elves as americans. the same experience of immigration has also pressed itself into the way that we americans understand ourselves as catholics. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming today. our first panel. tim: thank you, steve. i am tim meagher. i am the associate professor at the catholic university of america. what steve said about catholic history and connections to immigration, we define -- we are defined by many things, common beliefs, shared rituals but they are also designed by a common history. central to that has been immigration. the first panel today our first

panel, is going to focus on policy issues, policy issues who gets to come into the country, how, who gets to be naturalized, how, those kinds of issues, state governments, and also policy issues that have to do with the church itself, integration of our catholics. my apologies. proper integration of catholics into american life. so those kinds of issues we're going to focus on today. we hope to have a great discussion about what catholic policy issues are like, what catholics' opinion, roles positions in policy debates of today, but we also believe the historical context, the history of catholics dealing with these

kinds of issues, is also important. that will be provided as well. i'm going to introduce our speakers and the order they will appear. we're going to begin with todd scribner, the outreach coordinator for the migration and relief services at the u.s. conference of bishops. he focuses on issues of migration, catholic church, american history, dealing with immigration. he has a phd in religious studies from this university catholic university, a forthcoming book from his dissertation. he has also written on the church's position on immigration in history and written a couple of great articles on another book. he will be our historical context person.

we also have don kerwin, who has been head of the center for migration studies since 2011, spent 16 years at the catholic legal information network. he is from the university of michigan. following don will be jeanne atkinson, the director of the clinic. she is formally a director of the archdiocese of washington's immigration services. she has a legal degree from washington law -- washington college of law. finally, we will have kevin appleby, the policy director for migration at the migration and refugee services at the u.s. catholic conference of bishops.

todd: i want to thank you for having me. this gives us an opportunity to get the word out on what we do. my role today is going to really set the framework for the policy discussion. i am going to try to look at a few major trends and shifts that occurred over the 20th century that helped to shape migration-related discussions and debates. the first thing i want to look at really began at the beginning of the 20th century. it is a shift toward the federalization of migration policy and immigration policy generally. 19th century, immigration policy was in the states. the states had port cities that allowed entrance of migrants into the country. it was mainly centered in the states. as we moved to the beginning of the 20th century, you see a shift toward the federalization of immigration policy.

correlative to this shift was an increasing amount of restriction related to migration policy. who was allowed in, who was kept out, why they were kept out or allowed in. there are a few underlying, sort of contributions, or contributing factors. there is concern over mass immigration in the latter half of the 19th entry, undesirable migrants that were seen as coming into the country and corrupting culture. there are issues related to economic depression and recessions that caused anxiety among american public, which led to an increased call for restriction of migrants being allowed into the country. they were seen as a drain on the economy, stealing jobs. this is an old argument that is ever new again. there was a lot of anti--religious sentiment --

anti--religious sentiment. it was seen as undermining the american public -- republic surprisingly, given the undertones and overtones of anti-catholicism, which led to increasing restrictions, you also have within the church elements that almost buttresses or supported the restrictionist sentiments. much of this occurred within the context of catholic labor. for example, you have a working man's party in san francisco which was led by dennis kearney strong supporters of anti-chinese migration and chinese --seclusion. you also have the knights of

labor, led by a catholic, which had a large catholic population in terms of union members. they were strong supporters of chinese exclusion as well. they were not against immigration as such. they were against contract labor. basically, the importation of european labor to fill jobs in the united states. so sentiment of this sort led to the contract labor law, which reduced the ability of countries -- of companies to bring in labor to do that. father john ryan, who was kind of looked at as often a hero among many in the catholic church, supported groundwork for the living wage, economic justice, he supported the literacy test, which was pushed

to the beginning of the 1890's to restrict migrants from foreign countries. he came out in support of that because he saw that such legislation would benefit nativeborn workers and also migrant workers who were here already. there is within the catholic church a push toward restriction throughout this period. these legislation were done on the federal level. the culmination, the high point i suppose, of federal legislation was the national origins act in 1924, which was incredibly restrictive and reduce migration primarily from southern european and eastern european locations. a lot of the people were seen as undesirable. they were not capable of self rule. they could not internalize american ideals. they would undermine the republic and constitution. there was a push to keep these people out. the national origins plan

effectively did that. i won't go into details about what it is right now but needless to say, we can talk about that later if you would like. as a consequence of the federalization of migration policy, there was recognition within the catholic church and among catholic leadership, primarily bishops, of the need for a centralized institution that would be able to advocate on behalf of the catholic church. the catholic bishops were not -- they did not have a centralized perch to advocate until the beginning of 1917 with the national catholic war council which became the national catholic welfare conference in the early 1920's. before that, they basically advocated or did what they did on a level in response to legislation, threats to migrants, threats to the church. with the establishment of the

national catholic welfare conference, the bishops were able to advocate in a more central manner, and this institution is a precursor to the united states conference of catholic bishops. they were able to provide a national rationalized response to threats to the church and advocate on behalf of policies they saw as beneficial to a more just migration framework. one of the ways in which i will try and frame their engagement with this issue, and it will be broad, is through two ways. there is an approach to their advocacy on migration policy. later on, there emerges a more potent social mission-centric approach to migration policy. the institutional-centric approach was in large part a consequence of the place of the catholic church in the u.s. at the time.

they were in a largely protestant culture. they were not wanted. they were seen as threats. the catholic church in the united states oftentimes closed in on itself as a mechanism to protect itself from external threats, namely within the largely protestant culture. a lots of the advocacy work they took on on behalf of migrants during the first half of the 20th century was a way to protect immigrants and protect the institutional church. for example, when they began efforts on ellis island to welcome catholic migrants in particular it was an effort because they did not want the ymca proselytizing. they wanted to protect the flock. when the quota act in national origins act was passed, one of the major efforts they made was to liberalize quotas for foreign-board religious --

foreign-born religious, such as nuns, so more would be allowed in. they wanted to be sure they could bring increased to the country. -- bring in priest to the country. in the post-world war ii era there was a robust admission of refugees, displaced persons, following world war ii, which resulted from the chaos and ease turn and western europe -- chaos in eastern and western europe. there were catholic displaced persons and they focused on catholics, in large part. it was a taken for granted reality that that is how it was. catholics took care of catholics. jew would take care of jews. they would not discriminate against other groups, but there was a focus on your own groups.

denominational ties were still strong. with the integration of catholics in the post-world war ii world, you have a decreased in the feeling of being threatened from the external enemies, such as protestant groups and so on. when you have this decline in sort of the threat level catholics become more comfortable in american culture. that d credits -- that decreased remove some of the institutional threat. you have the emergence of the cold war and a lot of the issues that emerge with that. you have that it can, engaging the world in a way that the -- you have vatican two engaging the world in a way that it had not been. there was this kind of social mission approach, i think, to migration policy. as an aside these approaches to

migration policy can be applied to a much grider -- much greater range of issues. immigration, health care, so on and so forth. we can leave that aside for now. it is a much bigger dynamic. one of the problems, the social mission focus emphasized -- deemphasize the notion of religious identity of migrants and emphasized human dignity and human rights of migrants. policies became much more important. they protected the human dignity. that sort of became the rationale. how do we protect the human dignity of the person? there became an emphasis on root causes. what policies can be put into place that will undermine the root causes that give rise to migration in the first place? how do we address, how do we make life better for people in its entirety? you have that element that

becomes really important in the social mission. the problem with that is a lot of ruptures occurred within the catholic church, disagreements as to what it meant to be catholic, disagreements as to liturgy, but also in ethics. it became difficult there emerged a point of disagreement as to what the social mission of the church was and how it ought to play out in the life of the church. one of the reasons for this growing disagreement i think is in part because of disruptions that occurred as a result of vatican two, but part of the reason is bigger trends in american religious life. one of the most important perhaps, is the decline of denominational identity as a marker of religious identity and the increase in the importance and salience of political ideology.

what that means is that, really, following the 1950's, in the 1970's and 1980's, political ideology matters more to your day to day, practical religious identity than does your adherence to a denomination. catholics who were conservative end up having more in common with conservative protestants and liberal catholics identify with liberal protestants. there is really a rupture within the church itself. this leads, in the context of migration, to some strong divergences, particularly among the intellectual elite, among how to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. do we engage in a comprehensive reform that will legalize a few million? do we say no you can't do that?

the law is the law and you need to respect the law. do we need to engage in enforcement? you have outspoken critics of the bishops, less outspoken on the left, perhaps, but you have very outspoken critics on the right, many of whom accuse the bishops, for example, of supporting comprehensive immigration reform because it will benefit the church itself. it will fill the viewspews and coffers of the church because the church is engaging in this for ethical and rational reasons. there is this rupture within the church along political lines disagreements with the church. it becomes difficult for people to come to a common agreement as to how to address issues like migration policy that is becoming increasingly complex and polarized along party lines.

the final dynamic i want to point out, which correlates to this growing disagreement of how to deal with illegal immigration and so on, is the rise of latino immigration in the latter half of the 20th century, following the 1965 immigration act. in the beginning of the 1970's, you have millions of latino migrants coming to the country. the church from the outset became strong supporters of providing protection for the latino catholics and ensuring that they are given both protections, material mechanisms the spiritual means to live a healthy life in the united states. but, we are still dealing with this problem. kevin will be oh with a more contemporary context of the migration debate. i will not deal with that right

now. the context of latino migration is really one of the major sources of dissension within the church and without. it has both institutional concerns for the church, drawing back on the institutional-centric approach it has a social mission consideration as well, which sometimes have tension, which sometimes are complement three -- complementary. i will stop with that. >> thanks be that was a terrific overview. i want to thank the institute and the migration refugee services for offering this event. i think we can't talk too much about these issues. they are totally relevant to our work today. we have been asked to place today's immigration policies and debate in historical conference -- context.

immigration has been a long-standing goal of the catholic church, which goes beyond immigration reform. over the last few years my agency the center for migration studies, has been collaborating with migration services and catholic legal immigration network and many people in this room on a project that we call the catholic immigrant integration initiative. what that project does is seeks to expand and strengthen the work of catholic institutions with immigrants. we recently authored a short volume on the project. it is titled, u.s. catholic institutions and immigration -- how does the church understand integration? what does it mean? it recognizes the standard sociological socioeconomic metrics of integration like

socioeconomic attainment political participation interaction with the host society, and basically a sense of belonging. however, it has a broader, overarching view of integration that encompasses catholic themes, like integral development, human dignity, and to the church, integration is not a matter of assimilation into a fixed, dominant culture. rather, it is a multigenerational process in which natives and newcomers of all kinds work together to build communities based on universal values. we might call them gospel values , found in diverse cultures. this has been the vision of the church for a long time. the bishops pointed out in 2000 a clearly animated this vision,

catholic institutions, during previous eras of integration. this is what they said. a century ago, the church responded generously to the needs of immigrants, building parishes and schools, if evangelizing a vast array of charitable institutions, evangelizing newcomers. i think this is really important. in being evangelized in turn by immigrants with distinctive traditions of worship and often a deep spirituality of the rhône. it is not a unidirectional process. the academic literature on integration highlights the importance of the reception they received, for the second generation, third-generation fourth generation. immigration policies are clearly part of that reception, and though our mediating institutions -- and so are mediating institutions like school like the military, like the workplace and many others. todd's research has shown, and

he mentioned this, national catholic welfare conference closed the legislation on the grounds that it would deny catholic institutions the priests, the sisters, the foreign board religious -- foreign-born religious that would allow its institutions to function and succeed. they also argued that the law's discriminatory nature would impede integration. today's, our laws and policies are not as bad as they were then but they also impede integration and need to be reformed. as experience has taught us, u.s. immigration laws need to be assessed and revised on a regular basis. why? they are responsive to national priorities and conditions in other countries and this country. given changed conditions, given the unforeseen impact of the

law, given the evolving notions of national interests, we regularly need to revisit these laws. let me give you a couple of examples. nearly 30 years ago, the church supported passage of the immigration reform and control act of 1986, which by any measure was the signature achievement in the field, and it legalized roughly 3 million people. the law also failed to legalize sufficient numbers of people. it left a strong base of unauthorized people. it failed to expedite family reunification. the big thing was it failed to reform the underlying legal immigration system, which is the key part of comprehensive immigration reform. in these ways, it helped pave the way for the growth of the current, unauthorized population. did we ever at that time think we would have as we do now an unauthorized population that included most of the 4.4 million people who are waiting in

backlogs after having been approved for family-based petitions? 4.4 million, a large percentage of whom are in the unauthorized population now who play by all the rules. 4 million parents of u.s. citizens or 1.9 million u.s. unauthorized residents who have been here more than 20 years. right? that is a long-term population. 6.6 million have been here more than 10 years. did we ever think that we would have an enforcement system -- in 1990, the ins' budget legit of the dhs enforcement agencies was $18 billion. that is more than all the other federal enforcement agencies combined.

$18 billion. take another example of unforeseen consequences. the 1980 refugee act was really a watershed event in u.s. refugee protection and a great advancement. what it did was formalize the u.s. refugee resettlement program and brought the u.s. into compliance with international standards, which were great accomplishments. prior to the act, the u.s. used executive, discretionary parole authority of the attorney general to admit large numbers of refugees and refugee-like populations. we talk about executive action now. that is what happened back then. that is how refugees were admitted to the u.s. what the act did was limited the use of parole to admit individuals and created a resumption against granting parole or using executive discretion. so, that limited our ability to

admit non-refugees in need of protection. i would argue that that lack of flexibility is one of the most glaring deficiencies in the protection system. refugee resettlement programs is an enormous accomplishment, but the inability of the u.s. to bring people into the united states who are at great risk that are not formally brought in as refugees is very limited. so the point is that we need to constantly assess the impact of our laws, see how they have been successful or not, and reform them accordingly. we have not overhauled the laws for 50 years. think about what has happened over the last 50 years, immense changes in globalization, and our economy, and all of these various issues. what can we do? we are not going to have probably, immigration reform of the kind that we want

imminently. what can we do in the meantime? let me list a few things. first, support state and local measures to regular rise or normalize the lives of the unauthorized. there is a large difference between pervasively fearing differing tatian -- deportation and being treated as a member of your community. second, advocate for federal reform. it will not happen quickly. it will not be easy. third, we can start to legalize people even without congress. i think this is really important. we know based on research we have done that a substantial proportion of the unauthorized are actually already potentially eligible for permanent legal status. they can pursue it. we think it is around 15%. that is a major group of people in a population of 11 million. there is no reason that we can't

start intensively screening people now and putting them on a path to citizenship. fourth the large-scale migration of children from mexico and central america has taught us that we need to promote the rule of law, economic development but we also need to provide legal avenues for families to unify. you can't have divided families and expect that there won't be illegal immigration. all the enforcement of the world won't stop that. fifth, we need to make integration, empowerment, and well-being of immigrants and their children a unifying and collective priority. that is the whole conversation that we are having on catholic immigration initiatives. i would say the latter is a particular challenge for catholic institutions. you hear a lot about the inevitable decline of catholic institutions, and yet, as the

center for applied research has shown, catholic institutions are extensive and robust, but they tend to be where immigrant populations were not where new immigrant populations are, so there is this disconnect between our institutional capacity and kind of where immigrants are settling. in addition, and this is really important, catholic institutions proliferated not so much in eras of heavy immigration, like the one we are in, as they did in response to the second and third generation. you see a lot of institutional growth, for example, from the 1920's to 1960. as tim and others have pointed out, over the next 30 years there will be immigration, of course, but the number of second-generation hispanics is set to double. the number of third-generation is set to triple.

these are the ingredients that have given rise to institutional catholic growth before. the question is, can the church decisively pivot toward immigrants and do for today's immigrant communities what it did for past immigrant populations? pope francis called the church to be permanently in a state of mission. he cautioned parishes and by implication, other church institutions, against becoming useless structures that are out of touch with the people, the self absorbed clusters, the chosen few. that is powerful. that is a real challenge to us. i dream of a missionary option, he wrote, capable of transforming everything so that the church's customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, languages and structures, can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today's world, rather than

for her own self-preservation. in these conversations on integration, one of the participants in this process kind of evoked the church's earliest days and says we are part of a long process here. what he said was, he brought up the story of a roman officer in palestine who asked to be baptized as a christian. saint peter's response to him which was a highly controversial response, was that yes, he could. he said, the truth i have now come to realize is that god does not have favorites, at that anybody of any nationality who fears god and does what is right by him is acceptable to him. so god has no favorites. churches need to be open to all. in pope francis's words, can we make ourselves and our institutions environments of

living communion and participation and completely mission-oriented? the truth is, we don't have communion now. we don't. too many catholics treat immigrants who are their co-religionists in many ways, as a problem, not a gift. that is how pope francis sees them. it is so pleasant to talk about catholic teaching. all you have to do is quote -- not that i did not like quoting benedict ii, but he says refugees are in occasion that providence gives us to help build a more just society. not a problem, and occasion to build a more just society, a more perfect democracy, a more united country, a more fraternal world, and a more open and

evangelical christian community. migration can offer possibilities for new evangelization. open vistas for the growth of a new humanity foreshadowed in the paschal mystery a humanity for which every country as a homeland and every homeland is a country. it is a beautiful vision and it is our vision. thank you. [applause] jeanne: i would also like to thank catholic university and migration refugee services. i am delighted to be here. looking at this conference and thinking about the history of the catholic church, i also started thinking about my own personal history serving immigrants. i started off at catholic charities providing legal services. i wanted to raise the case of one client. it humanizes what we are talking

about here as well as fitting a point i want to raise. one client is from the caribbean and came to our office excited to show was he had gotten his immigrant these are. -- visa. it had taken them seven years from his permanent wife petitioned for him. we asked if he and his wife went to celebrate after their interview at the immigration office or he said, no, as soon as he got the passport, he raced to his children's school to volunteer. knowing his story, we knew he had not been working during the seven years because he was worried about doing anything that would hurt his data's-- status. i asked him why he had not volunteered when he had all this time and he said he was afraid. what a waste of this man's time and talent. multiply that by 11 million.

what a waste of the full it stand -- full extent of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the united states. legal status impacts every aspect of the immigrants life. traveling, whether he feels comfortable volunteering in the community, going to the police as a victim or a witness. lack of status leaves a person particularly vulnerable in cases of domestic abuse, wage theft and dangerous work conditions. it is no wonder that the church that we hear described as an immigrant church created programs around the country to provide legal services to immigrants and founded an organization to support the legal programs. by the late 1960's, the u.s. bishops established legal centers around the country to serve immigrants, notably families. as don mentioned in 1986

congress passed the immigration reform and control act legalizing almost 3 million people. that is a moment that should be of such pride to the catholic church. the catholic church was a major player, investing $25 million in the effort. there was strong parish work using volunteers and coupling with legal programs that were either already in existence or brand-new starting up to serve this population. following from that time, the united states catholic conference founded my organizational clinic as a legally distinct, nonprofit organization to support this rapidly growing network of community-based immigration programs. at the outset, it comprised 17 programs. it currently has more than 265 affiliates, catholic and non-catholic now.

there are offices in 46 states. the district of columbia, and puerto rico. it is the largest agency advocating for generous immigration policies. family reunification, protection of the persecuted, empowerment for work authorization legal status, and citizenship have their roots in catholic teaching. clinic's network helps quarter of a million low income immigrants each year. something that is really special about that is that services are provided by immigrants or the children of immigrants. these are people who were often perhaps even served by the agencies themselves or volunteered and are now able to serve their own community, there

are other communities. its members serve the most vulnerable migrants, refugees, detainees, victims of domestic violence and victims of human trafficking. in keeping with catholic identity clinic itself, our mission, we were founded to serve these agencies and provide technical legal support. we provide program management support. we have a section that provides direct legal representation to priests, nuns, other religious workers. currently, it has special projects. don mentioned the children coming in from central america and mexico. there are detained families and individuals, survivors of abuse, and individuals seeking citizenship. we run an integration progress -- project focusing on literacy and language acquisition in

partnership with affiliates around the country. to amplify our work, we partner with many organizations to serve the immigrant community. many of these entities are catholic. most notable among them are usccb and another. there is a plan for the info mentation of immigration reform. there is recent, small success. as you know, i president obama signed executive orders that reallocated resources to the southern border, expanded eligibility for programs, and re-prioritized. the bishops conference and the justice for immigrants campaign, a catholic campaign, will focus on reaching out to congress to discourage attacks on belief

clinic is focused on community education and building capacity to serve immigrants now, during registration, and when we get reform. in other words, long-term capacity. these efforts continue. despite the texas court case i'm sure many of you have heard about which temporarily stopped the expansion of the deferred action for parents of -- while this is playing out in courts, there is much work to be done. many catholic partners around the country are very involved in that work. as don and todd have made clear working and supporting immigrants has been a long-lasting, brought-based effort within catholic institutions. i wanted to finish by highlighting a couple of other catholic sectors involved in immigration and how we work with

them. through our state local projects we work closely with state catholic conferences and other entities around the country to advocate for immigration-related public policy positions before state legislative, and civil bodies. it reviews and researches legislation and develops talking points for advocates. in 2014, we worked with advocates in 29 states. according to colleagues at the catholic conferences policies that promote the dignity of immigrants are significant around the country. i believe there are 46 or 47 -- sometimes immigration gets pushed aside by other issues that are prioritized locally. again, i know todd talked about the federalization of immigration law. there have also been attempts in

recent years to pull some of that back to the states. how you are treated at the state level, of course, immediately affects your well-being in your local city or community. so just to give you a little background around 2007, we did expect there would be comprehensive immigration reform. congress failed to pass immigration reform. in-state -- state and local government decided to step in and regulated themselves. unfortunately, they often enacted measures -- hundreds of bills were introduced that restricted or called for additional eligibility requirements and areas of education, health care, and licensing, among others. to give you a comparison, in 2005 there were 39 laws and resolutions enacted. in 2007, 290. in 2013, 437.

in 2013, only five states did not enact immigration-related legislation. it is delaware, kansas, montana new hampshire, and wyoming. last year, we saw some positive legislation. this year, it is a mix. it depends on where you live. it impact how you will be treated as an immigrant and an unauthorized immigrant. examples this year have included working with catholic conferences in florida and hawaii, drivers license bills in new hampshire, and state tuition bills. by sharing information, we are helping catholic entities advocate for creating welcoming communities for immigrants in all our communities. i wanted to touch briefly on another topic todd touched on, which is labor. we work closely with labor organizations, many that are catholic or led by catholics.

as bishops stated, economic justice for all. our faith is tested by the quality of justice among us. we can best measure our life together by the -- by how the invulnerable are treated. we serve many of the same people. according to the bureau of labor statistics, in 2013, there were more than 25 million foreign-born people in the u.s. labor force. that is more than 16% of the total civilian labor force. unauthorized immigrants make up more than 5% of the u.s. labor force and by 2030 it could be between one half and one third of u.s. workers. here is how some of this work can happen collaboratively. we have an event coming up.

they wanted to do is citizenship workshop in boston. they reached out to us and the president of the group -- we are pulling off a workshop clinic to pull people together and organize the workshop, unite here, and sciu, another labor union, are doing outreach, getting volunteers. two local agencies will train volunteers. charity programs around the country are working with united is, united food and commercial workers, catholic labor network conducting workshops, conducting outreach, screening sessions and other events. the work of the church in service and through immigrants

really represents the expression of the catholic church's commitment to the full membership of newcomers in their chosen society and it is really exciting to be a part of that. happy to answer any questions. [applause] kevin: what i would like to do is talk about more recent history with regard to legislation and public policy, and our efforts to obtain comprehensive immigration reform. the four i do, let me just start with -- before i do, let me just start with, why are the bishops involved in the gratian reform -- in immigration reform? it is important to go over that because a lot of catholics don't understand why the church would be involved in immigration. once used plain to them the separation of church and state in this country, then you have to explain to them, what is the

interest of the church here? it is important to sort of go over that. first, of course, is our teaching, our catholic teaching. the gospels, the old and new testaments, the fact that jesus was a refugee, the teachings over the last 150 years, and our call to welcome the stranger. secondly it is a humanitarian issue. that is in the churches wheelhouse. often, it is dissected in terms of social issues rule of law. ultimately, it is a humanitarian issue the church needs to be involved in. third, it is a global issue. this is not a phenomenon that is relegated to this hemisphere. it is all over the world, as pope francis has pointed out. so naturally, the church will be involved because we are a global

institution. we are probably the only institution involved in the immigration debate. we bring that perspective. finally, this will surprise you, it is an institutional issue. i mentioned that we get criticized. we are trying to bring in more catholics. but the reality is immigrants are already here. they are already in our parishes, in social service programs, in our hospitals, in our school spirit we can't help them, although they ask us every day, they ask every day. we cannot help them unless we change the law. we would be derelict in our duty if we did not try to change the law for families and immigrants. it is important to keep our motivation in mind as i go through the last several years of this debate and where the church has been involved, and

some of the pivotal moments. then i will conclude with what the lessons we have learned over the last 10, 15 years are, and how we can apply those lessons. i say that the beginning of this current debate on immigration started in february, 2001. you know what happened then. there was an article from "the new york times." the labor unions had not before that necessarily supported immigration because it was looked at as a threat to u.s. workers. the fact that the labor unions were willing to play ball was a huge advantage and significant development to jumpstart the debate nationally. september 6, 2001, we were all riding high. we were all excited.

there was a joint session of congress calling for the regularization of the undocumented. got a standing ovation. all right. ready to go. we would have a bill by the end of the year. of course, five days later, we had nine/11 which -- 9/11 which shelved immigration reform the next several years. the next five years were basically focused on how we could tighten our borders, make more restrictions, ensure that those intending to harm us don't get in, but in doing so, we cut a wide swath, including those who were not owing to harm us. the patriot act as an example. the creation of the department of homeland security here in the bishops were the only ones that actually opposed the creation of dhs as it is now constructed. these were provisions passed during this time.

we were basically playing defense. the bishops were seeing this, understanding the dynamic they came out in january of 2003 with a letter. it is the immigration bible and the u.s. we use it as a guide for legislation. i encourage you to go back and read it. five points were articulated on how the u.s. should address immigration issues. the first one is that a person has a right to migrate your what does that mean? someone -- right to migrate. what does that mean? if someone is looking to migrate, the country should accommodate that right. secondly in countries of origin, they should have enough

support, enough opportunities that they can stay where they are and support their families. third, the sovereign has a right to control its border. surprise, surprise. we are criticized as being an open border, but catholic teaching is that countries do have a right to control its borders. fourth was protections of refugees. fifth is the right and dignity of the undocumented should be respected. these are five principles the bishops talked about. those became a concrete position on immigration reform. certainly, a legalization program needs to be the center of that. we should have a future flow.

allow workers to come in legally, faithfully, so we know who they are, where they are working, and have a right to protection. this is significant. prior to strangers no longer the bishops had opposed guestworker programs because of their abusive nature, the exploitation of workers, a notorious program in the 1960's and 1970's. we did not do anything about the people coming in in the future. we had to address that. we already had a guestworker program. we needed to come up with some sort of model where we could avoid the exploitation and abuses of the past, but allow people to come in legally and work legally to support their families. of course, we also focus on family reunification and due

process protections were taken away in 1996 by the immigration law. finally, the long-term solution -- this is really the only way we will solve this problem. immigration reform is not a magic bullet. it will not stop undocumented migration. in the learning -- in the long-term, making sure people can stay where they are is important. this was a huge event for the church. the bishops decided, well, we need to get people organized. in 2005 they introduced the justice for immigrants campaign, which is still going strong 10 years later. we need to improve the database. we were ready for battle. about 2005, congress started

turning back immigration reform. president bush had been reelected. he had it on his agenda. by his own admission, he made a mistake when he did not push it right after he not elected -- he got elected. i think that hurt us. there was a push for reform during his second term. it took the form of something that was passed in december of 2005 by the house of representatives, which was a -- it criminalized the undocumented and those who assisted them. it caused quite esther around the country inc. -- quite a stir around the country. we were accused by commentators that we initiated those. cardinal mahony came out

publicly and said he would instruct priests not to obey it. that motivated many people. we were part of it. it was a combustible thing that yarear. because of that and other reasons, the senate responded with a more comprehensive bill which the bishops supported. it had easier legalization programs, and other provisions we supported but the understanding on the hill at the time was that it was just sort of to stop hr 4437. many senators voted for thinking it would not go very much farther. it was a strategic moment at that point where senator reid could have met with the house to come up with a compromise.

many of us discouraged that because we were concerned that what would come out with be similar to the house bill as opposed to the senate bill. we will never know what the outcome would have been there if he had pushed. in hindsight had we gone through other debates, maybe we would have gotten a better bill. again, hindsight is 20/20. they tried again in 2007. senator kyle was a big player. they came out with a bill that really no one liked, unfortunately. it had a point system. bishops were concerned because it favored those that were highly educated and had other skills. it also had some tough enforcement provisions and it also limited who could become legalized under the bill. the bishops, i recall this

distinctly decided to oppose closure on the bill. we wanted them to improve it and not to move it forward. as a consequence, and for the reasons, the bill did not gain closure by 15 votes. i think we made the right decision at that time. the bill would not have been improved and we would have had a radically different immigration reform system now. i think in the hindsight, the bishops made the right decision. it was tough at the time because there were a lot of forces pushing it forward, including the president, the administration dhs. we were just not comfortable with a new point system based on the canadian model that would pick winners and losers based on your education. the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. we fast-forward again. 2008 we have a new president but we have a big recession.

what i meant to say at the beginning is what we have to take into consideration is that it is hard enough to pass a bill when there is a recession. harder when there is a major security breach and an economic downturn. that is what we face more or less over the last few years. 9/11 has been part of the lexicon of part of the culture now for almost 15 years. it's never not going to be part of the immigration discussion. we have to keep that in mind in assessing that. in 2010 we pushed for the dream act under lame-duck. it lost by five votes. my opinion is the administration had a low on its list. they had done us don't tell, they have the tax deal all in that same docket, dream was the last thing on their list.

they pushed for those five democratic senators to vote yes we would've gotten that in the year. of course, lastly, last year, 2013 and 2014 we had a bill out of the senate, a large bipartisan vote. the bishops didn't support that in terms of we support this bill, but we did say the bill should move forward to the house. and we could try to improve the bill. the reasons were there was in -- a corporate amendment got it over the finish line which we did not like. we also didn't like that the third and fourth preference had been eliminated. they had improved the family immigration system. but for those third and fourth preferences, brothers and sisters and adult children, they were eliminated altogether. we had concerns, but we didn't

say the bill should not go forward. we said we should try and improve it where we can. of course you all the what happened there. we were hopeful last summer that this bigger and others were going to push that bill, and that you have the eric cantor election, you also have the children coming across the border and that gave them enough reason to run for the hills. no bill was enacted. i would like to think the dhs funding bill votes this last couple of weeks ago, funded dhs without executive action, that would've been our immigration vote last your. about 75 to 80 republicans and democrats passing the senate bill or some form of the senate bill if the leadership had put it on the floor. but he did not do that. he was trying to get a majority of republicans and he wasn't able to get them. it leads us to where we are

today. where we have executive action, official support of the executive action, we asked for more than just with the president gave. we ask that anyone who have been here 10 years or longer regardless of who their children were should be part of the program. they stop short of that, but we did get the executive action which jean talked about, 4.5 million people. and we are fighting that now. a positive development, not the solution that we were looking for. what are the policy questions that face is moving forward -- face us moving forward? what will the legalization program look like once they get back? we've had some progression in that area, the house had traction on legalizing people without giving them a path to citizenship . that's going to be a battle we

will have to fight moving forward. what's going to happen to the family immigration system? clearly it's a target, it detected to be weakened and we need to protect that. what will be the enforcement rank? the bishops are not opposed to enforcement. we're opposed to enforcement that doesn't reflect american values, due process, and most of these enforcement provisions do not reflect those values. we would not oppose, of course, a work based verify system provided everyone was in the system and that the system worked. we think that the workplace is really where the problem is there. again, what are they going to do on root causes? this over lining of the debate with the children was that there were some moments in washington whenever one was focusing on central america and root causes and saying we have five minutes

or, we had better get our message out. the president responded with $1 billion in the budget for central america this year. but that needs to be part of the debate. the last thing i want to say is that we need to be prepared better prepared for with the trade-off is. we don't need to show with those trade-offs are, or what our position would be, but we need to be prepared with where the flashpoint -- where can the church get the best deal possible with people that are being served? we have a lot of lessons and debates as to where the fault lines are. what does the church need to do moving forward so we can get this fixed? we need to organize better. the reason the 2007 bill died was because the other side just beat us. they shut down the switchboard they had called into the senate

tend to want against us. we were not able to create the power that we need. we weren't able to organize our parishes and dioceses. our fraternal orders the knights of columbus and the knights of malta, need to be involved. we need to hone our messaging especially on the rule of law. this the one thing i get from catholics, it's like we need to enforce the law, what about the laws in the country, it's important that we honor the rule of law. we need to improve that. why we are against certain enforcement provisions, why we think that the system will honor the rule of law. the danger also is trying to confront frustration and discouragement where many people may be right now. it's an impossible issue and we

will never get there. i think the executive action will certainly help. but there's a danger with executive action as well. pointed out by one of our bishops the other day. we don't want the executive action to swallow immigration reform of. we have to keep the drumbeat up, we need immigration reform. executive action is not going to solve the problem. it's a temporary reprieve, it helps some not all. if we focus primarily on the fight for executive action, the diary -- the dialogue changes it moves away from immigration reform, to the constitutionality of the president and the role of the executive versus rational branch. that's a conversation we want to stay away from. what we want to say to congress is if you have problems with what the president did, then pass the bill. pass a bill that supersede the and the reforms the system. in other words, do your job. that's a danger going forward that we don't move -- we don't lose that narrative.

it plays an important role. in conclusion, we have had a lot of problems, a lot of fits and starts, a lot of frustration. i think the fact that immigration is one of the top two to three issues in the country is testament to its importance and to the fact that the church is involved going forward. i'm convinced that even though we are in a dark period, all roads lead back to immigration reform. the primary example of that was recently when the majority tried to attach these executive actions to dhs funding and law. i think part of that dynamic is that it was a political alignment here where the only thing that they can get through that a president is going to sign is something that addresses all aspects. i think we need to continue to work towards that goal and move forward. i think eventually it will end up. [applause]

-- [indiscernible] prof. meagher: we will try and save the last 15 minutes for questions. todd: i will be be -- i will be brief. i want to frame these around the institutional, the expected, and the unknown. when you talk about the catholic church's engagement with migrants in general, you can't get away from the institutional aspect of the church. whether the parish level or the national level. the catholic church is an institution is a formidable force. and it's been an important force throughout the 20th century and even beginning in the 19th century. both in the areas of

integration, for example -- the americanization efforts in the closing decades of the 19 century into the 20th century. how do you be american and catholic? a great deal of controversy not with respect to the immigration issue but also theological issues. you had parishes that provided material, spiritual resources to migrants when they entered throughout the 20 century, and even into the 19th century with the emergence of schools and related institutions, parallel institutions in the secular world that provided all sorts of support in different ways particularly to catholics who were coming to and often unwelcoming society that was largely protestant. in the world of advocacy, the bishops beginning in the 1920's as a corporate body, prior to the 1920's, the bishops really engage these issues on a dicey and level. with the emergence of federal legislation is the primary route

through which immigration policy was passed, you of the bishops with the national catholic welfare conference. in an american context, the institutional is important. the catholic church isn't just an american institution, it's an international institution as well. to properly understand the church's engagement with immigration, you have to understand the relationship between the catholic church and america. not the american catholic church, but the catholic church in america and other countries. it creates a number of dynamics that would have to be fleshed out further -- how is the catholic church in the united states and bishops in the united states engage the bishops in central america in an attempt to try and alleviate some of the problems that are giving rise to migration northward. it's an international, national and local problem is often lived out through the institutions of the church which means a lot

more focused than it has been given. there's the unexpected as well. you wake up every day and advocates go in and do our jobs and try to get things done than try and get just legislation passed. but when all is said and done, sometimes the unexpected will throw us for a loop read kevin pointed to two instances 9/11 but we thought immigration reform was going to be a done deal and 2001. it securitized the entire debate. it became about national security and it has been since then which undermined our capacity to push through immigration reform that would be beneficial interview. and then last year, when we believed that there was the possibility of immigration reform being passed, you had this incredible upsurge in child migration, which helped our opponents, if you will restrictionist to jump onto the narrative of an unsecure border.

to jump on the narrative of the national security narrative that has been predominant area your child migrants running north and getting into united states how can we pass conference of reform?> i would argue that unexpected events can work in the opposite direction too. this isn't the perfect parallel by think one could make the case that the 1965 immigration act which really put an end to the quota system in the national origins formula which the dip -- the bishops had a post was in large part because of the civil rights movement. this idea that the paradigm of civil rights really fed into the unjust nature of the quota system. there was discrimination against -- arbitrary discrimination against people just because of where they were born or where they came from. the civil rights movement, which is not as unexpected as a 9/11 per se, but it was an event that

perhaps 20 years earlier wouldn't have been unpredictable or known. i hope this isn't too much of a stretch. i do think there is at least a partial parallel there they can be drawn out. thirdly, the unknown. one of the big problems, since we're talking about not just for a policy, but history as well, this is an observation is not new to me. but the oversights that catholic institutions and catholic churches had in the writing of history, generally speaking. there is more than in recent years. but there has been articles that have highlighted how catholic history has been marginalized for mainstream history and such. i think it's very important for catholics and for historians who are catholic to turn their attention to the role of the catholic church. the role of the catholic church as an institution in the

formation of migration policy. you can find a lot of stuff on americanization that occurs in 19 century and immigrant reception by the catholic church. you find a lot of stuff on secular history is related to migration policy throughout the 20th century. until recent years, it has been barren, i would argue, with respect to the role of the catholic church. the role of the national -- and cwc in the bishops from 1920 really to the present. there has been stuff written in recent years, more stuff is being written. there is a real gap in what needs to be known so as to inform us as to what needs to be done as we move forward. thank you. if anyone else has any other comments? prof. meagher: he talked about the literacy

act. there was no institutional platform for the catholic church to speak nationally. i want to suggest here that what we talk about catholic, we're talking about the traditional church as well. there were catholic politicians not necessarily great liberals, tammy hall, james michael curley and others who opposed the literacy act. other kind of immigrant machines. the democratic party opposed the literacy act and later the national origins act. partially out of belief, and also out of self-interest. their constituencies were now being filled up with italian americans and they wanted to keep those people pleased in the democratic cap.

as part of the whole transition in some waste of the democratic party begins in the 1910s throughout smith in 1928 for the big fight first between the rural way and the urban. catholics were very involved. you should know it as well that if it continues the vote as others did, at the politicians were against asian immigrants coming into the country. when we open this to -- [inaudible] donald: on the rule of law thing, we need to message that better. the rule of law is not ruled by law.

it's not ruled by law because that would be totalitarian states would be the great champion of the rule of law. they always abide by the law. they insist that everybody abide by the law. so what it's about is about legal systems that honor our rights and honor due process. it's about bringing people into the laws protections, not denying rights as a means to an end or dividing families. we have to remember -- who are these people? they are in some cases fleeing for their lives, almost always trying to create better futures for their children, they attempt to be very self-sacrificing people, honorable people courageous people whose sovereign states have failed. the sovereign states have failed them and yet somehow they are viewed as a national security threat to sovereign states. they are caught in the middle of this whole thing. imagine thinking about kids fleeing violence and preservation, in some cases trying to reunify with their parents in the united states

being viewed as a national security threat. that's really turning things on its head. a quick reminder that in catholic teaching, yes, states have a right to regulate migration, but also the purpose of the states is to protect rights and honor rights. to honor the common good, which is about all people nourishing. i think our teaching has a lot to say on the rule of law issues and sovereignty issues and rights issues. jeanne: -- >> questions? >> and just been about my situation. both my parents were immigrants for ireland -- from ireland. my mom came in 1951. my name is martin scale and my

holy group is the ameren group. i work with ireland in america. my mom came here in 1951 and came -- back then you had to be sponsored. her uncle sponsored her. she spent the first six weeks here on his couch. then she got a job as a nanny. my mom was not cut out to be a nanny. but she wound up waitressing and did very well for herself, married my dad. my dad came here of december of 1953 and apply for a job and the guy asked him heavy registered for the draft? he told them no and my father was reported and met my mother after and got married. my parents agree well for themselves. my mom died 10 years ago. she was worth over $3 million. she came here with an eighth-grade education, he came here with the six great education. my father's maternal uncle was

fdr's man in the catholic community in new york. he was a good friend. my father's uncle was a good friend. his name was jack kennedy, a good friend. cardinal spellman helped fdr out in the 36 election by getting him to sit on a father who had them in trouble. my point is that now that we have diversified the country after the 1965 law, why do we go back to what worked? when you had some of the sponsoring summary coming here. just having a place to stay for a month, tell you who avoid, who to seek out, where the places you should go, where the places you shouldn't go -- it's invaluable. my pairs to the same thing for a lot of the illegal irish the came out in the 1980's. my mother was financially set by 1986.

i live in sunnyside, queens. i left there in 1987 because my mom was insane, she just wanted to buy houses. but when we go back to the law that worked -- why don't we go back to the law that worked? -- [inaudible] donald: there's a financial responsibility attached to that as well. everybody heard that right? >> mostly for kevin. what is there in ways of legislation is coming that has been talked about after they gave up on attaching to the dhs

funding? what do think is likely to happen -- what will he try and get through either house of congress? kevin: what we see so far as harsh enforcement bills in the house that are being considered. the asylum protection act which is a misnomer and protection of children act, which was repealed -- which would repeal asylum protection for children and others coming to the u.s. also the safe act, which is like the arizona law, would be part of it. the house will move those harsh enforcement bills, they will probably look at the legal immigration system in terms of employment visas, high-tech visas, and of course, that will be a battle for us because they will probably raise a family immigration system to add to those high-tech visas as opposed to creating their own.

there might be something along the kids dream act it is watered down that they may throw it at some point. we are really a crossroads. it's unclear where congress is going to go over the next before the 2016 election and the window is closing. it will close over the next several months as opposed to what they can do significantly. all indications are that the majority in the house and we're going to be playing defense. i don't think those bills are to get past the senate, frankly. if they even get past the house. again, as i said in my talk, we need to change the narrative and hold congress accountable for passing a bill that both sides can agree to and then moves the nation forward. it's their responsibility to do so and not to continue to focus on harsh enforcement bills that not only don't move us forward,

but move us backward and which really have no hope of doing into law. >> is the conference at the table and discussions at all? is anyone inviting you in to ask what we need to do? kevin: a bishop testified against the bill, and we impose them otherwise, but we haven't been invited in on those particular pieces of legislation. i think of the process moves forward, we will be a player in trying to tell them or to have them come back with something that's more palatable that looks like immigration reform. >> don, you mentioned that 15% of the 11 million undocumented, there could be a legal path to citizenship. could you talk about that more? donald: i will let jeanne talk about it

too. but we did a national survey of legal agencies, and sobbing like 80 something responded. you had 63 good, fully completed surveys. what we were asking them were two things. 1 -- if you were screening people for deferred action for child arrival, where you also screening them for potential eligibility for other types of immigration benefits or relief? ? the second set of questions involved people he came into cap or charities or legal immigration programs that aren't catholic, on the normal intake for screening days. but we found and we had various categories of relief for benefits that people might be eligible for, for the doc up -- daca screening, about 15% of

them were found to be potentially eligible for family-based visas or you visas or some kind of immigration benefits or relief that would put them on a track to potentially permanent residency which was not a surprising finding, actually. it's why we create legal capacities, because we know that there are a lot of people out there that for one reason or the other don't come forward don't know that they're eligible for something, can't afford to come forward, whatever. nonetheless, it's a startling find and it shows that the unauthorized also include people that are essentially already eligible for legal status, which is a remarkable thing when you think about how it's been criminalized and treated as you know, people outside of the law's pale. this is more of a legal services or capacity issue. the other finding, which was a think fairly significant, but there was obviously some selection issues involved in this was of people that come in

for normal intake day apart from the daca program, over 50% of them were ultimately found eligible for some sort of have to permanent residency. that's remarkable. we all think it's a totally reliable statistic it's one that we couldn't speak to in our report that much. nonetheless, as a lot of people out there and what it shows is the fluidity of immigration. you may be unauthorized now, the potential you are on the path to permanent residency. and more could be. >> i would just add that we are looking at the applications of that. it means that we need to be doing screening now to find these people. even those great programs -- we had daca, and other programs are temporarily on hold. but they don't give you long-term status. jeanne:

we have an obligation to make sure that they are able to apply for that. we need to screen now. our charities around the country though, are already swamped. this is something we are speaking about with funders to try and find resources to help them as well as raise awareness about the issue. and when the programs are being implemented, we also need to ensure that there high quality screenings at the very beginning of that process. and again it's a challenge, because we know resources are going to be so stretched with close to 5 million people who may be will be eligible for this benefit, the expectations based on past experience is that about 50% of those people will be coming to nonprofit organizations around the country looking for help area the program serves about 600,000 so far, and many agencies are stretched to do that. it will more than 10% of the people who were eligible to new programs come for help we're

going to be stretched and we know that we are going to get hopefully 60%, 75% of people to apply. there are issues of quality of screening and doing it as soon as possible. >> tom coburn from catholic university. my question is for any of you, but it departs from what mr. appleby said for the need for the bishops congress to organize that are around his legislative issues. you might have been present, or some of the other people about the talk about the bishop in brownsville where he told a number of moving stories about the people in his diocese responding to crisis. my question was simply -- he was talking about the spontaneous mobilization, quite massive, over a period of weeks, maybe even months, poor people bring supplies and so forth to the refugees. i just wondering is there any

way that you -- concrete way in which the catholic church is trying to mobilize that really quite large constituency to change the laws? kevin: one thing i forgot to mention is that polls taken from catholics show strong support for immigration reform. 69% of catholics support of the past to citizenship as long as people register with the government. there been other polls that show strong was the work, especially hispanic catholics, but also white catholics are well over 50%. the support is there, just translating that into picking up the phone, writing a letter, going to a town hall, things of that nature. that's a challenge. we've tried different things, the campaign is activated

without a challenge expanding the base over time it. because i think there is -- unless they see something in front of them, like they saw the children, it's hard to get people to focus on it. more frankly, unlike something like health care, i think there's a problem with self-interest there. how does changing immigration law improve my life? often you hear oh, for those who oppose immigration reform, well i'm a they are here illegally they broke the law. except for my gardener, you can save him. it's also the personal stories the need to be advanced more. i don't really have an answer for you as to what we could do concretely unless we get the bishops to go into every parish

and require them as part of their lenten observance to write a letter or something. but also challenges there because there are 10 other issues that the bishops have an interest in as well. we march on a treasure the best we can. i mentioned getting some of the other organs of the church involved, like the knights of columbus, knights of malta that have resources and have person who is important. it ultimately is education. think there are a lot of catholics that don't quite understand what the church's position as have a lot of questions. that goes to the messaging as well. >> that's all the time we have are questions unless you want to make another comment. kevin: i wish you would give a round of applause were presenters. thank you. >> you're watching american history tv. 48 hours of programming american history every weekend on

c-span3. follow us on twitter. for information on or schedule of upcoming programs and to keep up with the latest history news. next, east carolina university professor emeritus charles calhoun talks about the obstacles faced by ulysses s. grant during his presidency, and what he accomplished. he describes how president grant's military background and personality influenced a variety of the decisions he made during his two terms in office. professor calhoun was a guest lecturer in this class at the u.s. naval war college in newport, rhode island. this is about 90 minutes. colonel borg: it is my honor to introduce to you professor charles calhoun, professor emeritus from east carolina university to talk about grant's residency.

-- presidency. with that, i will turn it over. professor calhoun: thank you very much, colonel borg. thank you all for being here today. thank you for the professor who could not be are today. he is in hawaii. i know we did a lot of background work on this as well. as professor borg indicated, i am going to be talking about presidency of ulysses s. grant. his leadership in the white house. i have a couple caveats. i am a political historian, not a military historian. i am sure a number of you in this room know more about grant's military career, particularly after taking this course, than i do. my specialty is late american politics. the second caveat relates to i am writing a book on the presidency of ulysses s. grant for the university of cambridge.