tv Immigration Policy CSPAN October 3, 2017 4:51am-6:27am EDT
1:51 am
stories in church. and they frequently featured missionary doctors, people who at great personal expense would go. and it seemed like the most noble thing a person could do. and i harbored that dream from the time i was 8 years old until i was 13, at which time, having grown-up in dire poverty, i decided i'd rather be rich. so at that point, missionary doctor was out. and i decided i wanted to be a si psychiatrist. >> for the past 30 years, the video labor rath video library is your source. whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find at c-span's video library at c-span.org. c-span, where history unfolds
1:52 am
daily. next, a conversation about u.s. immigration policy and possible action on daca. it's an hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. i'm elaine kaymark here at the brookings institution. thank you for coming out on a friday morning to talk about this incredibly important issue. we have a great panel for you. we have a c-span audience and of course a live, live web cast. anyone who would like to tweet, there's the u.s. immigration. and we hope to have a good discussion both here and online. this is, you know, way back
1:53 am
when, when i was a graduate student at the university of california, berkley, where secretary napolitano runs these days, we learned about wedge issues. wedge issues were those things that really divided the electorate, that got everybody excited. that everyone had an opinion about. well, immigration has become a wedge issue. wedge issues kind of come and go, and depending upon the year. and clearly since 2015, when president trump started to run for office, immigration has been at the forefront in terms of one of the wedge issues. it divides not just republicans and democrats but republicanss and republicans. it has fascinating divides within the republican party, between trump supports and people who were call themselves
1:54 am
traditional republicans. so this is a big issue, an issue that everyone has an opinion about. as opposed to many of the issues we talk about here at brooking, telecommunication and things like that. le normal people don't really have strong opinions about those issues. this is one where people do have strong opinions. therefore, it is of interest to everyone. the issue also runs the gamut from what i call a head issue to a heart issue. people have very strong opinions about what this manes feans for country, what kind of country we ought to have, and we get yes motional about it, but it also goes to more practical issues. so john hudack and i took a look
1:55 am
at the practical side. is it possible for the president to do what he was elected to do? and we came up with some interesting answers. and finally, one of the things about a political issue that becomes so hot is that often it is not exactly fact-based. and remember, i think it was the late senator moynahan said everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not everyone is entitled to his own facts. we have been treated to a series of statements. some from the president, from his team, which simply don't, don't have anything to do with reality. and we'll talk about that, too, i'm sure. so thank you very much for joining us today. we're going to have our panel
1:56 am
1:57 am
[ applause ] all right, good morning, everyone. welcome to brookings. i'm james huda. it's my honor today to moderate this panel aen it introduce all of you to our panelists, to discuss what is a critically important issue as elaine mentioned, broadly but in the current political environment. i'd like to welcome our viewers who are tuned in via a live web cast as well as the viewers on
1:58 am
c-span, watching this live. any of you who want to engaebl us on social media, you can use #u.s. immigration to getna the conversation. now on to our panelists. immediately to my left. janet napolitano. prior to becoming president of uc, she served as the third secretary of the department of homeland security, during the first term of president obama and a little bitna his second term. prior to that, she served as the attorney g general of arizona. and then the governor of arizona. immediately it her left is carlos scavara, previously the national council of laraza.
1:59 am
and last but not least on the end, doris misener, senior fellow of the u.s. immigration program. from 1993 to 2000 she served as commissioner of the immigration and naturalization unit. she's served under five presidents. he'd like it to thank our panelists for what i hope will be an engaging conversation. and i'm going to start with my first question to president napolitano. recently, you joined a lawsuit over the president's decision to rescind daca as president of the university of california. the president's decision to repeal this in the six-month window with the hope that congress will step in and codify dacana law has made for a lot of controversy throughout the unit
2:00 am
a unit-united states. can you talk a little bit about what this policy maneans broadl and for your students. >> i certainly can. i'm very familiar with daca. we did daca when i was the secretary of homeland security. and we did it out of a recognition that there was, there were a whole host of individuals who had been brought here as children, had been raised in the country and from any kind of an immigration enforcement perspective, should be able to stay in the country without fear of deportation. and so deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca, was
2:01 am
the resulting program that we initiated. and it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. they have to have a clean criminal record and a whole host of requirements to qualify. at the university of california, we estimate that we have around 4,000 undocumented students. apartme and the vast majority of them are in daca. about a quarter of the 800,000 daca recipients in the country are in california. and these young people are, you know, they're an important part of our university community. they are by and large first-generation college students. they are and have done everything required of them
2:02 am
academically to get into the university of california, which is not the easiest thing in the world to o do. you know, they have the brains, the energy, the initiative. they are exactly the kinds of people we should want to stay in our country and contribute. so the president's decision to rescind dha rescind daca was wrong on a number of grounds. it's wrong as a matter of law, it's wrong as a matter of immigration policy and inconsistent with our values as a country. whether congress acts? who knows. one can as ylways hope.
2:03 am
and you hear there may have been a deal negotiated between the president and senator schumer and representative pelosi over chinese food and chocolate cake at the white house. and, but, reducing that to legislation and legislation that will be brought to the floor and passed, that the president will sign, and to get that all done in six months is, while we're going to advocate for it and believe strongly that congress can and should act, we also think, as a matter of law, the court should step in and protect that's 800,000 young people. >> thank you for those comments. carlos, president napolitano talked a little bit about the university community at uc and the important role that daca resip an recipients play in that community. can you talk a little more about
2:04 am
what daca has meant for communities and what this uncertainty that has stemmed from the president's announcement also means to those communities. >> john, thank you for the question and the opportunity to be here and to my co-panelists, it's an honor to be here with you both. i think back on my legal career, once upon a time i was a line attorney. and i remember doing about 100 of these cases and thinking through the difficulty and conversations that must have happened around many kitchen tables across the country, before coming to meet with me, to do a consultation about what obtaini obtaining daca might mean for a family.
2:05 am
i mention this because daca recipients today have been here about ten years. but before the program was announced, even then, there weighs a lwas a lot of concern about coming forward, providing information about your residence. family members, and oh, by the way, having to come up, in many instances, with the money and to take off the time to be with somebody leak ike me to preparer application. the decision to apply to daca in the first place took a lot of trust in the federal government, telling you, look, there's a small piece of the grand bar gain th gain, that you will have an opportunity to work and provide for yourself and your family. so when we have the decision,
2:06 am
john about the recision that the president took on september 5th, to put it mildly, the trust that was violated there, and part of the deal, if you will that was undertaken by many in the community completely yes rodeer. but really to have empathy to consider what these families are going through right now. even as we drive to get folks who are eligible between now and october 5th to even come and meet with an attorney to come to community meetings, to learn about their rights and so forth. i was talking to some colleagues at american immigration lawyers association recently that are reporting, we see ourselves in our own network. we have a network of about 300 affiliates that we work with across the country, including california, reporting that folks aren't showing up for interviews or not attending these
2:07 am
opportunities to renew their daca status. the folks who are eligible. we're really concerned that the environment, and i think we'll talk about this later, that has been created and the wake of this decision and in the wake leading up to, frankly, the election of the kupts president and since, will have a chilling effect on folks coming out. we do encourage people to come out. it's very important, and that we continue to create the momentum for a legislative fix. and through the congress. so i'll stop there. >> doris, you've worked under both democratic and republican presidents on issues surrounding immigration. and i know recently, you've done some work on presidential rhetoric around this issue. could you talk a little bit about what the president's rhetoric both on the campaign trail and once he's been in office has meant for politics, what it has meant for voters, what it's meant for advocacy
2:08 am
communities around issues of immigration. >> i'll try. thanks for the invitation. i think i'd like to take off from what elaine said about this being an area that is not exactly fact-based. because what we've seen here is really new on immigration in the american experience, at least in, in modern times. and that is, a presidential candidacy fundamentally based on immigration as a top tier issue, that has never happened before. others have tried it, pete wilson tried it in the 1990s, patrick buchanan tried it. it's never been successful, but their time this time it was successful. a result of that candidacy, of course, hassan been the rallying cry of "build the wall", which, characterized virtually every event. that took place during the
2:09 am
campaign, and an amazing drive, as the president came into office to really pursue that agenda, aggressively, quickly, initially through executive orders. but with lots of other implications for budgets and for possible legislation, including what has happened on daca, and daca is really the first issue that's come along in this agenda where there's been any rethinking whatsoever. virtually everything else is straight out of the campaign playbook. which is also quite extraordinary. in, you know, in our political experience. so, you have the "build the wall" rallying cry and the promise of aggressive enforcement, obey the law, enforce the law, everybody in the country here illegally is subject to removal because they're in violation of the law.
2:10 am
well, the facts on the ground are incredibly different from that overall picture, and from that agenda. because, what we see just in two areas. i'll talk for a moment about border enforcement and about interior enforcement. in border enforcement, we're on a 40-year, going on 50-year low in the numbers of apprehensions coming across the southwest border. it's an absolutely historic low. we've come from a peak in 2000 of 1.6 million apprehensions at the southwest border to an 88% drop by fiscal year 2016 and it will drop further when this year, fiscal 2017 numbers come in. 88%. that is an enormous percentage, in any policy realm. and certainly, in law
2:11 am
enforcement. and along with that we've come to a point where the traditional flows, which are the mexican flows have been sup mantzplante central american flows. so there's a rell change real character. it peaked in 2014. we've been coming down since then. even though it has supplanted the mexican flow, it's at very much lower numbers than the mexican flow ever was, and it is declining, and it is a very different flow. it's what we call a mixed flow in immigration terms, and that is made up of economic migration but also claims for protection, fleeing violence and persecution, with people in it that are, to some extent, some of them eligible for refugee status in the united states.
2:12 am
and dealing with that kind of a flow is a very different enforcement issue than dealing with the mexican flow. because these are people that need to see judges and asylum officers and are wanting to turn themselves in to the government in order to pursue a possible claim for help. rather than evading and trying to slip through the southwest border. so if ever there is not a picture that looks for a wall, as an answer, this is that kind of a picture. and even that central american flow is now falling dramatically since this administration came into office between then and now, we've seen a 40% drop, even, in the central american flow, again, a very significant percentage. particularly in light of the push factors for that flow.
2:13 am
so that's one set of numbers. the other set of numbers is in the interior, where of course there is a much more muscular approach to enforcement, a very different philosophy of enforcement than you have just described that has to do with prosecutorial discretion and obviously things like holding people like the daca recipients harmless. and this approach has created an enormous climate of fear, an enormous uncertainty in the country, and it is certainly true what we read in the press that the numbers of arrests are up and that the composition of the arrests are different. you have a larger share of non-criminals to criminals than was the case at the end of the obama years, but the shift is only over what we saw in the last two years. it's only over what was begun in 2014 with very strict guide
2:14 am
lines that at the end of the obama administration were issued. if you look a little more broadly, back to the earlier years in the obama administration, the record now falls short of what it was that was taking place between 2008 and 2012 and '13. so what's currently happening is actually falling back to being on a par or less than what it was taking place just a few years ago. and it is also resulting in less people being removed from the united states. 13% less people actually being sent back to their countries than had been the case under the prior administration. and that's baecause the border numbers are so low.
2:15 am
there are just not that many people coming across the borders. so the experience for countries that are source countries of immigration is less pressure of returns. than had been the case earlier. now that is a huge gap between perception and reality. and it just seems to me, i mean, there are lots of take aways from it. but the most straightforward take away it seems to me is how very important leadership tone matters. what the real power is of the rhetoric and of the message, because we now are in an era where immigration is being portrayed as a threat to the country, as a danger to the country, not as an asset to the country. and, you know, the result of that is that we are seeing changes in behavior on the ground because of the perceptions rather than what it is that's really happening.
2:16 am
>> thank you. what you've touched on, what each of you have touched on with regard to the daca recision is that if congress doesn't act, 800,000 individuals, about 800 tho 800,000 individuals are supposed to be deported. now each of you have worked in different areas of enforcement of the immigration issue. i'd like to hear beyond the rhetoric, a lot of what ends up in political analysis, and that is the administrative cost. that is what do you see as the challenges, the burdens of suddenly telling the department of homeland security, you need to go ut o a to go out and deport 800,000 people. in an era of budget cutting, in
2:17 am
an era where congress and the president are committed to smaller government, can you talk a little bit about the challenges the homeland security secretary will face in carrying out that order? >> and let's not forget if congress doesn't act, the courts may. >> sure, sure. >> so there's both a belt and suspenders approach to preventing the recision of daca. but you know, you don't just pick up somebody and all of a sudden they're in another country, there's a whole administrative procedure that goes along with that, beginning with the ice agent who has it to find the person and detain them. and then an administrative procedure by which they're adjudicated. whether they're deportable or
2:18 am
not. then you've got to transport them. and the country to which they're being deported has it to receiv them. so there's a whole change of things that have to happen. and each of those things requires resources. and each takes time. and so the notion that you just flip a switch and remove 800,000 people is a myth. just, it just doesn't work that way. and that's, that's the you know, kind of the reality. the perception, however, is one that i think instills a lot of
2:19 am
fear in yes, ma'am graimmigrant. and one of the virtues of daca was that these d.r.e.a.m.ers didn't have to walk around always looking over their shoulder, wondering whether there was an ice agent trying to find them and deport them. that assurance is now, would be gone. and so you have entire communities that, you know, live in fear and apprehension, and when the rhetoric is to use doris's words, so much more muscular, it just ups the temperature. and makes everybody live not just in fear and trepidation but reluctant to do things. like, for example, reluctant it to report when there's a victim of crime. that's within of the reasons why local law enforcement agencies
2:20 am
are so opposed to some of the actions being taken or, and the words being used on immigration enforcement. and so these are all things that must be taken into account. >> if i may, i would add to that an important piece of that puzzle is where the immigration courts fall in, and the opportunity that individuals have, which is also part of this process, to seek relief if available to them under our law. so that also adds a dynamic in terms of how these things play out, and, again, to the perception and reality of what enforcement actually means. i do want to talk about, if i may, john, some of the other costs and perhaps an aspect that maybe is less-talked-about. what we know as the largest latino civil rights and advocacy
2:21 am
norgs th organization in this country nearly eight out of ten latinos in this country are a legal citizen. millions of american families. so it goes beyond, when we talk about the enforcement construct here. it goes beyond the impact to an individual but also to the broader fabric of who i think we are as a country. interesting reporting recently coming out has shown that there are 5.7 million u.s. citizen children in this country that have at least one undocumented parent. out of every ten hispanic voters, one has an undocumented family member. when we talk about costs, what
2:22 am
muscular enforcement may mean. it's really the broader family context. and then you start talking about and thinking through what are these so-called collateral costs of ramped up enforcement? we have, as i mentioned earlier, a broad net work of affiliates across the country, and i'll relate one story out of los angeles, in california, of an individual who was in this country for 30 years, a long-time member of his community, been raising four u.s. citizen children in the los angeles area. but most of them in the high school age. he had an incident, an incident that involved a misdemeanor and was ultimately picked up by ice. on the way to dropping off his kids to school. i don't mention this issue to discuss necessarily, i hope
2:23 am
folks would have some sympathy for the individual in question here, but what it must be like as the daughter, who, as it it so turned out, w was recording incident and it's now viral and on youtube. of ice office earrs on the way school picking up your father. what that might mean for your mental health, playing that every day, what that might mean in school, are you going to be fully-invested in school? and by the way, two of the four daughters were actually training for the los angeles marathon with the help of their father. so just the other aspects of trying to be a normal teenager in the day to day. i think about running a marathon, i just think about it i get tired. the folks who are actually trying to do other things in their day to day. so i think it's important to think through that it's not just, you know, the community member that is impacted. there are real costs associated
2:24 am
with that, but what are the collateral costs to the families. in many instances, american families, that are left behind with the ramped up interior enforcement that we are living through right now. >> let me pick up on one other point on daca, and if the daca deal does not happen. i mean, i totally agree. as, as dreadful as that would be, as a general public policy matter, i think one does have to be realistic. this is not an automatic deportation that takes place, and wyes, it is somewhere betwen 700,000 and 800,000 people. but the far more likely outcome is 700,000 to 800,000 young people who will find themselves in an extraordinarily more vul merable circumstance in this country. some will come, law enforcement
2:25 am
will come across some of them in one way or another. i don't believe that there will be a targeted effort to go out and look for the daca population, if this, you know, if, if daca ultimately is removed. but the perception and the concern about deportation is, as has been said, incredibly real in these people's lives and if their family lives. if you step back from it, probably the far more important character of daca is work authorization. the work authorization that comes with daca is what has made this community, this population of people, has showed, actually, what the importance of a legalization program overall would be. because, if you have people that are legally in the labor market, they are on an upward mobility track. i mean, the data are clear that
2:26 am
the daca population got better jobs, earns better. are able to get drivers licenses and therefore have much more mobility and ability to function. are able to go to school because of assistance programs. if that goes, they fall back into the underground economy, and falling back into the underground economy is not only a real vulnerability for them and their families in addition to the possibility, randomly, of deportation, it's a real loss for labor markets, and particularly, the locations which are heavily concentrated. now we're talking about california, texas, you know, it there a there are about six or eight locations that are the dominant locations for the daca population, and that's a very big loss in general.
2:27 am
to our productivity as a, you know, in those parts of the country. >> so doris, pick up a little bit on o cost again. one of the issues that we address in our paper and that the president has talked about is a lack of capacity to enforce immigration law. and the president's plan is to hire 15,000 ice and border patrol agents. that's what he's set forward as his goal. now we talk a little bit about the penguifinancial challenges e basic h. rchb basic hr challenges of hiring that many people. as the former commissioner of the ins, can of talk about challenges in hiring, retention, et cetera, as well as thecosts hiring and the likelihood of an administration being able to boost those numbers like 15,000 and up. i would like to start with you.
2:28 am
>> janet had a more recent experience with that. i can capture it in one ratio, 27-1. in order to hire up in the border patrol, and this may be different today, but during the period i was that's correct ere have 27 candidates at the beginning of the process in order to get one coming out at the end of the process. that was in the border patrol. that is an enormously expensive undertaking and challenge. the reasons are that you don't just hire anybody to be a border patrol agent. there are physical requirements. a foreign language requirement. people have to speak spanish and pass a spanish test.
2:29 am
they are, the physical training requirements and the immigration law training requirements are significant. these are really very well-trained law enforcement officers. and the security clearances, lots of people fail the security clearances. frankly, today, the labor pool that is available for these sorts of jobs is a real difficulty because of drugs. because of other background clearance issues. their salaries are very good for those locations, but we have more than 20,000 border patrol already. the border is saturated with personnel. and the border patrol numbers, though, are the smaller of this
2:30 am
agenda. the ladies arger are ice agents. 10 o,000 10,000. it's a much bigger percentage of the workforce. so when you are talking about absorbing that level of workforce, your whole supervisory structure, physical facilities, there are tremendous ripple effects to that kind of a ramp-up. so if that kind of a ramp-up does happen it will happen over the course of 5-10 years, not 4-8 years, because it's not do-able in a first term time range. >> you were the commissioner, and you, you are right that you have to have an enormous applicant pool to harvest one
2:31 am
agent. the training at the academy takes a number of months. you've got to have, you know, the physical facilities in which the training can occur. you've got to have the stations out of which the agents operate, immedia need to be properly sized. and, as you say, at the border, there already had been such a significant ramp up. the real issue at the border is the greater use of technology. and both at the ports of entry and between the ports of entry, and air coverage over, over the border. so that agents are better able to detect where unlawful pass
2:32 am
ablg is being attempted. and, in terms of enlarging the interior enforcement, ice, that, too, will take a significant period of time and require a lot more resources than people anit t tis pate. >> if i may, just one point there. to the credit of the leadership at dhs in the past eight years or so. agencies like the border patrol hadden abo had been moving in the direction of greater transparency and accountability. in things like establishing internal affairs board and authorizing that division with more powers, publishing use of force data, instituting or looking at instituting body-worn
2:33 am
camera pilots and so north. the reason i mention this is i think there's an inference it that some may draw. why don't we perhaps look at the standards. why is it so hard for folks to get into the border patrol and possibly ice agency as well. and i would caution against moving too far in that direction. i think to the credit, again, to the department, they had been move oi moving in the right direction to enhance accountability, to enhance that hiring standards are up to par. so i would just offer it that as something that contributes to possibly the hiring challenges. but it's fundamental from the marketing perspective ha those things do not get lost. >> so we talked a little bit about the costs of hiring. doris, as you said, the saturation already at the border of having agents and a little bit about technology and all of
2:34 am
this really folds into another topic that exists in the immigration debate, and ha that is the border wall. you opposed the construction of a physical border at the southern border of the united states. and you often were quoted saying show me a 50-foot wall, and i'll show you a 51-foot ladder. i would not step foot on a 51-foot ladder, to be honest. what types of alternatives are not just more effective, but more attainable, if the heated rhetoric died down a little and people entered this conversation in a more level-headed way? >> yeah, so, you know, i think the notion of building a wall across the southwest border, i
2:35 am
mean, i just, first of all, just doing it. you know, that border from a geography standpoint, you're talking about going through river beds, over mountains. there's a great deal of private property ownership along the border. when there was money set aside in a secure fencing act a decade and a half ago a number of the property owners who, whose property would be used for that sued. those cases, many of them, are still in litigation. so, you know, you'll have those issues. you have indian reservations that straddle the border, in arizona, for example, the community lives on both sides of the border. they've already said they're not going to have a wall.
2:36 am
so just the pure doing of it. not to mention the actual cost. which, you know, i think the numbers i've seen areal low numbers. and i think you're talking in excess of $20 billion to build anything like a wall. so you have to question, what does a wall do? well, the notion that a wall, there's going to be some kind of impermeable structure along the border, again, you know, anybody who's been at the border and mows t mo knows the border knows that just won't fly. and what real border enforcement means is a strategy that includes manpower, that includes
2:37 am
technology, that includes, as i said before, air coverage. it also includes working with our neighbors to the south to try to prevent traffic before it actually gets to the physical border. and, you know, i think some of the real progress that we made was with the government of mexico. and in their own efforts and protecting their southern border. so you know, waiting until the traffic hits a myth logical structure does not suffice as an immigration policy. >> would anyone else like to add? >> well, maybe i should use this opportunity to throw out my favorite number. you said the wall was probably in the $20 billion range. that's what homeland security
2:38 am
has been estimating. $21 billion. we now spend $19 billion on immigration enforce mptd overall in this country. that represents 25% more than all federal criminal law enforcement, which means the fbi, the dea, the atf, the secret service, the marshal service. we're spending 25% more than those agencies combined. and now wire' talkie're talking $20 billion wall that is even more expensive than that expenditure and in the face of chamss in flows and the kinds of points that you properly raised that i completely agree w what brings about effective law enforcement? i will raise my hand as a proi
2:39 am
poenant of bear juriarriers. in certain circumstances. about a third of the border has a bear jurarrier. you can call it a wall or whatever you want. and it's of enormous help. but it has to be maintained, repaired. it's simply a method of helping to channel the flow and deal with certain types of terrain. it's not a one-size-fits-all and solve the problem solution. >> we have about 12 or 13 minutes before i open it up to audience questions. carlos, i want to start with
2:40 am
you. buenos is one of the agencies affecting community. i want you to talk about how it has responded to an unexpected political environment since november 8th. and an a little bit about what has happened with bu knee toes and its partners. a lot of times when there is a disastrous policy situation in your, on your radar, it can bring groups together in ways that other situations may not. can you talk a little bit about the interest group and advocacy group o environmen group environment? >> suffice it to say, the election of president trump, perhaps unexpectedly by some kind of threw many of us in the advocacy space, of course i wasn't then in the advocacy space, but now in the advocacy space for a loop.
2:41 am
i think inthe profile or positioning of a lot of groups today has had to be one of more rapid response. perhaps many were gearing up for a different dynamic had a different administration been in place. so what that means is relentless to a point, john, a relentless, you know, tracking of the latest hot button issue of the day and a coming together, frankly, of the groups to deal with those in the most proecappropriate manne. i will tell you, it feels like it's a constant onslaught these days. starting from muslim ban to ramped up interior ebb forcement actions to daca now. it just always feels like we're on the defensive. but i say that, and i say that with some pride and the reaction
2:42 am
that the advocacy community and others, partners have, in the way that they have come together to respond. and one of the ways that we are seeing that play out is in response to the daca recision now in this very multi-faceted approaches to that. and as we think about the window that we have. and i sincerely believe that we have a window right now, to get something done. y you see a lot of the groups looking to carry forward the momentum, to talk about debt ceiling and so forth where me might have opportunity to discuss this as a more comprehensive package perhaps. that momentum and work continues. it will continue to o be in thi fight and we have a lot at stake. it's not just 800,000
2:43 am
individuals, daca recipients. it's their families and also the individuals not to be forgotten in this space, who do not have daca but for all intents and purposes law-abiding individuals trying to go about their day to day lives as well. >> president napolitano, over the past several election cycles, we've seen your home state of arizona trend toward purple. in 2004, president bush won by 10 points. in 2012, president obama lost arizona by nine points and president trump won the state by 3.5%. and there are a lot of factors that go into that. but surely immigration is one of them. can you talk a little bit about what effect you think the president's immigration policies broad la broadly. whether it's rhetorical, whether it involves daca and the wall, controversial pardons, perhaps, what that might mean for the
2:44 am
politics on the ground in a state like arizona in local elections, congressional elections and for the next presidential race. >> well, you're right. arizona trends purple, though it tends a little more republican than democratic. although, you know, it has elected democratic governors, and senators. and the congressional delegation is, in the house is about equally divided. you know, i think that one impact could be to stimulate voter registration and voting by the latino population. and the fact of the matter is
2:45 am
that if the latino population voted at the same percentage as the white population, arizona would be a blue state now. and so all of these actions taken together, the rhetoric, the policy pronouncements, the pardon. i think could have the impact, as i said, increasing latino vote o voter turnout. and we will see that in 2018. >> okay. so for my last question, we have about five minutes before audience questions. i'm going to wrap by asking each of you to think about the next five and a half months. as congress mulls over what to do on daca, as congress mulls
2:46 am
over a variety of immigration policies, whether it's through a funding bill that's coming up in december and probably again two or three month s later and probably two or three months after that. what advice would you give to members of congress facing this type of issue. whatever portion of that you think is most important to congressional leadership or to rank and file. >> well, i think, if i were called upon to advise a member of congress, which i would be reluctant to do. but i would say that the imminent risk now is to o tthe d.r.e.a.m.ers. and while we all hope at some point for a comprehensive
2:47 am
immigration reperform, whiform, country sorely needs. that achieving some sort of statutory resolution for at least that population and if they need to attach it to a must-pass bill that, you know, ha ha is a strategiry that has worked in the past for other types of measures. you know, the notion arises, you know, what kind of, would you agree to anything on the enforcement side for those who have that interest on their mind
2:48 am
in order to get success for the d.r.e.a.m.ers. and there should be some red lines. funding for a wall should be a red line. but, you know, you have to add some other funding for border security to the mix, whether that, you know, is well-spent funding or not. that funding is going to, in my view, occur in some form or fashion anyway. and if you can get the a d.r.e.a.m. act through, using that as a package, that should be worthy of consideration. so while we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the country needs overall immigration reform, the immediate need now is for the d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> i would have one simple,
2:49 am
clear message. that would be let's get it done. let's get it done. and we talk about the, we have been talking about the human costs today of the 800,000 or so youth and their families that would be impacted by non-action by congress. i would remind congress that we have a, for all intents and purposes, a man-made disaster after the recision of daca and all eyes are on you to act. and i would remind congress that the american people support a pathway for these youth, that it this includes not just the usual suspects of democrats. moderate republicans, but an overwhelming number of republicans who voted for president trump. the time is now. we have a window to get their
2:50 am
th this done. more broadly, we are concerned and a subject for another conversation, an issue of credibility in some of our core institutions, and congress, i would submit, is one. what better way than to o show the american people that we can come together and really express who we are as a country, what our american values are and working together to find a solution. so i would say let's get it done. >> i would say, if there's any issue on which to test a time where you should break the hastert rule, this is it. because immigration legislation has never been able to pass by just one party. immigration legislation historically has required
2:51 am
bipartisanship. there are elements of each party, although they're not equivalent. i don't in any way say that this is an equivalency. but still, there are parts of each party that will resist. however, as you pointed out, and so important. this issue of all others in this contentious area is one that is strongly backed across the board by the public. it's, members of congress know that we've got to find a way to get a center back into, a functional center, you know, back into play. and this is an election whatever else wants to see problems solved. they picked a way to do it that was surprising, but nonetheless, that's part of the message.
2:52 am
and so you can't solve problems without bipartisanship. the leadership has got to be willing to take this to the members and allow both parties to vote for it in order to get a majority. and they will get credit for it. >> great, thank you. now i'd like to turn it over to all of you. to hear some questions. i have a couple of caveats. first, short questions are great. testimony is not great. this is not a courtroom. and i reserve the right to absolutely cut you off and shut you down if you make yourself a fifth panelist. next, you can ask questions via twitter. you can tweet them @brookings
2:53 am
kb them >> first and foremost, i'd like to thank all of our panelists today. my name is alicia mctaggert, and i am currently an intern. my question is, what components are essential to keep in mind in regards to immigration policy, when working for the office of civil rights and civil liberties. thank you. >> you know dhs better than i do. >> i think the office, it's interesting. dhs is the only federal department that has a civil rights office that looks internall internally not externally. and, you know, i, i think it important that that office have
2:54 am
visibility into the policies and practices of what is happening at ice, at cbp, that it have an effective mechanism by which complaints can be received and resolved. and that that process in and of itself be transparent. >> all right. right up front. >> thanks. i'm a congressional correspondent for the hispanic outlook. in 2013, the judiciary subcommittee considered a, this was in july. after june, after the 2013 bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill passed. the judiciary subcommittee in the house considered a bill called the kids act, which was a
2:55 am
stand-alone d.r.e.a.m. act. and every democrat on the panel opposed it. luis gutierrez said it was -- now the tables have turned. they want this as an it stand-alone. and they don't want to add anything. i think the republicans would like to add e-verify. what do you think about that? >> to the first point of your question, moving away from perhaps a more comprehensive bill to something a little more specific. i think there's a recognition that we are not just in different times, but there's a sense of urgency and momentum, as we speak, to resolve this issue and get it done for this
2:56 am
p population. so i think that's what some of the democrats that you speak to are reacting to. mott just democrats, frankly, republicans as well. though i would offer that in terms of e-verify, look, i will maintain, and behave sawe have publicly, that we are one of the organizations pushing for a clean d.r.e.a.m. act or a vehicle that contains the central provisions of the d.r.e.a.m. act. what we see percolating in the background are frankly unacceptable to the community. and why i say that is, remember, one of the themes of, points here, we're not just talking necessarily about the 800,000 o. we' we're talking about the parents of the d.r.e.a.m.ers. i think e-verify is one of these, these issues that hi woud
2:57 am
smi submit we really can't have that conversation until we have broader pieces of the puzzle. >> right here on the end. >> earlier this morning you mentioned prosecutorial discretion. dhs rescinded prosecutorial discretion. now there's over 300,000 status immigrants in the united states. what do you think is going to happen to current pd status, and how will that affect those immigrants. >> well, if i understand your question, during the obama administration, there were
2:58 am
29 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3Uploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=73819716)