region. so we have some sandwiches outside that you're welcome to. and bring them back here and eat. but we will start at 1:00 sharp. and in the meantime, please join me in thanking our wonderful panelists. thank you. [ applause ] today is day 34 of the partial government shutdown and today the u.s. senate will vote on two measures aimed at ending the shutdown. one is president trump's plan to reopen the government, fund the wall on the mexico border and extend daca protections for some people who entered the country illegally when they were children. the second measure from house democrats would reopen the government without funding for a border wall. you can see the senate live in our companion network c-span 2.

and coming up in just a little bit here on c-span 3, steven mahmoud nuchen b at the winter meeting and hear from a number of mayors. when that gets underway, we'll have it live for you here on c-span 3. >> we're joined by randy caps of the migration policy institute to take a deep dive into that program. >> the rb why it started is there's been legislation in congress several years introduced, but never passed to give a temporary reprieve from deportation the ability to work to unauthorized immigrants who came as children. the idea being because they came

as children, they weren't personally responsible for that act of coming to the u.s. illegally. >> what were the eligibility requirements? >> part of the focus they have to be here before age 16. they have to arrive before they turn 16. and part of the focus was on better gted high productivity people. so they had it to either still be in school or have at least a high school degree. they had to have been in the country for five years at that time, which is now more like 12 years, i guess, because we're in 2019. and they had a maximum age of 30. >> remind us of the political discussion around this program back in 2012 and how controversial it was at the time. >> it was controversial but the political discussion kind of went off the rails after a point in time. so there are a will tlot of peo

both political parties who felt that people who came here as children, people who were well educated would be high performing, did deserve some protection. it was a small group. we estimated at the time maybe one and a quarter million people. some people were for it, some against it, but it wasn't that controversial. what became controversial was when in 2014 president obama proposed expanding the program. to 4 million people who were parents of children. the larger program called daca, that's when things went off the rails. people said that's too much. that's when the lawsuits started. that blocked the program. >> who was eligible for that program? >> that was a much broader population that we estimated could have been as many as 3 million when you add that to

daca could have been over 4 million in total. that was for parents that had a u.s. citizen, u.s.-born child. our estimate was that there were nearly 3 million unauthorized imgrants that had a u.s.-brn child and had to have been in the country for a certain period of time and meet other criteria for eligibility. >> bring it back to the daca program, how many people at this point have taken advantage of it versus how many people are eligible for it in your estimates? >> 900,000 people have a i plied and the latest estimates are 670,000 people are enrolled in the program about now. our estimate is somewhere between 1.3 million to maybe even 1.5 million people are eligible. so 900,000 out of 1.3 million is a fairly high share have applied. >> but be happy to have some of

those recipients call in in this segment and set aside a special line for those folks. otherwise phone lines split up by region if you're in the eastern or central time zones. if you're in the the mountain or pacific time zones. having this discussion of the migration policy institute. we'll take you there live for live gavel to gavel coverage. remind viewers what the policy institute is. >> we're a nonpartisan nonprofit research think tank based in washington, d.c. et we also have an office in brus. thes. so we focus on immigration policy and integration in the united states and worldwide. also with the focus on europe. >> how long have you been around and how are you funded? >> since 2000 and major foundations. we get some funding from the

department of homeland security and some from european governments, but it's primarily private foundation. >> a deep dive into the daca program is the topic of our discussion. take us through the time loin of actions by the trump on the daca program leading up to some of the court case we heard earlier this week. >> sure, so during the campaign, president trump and many other republicans in congress referred to it this way as an unconstitutional exec ty power grab because it was something congress had failed to pass and the president issued thus an executive action. but as president he referred to merit that some are more deserving than orrs because they have more education, more productivity and the daca group fits that definition pretty well. so about year, there wasn't any

action. and us think it was buzz some states said they would sue to stop the program it forced the president's hand. that's when he announced the termination of daca. then in this polarized environment we have, we have some states that were against daca and some that were in favor. the other states then sued the trump administration to keep the program open. arguing they department go through the prop r procedure in reviewing the program, it was closed for reasons of biassed and basically they prevailed at the federal district court level. so there was an injunction placed last year on the daca program's termination, meaning it would stay open for the time being and people who have the benefit now or have it before can reapply, but it's not taking any new applicants. we're at that level now and then just this week the supreme court refused to take up the case.

meaning that it's probably going to be another year before daca could be at the earliest. >> finally president trump's offer on reopening the government, your understanding of its kmalkt on the daca program in terms of what's on the table. >> sure, so if we think about the supreme court probably won't rule for another year. daca is probably in place for a year, maybe more and the president is is offering three years. he's basically offering an additional two years. and then after that it's not sure what would happen. so it's basically keep iing tha program going as it is three years. it's not opening it up to more people. it's not making it permanent. it's not even making a long-term temporary program. >> that's where we are. time for your phone calls. jerry is up first in north carolina. your on with maryland randy.

>> i think you just answered my question. i was curious about the status of the daca issue in the court system. i think that was just answered. i do have another question if you don't mind me getting a little bit off subject. >> go ahead. >> my question is what last year i think president trump attempted to through an executive order only allow had immigrants to apply for asylum if they entered through the ports of entry. that was blocked by the courts. my question would be would it not be relatively easy for congress to make a change in that law such that you only would be eligible to apply for asylum if you entered in the ports of entry? would that not go a long way to resolving a lot of the issues the american people have about illegal immigration because it would place more control on the

number of people who are able to apply sdpl right now the flow of families and children and adults from central america are arriving at the border and requesting asylum. the issue is how do you deal with that. the approach is they can be deported quickly. the bill in congress says that children from central america who arrive at the border can't request asylum. they can be deported quickly without a hearing. that provision actually more or less is in the bill. instead they have to apply for asylum from their home countries or another country in the region like mexico. so that is something similar to that suggestion is in the bill. so i think where people who study the issue would take issue with that is by limiting asylum

that much. there are going to be some people that are deported back into harm's way. so our recommendation has been opposed to just blocking it off entirely to speed up the process. so that the people who really deserve to get asylum get it and the people who o don't deserve it get deported. we believe it's possible to do that if the administration were to devote the resources to streamline the application process at the border and that it could be done actually without congressional action. >> good morning in pennsylvania. >> good morning. i just have a question regarding the supreme court and if anything action was in the supreme court when would happen? >> any action on daca? >> yes, correct. >> yes, i think we assume that the supreme court will have the final say. if there isn't legislation.

but my understanding is they don't necessarily have to take up the case either. they can always let a lower court ruling stand. clearly they could rule that the president has the authority. after all, daca was an executive action of the obama administration. there's a valid argument that the trump administration has the authority to end the program that another president started that did you want have congressional legislation behind it. but on the other hand, they could also argue that the process by which they did it wasn't a correct process. that's been used for affordable care act and other issues as well. so i can see the supreme court going either way on this. once the supreme court rules, if they say the program can be determine nated, that's the end of the program if there isn't legislation. >> object the migration policy institute's website, plenty of tools that we often use on "the washington journal" to talk about numbers when it comes to immigration issue.

the deferred action for childhood arrivals data tool breaking down recipients by states. the last caller was from pennsylvania. . the numb of daca recipients in pennsylvania about 4,870. the migration policy institute estimates that those meeting the criteria is 14,000 in the state. so the program participation rate in pennsylvania is 35%. you can click around the various states and other information stools. russell in halls tennessee, you're next. >> yes, my question is why is there any discussion about illegal immigrants when we have veterans starving on the streets. >> well, i think that we need to have both conversations. i think at the moment, there are 12 million unauthorized

immigrants in the country. there's millions of homeless people and veterans that are both populations somewhat in need of assistance. the thing about unauthorized immigrants is that many of them do have jobs. many of them don't need assistance. they are not eligible for public assistance. so they are not really taking benefit away from other people. at least from my point of view. that doesn't mean by a long shot this is the most important problem facing the country. and honestly that's one of the challenges in having the whole federal government shutdown over this. there's a lot of problems not being addressed in society while we're being fixated on the issue of immigration. >> good morning. >> my question is what is the status of the parents that brought the children here? are they eligible to become

citizens? if not, how do they stay indefinitely? >> that's a good question. that was the program that i mentioned earlier that the deferred action for parents of americans. it offered ability to work legally to parents of u.s. citizen children. but that was blocked by the courts. right now there's nothing for parents. if you're an unauthorized immigrant parent, you don't have another way to get. a green card. it's actually very difficult. because if you cross the border illegally, you're blocked from getting a green card. they are here. they are working under the table. they are working with false social security numbers. they are doing what they can to make ends meet. data suggests that most of them are working. but they are not obviously working at the same kinds of

jobs. >> joseph, good morning. >> good morning, my comment on the daca is that venezuela right now are fighting for their own country, don't understand why mexico, those don't fight for their own country. they are coming over here and trying to fight for rights here when they should go back over there and fight for their own country. they are cowards these that are illegal, they are still illegal. i think you should put a background check object them

because a lot of their families come from drug dealing families. >> i actually think that's an interesting point about mexico. in the last 20 years right now there's a new government there. there are a lot of activists and there's a lot of change going on in mexico. a lot of people actually have stayed and fought for change and they have a new government that has the prospects to make mexico more prosperous and more desirable. even leading up to this current governmental change in mexico, we have seen massive improvements in the economy of mexico and society there's still problems with crime. and drugs as the caller mentions. but the reality is that the number of mexican immigrants in total in the united states now is falling. and people are going back to mexico in large numbers because there are opportunities.

some people have chosen as the u.s. to stay. i believe they have that right. and others have chosen to stay in mexico and still others have chosen to return to mexico. so i think the situation is actually pretty balanced right now as far as mexico is concerned. >> in terms of daca recipients, is that the main country that recipients come from? >> by far. over 500,000 out of 670,000 is by far the vast majority. >> what's the next closest? >> guatemala and honduras, but in much smaller numbers. >> time for more phone calls. houston, texas, good morning. >> good morning, i'll be brief. i'm an african-american and 62 years old. i am the direct lineage of the result of my fore barers being slaves. we have built this country.

now we have a situation where the united states government quite literally is making differences between people who come to this country totally and absolutely illegal. you made an offhand comment a moment ago about the illegal immigrants not using or not taking benefits away. i'm in health care. i'm in the administration era of health care. people who are not documented in this country utilize medicaid. they utilize benefits through their children. and i'm not telling you what i heard or ran a think tank in washington. and access to federal benefits in this country through children that they have once they arrive in this country. you also made an offhanded remark about using fraudulent numbers in order to work et

cetera. that's a federal crime. i'm a law-abiding man. and i have to tell you right now the federal government allowing people to enter this country and overlook iing the numerous legalities they do every day is corruption and corrosive. and i personally take offense to it. thank you very much. >> the caller is right. the children of unauthorized immigrants if they are u.s.-born citizens are eligible for benefits such as medicaid. they are u.s. citizens. and it's true unauthorized immigrants have children just like other americans. i think that's a -- >> we leave this conversation at this point to return live to the u.s. conference of mayors winter meeting in washington. we'll hear from rahm emanuel in indiana. speaking now is los angeles mayor eric