think back to the day right after the 2012 election when it was absolutely accepted wisdom, i certainly knew, i wrote a number of times that given with what happened in the republican party in 2012 and what happened to mitt romney that some kind of comprehensive overhaul of the immigration laws that it was really not a question of if, it was a question of when. you might recall at that time the republican party conducted what later became known as the autopsy. they too came to the conclusion that they were going to have to do something to sort of reflect the diversity of the country. marco rubio essentially made an entire bat on his presidential campaign that part of that would

be an asset, but interestingly enough, and you can find this on the website at the u.s. patent and trademark office, six days after the 2012 election, mind you, the whole party is freaking out over how are we going to appeal to hispanics. a resident of fifth avenue new york named donald j trump wrote out a $350 check and sent in an application to the patent and trademark office to trademark the phrase make america great again. he submitted exactly what it would look like in the black letters, it's kind of extraordinary to go back and look at this now because i do think that whatever and however you can fault trump on his lack

of depth of policy issues, he clearly had a sense of what this campaign was going to be about for him and how he would run even that far back. so yes, i think it's absolutely trump is a huge part of this, but what he sensed was, i think, in the disarray of the financial meltdown and the recovery that left a lot of people behind that people were going to start looking for explanations of this one quick explanation and especially you hear it a lot in the upper midwest and places like that were particularly noncollege educated white working people have been left

behind, people are coming in and taking our jobs. the fact has often been pointed out that the benefits of immigration are very widely dispersed, and globalization in a larger sense, but there are people out there who see themselves as real victims of this. it is donald trump, but is also something that speaks to something larger and again it is a real sense of people feeling like they are being left behind. >> okay, david let's have you add perspective here. i'm struck by the fact that when you see the stalemate that exists over immigration and has existed as karen said, she would've thought it was not a

question of if but when we would do something about immigration reform. when you look back, we've had president reagan and the first president bush, president clinton, presidents who all signed bipartisan immigration bills. they were bills that had things in them that none of both presidents would've wished if they did it on their own but at the end of the day there was bipartisan agreement in the congress and they signed those bills. since that time, we have not had anything. we've had paralysis and we've had extreme partisanship. from the conservative side of the political spectrum, what what can you tell us about what has changed that is critical between that time and the time that we've seen in the 2000's? what do you think, in looking ahead, it's going to take to bring conservatives back to the

table on immigration legislation ? >> i'm not sure conservatives should be back at the table with immigration reform as it's been conceived for the past 15 years. i think immigration, as we been doing it, is a program that has largely lost its purpose in terms of nativeborn americans. had purposes in the past but today it is a program that is run almost entirely in the interest of newcomers and potential newcomers. i say this from the perspective of being a naturalized citizen myself. every article is addressed to the immigrants and their children and zero to the natives and their children. that is why this is on the ground. i think what we've seen is a revolt on the republican side of the rank-and-file party against the business elite and on the democratic side we have seen a

steady drift in a very radical direction where any enforcement at all against noncriminal aliens is regarded now as unacceptable and not as a point that hillary clinton has hit very, very hard, unless the person has committed a felony they shouldn't be removed. that is true if they've been here for ten years or they arrived this summer from central america climbing refugee status. i think this has been such a red-hot issue. the first is the way immigration interacts with social welfare programs. one way to -- into thousand ten before the affordable care act went into effect 27% of the uninsured were formed born. some of them were citizens, some of them were residents but it

was a response to the problem of the foreign-born population of the united states and its children. through the 1980s and 1990s when the american social insurance network was shrinking, the cost of immigration to the social welfare system became progressively less important initially. in the 2000 with medicare part d and the bush administration and the obama administration the insurance social administration began to grow again. with the affordable care act it's drawing and a dramatic way. the cost of a population that is less skilled, that are going to be net recipients over their lifetime and not net contributors, that's become very explosive especially when the nativeborn population is increasingly nervous about the stability of the programs they depend on medicare and social security. the second reason is the interaction with wages and jobs. we are at a time of tremendous constraint on american wages and

great insecurity about american jobs. that is unlike the time. before 2008. karen i would rephrase what you said about immigration impact. it's a program and a policy that shares its cost and benefits quite wisely but the benefits are received by people, the immigrants themselves and the people at the top, the firms are received by the bottom third of population. in a time of job constraint immigration numbers have become so big and those wage and job effects are very probably experience. the last is interaction with national security. this is more something we experience at secondhand, watching europe and we just marked the anniversary of the 911 attacks. what is striking is that all 19 of the killers were foreigners. there were not many of them who had violated laws in the united

states. since the middle 2000 when we look at our allies and partners in europe, more and more their security challenge comes not from foreigners but from second generation, from the children of immigrants of their country. the mechanism that people once assumed would work so smoothly, america's sea in europe that that has broken down and they are worried a similar kind of breakdown would happen in the united states. obviously the security problems are less extreme then in europe and i think that's why this issue has become so intense. the issue is waiting for donald trump. he had the acuity to see a marketing opportunity that the leadership of the republican party had moved away from its base and the leadership of the democratic party had taken the enforcement is so unacceptable and outrageous that really no compromise is very easy to imagine as acceptable to anybody

>> that gives us a lot to talk about and follow up on. i'm going to try to get all the issues on the table and then will come back to it. thank you david. it's well-known that latinos and other foreign-born minority voters were important in the prior to elections and were important parts of president obama becoming president and becoming reelected. can you tell us, when you look at the selection and when you're looking at the trends of what's taking place, what are you seeing about the possible impacts for these voting blocks in this 2016 election, what can we say if anything at this point about turnout which is a classic problem and issue with our foreign-born voters and other minority group voters despite

what the numbers may be, what's been going on with naturalization with voter registration and about some of the key states, where are some of the key states on these issues that will make a difference? >> first of all, thank you so much doris, i very much appreciate georgetown law center , the might ration policy institute and others to for inviting me to be here for a great discussion today. you're absolutely right, latino and naturalized citizen voters played a pivotal rolls in the last two presidential elections and they are poised to do the same in election 2016. if we go back to 2008, these voters essentially flipped states, states such as colorado or mexico or florida, they help flip those states from states that have supported president

bush in 2004, those states became democratic for the presidential election in 2008 and latino and naturalized voters also help significantly contribute to the victory of president obama in other states such as nevada or virginia or indiana. as we look ahead, one possible scenario on the selection is that history is going to repeat itself. i want to take everybody back to the 1990s and proposition 187 and pete wilson's ad where it shows immigrants going over the border and they keep coming, they keep coming. then i want to take you to 2006 in 2007 where hr 4437 was enacted and you had another time , very inflammatory and divisive rhetoric about immigration and in both of those

points in history, we saw a record number of naturalization followed by record numbers of participation by naturalized citizens in voting. i key question that were looking at is we are once again in a time where it's not just the fact that immigration policy is being debated but the tone and the divisiveness and the rhetoric about immigrants is front and center in the campaign dialogue so we are going to be watching to see what impact that is going to have on turnout. right now we don't quite have enough data. we have certainly seen somewhat of a bump in the number of people naturalizing if we compare sort of a similar time period in 2011, 2012 to what we are seeing now in the last six or seven months, we are seeing a bump.

we have a hotline that provides information about naturalization and voting to latinos and other legal permanent residents and we are hearing in an intensity of people who want to naturalize or vote and this is all anecdotal and it's the same with voter registration. we are hearing anecdotally a great amount of energy amount under around voter registration but this is a situation that still unfolding. if we look at states that are important, i think it's important to realize this is not just about the presidential election. latinos are poised to make a significant impact in a very competitive senate race such as john mccain's race in arizona, mark kirk in illinois, north carolina has both a very competitive senate and gubernatorial races. nevada may see its first latina

senator and florida has a dynamic with a growing puerto rican population that tends to vote democrat, you still have a very politically active cuban-american population where some of the population has traditionally been republican voters but younger voters are little more diverse in their political attitudes and you have marco rubio running for reelection. these are all states where latino and naturalized citizens will play a key vote in the outcome. i want to go back to your comment about turnout in general among naturalized citizens. we still have a way to go to realize the full potential of the latino electorate. this is in part because of what we would see as their dysfunctional component of how our political system works.

candidates and campaigns come around, invest in voter outreach and invest in voter education every four years around presidential election and they target battleground and swing states. in doing that, latinos in places like california, texas, illinois, new york, they are completely ignored by the candidates. so what you end up is many who are eligible to vote live in those states that really you don't see any sustained investment in outreach or vote mobilization. they talk about their identity as our nation and part of identity is to have a robust democracy, we need to have sustained investment in bringing out latinos and naturalized

citizens to vote in every election to matter what state in the union they are in for the long term if we want to have a healthy democracy. we are thinking beyond election 2016 and well into the future. >> frank, i put you forth on the list because you've been in this for so long and you've seen it from so many administrations and congresses of both parties. were in the middle of this pitch battle at this point, but it will be over with in seven or six weeks and then there will be the future to deal with which brings us back to congress and back to the kind of thing that karen talked about, autopsies, whichever side will be doing the autopsies, they will be there and we will have a new congress and there will be some in both parties that want to do things

and others that won't, et cetera give us your best thinking what the after election effects of what we are seeing in this election campaign on immigration might be. can you see any scenarios with the new congress for immigration reform would again be tackled? are we in the kind of scenario of people simply being so divided that there isn't room for conversation again? what can you tell us about how your watching of the congress which each, what are the things we should be paying attention to that will affect what the congress will do in its next iteration. >> okay, yes, well it would be a

little naïve to expect such a polarization polarization that congress would tackle big things and get them done. but i'm naïve. i do think there's a moment of truth. look, if donald trump gets elected, get ready for barricades and civil unrest. i'm sorry. let's not kid ourselves. if hillary clinton gets elected and the republicans maintain control, we are going to talk about what state and local progress can be made and the fight will be there because nothing will get accomplished. if the congress slips to democratic control in both chambers, i think it's just a matter of negotiating the lindsey graham's of the world to get to 60 votes to the senate and we will have for reform. most likely we will have a democratic president and a democratic senate and republican house.

that's the scenario that i think most people are trying to game out as far as what are the prospects for reform or if not reform, what kind of progress can be made through executive and administrative actions as well as state and local policies then, not the short-term prospects what are the long-term prospects. my view is there's going to be a moment of truth if hillary clinton is elected, chuck schumer is the majority leader and paul ryan is the speaker of the house. i doubt you're going to have a replay of 2013 where the senate is going to go first print i think you will have a situation where the president and the majority leader and others sit down with speaker ryan and whoever he brings to the meeting and they say are you going to act or not. i don't think you're going to see senate democrats running into action only to wait for the house to ask because we know how that turned out in 13 and 14. there was no action. it was very frustrating and if the house can't act, and set up

at least a conference committee and a possible final deal, there's not much point other than optics to move forward in the senate. i do think it matters at hillary clinton has said this is one of her top priorities in one of her top three legislative priorities along with criminal justice reform and a jobs infrastructure bill. she's going to introduce legislation in the first hundred days. i don't think that's important, but that will be a marker bill, i suspect and the real question is whether the house republicans will move or not. is paul ryan different than john boehner? i think they both support reform and want reform but paul ryan gets it. if he's going to be the leader of the modernizing forces of the conservative movement, they've got a deal with immigration reform before it's too late. may be too late is not for five or ten years, but you can't the five public opinion and demographic changes in this

country as long as the republicans seem intent on doing without paying a heavy price. they're already playing a price at the presidential level and it really is a matter of time and redistricting for them to pay a price of the house level as well the question is will paul ryan exert the kind of leadership that quite frankly we haven't seen much evidence of to date but the idea of him standing up to the nativist wing and even if he falls on his sword and gets ready to run for president as a person who's determined to leave the republican party out of the wilderness and into the future, maybe, but at least we will have that moment of truth. if you have a senate democratic majority with chuck schumer and a track record on immigration reform on a bipartisan basement and basis, i think there will be a six month intensive effort to press to see if whether or not

there is some possibility of moving to a republican house that could lead to a final vote. i think none of us would be smart to put all of our eggs in that basket. i know for us as advocates we are looking at how to make good on her promise to go further than president obama on administrative reforms and executive actions. there's a huge list. were not just talking about things that are tied up in the court and may take time before comes back, we are talking about a whole range of issues from enforcement priorities and implementation to detention issues, the treatment of central americans who are fleeing violence in the northern triangle and on and on. there is much that can be done that would make lives better that wouldn't require legislation. let me say that the reason that i think, i know there's lots of eyes as all of us are watching

trumps trump and his rallies and david, with all due respect, i think you are very thoughtful conservative and i know you're an immigration skeptic in part and you fight the economic issues, but i think in this election, without an shining race and demographic change there's a big factor that were missing a big part of what's happening in the right wing of the republican party or the populace wing. the fact is, this debate has become extremely polarized and extremely racialized and i think the real question is what is going to happen on the republican side of the aisle. we look at every public opinion poll that's done on this issue. the fact is just in the past two weeks there's been three poles, independent, gallup had a poll saying that 84% of the american people support a path to citizenship as part of her reform. washington post abc poll, 78%. cnn just had a poll last week,

88%. so the american people generally are more than ready for reform that legalizes undocumented immigrants as part of an overall reform that improves enforcement and modernizes our legal immigration system. the fact is, where the debate is is on the republican side of the aisle. there is a tenacious, highly aggressive, very mobilized anti- immigrant win of the republican party. there's certain groups that we all know but there's also the conservative oaks and the top radio folks that are really using this issue to both increase ratings in anger there listen listeners and that's a very formidable force. in the last three rounds of reform, that has been a part of each time the populace right has outdueled the pro- immigrant reformist right.

that's going to have to change. people say is reform going to happen next year? it depends. it depends of the modernizers in the republican party can outdueled the populist. so far they don't have a very good track record. maybe that will change. in the meantime, i think with public opinion, the strength of the immigrants rights movement getting stronger every day, there is going to be lots of advances, even if they don't happen legislatively. i think federally you will see a lot of advances, i of advances, i think states you'll see a lot of advantage, 80s as well. look at california today. drivers licenses, in-state tuition, funding for in-state tuition, access to the medi-cal program for kids up until the age of 19, more and more citizens are doing id cards. you have a situation where undocumented immigrants live a fairly normal existence. the trust act which says police shouldn't be turning over people unless they've committed serious crimes, that i think, california

is exceptional in many ways, i do think you will seem more more states and cities adopting policies that will say, and this is where i disagree again, i don't think there's been a collapse in collapse in enforcement, i think there's been recognition that when barack obama became the do porter chief for deporting 400,000 people a year, the president who supported more immigrants than ever, he did it for one reason. he wanted to show republicans that he was serious about enforcement so they should be serious for voting for reform it didn't work. they didn't trust him and they wouldn't vote for reform and it didn't happen. what he finally decided his wire we deporting people who, 88% of the american people inc. should be here legally. maybe we should focus on the bad actors, have us a situation where undocumented immigrants lead a normal life until we can return to a normal legislative and political setup. i will stop there.

let's talk about this little bit >> let's talk about this issue as you put it, and anti- immigrant force among republicans on that side of the spectrum as compared with the way you talked about it dave as immigration having lost its way, having lost any sense of real purpose. basically the contenders are american citizens and america's interests and the interest of immigrants. that assumes those are different and in opposition to each other. frank's talking about something that is far more political and driven by a smaller part of our population which has been there

historically throughout but that is not reflected in broad public opinion when you look at the polling now for many, many years let's just have comments on that. let's talk about that. anybody who would like to talk about it. >> let me say something about this taxonomy of the republican party. one of the things that is very peculiar about the way people talk about it is immigration is so central and such a matter of consensus among the american elite that -- who are beneficiaries of it. it's a redistributionist program and probably everyone in this room is a net beneficiary from this redistributionist program. the people who pay for the program aren't here. in the republican world if you say i share this belief on

immigration, on the other hand, on healthcare, my view is nothing print i want to take away healthcare for 23 million people. then your modernizer and a centrist and one of the things i have been arguing with the republican party is that is upside down. the future of republican modernization means not saying let's have accelerating numbers of immigrants and an ever shrinking insurance network, it's the other way around. it is on healthcare were republicans need to modernize and compromise. it is on immigration that they need to keep faith with their voters. once you go through that doppler shift, suddenly someone like paul ryan stops looking like a moderate and he looks like a representative of some pretty narrow economic interest. meanwhile the people who are putting their sadly abused and misplaced faith and donald trump are your fellow citizens who have real problems that are not being addressed at all by

responsible governing elites so they're putting their faith in demagogues and irresponsible people who offer no constructive solutions. one of the things that i beseech everyone, what we hear frank's proposal of what's to come, where the democratic party has gone is a little bit like that payment seen in the godfather part two where they explain what his offer is in his offer is zero, nothing. there's going to be no enforcement no heading off of this new surge of immigration from central america that get bigger every summer, there is no plans for, it is shocking and unacceptable to remove people who have been here for ten years or 12 but people who have been here for ten months. there is no discussion about what is the right overall number. one of the places i would, the first question would be we would

not build dams with little cost-benefit analysis as we do with our immigration. how many do we take in a year, what is the number. labor is not an exception of the law of supply and demand. how are we doing with upward mobility? are we choosing the right immigrants because it's not just a matter of more or less but an issue of who. the united states and sweden who have policies that skill's way too low skilled and low-wage people. other countries take people with higher level of skills and education. in canada and australia it's also a redistribution policy but it redistributes down. in the united states it redistributes up. >> i just wanted to mention that

if the dialogue on immigration policy were taking place in a kind of calm and learned discussion about costs and benefits, i think we would all be feeling a little bit different about what is going on in our nation right now what has gone on in the past, but that is not how the discussion emerges when you have these time periods of inflammatory rhetoric. what happens is the dialogue becomes one that is extremely disrespectful to immigrants, extremely disrespectful to latinos and as i mentioned in california during the time of the campaign for prop 187, you had these ads and you could just look at donald trump's comments about who mexico is sending to

the united states. these are not reasoned discussions. these are inflammatory and divisive comments, attempts to reach people at the worst places that there at and this is the reason the community response because there is a level of disrespect to immigrants and their contributions to this country when this issue becomes red-hot. >> i do think one point that david brought up that we move past pretty quickly that might be worth revisiting is the security component of it. i grew up in south texas. i remember being sort of mystified in prop 187 because there was no kind of sentiment like that at all. immigration has just been a part of the fabric of life and that

was in part because the network of social services in texas, and california was a lot about redistribution of public resources, but now i go home and it is very different. i think that in part, in large part, it is the security question. in the mid- 2000, as the mexican government and the drug gangs started going to war with each other and it was beginning to spell across the border, again maybe not necessarily in the overall numbers but enough hair-raising incidents that again, when i was growing growing up, the same ranchers who use to set out blankets and food on the ranches so people coming through on foot would have provisions suddenly were just absolutely terrified.

i do think there needs to be sort of, i think that's a big part of what you've seen in places like arizona and new mexico. there does need to be that conversation as well and especially in the post 9/11 world. >> i will come to you frank but i want to comment this for a moment. it's interesting you raise the point on security. typically when we talk about security, we are talking about national security, terrorist, who comes into the country in ways that might create like a san bernardino, not the southwest border and people coming across that basically our crime and drug which has been there for very long time. of course it's become much more intense with the cartels in

central america. to think of those as synonymous? the southwest border security and drugs and crime as synonymous with the way in which we talk about national security in a post- 911. >> i know people in that part of the country talk about it a lot and that is why, again, going back to texas, they use too, as part of the republican party platform in texas they used to have what they called the texas solution on immigration which was a liberalized approach to it. rick. got in trouble for in-state tuition. in 2014 the 14 the texas republican party repealed part of their own platform that a lot of republicans had been very

proud of. there are a lot of reasons for it, but i do think it was much more security-related and a sense of danger, whether it was the overall numbers, but there was a definite sense there was this chaos and danger that is coming over the border not just from al qaeda agents but also from mexico's own security problems. look at fast imperious too. i think all of this seeped into people's consciousness. >> it is so paradoxical because we've invested huge amounts of money in the southwest border and the numbers are at historic closing at the fear is greater than it's been in all this time.

frank? >> yeah like to commit a little policy here. debate is so easily caricatured by the open border patrol and people who only care about immigrants and people who care about americans, et cetera. let's be clear when we talk about what's commonly referred to as comprehensive immigration reform and we are talking about increased border security. did anyone see the 2013 bill? record increase in border security that just wasn't enough for two thirds of the republicans in the senate even though they said we have to secure the border first? employer sanctions. for some reason everyone is focused on walls and fencing and borders, the u.s. border when the key to reducing illegal immigration is a functioning employment verification system, but to do that with 8 million workers in the labor force will exacerbate all the problems we have with the status quo, drive

people further underground, lead to exploitation, disfavor honest employers. the idea is to legalize the good actor in the labor force to have employer sanctions become a new labor market norm that is effective and have effective border enforcement and have not just how do we ramp up enforcement but how do we modulate legal immigration levels at the high-end at the low-end, family-based employment base, i'm happy to put it all up for question if the question is what's in the interest of american economic growth. at least we will have two levelers to deal with rather than just enforcement. when we ramp up enforcement as we've done for the past 30 years without any corresponding change in our legal immigration system or the growing numbers of undocumented immigrants, now leveled off at 11 million, what

we do is we pass immigration stupidly rather than regulating it intelligently. to me the idea of immigration reform has been somehow dinged as a left-wing fantasy that's only in the interest of immigrants when it would have caps and effective enforcement and make immigration more legal and make hiring more legal and make it more susceptible to go after people who are violating those norms. what's not to like? that is a bipartisan approach in my ted kennedy and john mccain worked on it and why george w. bush was in favor of it, but the republican party has gone to the right, not on policy grounds for the most part, but because there are too many of those people. i think if we don't be honest with the fact that we are dealing with a racial backlash, not from all the people, not thoughtful critics who say it skewed in the wrong direction, let's have those debates, but the idea that the best way to

enforce our immigration laws is to have increasing oppression as if that's going to work has been proven wrong for 30 years. in this room at least we can talk policy. we don't have to believe that the talk radio guys that the border is more out-of-control and all those al qaeda agents are coming across. there's no evidence of that at all. should we have betting and screening, yes. would we have more people screened and vetted if we had reform? yes. should all the central american fleeing violence flee the united states? no. :