the most effective public servants i've ever met. i want to say thank you to you, congressman, and friends for all you're doing. lucero continues to great work. and does great work leading this fantastic organization. congrats to all of you. thanks for having me. and sometimes i start walking a little bit, so if you see me walking from side to side, it's because i can't help it. you know, i was in new york yesterday, actually, with bill de blasio. bless you. bless all of you for that matter. okay? and we were talking about opportunities for everyone. we were about 15 minutes from where my mother grew up in washington heights. my family were dominican. here we go.

my family, you know, they got kicked out. there was a terrible dictator. and my family had to leave. and my mother and her family, we settled in mecca for dominicans at the time was washington heights. and so to be there yesterday was a wonderful reminder of how far we've come. and frankly, how far we need to go. and i look at some of the metrics of progress, and arne duncan probably talked to you this morning about the fact that we reduced the latino dropout rate by 50% over the last ten years. you look at the aca data, and the uninsurance rate. latinos are the most uninsured of any population. but that's gone down by roughly 20% in the last year. thanks to so many people in this room, thanks to the leadership of president obama, and thanks to so many folks who got out there and got the word out in our communities. we're going to keep doing that

under the leadership of secretary burwell as we move forward. that's a real point of pride. you look at poverty reduction. we've had the largest reduction in the past year. one-year reduction in latino poverty rates in the last 15 years. so we're moving in the right direction. at the same time, we all know that we've got a lot of challenges. and we see these challenges. we live these challenges every single day. and what i'd like to do is reflect on, really, three lessons that i have learned over the course of the five years that i've had the privilege of serving. it has been an unmitigated pr privilege for me to serve under this president during these times. because the president is all about opportunity, expanding opportunities. i've learned three basic lessons that i think have a real relevance to this conversation. about immigration. the first lesson i learned, and this lesson i learned long ago,

really, when i was board chair at the casa maryland. which is a wonderful grass roots nonprofit. the thing i learned was, you've fought to make house calls, whether you're the labor secretary, or chair of a nonprofit, you've got to make house calls. i made a lot of house calls in this job. i was out in houston recently, and i met a woman who inspires me. she's been a janitor for over 30 years in houston. she's making 8 bucks an hour right now. she's organizing other similar folks to fight for a better life. she lamented the fact that she didn't have health insurance. and i explained to her, if you lived in california, you would have health insurance. because they expanded medicaid. but your governor made a choice, and it's a choice that's hurting you and so many others. that's why you live in the health uninsurance capital of the united states.

which is unfortunate. but she inspires me. and they helped to organize a labor union and low-wage workers in houston, and she has an optimism and determination about her. and then i had the privilege last year of doing my daughter's high school graduation speech. it was one of the privileges of my life. she went to montgomery blair high school, the largest school in maryland. one of the most diverse schools in maryland. and i wanted before i did the graduation ceremony, i wanted to talk to some of the students. and i met luis, a kid that i knew a little bit, but i didn't know that much. and he's a classmate and a friend of my daughter, amalia. and he's got such a bright future. he is so smart. he was basically a straight "a" student. and i said to him, you have my word that we are going to make sure that your future is bright. because you have done everything right. you continue to excel.

and we need you in america. it's an economic imperative. when you make house calls, and you see people like this, and i met other docca kids in my office. i met someone whose parents live in bangladesh, another whose parents live in the philippines. and, you know, the thing i remember from those meetings was, on mother's day, all he could do, because his mother had been deported, is to call her and wish her happy mother's day. that's not who we are as a nation. and i bring this up, because i think it's really important -- and the president gets out there, because he understands that we can talk numbers all day, but this is talking about real people. and the impact the public policy, whether it's access to health care, whether it's arne duncan's work in education, whether it's maria's work in the small business context, expanding opportunities in urban

areas, whatever the context, we have to get out there. and we are getting out there. that's the segway to my second observation about lessons learned in the job that i've had the privilege of doing for the last five years. and that is, it's always most important to get things right. let me tell you what i mean by that. there was a horrific incident when i was heading up the civil rights division in a town called shenandoah, pennsylvania. a boy was in the park with his girlfriend and got murdered by a group of racist thugs, just because of who he was, a mexican national. there was an understandable outrage in the community. and a call, you need to take action, and you need to take action now. and i understood that call. and at the outset, we disappointed a number of people. because we didn't take action that in their judgment was swift

enough. and i couldn't tell you why then, but i can tell you why now, because it's a matter of public record, because what we learned in that case was that not only were they murdered, because of who he was, but in the aftermath of the murder, there was a cover-up by the police department. so we had not one, but two cases. and what i learned in that context was, it's most important to get it right. i will never ask people to be patient with me. because for some people, their life circumstances don't give them the luxury of being patient. but for us, it's always important to get it right. and i think we got it right in that case. similarly, when arizona passed fd-1070, and alabama passed their series of immigration laws, and i see your body language saying, i remember that time, your nervous tick is coming back.

i can see it already. and there was an understandable concern. what are we going to do? you need to do something, and you need to do something tomorrow. and i understood that. and we understood the attorney general and the president, everybody understand the national circumstance of that. our immigration system is broken, we can stipulate to that. but at the same time, we had to take a very careful look, because we knew there was a good chance that these cases would find their way to the supreme court. and we needed to gather and marshal the facts, so that we could move forward effectively. and i believe we did. we had to get it right. we have no margin for error in the work that we do. and that is why it is so important to get it right. and that is why, again, i understand the impatience that some may feel. and similarly, there's a sheriff you may know in arizona that i spent a lot of time taking a look at. and i got a lot of letters from

a lot of folks. and you know him. and i -- well, i'll stop right there. inside voice. and again, the same thing. we need you to do something, and we need you to do something now. the fact of the matter is, we had to gather the facts. we had to do a fair and impartial review. and those take time. and so we were able to do that. but again, another lesson that i learned, that it is so important in the work that we do to make sure that we get things right. and that is why i bring this up. because this work was so important. and i give you one more example. i had the privilege of working on some matters in texas involving the redistricting. as you know, texas has the largest latino growth in the recent census. and the largest population growth, overwhelmingly latino, something like 90%.

and yet when they drew the districts, there was no additional opportunity in congress for latinos to elect a candidate of their choice. and there were other concerns. and there was an understandable outcry. and again, you need to do something, and we need to do something now. and i understood that instinct. but again, it's always important to get things right. and i'm very proud of the work that we did in that case, because we were able to put a case together, in which a three-judge panel, two of them who were appointed by republican presidents, agreed that what they did was discriminatory in the redistricting context. so getting things right has always been our north star. and sometimes getting things right takes longer. and patience is not a luxury that so many people who are suffering have. and that is always the challenge. and that brings me to my third and final observation, or lesson

that i've learned in my job. and that is, that leadership and values matter. i just happened coincidentally today to have lunch with two of my favorite people. one guy is ali, and the other is leon rodriguez. ali is the deputy secretary at the department of homeland security, and leon is the head of u.s. cis. they have two of the most important jobs in the federal government. and so far as the immigration discussion. and i have seen their leadership in action. and i have seen the leadership of their boss in action. i have seen the carefulness with which secretary johnson, the thoughtfulness with which he has been approaching these issues. and it has singularly impressed me. because he wants to get it right as well. and he understands that getting it right involves listening to

everybody. making sure you understand every perspective, your employee's perspective, the community's perspective. every single perspective. and that's what he is doing. and that's what ali and leon are doing. and i would respectfully assert that those departments, those components are in very good hands. because i know their values. and i've seen their leadership in action. and there's one other person that i want to talk about with respect to leadership. because i've had the privilege of having a front-row seat. and that is the president. i've lived a charmed life. the opportunity to work in the civil rights division, the opportunity to expand opportunities at the department of labor. today we just issued a regulation enforcing the president's minimum wage executive order, because we need to set an example as a federal government. if we're asking the private sector to pay a minimum wage, then we need to do the same with

federal contractors. and that is at the federal register as we speak. because nobody who works a full-time job in this country should have to live in poverty. nobody should have to make the choices -- [ applause ] no one should have to make choices between a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas. i speak to people all the time who tell me, there's no dignity in a 50-hour work week when at the end of the week you have to go to the pantry to get your food. that's not dignity. and that's not america. and one of the reasons i love working for this president is that i've seen his moral compass in action. and i've always said, if you're trying to figure out what somebody stands for on an issue, go do some research on what they did before they were in the dramatic public spotlight. and when you look at the president on immigration, his

commitment to this issue dates way back to his time in illinois state government. way, way back. because he has understood -- and as someone who has lived overseas, he understands that we are a global universe. here in the united states and everywhere. and he understands that we are a nation of immigrants. and we are a nation of laws, and we can be both. and i have seen those values in action. and i want to share a story that i had the privilege of having a front-row seat on. it was a story about three months ago. we were together in minnesota. in minneapolis. we were doing an event surrounding job training. and we were with about 13 young women, average age was about 17, 18 years old. and they were all in this job training program. and they were all moms, single

moms. and after all the press had left, the president had some face time with these folks. and they were remarkable young women. they were trying to better their lives. they wanted to make sure they could make ends meet, so that their children could grow up. you should have seen the look in their eyes. what did you do today? i hung with the president. the president talked to them about how, you know what, my mother was 18 years old when i was born. one of you may be helping to raise the next president of the united states. it can be you. and then he turned to them and said, do you have any questions for me? and the first question was, if you could accomplish one thing, mr. president, this year, what would it be? and a nano second later, he said, and again, there were no cameras in the room, there was no press in the room. this was a very intimate

setting. and i remember vividly, he said, comprehensive immigration reform. because i have met so many people across this country who want opportunity, for whom opportunity continues to be elusive. and congress has always worked on this issue together. and for some reason, there are some in congress on one side of the aisle in one chamber who aren't allowing this to come on. and you could just see his values and his leadership in action. and so, the upshot of what he has said then, and what he says today, is simple. our immigration system is broken. plain and simple. the question -- and the best way to fix it is through a bipartisan bill in congress. like the senate passed.

but absent that, the president, and as he has done with the department of labor on minimum wage, on overtime, on so many other issues, he will not hesitate to take executive action. so let me be slightly clearer. the question of whether -- the question of executive action, my friends, is a "when" question. because the question of immigration reform is not a question. the need for immigration reform is an economic imperative. it's a moral imperative. it's a national security imperative. and it is an issue that is all about his values and his leadership. and that's why i love working for this president. and that is why, again, as i said to you about eight minutes ago, the most important thing i've learned in my job is you've got to get it right. and i'm confident, because i've

worked for this guy for a while and watched him in immigration. that on immigration, we're going to get it right on the executive side. but we've got to get it right as a society. in congress. and i'm confident we can do that. and i have the same optimism that javier becerra has in this issue. because everywhere i travel, i talk to business leaders, and they tell me the same thing. we need immigration reform. i talked to docca young adults, and we owe it to them, as you well know. i talk to faith leaders. i talk to my republican friends who tell me privately, of course, we need this. and that's why i have such optimism. because the people in this room have been catalysts. you know, i come from the movement, and i come from a world in which change doesn't happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up. i was working for senator kennedy in '96 during the

iteration of immigration reform. there were so many times they told us we couldn't do things. but we did it. and i am confident that we're going to do it again. because there is so much energy and know-how and sticktuitiveness in this room. i know senator kennedy is in this room right now. if he were here, he would be telling you, you never give up the fight. nothing worth fighting for is ever going to be easy. and this ain't easy. but we will continue to make progress. let's remember, let's get it right. and let's make sure that we understand our values. and let's make sure we do things that are consistent with our values. and i hope you have seen through the course of five years the value of this president in so many different contexts in action. that has made my current job so much easier. knowing that when we're trying to make sure that low-wage

workers recover the wages they're entitled to, that i've got a guy who has my back. knowing that when we take action on voter i.d. laws, or redistricting plans, or in the police setting, that we have the law on our side, we have the facts on our side, and we have leadership on our side. let's remember that. and let's remember, let's get it right. let's continue to be persistent. we will succeed. [ speaking spanish ] thank you. [ applause ] the congressional hispanic kaugz conference also featured a panel on immigration. we'll hear from congressman luis gutierr gutierrez. this is an hour.

>> good afternoon. boy, those lights are bright. i can hardly see how many people are out there. but it appears to be a good crowd. thank you very much for coming. and thank you very much for having me. i just want to -- before we start this very important panel, tell you why i'm interested in it. why i have in fact am lucky to start covering for abc news and infusion the immigration reform debate. many of you, my parents, my grandparents, were immigrants. they came across many years ago. in the '20s, actually. my grandparents came across from chihuahua, mexico, into texas. they worked in the fields. my grandfather worked in the glass factory and taught himself to read and write in english. and then he raised eight children. all of them professionals. many of them went to college. and all of them contributed to society. and that, of course, is the model and what we hope happens with immigration reform.

and the reason why that is such an important issue to those in the hispanic community. i want to get to this panel as soon as we can. because it is a distinguished panel. we have a lot of ground to cover. i want to remind you as we go along here, we'll be taking questions from the audience. there will be members of the staff here who will be going around with microphones. wave your hands, flag them down. but let me introduce our panelists first. if they'll come into the room. that's your cue. [ applause ] >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> let me start right here on my

left. representative luis gutierrez. he's from chicago, where i first began covering his work in politics, as a city council member and supporter of harold washington back in the early '80s. we've known each other for that long. representative gutierrez, of course, is nationally recognized for his tireless leadership championing the issues that are particularly important to latino and immigrant communities. of course, he's been on the forefront of the immigration reform efforts in congress. next to him is representative joe crowley. [ applause ] representative crowley is in his -- is a life-long new yorker and served the people in the bronx and queens since 1998. he's the vice chair of the democratic caucus, and his efforts in congress are increasing access to health care and housing, protecting seniors' hard-earned benefits and opening up educational opportunities for

families. welcome representative joe crowley. [ applause ] and ana navarro is with cnn, and has played a role in federal state races in florida. most recently she served as national hispanic co-chair for huntsman's 2012 campaign. her work in the private sector included representing private and pb lick clients in federal issues, particularly related to immigration trade, and of course, you probably see her on the sunday panel shows. ana navarro. [ applause ] and last, but not least, tony suarez. he is the vice president of chapters of the national hispanic leadership conference, serving 40,000 congregations in the u.s. and puerto rico. he has been an outspoken advocate for immigration reform in those posts. ladies and gentlemen, there's our panel. [ applause ]

first i want to talk sort of about the state of play, what's happening now, where we're at with immigration, where we hope to go, and where we think we will go practically. i'm going to ask each one of you to take a couple minutes, if you would, and talk to us about that, before we start the questioning. congressman gutierrez? >> well, it's a pleasure to be here with you here this afternoon. thank you, jim, for moderating this program. it's really an honor to have you here. so the last year we celebrated the fact that republicans and democrats were able to come together and put together a comprehensive immigration bill in the senate. and then there was a group of eight in the house of representatives, and we continued to work to put together a bill. when it became clear that we were not going to have the support of speaker boehner and the republican majority in terms of the process and the product

that we had, the group disbanded. i continued to work with mario, who is a very dear friend of mine. and has been a constant and consistent champion for immigrants, even within his own republican caucus. and i think we should all be thankful to him for his fine work and his commitment and his dedication. [ applause ] but he and i and a group could not put this together. we recognized that early this year, in january, the republicans came forward and said, we're going to give more life and we're going to put our principles out there. and one of the principles was the dreamers could go straight to the american citizenship. the principles were not concrete. you could extrapolate that they get to go straight to the citizens and legalize millions of people. what did the democrats say? i guess we were so overjoyed,

because they took it back within a week, right? they said, oh, just kidding. kind of a sleight of hand. they said, we really didn't mean it. they said we had to wait until may or june for all the primaries to be over, for the republican primaries to be over. voila, the majority leader lost. then they said we're not moving forward. so then the president came forward and said, well, this is what i'm going to do. i always believed this. that speaker boehner and the president had an understanding, and had conversations, and had a relationship. and part of their relationship was, we're going to work on immigration reform. we're just not going to -- once the speaker called him up at the end of june and said, we're not doing this, now he said he's doing it after the election, and the same thing obama said, after the election, well, then the president said, i will take action. i will use prosecutorial discretion, and what are we waiting for.

we're waiting for the president to act. i think he should have acted before the election. i spoke to my daughter jessica yesterday -- [ applause ] i spoke to my daughter yesterday. she's in baton rouge, in louisiana. and she says, daddy, is that lady landrieu a republican? and i said, why? because, she's acting kind of conservative out here, number one. and they keep complaining that all she does is vote with obama. so she must be a republican who turned her back on the republicans and supporting the president. so now they must be angry with her. i said, no, daughter, she's a democrat. what's the main issue they're using out in louisiana? two words, illegal immigrant. that is the basis of the campaign, as she is a student on tv. all we did is make our people suffer even more, and the political issue of immigration is going to be there.

and you know what? senator udall needs us to come out and support, and what we have said to latinos, we're waiting until after the election, because we can wait until after the election. we should not use elections for a barometer of when we're going to have justice and fairness for our immigrant communities. [ applause ] so i think that's where we're at now. the president will elect -- here's what i think. sometime before christmas, some 5 million undocumented workers will be afforded an opportunity to come out of the shadows into the light of day. and everybody in this room has to get ready to help them. to receive them. to be ready to help them. it's not enough that we march and we protest it and lifted our voices for them. now we have to fill out the paperwork. we have to find them, get them

the resources, because -- [ speaking spanish ] i don't care what the president does, it's going to be a difficult road. there's a community of people. remember when we did it in 2012. are we prepared for 5 million? i think we have to get ready for them. i think that's our basic challenge. so i'm done. i'm ready for the president to act. the question is, are we ready to act in defense of our community once the president does that. [ applause ] >> that's tough following that. >> yeah. >> the lovely position of being after luis. you asked where the state of plan is, and i don't think anyone could give a better answer than luis at this point. i think we're all caught up in the euphoric atmosphere from

last summer when the president acted. we had the faith in politics issues, the bipartisan delegation, up to new york with eric cantor. we went to liberty island, ellis island, to my district in jackson heights. eric cantor gave a great speech. and eric cantor is no longer in congress. can't help us at this point. it shows the volatility of the state of play of politics throughout the country. and so we can't help the political cycle, or the calendar we live under. it's set right now. it can be changed, but i don't suggest we do that. we have to work around that as well. so we do have this period of waiting for the elections, because we're not going back to -- we're not coming back to washington to work on legislation, that's clear. although i think we ought to come back to have a vote on the authorization of use of force. that's my opinion. that's a separate issue. we should come back and do that, and debate that and have that

vote. having said that, i think we know the latino community cares about the issues. this is an important issue to the latino community. but it's also an incredibly important issue for the future of our country. the best, the brightest, and i say the bravest continue to come here, want to make america a better country. we need to welcome them with open arms. i think we'll get it done, because we have to get this done. it's in the interest of our country to get this done. luis has given to you the state of play. i'll turn it back to you for the extra time. members of congress don't usually do this. >> i'll remember that. ana navarro, from the other point of view, from the republican side, what's in the state of play there? how has that evolved and where do you see it now? >> well, as far as where we are, i think right now we are at an impasse legislatively. but i think we cannot allow ourselves to be at an impasse in the fight for this.

we have in a lock right now. i think after the happiness that we all felt when there was the bipartisan agreement in the senate, that was announced last year, and then now we're disillusioned because we are where we are. nothing happened with that. we haven't gotten executive action. there's a lot of disillusionment in our community. and we cannot afford to be disillusioned. [ speaking spanish ] we have to keep going. we have to keep pushing. i will keep pushing my side, as so many other republicans will, and democrats have to keep pushing your side. i think it's also very important that we realize that we are at a crossroads as a community. how we react, how we act upon these set of circumstances, i think will determine whether we become political pawns, used at election time, or whether we outsmart the politicians and

actually make them court and earn our support. i am, frankly, i'm right now upset, disappointed. and i'll tell you, i'm damn angry with all sides. because why is it that it's always the latinos and immigration that has to wait? we have had nothing but big promises from president obama, that have not been realized. and from the republicans, not even promises. and that is unacceptable. [ applause ] we had a president who told us during the 2008 campaign that he was going to get immigration reform done the first year. and you know what? we let him get away with not doing it, because the economy, the bailout, obamacare, you know, all these things, okay, and he got a pass.

so then he promised again. an executive action. well, that didn't happen, because the children on the border and this and that. somehow it's always latinos that have to end up waiting. everybody else gets their turn. but latinos -- you can wait just a little bit, because it's not convenient. for us to be told that executive action is going to happen, after the election, it's -- i'm sorry to tell you this, the height of political scynicism. can't you at least lie to me and tell me that's not why you're o doing it? on the republican side, my peeps haven't been good all that either. when the standards were announced in the beginning of the year, like luis said, most people were okay with the standards. it was the timing, they bought

that. yes, it is political cynicism to say we have to wait until after the primaries. the primaries don't end until august. as far as eric cantor, i think that was one of the biggest mistakes, most misread race by the media and the political class that we have had this year. the most misread. because it wasn't immigration that cost eric cantor his seat. it was eric cantor that cost eric cantor his seat. [ applause ] >> reverend suarez, let me ask you about -- there has been an incredible coalition that has come behind immigration reform. including churches from all sides, including conservative based churches, that are supporting immigration. is this delay, is the delay by congress to pass anything, and then the president delaying to

decide to take unilateral action, is that hurting the coalition? is the coalition concerned? >> i think the coalition is strong. on behalf of our 40,180 churches that still have faith, that we believe that this year, before the year is over, we'll have some type of immigration reform. either through an act of god, which means congress does something, or through executive action. >> oh, my god. >> the white house. we believe -- >> god's not looking too good these days, if that's the case. >> i'm the preacher on the panel, so i have to exhibit faith to you all. to us, immigration, it's a vertical situation. it's also horizontal. i also did just bless you right now. it's vertical because this does matter to god. it's horizontal because it does matter to our people. just yesterday one of our pastors called on his way to arizona to identify his brother-in-law who passed away in the desert in arizona because he was lost for a month. he heard the trucks coming. he had lived in the country for

13 years, has four children born in this country. immigration deported him. he came back to provide for his children. as he was crossing the border, he heard a truck. he was fearful that it was immigration. and he ran. he's been in the desert for a month. and now he's dead. i tell my evangelical brothers and sisters, if you are pro-life, you can't be anti-immigration. because this is a life issue. [ applause ] life is not just about conception. it's about that god cares about your life from the woman all the way to the tomb. and so as faith believers, as leaders of the faith community, reverend rodriguez and our 40,000 churches, we continue to fight for comprehensive immigration reform. there is no excuse for this to happen. this is the one issue that unites everybody, except

congress. congress needs to come in line with their constituents. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> that's sort of where we are. let's talk a little bit about where we're going. congressman gutierrez touched on this. let me get you to expand upon it. you have been in discussions with the white house. you are in touch with groups who meet with the white house about what are the possibilities here. so let me ask you first of all about what your prediction is about what the president will do. you said 5 million undocumented come out of the shadows. who are those people? who do you expect them to do? what is the third rail? >> the first thing is, when i was asked what i thought, i used a large number. because i'm never going to negotiate with myself with a low number. the important thing --

>> 5 million is optimistic? >> i think very realistic. here's what, every time i used to say something about what the white house would do, the white house would react. and say, oh, luis is wrong. i can't do that. no one at the white house said they're going to do 5 million people. that's a good thing. they have not responded either through the media or through -- they're pretty nice when i speak about what it is they're going to do. that gives me optimism, number one. >> if i were you, i'd be scared. >> number one, i'm -- [ laughter ] >> that's why i'm sitting between the two of them right now. >> number two, look, when we're sitting down with the president of the united states and the hispanic congressional caucus, and we're negotiating on behalf of our community, the president responded by saying, if somebody's been here a few years, they've been working, they've established roots in

their community, maybe they married somebody, even an american citizen, they have american citizen children. by the way, there are 5 million american citizen children who have undocumented parents. then maybe they should be able to come forward at their own expense, register with the government, and if they have a clean bill of health, criminally speaking, then we should give them a work permit and set them aside. because there are murderers and rapists and bad people that homeland security should be going after and not good people who have established themselves and are contributing to our economy. that was his response. now, let's say for a moment, just for our purposes here, i know a lot of people need to understand, if the president was with the dreamers, he said in 2012 they had to be here five years. remember that? they had to be here by 2007. he's going to pick a date for the other undocumented. let's say he says it's ten

years. do you know how many people is ten years? 5.6 million people. have been in this country ten years or more, undocumented. then there is the -- there is that. one last thing that i think is very, very important. to show you how broken our immigration system is. they fixed the broken immigration system back in '97, the republicans fixed it. and one of the things they did is they punished people who were here waiting for their visa. so if i luis gutierrez go out there and get married and prove to the government, "a," that i'm a citizen, sponsoring an immigrant, and i prove that we're legally married, and she goes through a background check, they grant her a visa. but the problem is, when i take her to manila, or i take her to dublin, or i take her back to the country she's from, they say, now, stay there for ten years. the president can do this.

he can parole them in place, 1.3 million people who are legally trying to get through the system. these are husbands, wives, children, parents of american citizens, and legal immigrants in the united states. and the president can simply say, i parole them in place. and they can go straight and pick up their green card and come back to america. [ applause ] so those are the things that -- those are two groups. six, ten years, and he picks specific groups. in terms of the dreamers, he picked 2007. but he picked 2007 and 2012. why doesn't he just up the date? say all the dreamers that are right there in 2010. why doesn't he change the date from 16 to 18? if he makes those kind of small changes, there's another 250,000 people. it's all important. here's what i'm saying. we have to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and we need to prepare to help them. we need to prepare to help them. but we will leave no one behind.

this is a down payment. and we will work -- [ speaking spanish ] [ applause ] >> congressman, let me ask you about the prospects actually in the house. aside from what the president does. at least in the house, nobody's talking about the democrats winning the house. so with that variable. >> it's a lonely conversation. but in the house, it's likely to remain similar to what it is now. what are the chances of anything progressing after the election in the house, after the president makes whatever limited changes he makes unilaterally. >> i should first clarify, whenever luis and i have a private conversation, there are at least five or six people total at one time. it's very multiple.

i think it's an important question, because what we're talking about, whatever the president does in terms of executive order, it's not a temporary fix. we're talking about the numbers of people. we can in effect help stay and help contribute. and stop the deportations. that's one of the things we're looking for, what can we do to slow this down as well. but it does not remove the responsibility of congress to act. to actually getting a comprehensive bill passed. we're waiting to see what the results, first of all, of this election will be. that's what we do now, we'll wait until after that. i wouldn't hold my breath, reverend, waiting for a legislative fix between now and the end of the year. if there's any change in the senate, there's no incentive for them to act at this point in time. they'll wait until next year. i think it's safe to say that the bill that was passed in the senate is going to be a good marker for the senate. but that bill will die at the end of this year and we'll have to start the process all over

again. the makeup of the senate will be important whether they can get to the 60-vote margin, or anything they can bring to the floor at that point. as i said before, i think we'll have to deal with this business. it's such an overwhelming humanitarian issue. it's a national security issue. it has to be dealt with. the real question will be, and it goes back to her peeps, the issue of whether or not within her party, within the house of representatives, can we have a real debate about this amongst rational people, about how we move forward in dealing with this issue. and that is what's really -- we haven't been able to do that in the house of representatives. they'll be angry when the president acts in an executive order. they're angry whenever the president does that. this will be a tact, whatever he does after the election will be attacked. he has worked in the past on executive order to do something in light of the congress' failure to act legislatively.

i have high hopes. i really do. i believe the country will rise to the occasion. we've done it in the past. all four of my grandparents came here as an immigrant, my mother was an immigrant. they came to this country because this country did big things. this is a big thing. i'm in the congress to do big things. and to take political risks. maybe this for me is not as big a political risk as for others. there are other issues i'm willing to work on as well, that present political risk for me. accomplishing this will be one of the biggest things i can ever imagine doing in my career in congress. and i have tremendous faith we'll do something. we will do something. we'll have to act. >> ana navarro, let's talk a little bit about what the republicans have done in congress. they did propose several bills in the last congress. all of them were pretty much border security bills. very few of them dealt with --

well, one of them dealt with dreamers in a very punitive fashion. but in general, there have been border security bills. what's it going to take for the republican party in your opinion to move past border security, recognizing that there are more -- that more money is spent on our border than has ever been spent in history, and concentrate on the real issue of immigration reform? >> you know, i think even though by looking at some of the billinbills that you just talked about, most of them didn't go anywhere, right? they were just symbolic. but bad symbolism, i agree with you. they were symbolic bills that were pushed through by a small band of republicans who wanted to make the symbolic point, despite what it may mean for the party in general, for the country in general, and for relationships with latinos.

but i think the majority of republicans -- and i talked to a lot of them, both in the house and in the senate, and out in regular america -- are hearing from the constituents. the faith community, the business community, families, voters, and i think that hearing -- and employers -- they're hearing over and over again that this issue needs to be addressed. there is a wide recognition that the status quo is broken, that the issue needs to be addressed. yes, there is a vocal minority, and a lot of times they are able to wag the dog. there is a vocal minority in congress who feels differently. and they have, frankly, punched above their weight and made more noise than they should have. but they can't get anything done by themselves. look, i -- what is it going to take for republicans to realize, and i think most republicans do

realize it, but they haven't figured out that way to move it forward. now, we have seen, since barack obama was elected president, we have seen the dynamic of a democrat president, a democrat house and a democrat senate, de. nothing happened. we've seen the democrat president, the republican house and the democrat senate. nothing happened. we may, after november, we don't know, have both houses, the senate and the house under republican hands. and the question's going to be, is that dynamic going to be any different? will mitch mcconnell and john bohn able to agree on something in a way john boehner and harry reid have not? so, i'm going to steal some of his faith and hope for that small miracle. >> so, let me ask you, a follow-up on that, just practically, do you see a republican majority in the senate actually being beneficial for immigration reform?

>> yes. and can you explain that to me? or to us? >> i guess i can't do the faith thing. look, i think that john boehner and mitch mcconnell have a good relationship. it's no secret the relationship between john boehner and harry reid is, at best, nonexistent. i think both want to do -- want to address immigration reform in a comprehensive way. it may not be what louis wants or mary wants or most of us want, but it may be a package that addresses most of the major issues. >> do you think it will go past border security? >> yes. because i think they understand -- first of all, if it's only border security by itself, without it being sequential or something, having

some sort of trigger mechanism, being part of a more comprehensive package, number one, i don't think the president would sign it. number two, i don't think they would get it through. so, yes, if they want to get something through, it's going to have to be carrots and sticks. and we as a community are going to have to come to terms with the fact that it may not be everything we want, but that it might be something we want. again, that depends very much on the election results, which i believe are a coin toss today as far as who's going to be in the senate. unlike congressman crowley, i think the republicans do keep control of the house. >> and so, reverend, when you look at all this and how politics, if you take ms. navarro's relationship for why republicans have not put together bills that address immigration reform, just border security f you take her

explanation that it's a small group which has prohibited the republicans from exhibiting their real will, what they really want to do, that's how i understood your point -- >> let's remember there were four republican senators who teamed up with four democratic senators who did put forth a comprehensive bill. >> right. on the senate side. >> right. but there was also small group, active small group, trying to do the same thing and putting a lot of effort in political capital, led by on the house side. they couldn't get it done but they put a lot of time, political capital and effort on their part. so, i don't think it's fair to say that only bad things have happened. neither either of the -- nert the bad things or good things have come to reality but there's been a lot of effort on the good things as well.

>> let me get your opinion on when you watch the politics of this. it must be for someone who's outside of that realm disappointing to see that occurring when if it's true, a majority of the republicans believe the system is broken and needs to be fixed, and a majority of the democrats do, but still nothing happens. >> well, for the last several years, what we heard from leaders in the house was cover us, we're going to get it done. we're going to get it done in june. we've covered it, prayed and we've stood, and nothing happened. there was courage in the senate to get something done. the problem was that there wasn't a marco rubio in the house on the republican side that would stand up, take courage, not be scared of the tea party or any other party and say, look, we have to get this done. as a pastor i teach there's

power in prayer, but as a citizen, there's power in my vote. the best thing i can do and tell my constituents and we're doing this with our work with different organizations, what are we telling our people? you must show up to vote because i don't think -- i don't think congress has felt the consequences of us voting against -- or not voting for those that don't support immigration reform. as evangelicals, we voted -- the 28% that voted for governor romney, 58% of the 28% of hispanics was evangelicals. that will not happen again. if you don't support immigration reform, you won't get the hispanic vote and the evangelical vote. they have to realize this. >> let me ask the entire panel, and then, louis, you can chime in on this as well. let me start on your end. the unaexpected minor crisis that happened this year, the president in his interviews, in

explaining why -- one of the reasons why or maybe even the main reason why, he delayed action until after the elections is he admitted he lost support of the american people. and he blamed that on unaccompanied minor crisis. that flight frooitened america and he needed time to educate -- re-educate folks about why they should support immigration reform again. do you agree with him? did you see -- did you see people afraid because of what they were seeing was happening at the border? >> i think the president made a profit out of reverend rodriguez, my boss, because he said in 2007, today's complacency will become tomorrow's captivity. that's exactly what happened. yeah, kids are captive at the border. parents are captive of my kid coming, are they sending them home. we need to educate, reinvigorate the situation, but it's time for someone to act. and if it's the president, the

house, just someone, please, do what you say you're going to do. >> what effect do you think the crisis with the unaexpected minors created? >> let me try to do a few things. number one, this was not an american crisis. 70,000, 80,000 kids showing up at the borders of the most powerful, strongest nation in the world, it's a crisis of central america. you know what it is? it's a logistical headache for us that we can take care of. >> amen. >> i mean, 125,000 showed up, and i don't remember the republicans standing up and saying, send them back and saying, we will not receive them. >> so, let's just understand what the republicans did was they used the children at the border and exploited them for political gain. by saying they were criminals, that they were dirty, filthy

criminals, coming here to destroy america. they said, i'm not adding or subtracting to the speeches that they gave on the house floor. one of them said, they were bringing the ebola virus to america. now, unfortunately, we've had the first case. it is a tragedy in africa. they even use a tragedy in africa because the problem we have is that of the 11 million undocumented, right, 5 million of them never crossed that border. illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal. [ speaking spanish ] that's the only people they ever talk about, so if you were to seal that border dourngs people would still overstay their student visa. people would still oversay their tourist visa, their work visa. people would still be in this country undocumented in the united states of america. but they keep -- now the new thing is that the terrorists are coming through. they have american passports.

why would they need a coyote? you need a coyote because you don't have a passport! it just doesn't make sense. it's fornt have these conversations. there are dozens of wonderful men and women in the republican caucus that want to get this done, but their leadership will not allow them to join democrats in the house of representatives to get it done. [ speaking spanish ] >> we can't get it done because the leadership will not allow us. they say, everybody can't become a citizen. you remember this, jim, i say, okay, everybody can't become a citizen. we can't do the senate bill. i say, let's do a house bill. they say, he with have to do it in parts and pieces. even the president said, let's start putting the pieces

together. we said, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes and in the end, they walked away. i understand democrats walked away and didn't show incredible courage but that was yesterday. i'm talking about, who is in power and has the capacity to do it today. but there is a difference, because my daughter told me. i don't see candidates for the u.s. senate that are democrats, right, going and using immigration, right? against the republican. no, it is republicans in arkansas, in louisiana, in the carolinas and across this country that are using immigration in order to gain a majority in the u.s. senate. and i'm supposed to believe that you're going to pound the hell out of the electorate and then come back and be good to immigrants when you've won the election. i can't believe that. [ applause ] i'm going to end with this because i want others -- the president said he has the authority to act.

the president needs to act. if the congress of the united states will not afford our community justice and fairness and that we're willing to do according to their rules and regulations, then the president has to act. but let me just be clear to democrats and republicans alike. if mitch mcconnell and speaker boehner or any two leaders of the republican party, watch this, it's wednesday, it's the day after the election in november. i can hear them already. oh, we are going to make a priority of immigration reform, but the president better not spoil the well by acting unilaterally. no, no, no, no. [ speaking spanish ] the president got elected by 5 million more votes than mitt romney. he said to the dreamers he would free them and that that was a down payment.

it is now time for the president to act. we will not accept an excuse on the democratic side and we should not accept any republicans telling us to wait. [ speaking spanish ] [ applause ] >> if anybody else wants to add, i'm certainly happy to let you or take it on, whatever you want to do. i also want to turn to the audience and see if there are questions there. >> before we go on, let me say something about what luis said. i agree with a lot of what he said. you began the question as to the minors on the border. did that change public opinion? yes. should it have?

no. but did it? yes. but at the end of the day, you and i know it wasn't that that held the president back. it was mar landrieu, mark begich, mark pryor picking up the phone and calling the white house over and over again saying, if you do executive action you're going to cost us our election. so, they've been just as political as the people that you just talked about. and they should be unacceptable to all of us. but that's what these folks are doing. and let's remember this, because, you know what, who has control of the senate may come down to louisiana. [ speaking spanish ] and i hope that they remember that mary landrieu was on the phone, asking the white house not to do executive action so she should save her seat. with that [ speaking spanish ] >> let's go to the audience for questions. thank you for that light.

microphone's up here. >> thank you. i want to thank all of you for being here. i'm kind of excited. i'm kind of nervous at the same time. i have to share this before my question. i'm a state representative in phoenix, arizona, married to a person that's in process that was detained the last session before finishing my session this term. this day and age, and it affects us all but my question is this and i'm confused. i understand the issue at the federal level here in washington. how that translates to my local area in arizona is that i'm a democrat, registered democrat, and i have my own democratic party, whose priorities don't match that of the federal. so, we're -- i'm at a miss. so, i'm passionate about immigration. i'm organizing the massive marches, you name it. but there's a very big disconnect. reverend, again, the faith-based

pro-life, i -- how does that translate as well to my christian churches in my -- i understand we've got to organize and register and we've got to do that work. but there's a very big disconnect -- i don't know that it's only arizona or happening all the way across the nation. and what needs to happen? what can we do? and i have expectations for every elected official to start speaking the truth and start speaking about their challenges within their parties because it should not be a partisan issue. you're right, all of this is unacceptable but it's up to us. so, where are we? >> let me just say, first of all, that i think the issue of immigration and how we approach it should be a nonpartisan issue. i want to work with everyone that wants to work to solve the problem of our undocumented community, whether they're republicans or democrats. but moreover, have i to done that. and i have challenged my own party time and time again to be better so that we understand the

way this works, right? i was disillusioned because i remember 1997, i voted against the defensive marriage act. i said what two men and two women want to do to fall in love -- i didn't say i'm going to wait until the rest of the country catches up about how i feel about gay and lesbian people, i didn't wait. i had my conscious, i voted that way. i think part of the problem in the democratic party with immigration is still this, that we would not wait until after november if it was an issue affecting the gay and lesbian community necessarily. we wouldn't say, oh -- [ speaking spanish ] if this was about women's reproductive rights, if this was about the minimum wage, if this was about a series of other issues, the democratic party would come together. but we are better shaped today than we've ever been before on the issue of immigration, as a democratic party. let me just say that. i think one of the things we need to understand is that every

democratic senator in the senate, last year, voted for comprehensive immigration reform. and if just the democratic senators have voted for it, there would have been enough of them to pass immigration reform without one republican. they all voted for it. and i think it's kind of a shame that mary landrieu, who voted for immigration reform, is now, of course by her republican opponent, because she wants to win the election and get back, being challenged on the issue of immigration and saying she's for illegal immigrants. she's for fixing our broken immigration system. she called the president until after the election, she might have. she probably did. so, here's my thing to everybody here. look, register to vote. because every year 900,000 latinos turn 18 and they're all american citizens. they're all american citizens. and we have 8 million, of which 7 million are latinos that can become citizens tomorrow.

i'm going to work on registering all that youth and making sure that all the people that can become citizens become citizens. i'm also going to stand up for our immigrant community so they can know to register to vote for somebody because of principle and values. [ speaking spanish ] >> i get that. and, you know, i think at the same time -- >> let me just tell you about arizona. i think it's very confusing. to me, it's very confusing to have a state that has joe arpapo one hand and jeff flake and john mccain, so we can't help you. interpret arizona. [ speaking spanish before the before t ] but he'll pray about it. >> arizona needs to know they elected steve montenegro, the son of an undocumented man who came to this country and now opposes immigration reform.

steve montenegro needs to remember he's the product of an undocumented immigrant and he needs to stand up for the others in arizona. when you go to the churches, don't go politically. come with the moral argument because there's not a church in america that can argue against the moral problem that this is. >> i would also say, my experience from the members of congress and the house on the democratic side, kirkpatrick, and barbara, they're prepared to take, i think, very courageous votes if given that opportunity. the senate has acted. the senate did take a difficult vote. the senate, as you made reference to in this political environment we're living in right now, their election, whether they return back to the senate or not, that's a political issue. when it came to the policy and the politics, they took a courageous vote last year. the house hasn't taken that vote. and i've seen the house act. i've seen the house act on very difficult issues. the violence against women's act. i've seen them on sandy aid, very tough.

i'm from new york. very difficult vote that took place. i saw the house act on the issue of extending our debt ceiling. a very politically charged issue. and, by the way, all three of those issues passed the house with a majority of democrats, a majority of the minority, and a minority of the majority. a minority of the republicans voting for them. they have the will to put a bill on the floor, without the majority of the majority. and the majority of the minority. they just won't do it for immigration reform. necessity haven't. they had the opportunity. they knew the votes were there from the democratic side with a number of good republicans to support that. they didn't have the political will to put it on the floor. >> go to the lady in the front. i think the microphones are back there. that's the problem. you might have to go back there. go ahead. >> i apologize. hello, my name is rafael. i'm currently a chci public policy fellow. also from chicago, so this

question is for my congressman, another house member. i believe that undocumented individuals contribute to both informal and formal country but i think immigration is an issue because of this country's sick addiction to cheap labor. one thing i ask is what can be done or what is going to be done in regards to making sure that those people who are currently employed and currently undocumented don't become discriminated against when they are no longer legally considered cheap labor. >> first of all, here's what happens. and i think we should all agree on this. that undocumented workers in this country, because of their undocumented status, actually lower the wages for american workers. they act as -- because employers take advantage of that labor force and the ability to exploit that labor force. but listen, if you talk to any one of the 700,000 dreamers that

today have taken advantage of doca, they all have the same social security card that i do and they have a work permit and they work here in the workforce. so, they're no longer exploited. they now can participate fully. so, by bringing about comprehensive immigration reform, actually, we raise the wages of everyone, the undocumented's wages actually increase and the wages of other americans are no longer stifled by using an underclass of american workers in order to reduce their wages. so, i think the way to do it is to do it through comprehensive immigration reform so the wages of everyone can increase. i think that that's fundamentally. now, let me just say this, moving forward, foreign hands are going to pick the food in foreign lands or in america. and that is a constant that is going to continue. [ speaking spanish ]

who's going to pick the lettuce and cucumbers and tomatoes? it's always going to be us. she said she doesn't leave miami that much but i was 45 minutes outside of miami. they think of miami, nicaraguans, they think of puerto ricans. go 45 minutes outside of miami to any one of the orchards that are out there, orange orchards that are out there -- [ speaking spanish ] that's all that's out there. >> you know what -- >> there might be a distinction. the point is, look, there's always going to be a need for people to be able to come to this country and to do the kind of back-breaking work. let me tell you something, i know that we're ready to do that work. >> i have to tell you, luis, i have to pitch in here. yes, everything you said is true. but there's a need for much more than that. and we cannot just stereotype ourselves as people who are picking lettuce and picking tomatoes, which is a -- [ speaking spanish ]

it's something we should be proud our people are doing. but our people are also building computers and our people are also operating on brains and on hearts and our people are also teaching in the schools. and we are an aging community. we are an aging nation here in the united states. we need the influx of new blood in order to do all the jobs. but let it not be said and let the image be that hispanics are only this or only that. >> and the reason -- >> we are a -- >> let me tell you the reason i raise that issue. >> but you shouldn't be -- you shouldn't be really -- >> because they keep saying, they should all just go. we should just all deport them. right? and my point is -- let me tell you something -- >> no, no. mitt romney -- >> listen, luis -- >> -- in 2012 was self-deportation. they should all leave. >> and what did i say election night on cnn? he self-deported from the white

house. >> ana, ana, ana -- here's my point. >> by the way, this ebola thing continues, they might want to reconsider self-deportation. >> my point is this, they do dirty, filthy, back-breaking work and they still get accused of being on welfare. and they still get accused of taking food stamps. they still get accused -- work, let's be clear -- [ speaking spanish ] who is going to do that other work? my only point to everybody here is, that they are -- [ speaking spanish ] and i want to make sure, because the republicans tomorrow would sit down with me and say, we'll give you all the doctors, technicia technicians, computer whizes, they can all come but don't bring any mexicans here to the united states of america to work in our agriculture.

they want to have a program of the past to deal with our agriculture industry. my only point is this, no more -- [ speaking spanish ] >> one of the things, if i can just add to this discussion just a bit, i just returns from houston, texas, where they're absorbing thousands of unaccompanied minors, unaccompanied children into the school system. i spoke to these children who had just come here from -- many of them on their own. i couldn't believe these little -- little kids, 10-year-old kids who had come from guatemala, honduras on their own, on buses, across with coyotes. i asked them, there was a group of them at a table and i said, what do you want to be? why did you come here? doctor, engineer, you know, those are the -- those are the people who are our future. they came here to get an

education. their parents probably, who are here, many of them are here, are probably working in the kitchen today, but the dream for their kids is to do what you're saying, is to -- is to do that. but america, most of us know and we've seen the movie, we've seen the documentaries, that without the mexicans who have come across the border undocumented at this point, we couldn't get our lawns done, we couldn't -- a day in the -- in this country without undocumented workers would be a very slow down, most of us know that. we have time for one more question, i'm afraid. yes. >> yes, good after. i'm also from chicago. i'm a teacher here. >> i think you packed the audience. >> no. no. >> the chicagoans. >> i think we're just faster at the mikes. listen, we're all disappointed president obama decided to wait until after the midterm

election. the problem is that the midterm elections may just not turn out his way now. and according to what ms. navarro says, maybe by a miracle, or maybe not so much by a miracle, but there's a chance republicans can take over the house and the senate. well, if that were to be the case or -- i don't know if it is, the president may decide by executive order to put forth the comprehensive immigration reform, but that also poses the following, if he does it by executive order, then what are the chances of the republicans filing a lawsuit and challenging that? that's one thing. but for ms. navarro, you said, the senate and house becomes republican and then by chance, i'm quoting you, they may pass some kind of, and you say some kind of comprehensive reform, you know, some way it might happen, that sounds disturbing

because it's like, we're going to water it down. just do something some way because now they have control. but wouldn't that bring us back to the same issue because it wouldn't be comprehensive enough? so, we couldn't be solving this problem. >> i have to ask you to make our answer short because we do have to wrap up. you want to take that first, ana? >> yeah. look, i think we're all going to -- if republicans take over the house and the senate, i think we're all going to have to push. i agree with luis that if the president takes executive action, republicans are going to be angry. i would say to my party, the best way to avoid executive action is to take legislative action. pass something. do something. and that's the best way to deter any executive action. if each branch does their job, you don't need to supercede the other branch. now, as far as watering down and what the comprehensive immigration bill is going to

look like, i have no idea. i think we're going to see -- we would see pushing from different constituent groups, business, labor, faith, family rue unification. i have no idea. i'm not ready to poo-poo anything until i see it. so, i'll be cautiously optimistic until i see something that makes me pessimistic. until then, let me hold onto my little, you know, raft of optimism. >> let me just -- we're going to hold the president's feet to the fire. he has said that he will do something after the elections. we've had many meetings on this. we're not not sitting back and waiting until after the elections. we're going on him right away to fulfill that promise. and even do more than we anticipated he was going to do beforehand. we think that he owes that much at least to us at this point in time. it comes back to what you said before, in my own experience, 100 years my family has been here. my family came here poor. never anticipated their grandson

would be a member of congress today. that's the exact same level of courage these people today, these little kids are experiencing. i have a 9-year-old son. i could never imagine him going around the block, nevertheless across a desert to come to the united states. but it's about the fulfillment of a dream to be everything they can be. and we ought not deny that. we should welcome it. >> i think -- [ applause ] >> you asked the question, what if they take over the senate and keep the house and they file lawsuits and they obstruct. well, let me just say, i welcome that fight. if the president of the united states acts to protect millions of undocumented workers and allows them to come out of the shadows and legalize their status, here's what i believe will happen. i believe that reverend suarez and the tens of thousands, hundreds of millions of people who are parishioners in hits

faith-based community are going to unite with the democrats and some republicans in the house. i think that ana navarro and i started out fighting for nicaraguans so over 100,000 of them today could have legalized status in this country. i believe ana's going to fight. i believe that everybody in this room is ready for that kind of fight. just imagine for a moment the president of the united states makes an announcement, we figure out who the 5, 6 million people are, right? we get ready to register them. and the republican majority decides that they're going to obstruct that process. they will be the end of the republican party as a national party in the united states of america because then it won't be that the democrats didn't act and the republicans didn't act. it will be the last act. we all understand this -- take me 30 seconds. we all understand, we offer you new housing.

they didn't come through on the housing. this better health care. they didn't come through on health care. better education. they didn't come -- we'll reduce your property taxes. we get all this stuff. but this is very different. this is a concrete example of justice and fairness for a community of people that we love and that we cherish and that we will defend. and so i'm ready for the president to act. let me tell you something, whoever attacks the decision of the president to bring justice and fairness to millions of undocumented immigrants and allow them to have justice in this country, i'm ready for that fight and i'm ready to join everybody in this room in winning that fight. [ applause ] >> 30 seconds here to wrap it up, please. >> i'll just close by saying, don't lose faith and don't lose hope. the god that i preach, the bible teaches that he created this, the heavens, the sun, the universe. he did it all in seven days. and every time i have a media interview, they say, do you really believe there's enough time to get it done?

the god i preach did it all in seven days. i have faith and i speak faith over you. let's believe together -- [ speaking spanish ] nobody can stop it. it's going to happen. god wants immigration reform. >> well, thank you very much, all, for attending. i want to lead at mraus and thanking our panelists for a very interesting discussion. thank you very much. c-span has coverage of more than 100 campaign debate this is fall. coverage continues tonight at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span with the second ranking democrat in the senate, illinois's dick durbin as he debates his republican challenger jim observer wise. live at 8:00, debate from massachusetts governor's race between martha coakley and republican charlie baker. we'll be looking for your reaction to that debate, via facebook and twitter. 9 p.m., david perdue debates

michele nunn in minnesota, al franken is running for a second term challenging mike mcfadden. we'll look for your reaction via facebook and twitter. at 11 p.m., debate from hawaii where abercrombie lost the democratic primary. the man who defeated him, ige debates iona. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement the coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public events. c-span3 is home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american arte facts, touring mu see yims and historic sites to determine what artifacts reveal about american's past. the presidency, looking at policies and legacies of our

nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history, with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, "like" us on facebook and follow us on twitter. next, a conference on asia with business leaders and policymakers from the u.s. and asia-pacific region. a preview of the asia-pacific economic cooperation summit next month in beijing. this was hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. >> you know, in my professional live i've been around politicians for 40 years. i've been around analysts for now 15 years in this sort of environment, but i've never been

in this kind of a experience before. you know, for someone who can walk you into a new space intellectually and help you understand the significance of that space and also its political importance, this is -- this is rare. i've been with politicians who when explained the significance of something will figure out the politics, you know, and i've been with analysts who understand the significance and don't have a clue how to think about it politically, you know? but very, very rarely -- the only other person frankly whose experience was like this was bill clinton. bill clinton had that capacity to walk you into an intellectual place you've never been before and help you perceive its enormous significance and its political import. and kevin rudd can do that brilliantly. and so i -- when we asked him if

he would come and join us today, it was an extra hope and we're very grateful that he was willing to do it. of course, the topic is something that he focuses on personally all the time. prime minister rudd is currently -- he's affiliated with csis. we're very proud of that. he's a distinguished statesman here at csis. he's also at harvard where they get more of his time than i wish. because i'm jealous. but he is willing to come here and has been very, very helpful and supportive of us in thinking through these complex issues. he is going to give all of you that opportunity today because you're going to have a rich opportunity for something that's unique. so would you with your applause please welcome kevin rudd. and thank you for being here. >> well, thank you, john, for that great exercise in expectation management.

i will not produce magic this morning and there will be no song and dance show. but i do appreciate the hospitality of csis and i acknowledge the work which it does, not just on behalf of the united states but by all individuals around the world who take the disciplines of foreign policy, international relations and strategic policy seriously. it is a first class institute and it brings together first class minds which i presume is why all you folks are here this morning. secondly, you made reference, john, to my time at the harvard kennedy school. after i came second in the national elections in australia last september, which is a polite way of saying that i lost, the harvard guys kind of picked up the telephone and asked me to go to the kennedy school to think. having been in politics for are

15 years, that's not really been my business for the last 15 years. but to think. and to think about alternative futures for u.s.-china relations. and in particular, whether in fact there is a way through some of what we who have professional followed this for many years regard as some of the intractables in that relationship. and harvard kennedy school's been very supportive of my work on that. i spent a lot of time talking to think tanks in washington, think tanks in beijing, think tanks in tokyo, and think tanks in delhi and singapore and moscow on these questions, as well as officials from those governments as well. of course, given the topic that we've set this morning, which is about questions of future regional architecture, china does not constitute the totality of that picture, nor does the china-u.s. relationship constitute the totality of that picture.

so in my remarks here this morning, having been invited to do this only two days ago, let me seek to stand back and look at the trends at work as i see them across the asia pacific region. secondly, what's going well. thirdly, what's not going so well. fourthly, where does the china/u.s. relationship fit within that for the future. and some final remarks on questions of architecture. if you stand back and try and look at the events in the asia-pacific region, we tend to think that we are unique in terms of those factors, which are affecting the global business of international relations. we are not unique. the factors at work in the international community, in my view, are largely comprised of

two deep underlying forces which we in the policymaking business or the policy advising business need to be conscious of. one is this overwhelming dynamic of what we call globalization. we use the term a lot. we often use it glibly, but the sheer manifestation of it in what we say and do everything today and perceive one another is profound. of course, the general turbo charging of globalization as we define it by the new technologies are simply compounding and quadrupling and mutating, whether it is in financial markets or economic exchanges, or, frankly, in the resources available to terrorist organizations. and so the varieties we started talking about a decade or so ago are now actually intensifying in their scope. and the overall dynamics of globalization at the economic level and at the social level, and to some extent at the cultural level, has been over the last 20 years or so since

the end of the cold war in particular to draw people's cultures, countries, nations, and even governments -- some are closer together -- simply as a product of the dynamic. this is a virtually unprecedented phenomenon in global history in terms of its intensity, its density, its complexity. but overall, a force for the good. then pitched against it, of course, is a second set of forces which simultaneously acts in reaction to it and seeks to pull nations apart, either internally or between one another. these i could broadly describe as the forces of ethno nationalism or simply nationalism. anyone who thinks that we have somehow mysteriously extinguished the forces of nationalism as a consequence of rational economic man ruling the world or rational economic woman

ruling the world is simply delewding themselves. you have to understand politics in your own country to know that's not the case. but as you travel extensively across asia, the nationalist agenda in each country is palpable, real, visible and tangible, and it actually shapes deeply the thinking of most political elites. of course, if you dig into that deeper, what is this ethno nationalist reaction, whether it is what we see in europe, whether it is what we see in various extreme forms in the new phenomenon we observe in the middle east or in some of the emerging and intensifying security challenges in east asia. ethno nationalism often is a deep reaction to the phenomenon of globalization and the deep personalizing dimensions of globalization. what actually happens in response to that is those who don't win from the globalization project economically or lose who lose their identity as a consequence of the globalization project obviously feel

threatened, alienated and threatened, and they therefore congregate around concepts and ideas and political movements which are about identity, locality an ethnicity. it is palpable and real. and doesn't matter which country or which society you're talking about. the talks, therefore, of national regional and international leadership at present is to navigate the shoals, which are constructed by those two underpinning, deep geoeconomic and deep geopolitical forces. and they animate the fundamentals of the -- what i describe as the technical foreign policy debates which we have on a day-to-day basis in the foreign policy community. secondly, when we turn to how this great drama of globalization on the one hand pulling countries and cultures together versus ethno nationalism simultaneously tearing them apart, or

threatening to tear them apart, the central question for the politics of europe and the politics of asia and the politics of the middle east is who will win the forces of globalization or the forces of ethno nationalism. how this grand debate is resolved globally and regionally is a profound significance for the future of the 21st century. when we look at the european project up until now we can only be but in admiration of what they've achieved coming out of the ashes of the second world war. mind you, and without getting under the fence with europeans here today, they're slow learners. having torn each other apart in three major con fla gragss, from franco prussian war to second world war. they finally concluded there are better ways of doing business. the political architecture of

emerging europe, first the market, then the community, then the union, was very much a political construct seeking to deal with the underlying forces of ethno nationalism which have effectively destroyed the continent over that scope of time. come to our part of the world in the asia-pacific region, in the period since the fall of saigon in 1975, really through until very recently, if you were to look at a 35-year sweep, the globalization project in, let's call it the asian hemisphere, has proceed remarkably successfully. we've had no major conflicts within the hemisphere. we have produced phenomenal economic growth. we have produced extraordinary increases in living standards. unparalleled in human history and the numbers of people that have been drawn out of poverty. as a consequence, a dynamism to the intraregional discourse within wider asia that we hadn't seen before either.

those westerners looking on to the phenomenon called "asia," which is a european construct in itself when you think of the term, "asia," meaning the east. east of where? presumably london, paris or berlin or rome. but if you look at what is unfolded in asia itself, it's the internal dynamics which have generated so much of the wealth, the prosperity and the success. and the external dynamics with the extra regional partners has also been important, particularly the relationship with this country and its massive market, the united states. but the intraregional dynamics have been extraordinary to unfold and overwhelmingly positive. to the mutual benefit of all countries within the region. and that has been i think so much the story over the last 35 years. again, to simply sound the alarm, to conclude from that that the forces of nationalism and ethno nationalism or religious nationalism in certain

cases have simply evaporated and died is simply a false analysis. the battle royale within the region and for its future will again center around how these two conflicting forces are contended with. forces of globalization. intensely drawing this region together and forces of nationalism seeking always to tear the region apart and sometimes tear nation states apart. so the report card for the last 35 years has been quite reasonable. then in the last several years we begin to scratch our heads and ask what is happening. and it is a complex and variable picture across the region. we often forget the ancient lessons of international relations history that mutually agreed territorial boundaries help in the business of international relations. this is often seen to be an old

concept of old realisms belonging to the verities of ancient international relations and not really relevant to the borderless world of the 21st century, to which i would respond to the great observation of australian philosophy, pigs might fly. it's alive. it's well. and it's a driving factor in the analysis of these questions to this very day in the asia-pacific region. you know the fault lines within the region as well as i do. but if you go simply on a mental map tour of the region, starting with the korean pen insu la, dividing the state since 1963 east through to the east china sea, senkaku, and you look at the unresolved questions which still remain between china and korea and between japan and korea, if you look at the

complexity of what constitutes the south china sea and all of the dimensions of the conflicting territorial claims involving seven different entities, before you then flip around and head through the straits of malacca on to the unresolved questions of india, pakistan and kashmir, and then further afield to what is now unfolding in terms of militant islamism not far to the northwest of there. all of these factors exist not just in theory and on paper, but are capable of in fact bringing about a conflagration at any given point through poor isu management and normal politics and dynamics of escalation which unfold as as a result. so in the last three years or so we have seen these unresolved issues come much more sharply to the surface.

which brings me to my fourth point about how, in fact, this is to be dealt with in the future and whether or not the u.s./china relationship is central to most of it. i know enough about the politics of southeast asia to know that the china-u.s. relationship is not central to everything. it is an important dynamic but what occurs within southeast asia is primarily conducted intraregionally. to any folks from the aseans here today, i would simply commend the aseans on how they've managed their own regional evolution over the last 40 years. it's been an extraordinary development, and i think a lesson to the wider region. but when we then extend the map more broadly across the east asia itself, and it's very difficult to escape the central organizing dynamic of the china/u.s. relationship in its current state and where it may evolve in the future, which is

why i've taken a year out at the harvard kennedy school to look at it more closely. so let's look for a moment at its dynamics. if you were to take an objective measure about u.s./china relations over the last 35 years since normalization in 1979 and look at the ebbs and flows of that relationship since, on any objective analysis, if you arrive from the moon, you would have to conclude the relationship isn't in a bad state. there is no immediate palpable sense of crisis in any particular element of the relationship. however, when you look at the perceptions which are emerging within both the chinese leadership and within parts of the american foreign policy establishment, it is much less settling than that. let me speak about the chinese perceptions first. the best i can describe china's current perceptions of the united states at the most senior

leadership level is that they have concluded internally that it is virtually impossible to develop a long-term strategic relationship with the united states based on mutual trust, mutual strategic trust. and i believe that they articulate this in a number of ways. they articulate this by saying that they believe that the united states is in the business of isolating china. the united states is in the business of containing china. the united states is in the business of diminishing china. the united states is in the business of delegitimizing china. the united states is in the business of ultimately seeking by indirect means to limit the chinese relationship. these things are never said in polite conversation, which is presumably why they've asked an australian to speak to you this

morning. we've never majored in politeness. but i think at this stage of this very important relationship, china and the united states, it's important we have some very clear baseline reality checks about where things actually lie in china's perceptions. so let me flip the table in terms of american perceptions of china. i think this is very important, because the level of misperception is profound and i believe growing. i think the american perception of china -- i don't seek to describe any official here. it is simply my observation to the general foreign policy establishment -- is that china, for the american and global interests is important economically, that the chinese political system, however, is inherently unstable and unsustainable, and the american perception is that china is pursuing an assertive form of nationalism to mask its own internal political

vulnerabilities and is seeking therefore to change the status quo across the rest of east asia over time. firstly, by means of the economy, to economically overwhelm the rest of asia, and then in time diplomatically, and then militarily. and furthermore, deep american perceptions which raise this question about whether chinese diplomacy is in fact simply pitted at buying time while the overall correlation of forces moves more profoundly in the direction of one which economically and militarily advantages china before china more overtly and directly acts to exert its position of preeminence in the region. again, that's never said in polite society either because these things are not the business of day-to-day diplomacy. but if you get around think tank land a lot and you get around governments a lot, you pick up

tonalities in capitals and i don't think those generalizations that i have just made are wide of the mark, that is, represent wide departures from reality. of course, others seek to try and be objective about all this. anyone who claims to be perfectly objective is engaged in complete self-delusion as well. we all see reality through our own prisms whether we're conscious of that or not. and we australians are no different. the only advantage we australians have, i think, is that at our best, which is not always the case, is that we are both -- the west and the east and the east in the west, that is, we are long-standing and deep allies of the united states for which we make absolutely no apology. at the same time, all the countries of east asia, and including the people's republic of china, we've had a deep, comprehensive, profound, long-standing relationship.

and if you look at public attitude surveys in australia, united states is very well liked. china is quite well liked. so there's actually a deep attitudal basis to this in my country as well. we cannot pretend to be objective because we're u.s. allies on the one hand, but at the same time, strong and close friends with our counterparts in beijing on the other. what i've concluded about these different sets of perceptions is that a large proportion of them, but not in their entirety, do not reflect the objective reality. to give one example in both directions. on the containment question, if we define containment as that which is used by the united states against the soviet union during the period of the cold war, what we see in terms of

america's current operational policy toward the people's republic of china cannot be faintly described as containment. it has none of the characteristics of classic containment. that might be a useful political rhetorical line to be used in the debate, but in the days of containment there was virtually no economic engagement between america and the soviet union, and any soviet action anywhere in the strategic regions of the world of relevance to the united states, which was everywhere, was met with an equal and opposite reaction in one form or another by overt or covert means. that is not the case in the u.s./china relationship. it is of a vastly different character. and so we need a more textured understanding in beijing as to what the nature of u.s. operational policy is. but the term containment is not accurate, and in my judgment can lead to erroneous policy conclusions in beijing.

now, let me flip the tables, again, in terms of what i think is erroneous american perceptions of china. when china in its tradition and its current leadership of china. when china in its tradition and its current leadership constantly say, we, as a civilized nation, have never been in the business of establishing overseas colonies when we had the national capacity to do so, and therefore we have no such interest again in the future, other than to engage the world commercially, i think that's about right. when you look at china's history from the ming dynasty to the present, so many of the animating forces in chinese history have been how to deal with its profound domestic agenda which have almost overwhelmed every successive generation of chinese leaders. how do you feed a quarter of humanity. how do you manage the politics of a quarter of humanity. how do you deal with its current manifestations in terms of the

impact on air pollution, water quality, and the rest. my overall point, therefore, being that in the case of the perception that our chinese friends are in the business of incrementally seeking to create a form of chinese neocolonialism in parts of the world i think is profoundly wrong. it is not consistent with the tradition, it is not consistent with the characterization of actual chinese behavior on the ground. so where do we go from here. i'll conclude on these remarks. given the centrality of this relationship, i believe both governments and the region more broadly because of the centrality of the relationship to the region's wider stability, and frankly, the rest of the world as well, as we move in to

the unfolding decades of the you this century, the china-u.s. relationship is in deep need of a new narrative. a common narrative. and here i don't simply speak in terms of some form of foreign policy utopianism or some sort of academic seminar. that's not helpful. i think you need a framework which somehow, in some way responds to the idea xi jinping put forward with a great new type of power of relationship. i think why president xi put that forward, it was how do you construct a relationship between china and the united states which doesn't replicate the inevitability of conflict as we've seen in the history of great powers before. beyond that, i think president xi's concept is basically a headline waiting to be populated. it is an idea. it is a line. it is a sentence. but if you go to chinese think tank land, as i do very often, the actual internal content of this proposition is very fluid

indeed. so what could a possible common narrative look like. well, this is a very complex question. but, i would leave you with two or three thoughts. a common narrative between china and the united states is important for the reasons i just mentioned. at present i think both countries have narratives about each other but not a common narrative for both of them. chinese have many narratives about the united states, most of them not publicly articulated, and the same in the reverse direction. so what, given all of that, is possible in terms of a common narrative for the future. i think it requires what i have described most recently as a concept of constructive realism. and a concept of constructive

realism which builds towards a concept of a common future. a word about each of those words. realism, if you spend enough time in this town, and you've studied u.s. foreign policy in its 20th century history, this is a deeply realist foreign policy establishment. for entirely understandable reasons. when you look at the school as it's evolved here at the theoretical level, it is rich, deep and reflected in the behavior of practitioners. in china, realism called by various different things is equally apparent, equally part of the chinese tradition of understanding foreign policy engagement, so there is a deep realist foundation to the way in

which both countries view each other which has all sorts of potential difficulties arising from that of itself in terms of the expiration of mutual trust before a chance is even given in the first place. but given this is such a profound reality in both conceptual hemispheres in washington and beijing, it has to be acknowledged. there are real and objective continuing conflicting interests and conflicting values between china and the united states of which the territorial issues that i've just mentioned in the east and south china seas about one manifestation. these need to be accepted, explicitly recognized but critically managed in a manner which concludes that allowing any one of these matters to escalate into crisis conflict of war is mutually unacceptable. that's the realist part. what's the constructive part. the constructive part is this. if you look at the possibility of constructing genuine public

goods between china and the u.s., both bilaterally, regionally and globally, the scope is quite wide. if you believe bilaterally -- and i do for a simple reason -- that is the more the two economies become enmeshed through investment, rather than just through trade, then, frankly, the more inseparable they become and the more their mutual interests in each other's progress and advance becomes an indelible imprint within each country. so causing that investment treaty to come into being i think is a genuine public good. because in the long term it will transform many elements of the relationship. regionally -- i will touch on this in my concluding remarks --

there is i think a value to be had in both governments to get with those of the region beginning to evolve further the region's existing architecture. the existing architecture has served the region reasonably well but it is thin. apec has opened a valuable role in opening economies internally and to one another across the region. if you look at the tentative moves in terms of a more geopolitical and/or national security related discussions, there's been some contribution by the asean regional forum, a nascent contribution by the east asia summit, but frankly this needs to be taken further. why would both countries be interested in that. i don't think either beijing or the united states want to trip casually by accident or poor incident management into crisis conflict or war. therefore, what you need is an institution such as those we've seen evolve in europe over a long period of time. i emphasize "evolve." which begin to create basic confidence and securing measures between those in the region and other participants and over time to begin to evolve through that sort of head of government level regional discourse a nascent sense of common security rather

than divided security. this does not replace the alliance structure. it supplements the alliance structure. of course, international models such as those offered by the european union are not readily applicable. but the idea and the concept and, frankly, the achievements which we can contribute to the europeans should be born in mind. this would constitute in my view a general regional public good and final a global public good. the postures on climate change is to me one of the great unwritten positive stories of the last few years. having been a participant in the copenhagen summit on climate change in 2009, having not slept for two days and seeing that particular attempt to get a

global climate change treaty advanced, with much intransigence from the governments i just mentioned, was i believe a tragedy. but what's fundamentally changed since then is a 180-degree shift in chinese policy. the ability therefore for president obama and president xi to advance the global commons or global public good by making new national commitments on climate change i believe is a real element in the trust building exercise. which brings me to the final element of the equation. first, the foundation is realist. secondly, if you like, the super structure is constructive due together in areas where the interests are sufficiently overlapping or the values are sufficiently overlapping. the third element is over time having a concept that you can harness the political and diplomatic capital from these areas of common cooperation to in fact deal with the underlying fundamental objective realist problems that i referred to at the outset which constitute the constant source of friction. at present there's not a whole lot of diplomatic and political

capital to draw upon in terms of dealing with the hard issues. but by virtue of a process which deals with things like investment treaties, things like a new evolution of the region's architecture, things like global advances on climate change driven by the two largest emitters in the world. but in time also on intractable questions like north korea and cyber security and also the rise of militant islamism. there is a basis to construct a new element of evolving strategic trust between the two which provides a platform for dealing with the unresolved challenges of the future. i conclude my remarks here how i concluded two night ago. dunn had this great saying about the chinese domestic reform process. what dunn said was -- this is way back in the late '70s -- if you're going to reform this thing called china in the great openings of new policy, econ