in their countries? so i just want to go back to my original point, which was in our country, in every system, we have a system in place before we send a child, we check to make sure they're going to be safe. we check to make sure there aren't red flags. at the very least, there are no red flags to say this child is going to be in danger if he goes back. and really at essence, when it comes to determining best interests, that's what it is about. it is about safety. so thank you very much for your attention. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, maria. so why is immigration law different from every other aspect of american law? we'll pick that up after you have a chance to start asking questions. so for those who would like to pose any questions to our panelists, please come forward to the mics. and i'll ask that you identify yourself. and if you're directing your attention to any particular panelist, to let that panelist know who you're directing your questions to.

thanks. >> hi. i'm diane eikenberry. i'm a senior attorney, and i work with detained children in o.r. custody in virginia and maryland. i sort of have two questions but they're related to training and stakeholder relations and sort of two parts for barbara and maria. first maria, i want to thank you so much for the wonderful work that the young center does. >> thanks. >> i've had the pleasure of working with one of your child advocates out of the office in harlingen. you make a great difference. i'm so excited you're opening new offices because we need more of your work. >> thanks. >> but barbara, you mentioned there's expanded training for the immigration judges. can you speak a little bit about that? and also maybe generally about what kind of training, if any, is required for immigration judges around issues relating to these unaccompanied minors. >> so we have done some training with the immigration judges, you know. some of you know because of budgetary issues, we've had to have our conferences on dvd for

our judges. we had planned a conference actually this summer, a live in-person conference that we had to postpone in part because of the surge, and we didn't want to take all the judges off the dockets for a week. but we are planning on having a conference at some point where we expect to have a full day of a kid's track for -- for the judges that handle kids' cases. and, you know, like maria's a frequent appearer at all of those. you know, we really do try and bring in the outside experts, bring in the people who do some of the work more directly with the kids, the stuff that comes before they get to see the judge. so, you know, and we listen -- we'll reach out to some of the judges and say what are you interested in knowing more about? you know, we look at what's happening sort of this summer and, you know, have looked at what are things that might be more important? you know, should we have a particular panel on, you know, asylum claims that are really specific to these types of kids so?

so we anticipate having a full day just for kids. and i expect, what i understand from the judges i've talked to, i expect it's going to be really popular given the fact that we have so many judges now hearing the kids' cases. and when we have our training, we record it all. so that, like, if there's a judge who really wants to go to another panel at that time, they can request to see it at another time like on dvd. you know, we understand that training is important. so we are expanding it with respect to dealing with the kids and how to make sure that procedures are appropriate for the kids and to the specialized needs of what the kids both need in a courtroom and there are types of relief that are just for them, right? like special immigration juvenile status, you know.

that's just for them. so to talk about what some of those things are as well. >> professor, may i ask a question? >> sure, go ahead. >> maria, just speaking of stakeholder relations, you mentioned the best-interest document, this being worked on by the interagency working group. is that the main way in which the young center has had relations with dhs? do you guys have another -- any other sort of stakeholder relationships, especially with the office of chief counsel, and do you anticipate this is a document, once completed, that could be, you know, we could be providing or sort of collaborating with the trial attorneys? >> yeah, i mean, we work with all of the agencies. and i just have to say that -- i mean, dhs has been one of the really good agencies to work with. i mean, the enforcement people have been wonderful. and again, i go back to this point that i think those charged with enforcement and decision-making have a really hard time having to do this with a child. in terms of the document, you know, we hope to finish it in the next couple of months.

it has to go to the full interagency. it's been a subcommittee. it has to go to the full interagency working group, and that's all of the agencies plus ngos, most of whom are in this room today. and yes, that will be shared. i mean, it will be in two pieces. one will have footnotes. and the other piece, though, will be kind of a step-by-step here's what you would do if you're in the field to make sure you're looking at a child's best interests. so yes, that will -- that's the intention is to share it widely. yes. >> sounds wonderful. thank you. >> thanks for those questions, diane. we'll go from side to side. on this side, please identify yourself. >> my name is constance freeman, and i work with the community outreach program. i work with a lot of the children after the o.r.r. process. so i see them months, sometimes years, after they've been released from the shelters. and i'm concerned, one about how many of the 14 to 15-year-olds

specifically that are not enrolled in school. and i want to know, how can we get that collaboration with the agencies to make sure that they are staying in school? because i don't have a problem with accepting children and making sure they're in school, but if they're 14 years old and they're out, i'm not sure that we're not putting them at risk, that they're run ago way from. and then also, i have a follow-up question for the ambassador from el salvador. i was amazed at how many children in those three countries are not in school. and i noticed in one of the south american countries, kids get, like, 80 or something to go to school, and if they get good grades, they get 100 bolivianos. i was wondering if those three countries could use funds from the multinational companies to fund so that the kids are in school and they're not coming here without a day of education.

>> so, i mean, i'll take the first question. i mean, i think there aren't enough resources anywhere. none of the agencies -- well, eoar doesn't have enough or o.r.r. doesn't have enough. i will also say that recently i've heard that o.r.r. is doing a lot to start providing more post-release services for children. and i think they've recently issued grants to start providing -- so after the child is released, there's somebody who is available to stay in contact, a social worker, for example. and to help make sure the kids go to school. so, again, though, i mean, i think some of it goes back to resources. and of course, everybody wants the kids in school, but i think we need more resources so that there can be more post-release services for the kids. and i agree that after the kids get released -- i mean, sometimes they're even more vulnerable than when they're in custody. a child advocate stays with the child to the extent that the

child wants. kids can lose us, if they really want to. but i think this -- you know, we need these post-relief services for many more kids. >> you were right. one of the -- unfortunately, we have so many other countries with fairly low level of school attendance. now, a couple of things. the new government has established three priorities. one of them being education. so education is going to be a priority in this administration. second, there is a program that's starting now of conditional cash transfer precisely around those lines to give some economic support to families that keep the kids in school. similar to something that's happening already in terms of health. there's a task condition program to support mothers who take

regularly their kids to the health clinics for control and so forth. and the third thing is that ironically, one of the reasons that we have had a lot of youth involvement in the gangs is that at some point during the '80s, in order to make more efficient the school infrastructure, schools started working on two shifts. so kids would be -- go in the morning, a group of kids would be in school in the morning, and another group of kids would go in the afternoon. what happened is that you have a lot of kids having a lot of free time. and this was something that

created, among other things, many other things, but this also was a part of why a lot of kids joined the gangs. so one of the things that are being done now is to expand the program called full-time schooling. the idea is to keep the kids as much time as possible in the school doing extracurricular activities. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. my name is anna gutierrez. i'm a state legislator here in maryland. originally from el salvador. many questions, but i want to concentrate on something that we have been advocating for both locally, we formed a d.c., maryland and virginia coalition to work with the students. and i think many of us in the audience probably are dealing more with what to do with those students once they come to our neighborhoods and in our states because it doesn't end with the

federal role. but the federal role is important. one of the issues that we did was bring up service providers from around the nation to seek the legal representation issue. and i'm surprised that you haven't mentioned or anybody has mentioned the disparities in the way that the legal -- the courts are working. we raised it, and what we saw are some states like maryland has a very friendly -- it has the first hearing, according to your 21-day guideline, and then maybe the second one with sufficient time to prepare to get legal representation. there are other states, new york and california, where the service providers are just -- are just in desperation because of the rocket dockets. could you address, what are the

possibilities of your organization, barbara, to provide something more than just a 21-day guidance? because the response we heard was that a lot of the immigration courts are being left to the discretion of the state and of that court. and therefore, you're seeing this in unequal application and practices from one state to the other. and i think that's a very serious concern. >> so i just want to clarify that your question is about the immigration court system and not the juvenile court system in the state. >> no, not the juvenile court. no, the ones who are dealing with the children, the ones that have that first hearing. >> right. i mean, the two are bizarrely interconnected, as maria mentioned. >> juvenile courts are state court. >> correct. >> they're not being called to a juvenile court. they're being called --

>> well, some of them are. with respect to -- one thing that's really interesting about this group of cases for our system, which can be very frustrating at times, is that some of the relief that is available to these children, and the relief that they seek, is adjudicated outside our court system. and so one of the forms of relief that they seek is special immigration juvenile status. so when a judge is trying to figure out, you know, how much time he should give a child that's looking to seek special immigrant juvenile status, they have to figure, okay, well, uscis is going to have to adjudicate a benefits application. before the kid can go foreward, they have to go to state court juvenile proceedings. and so, you know, that does provide a real logistical challenge for us because there are states in which, you know, and counties in which, you know, as maria mentioned, a child can go to state court proceedings and get an order in three days. there are other places, chicago being one of them, where it

takes just a really long time. and so when a judge is trying to figure out when to reschedule the kid, those things can come in. now, with respect to what our guidance has been to judges for immigration court, the guidance that we give immigration judges is nationwide. right? so it's not -- >> we're limited. >> we have one immigration court that has 59 locations. it's like what we like to say is the guidance that we give judges. it doesn't vary by being in one state or another. the guidance that we've given is that the children that are identified by dhs as priority cases get their first hearing within 21 days. thereafter, the judge can continue -- if the child asks for a continuance, can continue the case in accordance with the law that's on the books right now. it's a good-cause standard. and then the judge determines in his or her discretion how long that continuance should be.

and that -- and so it will vary with respect to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. >> what we've heard is that as routine in these two states, they are being called for their second appearance very shortly after the first appearance, without any possibility of legal representation to be, one, identified, and two, to be prepared. and that that is really even interfering because they then have to go in and file another motion. i'm not a lawyer, but this is what i've heard over and over again is what's been happening. so it seems to me that because you are one centralized system with 59 representatives, that clarification of what would be expected. and even if there is no best interest of the child in written

law, clearly in every state, i can tell you in my state, that is the guiding principle. and if that is not what is in practice being respected, i think there's something wrong. >> right. so we did issue guidance on september 10th. that specifies that there are no -- there are no extra laws relating to how short continuances need to be or how long they need to be with respect to children. only just that they do take a priority on the docket so that the continuance should be granted with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case rather than the court's docket. so, you know, we heard this concern, and we did issue guidance on september 10th. yes? >> yes. go right ahead. thanks.

>> my name is ashima. i'm an immigration attorney turned documentary filmmaker. we're working on a film specifically about this issue, central american refugees filming in central america but also some of the issues that we're seeing in the u.s. my question is more for barbara as well. i wanted you to address some of the concerns identified by attorneys who have been volunteering at our facility. i know that's, you know, a family detention center, but nevertheless, some of the concerns that's putting it lightly, just some of the fast-track deportations, the no access to sometimes translators, interpreters, long-distance judges who aren't well versed in the law or the cases. i know things are improving, but from, you know, some of the reports i read, and people i talked to, it's nowhere near where it should be. >> do you have a specific concern in mind that you want me to address? >> well, i mean, i haven't read anything because i have been researching this particular topic.

i haven't read anything that the government has put forth to talk about artesia, but i read a lot from attorneys. >> right. so i think with -- you know, with respect to family detention, i guess it's somewhat germane given that there are children there, too. they're not accompanied. you know, with respect to the detention of families, you know, the artesia facility was put up quickly in response to the surge this summer. i think what's frustrating for i think us as an agency is that so much of the detention center and the concerns with respect to the detention center are out of our hands with respect to decision-making. you know, i.c.e. handles detention. so when there are larger issues that i think people have brought to our attention, you know, so, for example, people have said, look, the tvs there are really

tiny. and so when the judge is beaming in, you know, what you see on the side of the detainee is, you know, the individual -- the families who are there, they're having a hard time seeing the judge. when we hear that kind of stuff, and people are very vocal with us to let us know what the issues are, you know, we can't buy new tvs and install them, right? dhs does that. it's their facility. what we can do is go to dhs and say look, we'd really like to change these tvs out. and so i think what we're doing is on a very daily basis, having a lot of conversations with our counterparts at dhs about how to respond to some of the things that we can respond to. i think a lot of the criticism that we've heard overall from some of the advocates is that there is, you know, a generalized belief that families shouldn't be detained. right? and so, to the extent that that's -- that that is what

we're hearing, you know, i with tell you that that is -- you know, that's a decision that's made sort of out of my hands, and certainly out of my logistical hands. and so one of the things we also heard was, look, you've got judges in one time zone. you've got artesia in another time zone. that's causing just confusion. so we changed from the judges in arlington hearing the cases to the judges in denver hearing the cases because now they're all in the same time zone. and so we are trying -- we're also working a lot, i think, with, you know, the bar in denver even before the cases got moved to denver were really active in trying to do pro bono with the folks in artesia. and so, you know, denver was a good spot because we thought we could assist in trying to make it a little easier on some of the pro bono attorneys there. so i think we're doing what we can, you know, recognizing that, you know, we have to continue a dialogue with people. about what are the things we can do, particularly some of the

smaller, you know, what are some of those small things that seem, well, why can't you just do it? why can't you just buy the bigger tvs kind of thing, right? and working with our partners. i mean, understanding, of course, that there are a lot of limitations on us as the agency dealing with the detention center that we don't have control over. >> thank you, barbara. thank you. >> hi there. my name is deana. i'm a student here at georgetown law. i'm here with fellow classmates of mine. we are part of a campus organization that has created the international migrants bill of rights. and our specific project this semester is focused on detention centers in mexico. and we are creating a list of indicators to suggest that these detention centers go through. my indicator is focused on family unification. so i was wondering if anyone on the panel is able to offer myself and my classmates some advice and realities on what is going on in these detention centers, specifically with

unaccompanied minors, whether their family or guardians are in mexico or country of origin or in the united states. >> excellent start to conducting research on that issue. >> it's due thursday. >> does anybody want to tell deana what we know about that situation? to the extent we know anything? >> i don't know much at all. >> why don't we know much? maria? >> because we need students to do some research. and tell us what's going on. >> we're all looking forward to reading your results. >> and you need to travel there and talk to people and really -- yeah, and figure out what's going on. >> if georgetown funds our travels, that would be great. >> i'm focused on new mexico right now.

>> so perhaps, though, the ambassador, you talked about, i guess, both having a consulate in border states. i assumed you were talking about u.s. border states. but after all, mexican southern border plays a huge role here. maybe the borders of other states on the way up for the children particularly in roles here. do we know anything about that? >> well, what we have done is, we are mostly working with guatemala in establishing a joint consulates in mexico, particularly in the road, or the path of the migrants. so the idea is that if guatemala has a consulate in this town and we don't have one, that we can share those facilities and vice versa. we have increased our conversations with the mexican government also to try to provide a little bit more protection to the migrants.

and i don't have any specifics on how this is going. what i can tell you is that there is an excellent network of shelters and of efforts provided by civil society who are doing an incredible, incredible job in assisting the migrants, providing them with shelter, with food, et cetera. and there is -- there's a serious, serious network of these type of support going on in mexico. i think more than -- i'll leave it like that. >> okay. thank you. >> have you had good cooperation with the mexican government over these issues? >> in some cases, yes. there have been, as you are very well aware, very horrendous incidents that happened. a group of 60, 70 migrants had been killed. in those cases, there have been sometimes mixed results because it is presumed that there is involvement of -- at certain

levels of some authorities. the drug dealers are a big problem, a big problem. it is very clear that drug trafficking network is now together with the smuggling. and as i mentioned before, it's become even in some cases, they say better business to human trafficking and smuggling than drug trafficking. >> thank you. mr. ambassador. ashley. >> good afternoon. my name is ashley. i'm with the georgetown institute for women, peace and security. the panel mentioned that we're seeing a particularly large increase in the number of girls that are crossing the border. i was wondering if you could address why that is, what particular gender-based vulnerabilities we're seeing at play. and then as a two-part question, how the system is treating that in particular in trainings, at eoar when you're working with these young girls.

thank you. >> talk about the training. >> yeah. i mean, i think we're seeing more girls. i mean, i think it's because of the safety issues in these countries and, you know, if you're a parent here -- and i also want to add, i mean, 55% of the kids are being -- are coming and reunifying with parents which goes back to the whole issue around no cir. but if you're a parent here and you're worried about your daughter, you're going to -- you're going to bring her. and i think that we work with a number of girls who are victimized by the gangs. you know, rape is one of the things that they use against the girls. so i think that's the primary reason why we're seeing more girls. and i don't know if this has slowed down at all, but we have seen many more younger kids under the age of 13. and again, i think this is for the same reason. you have either parents in home

country who are worried about their kids and want them to be safe or, you know, you've got family here that want their children to be safe. >> i think with respect to certain -- with the sensitivities to young girls in particular, so it's important to note that while there are increases in the number of young girls, an increase in the number of tender-aged children, it's still -- you know, the majority we're still seeing is, like, older boys. >> didn't the age drop to 13, 14 compared to 16, 17? that's what the government reported back in late june. am i wrong about that? >> yeah, i think we're seeing more in this group. >> right. >> but i think overall, if you're looking at how many kids are currently processing through the immigration court system, you know, we're still very heavy on older boys. but to be, you know, but as we're responding to this group that's coming in and we're seeing them now, you know, we've

always known, and there's always been a group of vulnerable young girls in our courts. and so when we've had trainings on child-sensitive issues, we've looked into talking to the judges about some of the issues that might be not exclusive to young girls but more prone in terms of prostitution and the trafficking. and, you know, rape on the way here and how to handle that kind of thing. you know, and judges -- judges will, and i think, you know, maria gave some example of this to say, you know, look, it looks like something's going on here. you're not ready to talk about what's happened to you. and then they look -- you know, oh this goes back to, you know, a judge being able to look at the individual facts and circumstances of the case. and say, okay, this looks like a case where i might have to give, you know, this kid a continuance for a lot longer and talk to a legal service provider that might be there and say, look, is this something that you can, you know, try and get this kid some help so that they can better articulate what's going on.

but again, this may go towards looking at some of the gender-based asylum claims, looking at issues and that kind of thing. you know, with respect to the funding that we had for legal services and the justice americorps program, we focused on -- the program will serve children who are 15 and under. and in part, that's a response to the increased tender-age kids that we were seeing. because the funding will only go so far. we will only be able to serve so many kids. and so knowing that those kids are probably, you know, a little bit more vulnerable or less able to articulate themselves, that's where we concentrated our funding. >> thanks, barbara. maria, you want to add? >> i just wanted to add one thing. i think it's not only the judges, but i think there can be training for lawyers and anybody who works with kids. i mean, we have done this, asked the judge to close the courtroom

because it's somebody, either a girl who's got to testify about very specific and traumatizing information or a boy or, i mean, you can do that. and i think, though, there needs to be more training for anybody who's representing kids. and the other thing i'll say and it's something that i wish we could import from the child protection system. in child welfare we have child advocacy centers, and they're in most jurisdictions, if the child is abused in some way, the child goes to the child advocacy center. everybody sits in a room behind a -- they call it mirrored glass. somebody who knows how to intera child, and they interview the child. the police are behind the glass, the person representing the child. so the child only has to be interviewed once and that report is made available. it's something that i wish that we -- it would probably mean we need to get i.c.e. to work with the child advocacy centers around the country, to start doing that. it's so much better for kids. they have to tell their stories over and over and over and it's really difficult.

>> we're running out of time. two of the three questioners who are former students, we'll allow each of them to pose a question. but do me a favor, michael, start with a question. i'll have each of you just pose your question, then we'll have the group answer them as a whole, if that's okay with everybody. we'll start with michael. >> thank you. i'll try to be fast. i'm a member of the new york city bar association's immigration nationality committee, and right to due process and right to counsel. i would like to ask a question about the right to counsel. we framed that issue in terms of what we call the three cs, complexity, capacity and consequences. immigration law is extremely complex. maybe second only to tax law here in the united states. children simply don't have the capacity to represent themselves even though the immigration courts presume they do.

and i need not say anything about the grave consequences. the way we framed it is, when you bring the three factors together, the confluence of those three really is a perfect storm of due process violation. so my main question to you is, it's great that we see resources being poured into this from cities, from states, and from the federal government. and that we're sort of rallying the pro bono crowd to the cause. but from my perspective, that's really a needs based approach rather than a rights based approach. so i'm wondering what we can do to vindicate what we see as an absolute right to counsel. >> thank you, michael. >> my name is jonathan ryan. we provide legal services to the unaccompanied children who are detained in san antonio. we spent the greater part of our summer working with the children at lackland air force base. between june 9 and july 28th, we met with over 2,100 children. we provided legal consultations and determined over 63% of them

have strong cases for asylum or other forms of humanitarian relief. that is a number ratified by the unhdr findings and that we're receiving positive adjudications in those cases. i'm just bit comments of the ambassador regarding the motivations for these children to come, i've heard that, these are the most dangerous countries in the world that they're coming from, but really, they're just coming here because of the rumors spread by smugglers. that's like saying people are jumping out of burning buildings because firemen are down there to catch them. these are refugees. regarding the -- i'd like to know how it's ensuring that the children are returned to their country, and whether you're taking any measures currently

prevent children from exiting your country. i'd also like to know from the immigration court, if you could unpack some of the reasons and motivations for the prioritizations. i've been practicing in immigration courts for over ten years. what i'm seeing currently right now is a whole lot of nothing going on. the judges do not make many adjudications in the cases of the unaccompanied children. i'm seeing the judge talking to the little children, saying, that's a nice pink shirt you have, how are you doing, and resetting the cases. there aren't a lot of decisions being made right now in the san antonio immigration court. we have active 42-a, long-term permanent residents waiting even longer waiting to get their cases decided. the children can wait, meanwhile the important cases seem to be pushed back. i'd like to know what was the reason for that. >> thanks for bringing that out. last, but not least. >> not a lot has been said about

the root causes, not the topic of the panel, but a question that needs to be said, that a lot of kids are showing up vulnerable and terrorized and victimized as a direct result of the u.s. policies in the region. and the countries are client states from the united states, we've been intervening financial aid, and militarily in the last 100 years. and interviewing in koups directly. and so my question is, it doesn't seem like anything is going to change in regards to those policies anytime soon. so while the numbers of kids may go up and down, it doesn't seem like in the medium or long term this is going to change. our federal agencies, providers, people representing kids in court, are they thinking strategically for the long term in how to deal with these kids, how do we protect them and take care of them, you know, 10, 20, 30 years from now? it's hard to believe the flow is going to end.

>> thank you, daniel. so i think the best way to proceed, given that we now have physically run out of time is just ask each of our panelists to say a few words. i would encourage you to address any of the particulars of the questions towards you, for example. why don't we start with you, ambassador, and we'll go down the route. >> first, if i didn't -- i thought i said that i still believe that the traditional causes of migration, violence, looking for economic opportunities and family reunification were all the reasons for immigration. that didn't explain the specific surge we've seen in the past two years. that is where i think the roles of the smugglers comes. and this is not to diminish the importance of the other causes.

which are, of course, the more structural causes of the problem. what are we doing in our country to try to prevent this? we are doing campaigns, media campaigns to educate people about the risks, and about the fallacy that they are going to receive green cards and citizenship. so those perhaps do not explain by itself, that the increase in the numbers of kids coming. there are weather reasons, and cyclical reasons that i mentioned. but these campaigns are going on in the three countries, and are starting to have an impact. we are also working in strengthening the control of our borders, and going after the trafficking networks. in terms of -- as i mentioned also, these are not short-term

measures. this resolution is not short-term. these are medium to long-term solutions. in security, for example, which is very complex, we started now doing certain concrete things, like implementing full-fledged community policing. this is an idea in which the police, instead of just being a force that will react to a 9/11 corridor, or whatever, the idea is that they are members of the community, the police stay there. they are local actors, and become local actors. and this is by far been proving to be one of the best policies to confront violence and provide better citizen security. as i said, the long-term solution is economic development. this is something that cannot be done from one day to the other one. but that is where we are all aiming in the medium and short

term to invest in the territory that are the ones that produce the more number of migrants. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. barbara? >> so, to the first issue about the right versus needs based counsel. we're sued by folks, so i can't really speak to that one. got a couple of my lawyers in the back over there. so we'll leave that to the advocates to talk about. >> lawyers don't let you talk, right. >> no. beads of sweat on their faces. the next one with the rationale. the rationale for setting sort of that 21-day goal for the first master calendar, it was our agency's response to the president's directive to process the kids.

i think with respect to, you know, there are cases, if you look at our adjudication time lines and how long it takes to get the kids through the immigration courts, there are courts if you filed a notice for the kids, they wouldn't get a hearing for a year. the idea is you get the kids started in the process. so if what happens is that the judge says, look, do you want an attorney, here's a list, if you want to start trying to find an attorney, this is what you need to do. or here are the types of relief that could be available to you. talk to me about what your circumstance is. and essentially, to start at the beginning of the process, start early, in what's your story, what's going on with you, to try and figure it out a year earlier than maybe it would have happened three years ago. i don't think there is an expectation that the child's case is going to be over in 21 days. like i said before, there are a lot of aspects of relief for these kids.

they are completely out of the hands of the immigration judges. the uscis is first. the visas are handled by uscis. a lot of the sij is handled by uscis. and some of the state courts. so to the extent there's a sense that judges are a ringleader, i think that's not a great term. but i would say, you know, they do sort of oversee a lot of things going on with these kids. and they aren't necessarily in talk to me about your circumstances and start at the beginning of the process, start early in what is your story. what's going on to try to figure it out a year earlier then maybe it would have happened three years ago. i don't think there is an expectation that the child's cases would be over in 21 days or like i said before, there is a lot of aspects of relief for these kids that are out of hands of immigration judges. a lot of that is handled by the state courts. to the extent that the judges are a ringleader, that's not a

great term, but they do oversee a lot of things going on with these kids. they aren't necessarily in charge of the forms of rethat may be available to them. they know how to assess the facts and circumstances of the case to make sure that a child's rights are protected. >> thank you, barbara. maria? >> i will go back to the question about the right to counsel. obviously i don't think anybody in this room would not agree that children need counsel and there should be a right to counsel. i don't think you will find anyone here. i don't think so. i wasn't looking at you for a reason. i think we need a change in the law. i think there some in the government that think we can provide counsel for everyone. i think it's a beginning that they are providing and paying for attorneys to provide direct representation. it's the beginning. it's not everything. we did get a provision in the senate bill last year that would have provided counsel for all

children. that's a start. i think we will all have to start over on that. i guess in terms of root causes, i don't think on my side of the table we are doing enough. i think it's something we all have to talk about. i think it is a regional issue. i think we need to work with el salvador with a child at risk of going back to el salvador or has no choice to work with people in the government there. find a way to get the child back safely or connect him or her to other and i think obamamented more money to deal with root causes and he didn't get that and it's a lot of money. we need more resources for everyone in the region and agencies doing the work and we need a best interest standard. >> i want to thank all of you for your questions and panelists for the discussion. please join me in giving them a round of applause. >> this weekend on c-span. author and president of arabs for israel. >> i have arrived late at night almost september 11th morning. i arrived in my home in los angeles. i oak up at 6:00 a.m. l.a. time to see the second airplane hit in the twin tower live. i was traumatized. because that was when i knew this is terrorism. it's not one airplane accident.

>> please thanks four panelists and give them a round of applause snpz thomas lorenzen explains the new carbon emigs reduction deal announced this week u.s. even chinese leaders. there is a debate over civil asset laws and the history of those reform efforts an renewed focus on police abuse. lus your phone calls facebook

comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> a recent discussion at the center for american progress looked at how public universities are funded and ways to make college more affordable. the panel includes education under secretary ted mitchell and college administrators. this is just over an hour. good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. i'm happy to see so many people here this early on a monday morning after a delightful fall weekend in our nation's capital. we are here today to release a report, issue brief, an interactive website that highlights findings of the significant body of work done over the last several months by the post secondary education team here at the center for american progress. we call that body of work a great recession, a great retreat.

public investment in higher education is vital to the performance of our economy. colleges, universities, offer citizens a path toward economic opportunity. and a substantial return on public investment. force is needed for an economic experience through sustained employment, higher earnings, new and continued business development and ultimately higher tax revenues. but there are troubling signs. after the great recession, states have withdrawn public investment in higher education. and many students from low and middle income families have been pushed out of publish colleges and universities. for this reason, we call for a new federal state partnership to ensure that high quality

programs remain affordable in a central tenant of the american dream. throughout the last quart ert of the 20th century the share of low-income family have increased. despite significant investments by the federal government and programs like pell grants and the american opportunity task credit. the additional investments in pell grants total more than $50 billion. but the federal investment has not been sufficient. during the same period, states were investing in higher edge education. since the onset of the great

recession, 38 states in blue decreased the amount of direct funding to public colleges. eight states in gray on the slide had neutral changes in funding. just four states in orange increased the amount of direct funding to public colleges. i found it interesting that the four states that increased the amount of direct funding for public higher education were states like north dakota, wyoming, illinois and west virginia. we know that what has been happening in north dakota, additional tax revenues through energy exploitation. but they didn't have to reinvest in higher education, but they did anyway. all 50 states decreased the share of revenue from state government reflected in blue on the chart.

47 states increased their reliance on tuition revenues from students and families in orange. so despite the increase in funding, the share of revenue from state governments declined in all but three states, north dakota again, connecticut and maine. increasing the reliance on tuition and fees. at all income levels and at both two-year and four-year institutions, the states that cut the most in orange charged the highest net price. and higher net price means greater borrowering and higher levels of debt which diminish education access. and the cuts were focused on community colleges, which saw enrollment increases by 20% while enrollment at public four-year colleges increased by only 10.6%. suspending per student has been

cut in 45 states compared to 39 for public four-year colleges. so we have called for a new compact between the state and federal government to revitalize state funding in public colleges. the public college quality compact calls for states implement four key elements. create reliable funding sources for public higher education, make college affordable, particularly for low income students, improve performance, remove barriers. states that qualify and wish to participate in the compact will receive funding based on a formula that takes into consider the number of veterans and pell grant recipients that participate that graduate and do

so without debt. now, it's my great pleasure to introduce carmel martin. carmel is the executive vice president for policy at the center for american progress. carmel will be moderating the panel today. carmel manages the policy across all of the issue areas and is a key member of the executive team. before coming here, we worked together at the u.s. department of education where she was assistant secretary for planning, evaluation and policy development. in that position, she led the department's policy and budget development activities, served at senior adviser to the secretary. prior to coming to the department of education, carmel served as the general council and deputy staff direct he for the late senator edward kennedy, as chairman of the health, education and labor and pensions

committee. she also previously worked at the center for american progress as the associate director of domestic policy and in the senate as chief counsel and senior policy adviser to former bingaham and special counsel to tom daschle. she holds a j.d. and a master's degree in public affairs. carmel and the panel, please come up. thank you. >> i'm going to start by

introducing our very prestigious panel. and dive right into discussion. on my right, we have ted mitchell, the under secretary of the u.s. department of education. he has served since his confirmation earlier this year. in this role, he oversees policy programs and activities related to post secondary education, career and technical education, adult and federal student aid. ted is charged with planning and policy to have the u.s. have the most competitive work force in the world by the year 2020. next we have david baime who serves as senior vice president for government relations and policy analysis at the american association of community colleges. in this role he directs the efforts for the nation's close to 1,200 community colleges and their students. we're happy to have david here today to speak about the association's strategic plan to

boost as much as 50% the number of degrees and credentials awarded at institutions by 2020. next we have sarah audelo. who is the policy direct for progress. sarah's work focuses on ensuring that the next generation of americans have access to an affordable and high quality education. she will discuss how these policy proposals have the potential to lift millennials toward great economic prosperity. prior to joining generation progress, sarah was director of domestic policy at advocates for youth. and finally, we have ralph wilcox.

the university of south florida is the ninth largest university in the united states, serving more than 45,000 students. the university of south florida has made significant strides on student completion through its student success task force it has closed graduation gaps across demographic groups while raising the percentage ever low income students enrolled achieving access and degree completion. he formerly held leadership at the university of st. petersburg the university of houston, the university of memphis and hofstra university. maybe i will start with ted and ask to you talk to us about how the department of education is thinking about the issue of accessing completion but specifically how to create stronger partnerships with states so they continue to invest in public post secondary education. >> thanks for having all of us. it's great to be here. the report is a fabulous start to a conversation that we need to have.

as you noted, david, there has been systematic disinvestment by states throughout the great recession in higher education. i think it's critically important as states' economies and the national economy improves for us to remind our partners at the state level that where theyare is not okay. that taking what was a fairly balanced three party compact between states and families and the federal government and unbalancing that in a way that as you have shown really does disadvantage the students that we are most concerned have access to and through college needs to change and it needs to change dramatically. in the department, we have as you well know, carmel, we have for the last several years put in our budget proposal opportunities for the federal government and states to work

together on many of the lines of contact we're discussing here this morning. the state higher ed performance fund that we have proposed would seek to reward states that create stable funding platforms, that make sure that their commitment to low income students remains in place and that would also move states toward a more performance based budgeting overall. so we want to continue to have those conversations. we see great virtue in aligning federal resources with a state's willingness to fund higher education and to make that funding centrally available to low income and middle income families who we need to get into

college and across the finish line if we're going to meet the president's goal and i think if we're going to meet our moral imperative of providing opportunity and access to the middle class for families across the country. >> ralph in the face of pretty deep cuts in terms of state investment, your institution has been able to make strides in terms of completion. can you talk a little bit about how you are able to do that? sc-