was that there was no understanding. that is a prelude to correct action. but once you have understanding, there's still that gap between what is understood to be required and what is done. i spoke at the white house about the importance of the latest round of the u.n. security council resolutions against iran. as well as the recent congressional sanctions bill signed by president obama last week. the u.n. sanctions are important because they send a message to that regime that the international community led by president obama stands firmly against iran's nuclear program. the u.s. sanctions are important because -- the u.n. sanctions are important because they have more bite and the sooner they're implemented and the more rigorously they're enforced, the more bite they will have. . thehe sanctions are

implemented and more vigorously enforced, the more fight they will have. the regime is vitally dependent on the energy sector. but we cannot be sure that these sanctions will have the necessary effect of stopping iran's nuclear program. i appreciate president obama's statement that he is determined to prevent iran from developing nuclear weaponsnd that all options are open. i think to for late -- to fully translate understanding into action, we must address the question of whether the world can live with a nuclear iran. for a lot of influential people, and for some of the people here today, a nuclear-

armed iran would certainly be a danger. but it perhaps would not be a new danger. after all, the soviets had nuclear weapons. they were contned. so, too, hated his argue that iran could also be contained. -- so, too, it is argued that iran could also be contained. the soviets certainly had global ideological ambitions, but, in international affairs, they acted with supreme rationality. every time the soviets were faced with a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose survival. in berlin, in cuba, and elsewhere. to the best of my knowledge, there were not many soviet

suicide bombers. the iranian regime is different. they are driven by a militant ideologies that are based oan entirely different set of values, a value system that would seem entirely irrational to us, but is pervasive and very powerful among those competing for leadership among the islamic militants. lo at what happened nearly a decade ago in another part of this militant world. the taliban allowed al qaeda, operating on its soil, to dispatch terrorists to bomb new york, this city, and to bomb washington. what were they thinking? did they think that the greatest power in the world would simply ignore mass destruction in its

cities? did they think that the united states of america would ignore an attack on its financial center, on its military headquarters, on its capital city? were they that stupid? or were they driven not by cool reason, but by fiery fanaticism that overcomes normal logic? iran sends children into minefields. perrin denies the holocaust. -- iran denies the holocaust. iran empowers, us with rockets hamas withpowers home los

rockets. iran sent tentacles into yemen and saudi arabia. iran sent weapons into south america. this is what they do when they do not have nuclear weapons. think of what they will do tomorrow when they do have them. it is very hard for modern men and women to come to terms with the rule of irrationality in human affairs. we tend to think that people and states are driven solely by interest, by a sober calculation of cost and benefit. we must recognize that those who glorify death and those who dispatch hordes of suicide bombers are not driven by grievances that can be addressed or by a despair that

can be alleviated. we must recognize that they are wide-eyed true believers, even mad believers in the world. there are fanatics who prescribed to it twisted creed and they are willing to pay any price for its realization. they are driven by a fervent hope that they will succeed at any price. shakespeare advises us to see the method in the madness facing today's militts in the middle east. we should be well advised to see the madness in the method, to recognize that not everyone is constrained by the calculus of cost and benefit that has been associated with nuclear weapons, to recognize that some people,

organizations, and regimes might act in ways that no one has acted since the advent of the era of nuclear peace that has followed hiroshima and nagasaki. we must not allow the world's most dangerous regimes to possess the world's most dangerous weapons. this is the single greatest challenge of our time and we must not fail to address it. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to begin where you began, the u.s.-rael relationship.

there has been theheme that israel would become more of a strategic liability to the united states when a strategic asset. how do you reviewed this, particularly for americans who have come of age since 1967 and see if israel as more of a victor than a victim? >> there are so many questions in your question. >> i violated my own rule. i am sorry. [laughter] >> will work as a politician do? they simply decide which one of them they want to answer. [laughter] first of all, it is better to be a victor than a victim. if you were a victim, this was the condition of the jewish people for 1000 years. when you actually have a state and you have to defense to ourselves and there are racketeers and you try to seek them out, you're still held to

an impossible standard. there is one standard for the democracy is there is a standard for dictorships. they have their own standards. and then there is a third standard for the democracy called israel. the only thing i can say is that we will put for the truth of our case. we're the only nation threatened with annihilation. we're the only country that has been attacked by thousands of rockets and suicide bombers. we sk genuine peace. we're willing to make concessions for peace. and we are ready to make those concessions tay. the best way to test that is to have them, to get into those

negotiations. that is the first part. the second question you asked is israel's strategic utility. the most unstable part of the world begins west of india and stops somewhere in north africa. there is a land mass of their that is highly unstable -- there is a land mass there that is highly unstable. theare filled states. -- they are failed states. within that, i would argue that

there are several forces of stability. in the heart of the middle east, israel is the source of the greatest stability. i know that flies in the face of people -- the only way i can prove that is a way that i will not. just imagine what would happen if we were not there. what would happen to some of our neighbors? i will not spell it out. israel stops the brunt of an attack that is i think that if itere not for israel, a lot of that would have been sent away by radical forces long ago. i would argue that we provide an important strategic service. that is understood in ways that i cannot elaborate by the hourly

sharing between our intelligence services, security cooperation that is enormously valuable. i think i can safely say that it is important for the united states and four others -- and for other countries. i was going to say western countries, but that would be an incomplete statement. we also share important assets with non-western countries and quite a few of them.

thiwas very much reflected in my conversation with president oba. >> let me ask you one or two questions. >> if you ask smaller questions, i wl be shorter answers. [laughter] >> the israeli moratorium runs out in less than three months. what would persuade you and your government to extend it? >> the settlement issue was supposed to be a final issue from the start. along with security, refugees, water, these are the principal issues that need to be

discussed. i actually did this temporary freeze to enter the talks. seven months into this moratorium, i think the right thing to do is get into the talks. this is how we will resolve this issue. i think we have shown o good faith. no other government has de that. the 17 years, there was never any precondition placed on talks. on d one, when i formed my

government, i called on the president to come in and sit down bread -- a sit-down. this is just wrong. nobody is going to deliver an agreement. or a settlement to the palestinians from the outside. if they are waiting for that, that is a big mistake. they have to come in and negotiate this. we are prepared to talk about everything. at the end of the day, only when you sit down and mesh all these issues together and show the palestinian people and the people of israel, here is an agreement. it wille very painful. not only for the israeli side and the palestinian side. they will have to tell other people, it is over. that is the way this thing is

going to end. i think we have done enough. let's get on with the talks. >> you said that barack obama was ready to assist. what would you like his role and the american role to be if he can get direct negotiations started between analyst -- israelis and palestinians? what would you like is to do? >> every pee negotiation we have had involves the assistance of the united states. in camp david, the talks between egypt and israel, the oslo accords, peace with jordan, it always involved american support. the united states is a great mediatornd a great facilitator and the problems that we will need help with -- not only from the united states, but from the

international community. i gave you one example. water. water, like land, has one advantage. you can make more of its. -- make more of it. it is expensive and we are going to need it. we're going to need it more. water consumption grows. it is growing in israel. it is growing in the palestinian area. this is a problem that is affecting the region. you'll ctaly need international help. some countries can help with the refugees. some countries can help with water. the united states can help with everything, including political mediation and certain hardships will arise. it can help address some of our most pressing security problems.

some of them can be addressed by advanced technology and i think america's willingness and cooperation in this matter is there. it is important for the achievement of success. >> i have two more questions. imagine that you have a negotiation on the west bank and it succeeds. how would you think about dealing with the challenge of gaza and hamas? >> this is a big problem. it could handle negotiations. we could say that we will not proceed until we solve because the problem. that means we will be hindered for a long time. or we can recognize that we have hostile element tre.

it is posed to peace and opposed to recognition of israel and sponsors terror. we will have to think about it as it is. think about what it could be and try to see how we work together to make that trsformation. i think it will be unrealistic for us. to assume -- to say that it is not there and we should not address it or to say that unless it is resolved, we did not move forward. either posion is wrong. i think we should move toward a negotiated peace between us and the palestinian authority. we should take the proper precautions against what can flow from gaza. >> it would also provide some opportunities for them to opt in. >> if they could, they would

throw hamas out today. they would lose the election like that. it does not give any people of bosnia and the options. -- the gaza any options. that is how hamas governs. it does not allow you freedom. if there were a change, it they could choose, they would choose a route of moderation and of peace and prosperity. they are not gen the choice. how we help them have that choice is a good subject for discussion. i am not sure -- >> you gave me a natural segue into iran. you are articulate about the risks and costs of nuclear

weapons. what about the risks of cost of using military force to prevent dissension? do you worry about ini in retaliation? -- iranian retaliation? >> we hope that it is possible to stop iran's programs. it so happens that the statement that the president has made is probably the most effective pressure that you could direct at iran. i would not say anymore. that is ultimately what they looked at. and they have an -- in the past, as you know. they thought that the u.s. would act in a more forceful way, you

know what happened. it was the only time that the iranian programas held back. i would not change the statement made by the president. i think that would be a mistake. >> i asked you to wait for a microphone and identify yourself. limit yourself to one pcise qution and resist any temptation to speechify. >> that you only lead to the speaker. >> mr. prime minister, i would like to change the subject. the last couple of years, israel's economic activity has been rather extraordinaryersus the rest of the western world. i think it is fair to say that a lot of it is attributable to

beat -- to your stand as finance minister. -- or stand as a finance minister. what is your next step in charge -- in terms of privatization, a high-tech? how do you maintain this high rate ofrowth? >> the most important thing to understand in the global economy is something that something -- that all of you understand is that competition never ends. it never ends. you cannot say that if you -- you cannot say that you have achieved such and such a market share and youan rest on ur urels and stock. -- and stopped improving. the same is true of economies that compete in the global economy. you can never stop improving.

how do you produce growth? it is ultimately the consequence of improvement. how do you produce the growth if you are a $30,000 per capita economy? if you have about $800 per capita of income, you can put in roads, electrification, communication lines. if you are $30,000 or a $40,000 economy back, -- how do you grow

at 4% consistently, which is what israel has done over the past five or six years? how do you d that if you are a $30,000 per capita economy? i maintain that there are only two ways to do that. one is that you have got to add value to youproducts and services and the best way to do that is by technology. israel has a lot of technology. the have to do certain things that are technological edge is maintained. we have a very innovative society. there is a second thing that you can do. it is not obvious. if you areucky enough to have an advanced economy with a messed up bureaucracy, it as you

remove the bureaucratic hurdles, you are going to get extra growth. it is like taking a steal boats and removing it and what you are removing it, you grow. while you e addressing the high-tech part of the economy, you are addressing the low-tech part of the economy. planning and designing, construction -- israel is number one in the world and a penetration of personal computers into the homes. i am happy to report to you that we are number 140 in the world and property registration, 120 in the world in the time it takes to get a building permits.

it is virtually impossible to build anything in my country. why am i happy to report this? if we change that, we get an extra bounce of growth just for doing these bureaucratic corrections. there is a lot of political capital that you have to fight. i do not want to take more of your time, but i will describe to you how difficult that is. 93% of the land in one of the world's smallest countries is controlled by government monopolies called the israel lands authorities. in america, it is probably 30%. i cannot provide more land in order to have more construction unless we see this up. i had a bill to reduce that number. i was challenge from the right

that i was giving land to the saudis. i would challenge from the left that i was giving it to my fat cat fends. i did not have any, by the way. the voting came on this land reform bill and we started having be reading and i have a very comfortable majority. they disappeared. many of the recruitment ministers were not there. the labor ministers were not there. i stopped the vote. i went down to my office and issued a statement and i said, we are going to have another vote in 10 days. any minister or deputy minister that does not, be fired on the spot. in 10 days we had another votes and it passed with a wondrous majority. these are advantages. the advantage you have been developed countries is if you

can reform, if you have the political will and division and arwilling to spill political blood, you can pass these reforms and get extra years of growth. it is technology and basic structural reforms that produced the advantage for any country. that has what has produced the advantage for my country in the last decade. this is what i hope to see in the coming decade. >> i can s already that i will disappoint people. a lot of hand. >s. >> you have stated your vision of a two-stage solution. you will have to move some of these settlements. it may involve civil disobedience or even of

violence. do you feel that you have the support along -- among the ideological support to support that kind of solution and dyou feel that the israeli public is prepared for that solution? >> the most important thing is to try to define a clear vision of peace were people see the benefits of what is they're doing. the second thing is to introduce a very important to mention for the implementation of this peace agenda. time is a crucial element, both for security and for other critical elements of the solution. -- of a solution. it is a great facilitator of change. if you build in the time factor to any solution that we have, i

think it would help enormously. the rest i will leave to the negotiations tha i intend to have with president obama. >> mr. prime minister, if president obama succeeds in getting new to direct negotiations, it is obvious that you know the demands. if you have direct negotiation, d.c. that within aear we can have an agreement similar to -- do you think that within a year we can have a great an agreement similar to 1979 it? >> yes, i do.

>> use think -- you think he is willing to make peace? >> if it is up to me, we will have an agreement. i cannot speak for him, t i will not do what some -- what other des due to me. -- what others do to me. i will not rule out the possibility of leadership. you have to be tested in real times. the only way you can change the reality is to change the package. a total package. that is a peace treaty that is anchored in security that has -- that give sufficient that gives a feeling of hope and comfort to people and they can actually see.

that is where we have then. i think that is why it is fair. i think this is the alternative than i am prepared to pursue it. i hope to see the president take the same choice. we are not youngsters anymore. we have a certain responsibility to our people, to our children, our grandchildren and the coming generations. this is what leaders are expected to do. i think president can prove to be an important palestinian leader that helps me along with president obama reshape our future. >> why is it so important that palestian leaders give up their goals? why cannot -- why can they

secretly harbor a gold so long that they do not pursue those goals with violent means? >> because part of the change that is required, there is an asymmetry. it is important to understand it. the ason why the conflict exists and it has not been resolved in 60 something years is because of the enduring engine of the conflict. what is the true underlying force of this conflict? ofis not israel's possession the territories, even though it is widely held to be that issue. it is certainly an issue that has to be resolved. if you really understand the source of this conflict, it goes back to 1920. the first attack against the jewish presence took place in 1928 and discontinued in the

1930's and continued in the great upheaval in 1948, continued in the attacks in the 1950's, continued with the creation before 1967. it actually wage from 1920 until 1967. that is nearly 50 years before there was a single israeli soldier in the territory. before there was a symbol is resettleme. it was in opposition -- there was a -- an israeli settlement. you would think that it was transformed. after the 1967, at the issue was the territories. in many ways, the discussion about this issue changed the

results of the conflict. the territories for a result -- were a result of these repeated attacks. we are prepared to negotiate a solution to its. but having left territories, we let because the and were fired upon. we left lebanon on and we were fired upon. when you ask them why they are firing on israel, they said they have to liberate occupied palestine. the west bank? they said, nope. when we left gaza and the hamas fired -- we have to liberate palestine. do you mean the west bank?

they said, no. the real engine of the conflict is the refusal to recognize the jewish state in any boundaries. unless this is addressed, it continues to take hold in the palestinian psyche and it does not get resolved. if leaders begano talk in this way, they will guarantee that there will be a change of heart. it i a necessary precondition for change. otherwise, it will never happen. they did not say we will end the conflict. they do not say that israel will be here to say. they do not recognize the jewish state of israel. they said they will make peace.

we want an end to occupation, but they do not actually say it's because they are intimidated by hamas or they harbor secret wishes. they have to openly say it for the sake of persuading their people to make the great psychological change. i have said it. i have stood before my people and before my constituency and i have said what my vision of peace concludes. i did that without some consequence i can tell you. this is what we have to do. they have to educate their people. they have to state its the way it should be. i doot think that the palestinian leader should be exempted from it. having said that, t me carry your question to its conclusion.

let's say that they said it. suppose they said it to. are we guaranteed that this will percolate down? are we guaranteed that there will not be rolled back? are we guaranteed that there will not be regime change the way there was in gaza? the answer is, no, we are not. that does not nullify the need to say it and the need to sign on it, but it does make the first component, the question of security, all the more important. there might be a roll back, the pillar of security has to be enormously powerful, cast in the strongest concrete terms. it has to be very, very solid.

i think this is what is required of the palestinian leadership. i would like the president to say these things very clearly and i would like to meet him to make peace. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> representatives from ebay and face of talk about how the internet is changing global conflict.

on tomorrow's "washington journal," low get a health risk facing -- a look at the health risks facing cleanup workers. . dubay will talk about proposals to limit the budget deficit, aunt ceci connolly on the implementation of the new health-care law. that begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on booktv, andrew napolitano on the behavior of the bush administration and the bove -- they obama administration. all this weekend on c-span 2. check the entire schedule at booktv.org. c-span is now available in over

100 million homes, bringing you washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> of brookings institution in washington hosted a discussion today about immigration policy. panelists included the former miami mayor, many defense. first, vice president darrell west, who wrote the book "brain gain: rethinking u.s. immigration policy." this is an hour and 40 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i would like to welcome you to this forum.

it has been a busy week, and yesterday, the justice department announced it was suing the state of arizona, and it is only thursday. who knows what is going to happen tomorrow or next week? it seems every week there's something dramatic happening. it has also been of a week for me because the brookings institution published my new book, and the bookstore does have copies in the hallway if you are interested, and i will be signing copies at the conclusion of the key event, and i hear -- i argue we need to enact comprehensive reform. i put a picture of albert einstein on the cover of the boat to remind all of us of the many contributions made over the years.

we know google was co-founded by a russian immigrant and that yahoo! was established by someone born in taiwan. what would the american economy look like today if intel was on carian company, google was based in russia, an yahoo! was a taiwanese company? these are not isolated stories. more than half of silicon valley employees had of -- had a co-founder. immigration's have made final contributions to our economy, our agricultural sector, our cultural heritage, our culinary life, and the world of sports, yet despite these and other contributions, our country is paralyzed by immigration policy. i talked about why it is difficult for our political leaders to address immigration, even though virtually everyone

dislikes the status quo. our review press coverage ends and just the media focus on bad news and not the trade news relating to immigration. eagait is polarizing our nationl discussions. i reviewed 50 years of public opinion data to see that eds and flows of how we think about immigrants and immigration. i look at our legal justice system and analyze the disparities in immigration, depending on whether you have an attorney. flow about how we think about immigration. for example, in litigation proceedings, defendants win their cases only 60 percent of the time when they do not have an attorney. border crossings between us and

mexico are at a 30-year low. most it will do not believe this, but we have actually made tremendous progress on securing our borders. that story never gets reported. i wrote this book to inject some facts into what is a very emotional and polarizing topic for many people. if you look at our history as well as our contemporary discussions over immigration we have made a very bad policy decisions. we need to step back and about what is required to accomplish as a nation and what are the best ways to get us where we want to go. i got interested in this subject several years ago when i married a german woman. in seeking to bring her to the united states and get her a green card i discovered how complex and frustrating the immigration process is. i have a ph.d. in political science, but i have to say i found the entire process very confusing and difficult to

navigate. maybe that was because i had a ph.d. i do not know if that helped or hindered. we discovered many things along the route that i discovered -- the guy has american did not know about the immigration process -- that i, as an american, did not know about the immigration process. to help us develop a better understanding of the immigration area, we have put together a distinguished set of speakers. solyndra lake is the president of lake research -- so winducela lake is the president of lake research. she has advised various national party committees and office seekers around the country as well as a number of groups that work in this area. she is also the pollster for vice-president joe biden in 2008.

she has appeared on the verge of a every leading news outlet in the united states and given people the benefit of research and expertise. in research -- in recent months, she is focused on immigration reform, and the ways but progressive advocates need to refrain the issue -- the ways progressive advocates say to refrain the issue in order to progress. -- reframe the issue in order to progress. before one osuna -- if juan osuna was the deputy assistant

attorney general, he was also the highest -- part of the highest administrative body for intervene law. he received his b.a. from american university and a master's degree in law and international affairs from american university. he will be discussing the legal and policy aspects of the immigration area. the format that we are willing to follow today is that celinda and juan will outline their thoughts on immigration. then we will open the floor to questions from our audience. we will start with celinda lake. [applause] >> thank you very much. the presentation is loaded on to the computer. there it is. thank you very much and it is nice to be here.

i want to thank dr. west in particular, and produce in general -- brookings in general, for adding more like to a conversation that often has more heat then like to it. i think is a very thoughtful book and a great analysis of a lot of information out there. i want to assure you recent survey that we have done looking at the -- to show you a recent survey that we have done looking at voters nationwide. latino's have become very important in the 2010 elections, but generally in the future are very important. we looked at how people feel about the arizona law, how people feel about comprehensive reform, and how might this play out in the current elections. one of the reasons i love being a pollster is because conventional wisdom is usually about 95% wrong, plus or minus

5%. this is yet another area where conventional wisdom is wrong. there are tons of public polls out there. we found the majority of voters to support the arizona immigration law. but that is for the accuracy stops. the assertion has been, particularly in this town, that it means a diminishing support for comprehensive reform and that the law was put in place as a rejection of comprehensive reform. both could not be more wrong. first, we found that with the passage of the arizona law anwas largely about frustration, critically at the federal level. people still feel overwhelmingly that this is a federal solution, not a state solution.

even the people of arizona and feel this would be better served by a national solution. support for comprehensive immigration reform is stronger than it ever was and, in fact, it is most strongly supported by those same people who support the arizona law. people are becoming increasingly aware of what comprehensive reform is. dr. west talks about security as an important component. cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants and requiring those who are here illegally to go back to the back of the line for this insured. -- for citizenship. you are required to register, pay taxes, work, learn english.

interestingly, people thought that if you pay taxes, you really should become an american because there is nothing more all-american than the fate of sharing taxes and irs. people thought also that learn english was better than no english. people did not want a lot of grammar test out their for themselves or others. finally, we asked people what about acting now and people want to iraq and now. one of the really interesting -- what to act now. one of the really interesting conversations in the book is how the mood has been set for reform in terms of the economy and in terms of the flow of immigration. ironically, people say this is a bad time for immigration reform. actually, what we have found in our work is that it is a good time for immigration reform. people do have more awareness that the flow is down.

who knew that the canadiens were such a threat? and michiganders are feisty, but as one blue-collar workers at in michigan, you would have to be an idiot to come to michigan for a job right now. and these people do not look dumb to me. the flow of the economic situation has made it easier to have this conversation. people also think that is an equal opportunity recession, that everybody lost their jobs in this recession/depression. actually, i think during a time of recovery when there will be more tension about who is getting jobs and who is not. first, hooking a comprehensive reform, do you support or oppose it -- looking at a comprehensive reform, and you support or oppose it? there was a time, and frankly, a

time in the last debate where people did not have a very good sense of what comprehensive reform was. now there is increasing awareness of comprehensive reform and 57% of people say without it being defined, i guess, i support it. only 18% are opposed to it. it is not the overall levels of support that are key here. what is particularly key is it the intensity. intensity is important on any issue, whether it is abortion, gay marriage, or immigration. 42% of the voters are saying that they strongly support comprehensive reform. only 11 percent saying that they strongly oppose it. latino voters are increasingly important and increasingly disengage as we are approaching -- as we approached the 2010 election.

among latino voters, 60% favor comprehensive immigration reform. when we defined the bill and we defined it, as we said, including border security, including registering, paying taxes, getting to the back of the line. , 70 -- 77% of all latino voters were in favor of it. every single demographic group overwhelmingly supported comprehensive reform. you can see strong bipartisan support. in fact, the republicans do not know that they are supposed to be against this. their support is the highest of anyone's. you've got to love conventional wisdom. and there is strong support across the region.

this issue is not nearly as regionally defined as people think. we asked people, and you think it would be better if people were in the u.s. illegally and that we made them legal and they pay their taxes and pay their fair share, or that they leave the country anbecause they are taking jobs that americans need? 58% said it better for them to pay taxes. people are seeing more and more services cut back and are 2 to 1 upseppa-john r. beating two to one of the thought that they should -- and are between 221 the thought that they should leave -- are betweating 2 to 1 e

thought that they should leave. 64% said that they should register, become legal, under grow -- undergo background checks. there was a time when people thought it was kind of anti- american. now people are clearer that this is an arduous process, even if they do not have the level of dr. west's experience. if you are here and working and paying taxes, become an american and join the rest of us. people think it is wildly unrealistic to think -- to try to deport everyone and people do not want temporary workers. they want them to be here long term or not here. the support for temporary workers is something that has diminished with the toughening

of the economy. people say they will vote this issue. 66% -- 56% of all voters and 57 percent of latino voters say this is an important issue. 24% of all voters say this is a very important issue. across every political group base davis's it. -- they say this is a very important issue when votevoting. at a time when people in congress really is not getting anything done and congress' own rates -- own ratings arhalow, pe want congress to take some kind of action. in the same way that people support of the arizona law, 60%

of people vote -- support of the arizona law, 45% strongly. but notice, among latino voters, 55% opposed it. there is a challenge here of redefining the issue for a generation in the latino community, increasing the an important constituency. here is a description of the arizona law. there is a very positive discussion and nothing pejorative in doubt. supporters -- in that. supporters of the arizona law are more likely to be white and supporters of the tea party than other voters overall, but it is marginal oil -- marginal differences. when we asked people why did you support the arizona law -- and

we did not just assume that we knew, and we did not tell people why they supported. we asked them. 52% said they supported the law because the state took action when the federal government failed to solve the problem. and people still respond very strongly to the language you hear the president use that this is a broken immigration system and we need to fix it. the 28% supported the arizona law because they thought it would reduce illegal immigration, 12% because it would reduce crime and 8% for no reason at all. the overwhelming reason behind it is frustration. not that people think this is the best approach. the reason that people said that they oppose the law is because it will lead to american citizens be asked for papers either for their accent or their race and it will divert law- enforcement from concentrating on more serious crimes. people think overwhelmingly this

needs to be handled by the federal government. at a time when feelings about government are solidly negative, people still that you cannot handle this just state- by-state. you can see that people believe overwhelmingly that the federal should deal with this and not just individual states. then we looked for comprehensive reform by whether or not you supported the arizona law. conventional wisdom would say that if you supported the law, and you would not support comprehensive reform. but 84% support a comprehensive reform, including a 67% strongly. if you were an opponent of the arizona law, 62% supported the

arizona law, 48% strongly. and again, you can ask people in a different way, which view is closer to your own view, that a state by state approach will not work, or i think we need a version of arizona's law and our state and give police the tools to enforce our lot and finally cracked down on -- our laws and finally cracked down on immigration. the large majority of people said no, we need a national solution. the state-by-state approach will not work. i should have started by saying that this was a bipartisan poll that we did with public opinion strategies, a republican polling firm. never one, the fact you support the arizona law is not at all

inconsistent in people's minds with supporting a comprehensive reform. number two, people are frustrated with the system. they want to get moving with fixing the system and are interested in new approaches. i think that is why dr. west's book is such an important contrition truth -- contribution to the solution. and finally, people do not want to be next to a state that does not enforce this law. they want a national solution here. they do not want to have people moved by laws from one state to another. and even arizonans, they are not the only state that is unhappy with passing a unconstitutional laws. 13 states said, it is

unconstitutional then i do not want to pass it. qarizadah said, i want to -- arizona said, i want to pass it. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> it kind of intimidating. -- that is kind of intimidating. [laughter] thank you for inviting me and thank you to brookings for having this important event. i would like to talk a little bit about what has been happening on comprehensive immigration reform, where we have been, maybe a little bit about where we have gone, some of the sections that are likely to be included and some of the challenges that we face in getting this reform done. the big news this week is the filing by the department of justice of the lawsuit in

arizona and while there are obviously strong opinions about that lawsuit, one thing we can all agree on is that the department believes that the arizona law is a manifestation of a federal failure, a failure by the federal government and congress to enact the very needed reforms on a level that are required for the national interest. i think this is something that we can move forward on. the administration believes that. the president believes that. we will see what we can do for the rest of the year-end going into next year. as the president said last week, we do have a broken system. we do have a system that does not serve the national interest in a lot of ways. the only into this is a comprehensive national approach that needs to move forward -- the only end to this is a comprehensive national approach

that needs to move forward and is not going to be easy. i was like to say that if you thought that the health care town halls were ugly, wait until congress starts considering comprehensive reform. it is going to be very contentious. it is going to be very difficult. but as the president said last week, it will be one of the challenges of our time and this administration is not willing to kick the can down the road on such important issues. that is where we are. no one should underestimate how difficult it is going to be. all you have to do is look at the last time we tried this in 2007 with a bipartisan group of senators with the full backing of the bush white house for comprehensive immigration reform and it still could not get done. it is going to be a difficult issue, but it is something that the president and the administration are committed to moving forward on.

in the vernacular is cir. the action has started in the senate with senator schumer. as you may know, he took this on to his credit and to on the responsibility of trying to craft a bipartisan bill. senator lyndsey gramm of south carolina joined soon after and it looked fairly favorable for moving forward, at least on the bill at some point. -- at some point last year or this year. late last year, they came to the old to ask for some assistance on the various portions of this bill. the department of homeland security has been designated the lead in agency -- the lead agency in comprehensive reform. but other agencies, including the doj and otherthe labor depat and others have been moving

forward and try to provide some feedback, some ideas on some of the ideas that are being bandied around. it has been an effective set of meetings that start of last summer. it did look like there was the possibility of something moving forward late last year or sometime this summer. the plan was really to have a bill drafted by early in the year and introduced and moving forward in the senate. as i say, if anything happened on the way to the formal. -- a funny thing happened on the way to the form. it was very controversy will and serve to enhance the partisan rancor on the hill and made the moving forward of other bills much more difficult. things were relatively quiet for

a few months. there was still a fair amount of actions behind-the-scenes trying to graft ideas, trying to see what was doable. but there was not much movement. there was some catalyst for action that occurred a few months ago and that was the passage of the arizona law. again, it was a recognition that the failure to enact immigration reform on a national level was a real catalyst for that. a lot of organizations started coming forward and saying how concerned they were about the arizona bill. and that was the blueprint that the democratic -- and then there was the blueprint that the democratic offices released on what comprehensive immigration reform could look like and it had republican support. but we also have the effect of senator gramm, who was a key player and continues to be a key player, backing away from his

efforts with senator schumer. that put the entire effort -- it took several steps back. one thing that the president leaves, and we all believe, that it is one of the few ironclad must deducdo's is that it shoult be done with only democratic votes in the house. it is going to require some significant republican support. not just a token republican support, but significant republican support -- support. and that is good to be a challenge for the rest of the year and into 2011. the democrats have released this blueprint. it has been out there for a while. so far, unfortunately, we have

not had any interest from any republican offices coin forward, at least not overtly. -- going forward, at least not overtly. absent something changing over the next few weeks and getting some bipartisan effort on this, there will be little movement on this. at this point we are looking toward the elections in 2011 to see if something will be moved forward. we do not know how things are going to continue to play out, for example, in arizona. arizona is a somewhat volatile environment. there is passion on both sides of this bill that has been passed. there is the border of their and the narrative that -- the border out there and the narrative that

is not as secure as it could be. the border is more secure than it ever has been and the president said that last week. if you go down to the border, you will see that the border of 20 years ago is not the border that is now, just in terms of the resources that are down there. but it is going to be something that will have to be provided for. and the president is committed to providing additional enhancements to border security. that argument is out there. there is the argument that until the border secure that cir will not be possible. it will be interesting to see how that plays out going forward. a lot of this will depend on what happens in the elections. if we have a significantly different make up in congress than that will change the dynamics of this.

but it is something that we all hope and we expect that congress will move forward on either this year or maybe post-election because most folks do recognize even though there are significant disagreements over this issue, this is a national priority and it has to move forward at some point. the president is committed to not kicking the can down the road any further because it is really necessary. let me conclude with some of the broad sections that are likely to be included in comprehensive immigration reform if this ever moves forward -- or when id which moves forward, i should say. -- when it moves forward, i should say. is it enough for a stand-alone bill all by itself, or wrapped

up together is it enough to make it a significant burden to move forward on? i think any version of all of these things are going to be included in comprehensive immigration reform. number one is a title on enforcement. what i mean by that is not just border security, but interior enforcement. there could be some innovative ideas that are put forward to try to deal with people who are here and documented -- un documented. the desire is that there will be a fix to this. people are required to come forward if they are undocumented status and there could be some some significant punishment for not doing that. the second thing is that there is likely to beat unemployment

-- likely to be an important employment verification system. senator schumer has proposed a security card that every employer would have to provide and everyone would need to this card in order to get a job going forward. yes, it is going to be costly. yes, it is going to the controversy 0, but it is something that the senate officers who are working on this are committed to seeing in comprehensive reform. and they're right on this. full control of illegal immigration is going to brely on full control at the workplace. really doing something about the magnet of jobs is keyed to enforcing and deterring illegal immigration. number three is what the president has called the gauck

to citizenship -- the past to citizenship, or similar terminology. it is unrealistic to expect massive deportations. nobody thinks that is doable, even if we wanted to do that. at the same time, we cannot have a blanket amnesty. the president has to have some sort of acknowledgement, responsibility for these folks to come forward. but they do need to be brought out of the shadows, as has been said, not only because it is good policy for a number of reasons, but also for our national security. we need to know who these people are, where they are, who they are. it is an unhealthy situation for a number of reasons to have people here under undocumented status without knowing who they are or where they are. finally, there is what is called

future flows, or adjusting the legal immigration system so that it makes sense going forward. there are a number of proposals out there, enhancing visa's for high skilled workers, the agricultural workers of tuition to provide some sort of mechanism to allow employers to bring in agricultural workers more easily than they can now. in the senator's proposal that was released in april, there was a commission to study and make recommendations on future flows, or marked changes in the economy -- market changes in the economy that would make it easier to bring in certain kinds of workers, or by contrast, not bring in certain kinds of workers going forward. that is a very difficult challenge, but it makes a lot of sense because one of the signs of the system being broken is that it does not serve our

economic interest as well as it should. the system that should be included in any kind of reform. finally, i'm sure there will be other things thrown in there. when this thing doesn't start moving forward, you can expect numerous -- the start moving forward, you can expect numerous amendments -- when this thing does start moving forward, you can expect numerous amendments, but that will be when this get some traction on the hill. i will stop there. i am happy to answer any questions. again, the administration is committed to seeing this happen. it is a national priority that the president has committed to make happen, but it will truly require bipartisan support. we are hopeful that as the year goes on and the elections loom, and post elections, there will be some republican members of congress, especially in the

senate, who will come forward and join in the bipartisan effort to get this done in the national interest. thank you very much and i am happy to take any questions. [applause]

>> i would like to thank both celinda and juan for their contributions to this discussion. i think they have raised a number of helpful points. i would like to ask a couple of questions to each of them and then we will open the floor to questions and comments from you. i would like to start with celinda. you presented some very important -- interesting information about the american public opinionbout the arizona law. how you see those issues playing in the midterm elections? what do you see as the risk for each party, particularly as it relates to the latino vote? >>, in two minutes or less --

[laughter] that is a good question. in terms of the arizona law, you have to separate out arizona appeared and -- to separate out arizona, and particularly in places like california. and you have to separate it out as yet another problem that in the voters' minds are not getting soft. you were acquitted in your remarks about this and the president has been an eloquent about that the president -- that we cannot keep kicking the can down the road. there is this sense that congress and the administration has not done enough done.

i think leaving anything on the table is going to cause frustration for the voters. that is question no. one, that as just an issue, yet another area that people can point to where nothing is getting done, that will be a frustration to voters and across parties across the country. in terms of arizona, in a number of congressional races -- there is a senate race with a very aggressive primary. he has been very conservative on that issue in the face of the primary. this is a man who once got a 60% of the latino vote. and a member of the congressional districts are dependent on the latino vote, but there is also a sense that they are legitimately at ground zero on this conversation. nobody bracketed this

conversation better than jenna nepolitano. it is a very difficult conversation to bracket. elected officials in arizona have taken a stand against the federal government suing them. when this will be a very hot issue in that state. california and other places, this is already emerging, including in the gubernatorial debate. and you have an immigration fight as you had with the governor before pete wilson where he alone made it -- where he alienated for generations of latino voters -- four generations of latino voters. this is someone who had gotten quite a bit of the latino vote before he alienated people.

[coughs] sorry. i think this will play out in terms of the latino community, and whether we are able to get latino voters out -- i think many will say that if there is no action on this issue i will sit home because i do not see this government doing anything that i need for me and my family. and i think in general, you will see divisions around -- in states particularly with latino populations -- that could define generations to come. >> juan, what i found it especially interesting was the legal rationale that was used. when this lot was first passed, many people talked about the racial profiling based on the arizona law, but the legal

argument presented in the justice department lawsuit was based on federal preemption and not the possible discriminatory impact. the question i have for you is, why prevention as opposed to civil rights and discrimination? -- white pre-emptiowhy pre-empto rights and discrimination? >> the president and the administration is concerned about the impact on the racial profiling in this law. that is a concern with these sorts department of the division of justice as much as for its civil-rights implications. the reason that the department felt it needed to be on a pre- emption basis is because the law and should does not take effect until july 29. -- the law actually does not take effect until july 29.

the full impact of this will not be seen until that time. at least, the full impact of the civil-rights issues at that time. the language of the statute itself led us to conclude that the statute on its face conflicts with federal immigration law and therefore, is pre-empted under the supremacy clause. that is the reason for the focus on the lawsuit. >> celinda, we were talking before this event started about a family unification principle. many of you know that this is the dominant issue in american immigration policy. about 1 million visas have been awarded each year, and 64% of them have been based on family reunification, as opposed to 15% for employment related reasons. in canada, those numbers are reversed.

canada is much more strategic in linking to economics. at 59% of their visas go for employment related be says. -- a visas. what are the ones is in how people view that? should we define the issue more narrowly or broadly? what do people think about that? >> it is a principle that americans tend to be pretty committed to. one of the things that is most disturbing to them is the length of weighthe wait for family reunification. they tend to be thinking in terms of parents, siblings, and kids and bosses. -- spouses. one of the things that was interesting is that we asked if

this will provide a flood of immigration into this country and most of the people in the test group said that most of their family did not like them and they were not that worried about wanting to come over -- them wanting to come over. making those visas to come much faster with a narrower definition, that might be more popular. but in general, they thought the delay was outrageous, and the delayed by different groups, depending on your ethnic background did not make any sense to them. >> and the flip side of the question is, how do people feel about the economic aspects, the employment related to be suspects -- employment related

visas? >> there is some tension around temporary workers, in general, has a broad category. that is an action area where the rest of the pressure has been off of immigration. you have seen less of a desire for temporary workers because if anyone is going hired, it is going to be me. there are some interesting tensions are rounound the says e you have some in some communities, like the african american community, that if you're going to have those programs, then there should be simultaneous programs investing in our community. there is no reason that we should have a google founder in the african-american community

in detroit, but that person is getting a much worse education than their counterparts in china or india. there is a real desire that we invest in people here. there are complex views on the economic front. >> in my opening remarks i discussed some of the problems in america's immigration courts. i have a colleague that has done a an interesting research on this. you gave testimony a few weeks ago before a house judiciary subcommittee on the condition of the courts and discuss the court shortage of judges has led to an overboard and court docket -- overburdened court docket. what is the justice department doing to fix the court part of the immigration system? right now, we have 48 vacancies, which is 17% of all of the immigration judges. what's one of the interesting things about our immigration system -- >> one of the interesting things about our immigration system is that there are so many pieces to it.

there are about to wonder 35 immigration judges and 58 immigration courts are around the country -- 235 immigration judges and 58 immigration courts around the country. the deal with about 400,000 matters in a single year. it is very high volume. the department -- and adequately functioning immigration courts begin with adequatel resources. if all goes to plan, we will be hiring 47 immigration judges in 2010 alone. many of those are already in process. some of those have already come on board, and the restaurant the final stages of selection. if congress approves the department's request for 2011, there will be an additional 21 immigration judges hired for

next year. and when i say immigration judge, it is actually an immigration judge team. that means there is support staff and other resources as well because as has been pointed out by russell wheeler and others, it is not just judges, but the law clerk resources that they need to have. the department has identified this as one of their high- performance goals for 2010 and 2011. the hiring of immigration judges in order to stay up with the caseload, especially detained cases, has been identified as one of the six high priority goals for the department. beyond that, there is also more recognition than there ever has been at the department and within dhs as well that this is a shared burden. it begins with an enforcement action by the department of homeland security.

we are trying to engage quite a bit more with dhs in making sure that the research of -- the resources are required -- acquired and that they will be there on the judge decide to handle the case going forward. but one thing that you want to avoid as much as possible is cases being presented and then not handled. that is a very bad situation to have happened. that type of coordination with dhs is something we are engaged in along with other initiatives. >> i have one more question for each of them and then we will open the floor to questions from you. celinda, i hate to cite a competing poster, but a few weeks ago, the gallup poll showed concern about -- they

gave the respondents a long list of items on the debt, illegal immigration and other items. 84% of americans thought that the national debt represented a a a great threat to the future well-being of the u.s. each rivers and sign it cited unemployment. 64% said illegal immigration -- 86% cited unemployment. the 64% said illegal immigration. it showed that we are afraid of everything. one thing is joined with the high emotion attached to this, the anxiety, the fear loss of jobs. how you advise -- how do you advise politicians to deal with the emotional side with this?

>> first, in terms of the mood of the country right now, it is a time when people think things are not going in the right direction. there are many -- very many long-term problems that we are a long way out from under a very big concerns about -- a long way out from and there are very big concerns about. there seemed to be multiple problems, wars that we cannot be out of, take -- and an economy that cannot seem to rebound, oil that needs to be capped and then they knock the cap off. it is all part of the very real anxiety the people are facing. and they also think of it as more long term. in terms of dealing with emotional issues, first, -- and again i aside secretary nepolitano as an example -- by site secretary nepolitano as an example.

on these issues, you can run, but you cannot hide. your instincts might be to try to avoid this issue, and it is an eminent -- an understandable and instinct, but you have to lean into the issue and engage your voters in a dialogue and say clearly what you are for and not try to obfuscate it. and with the data showed, but the new language and in turn -- and also how to talk about it, for example, i think many of us are more comfortable with the term of -- with the term "undocumented worker" and "illegal immigrant." well, american voters were very uncomfortable with the term of undocumented worker." -- with the term "undocumented worker."

people associated with a terrorist because if you're undocumented, then you can are even get a drink. -- you cannot even get a drink. one of the things that i would say about iit is, conventional wisdom is at least 99% wrong when it comes to social issues. it is very easy for politicians to get intimidated. they need to understand where the -- where the broad base of the republic is. >> the other thing that i write about in my book is that the u.s. supports 350,000 people annually. since 1999 we have deported 2.2 million people approximately. there is little attention paid to the 350,000 people removed from this country each year. can you talk about that policy

and whether there are any differences between the bush and obama administration's in how they think about this issue? >> that is primarily a dhs matter. so, let me give it a shot. removals' are at an all-time high. that is the technical word. deportation is at an all-time high. the priority -- well, there has been an emphasis -- there are different enforcement priorities. dhs has its priorities in terms of going after be both criminal convictions, people who are violent, who may be dangerous. that is the number-one priority that the dhs has in terms of enforcement efforts, not just insurance of finding people and putting them in deportation proceedings, but in terms of actually getting them out of the

country. there are different levels and a denard member the exact terminology, but i know there are different levels of priorities. number one, national security risks, dangerous people, violent criminals -- those are the ones they go after first. and i should note that criminal aliens are increasing percentage of the population of people that are actually deported from the country. it is not just people who are coming across the border. actually, a growing number of the deportation numbers are the high priority folks, the ones that -- i do not think anyone would disagree khaybar-1 is that we should be going after first because -- i do not think anyone would disagree are the ones that we should be going after first because they are a threat to our community. that is the emphasis now as opposed to in the past, but the numbers have been going up for the last decade or so, as you mentioned. >> we're going to turn to the

audience participation part of this. we will take two or three questions at a time from the audience and give the panel a chance to respond. there are people with microphones walking around. the we would ask you to give your name and organizational affiliation. please keep your questions. so we can get to as many people as possible. a question in the front row here. >> i am from the orange county register and i have a question for, -- for each panelist, if i can. you said in your polling that you oversee of latinos -- you over sampled latinos. do you think that might have had an impact in the results, in particular in support of comprehensive immigration reform? and how should candidates view that when they're looking at your results? >> actually, we're going to take

two or three questions, so if we can hold that question for a minute. >> can ask juan -- chelan >> let's keep it to one question because we have a bunch of questions. >> just piggybacking on dr. west's first question to mr. oceana about the justification for the lawsuit against these -- mr. osuna about the justification for the lawsuit against arizona, when the federal government's use the state of arizona for this reason law, -- when the federal government sues the state of arizona for this recent law, how do they justify a 18th century cities across the country better in direct conflict with the federal -- 18 sanctuary cities across the country that are in direct conflict with the federal law?

. . >> the black vote is almost 12%. almost double. i would say the black vote is important, if not more so -- is as important, if not more so, then the latino vote. have you adjusted your polls according to the black vote as well as whites versus latinos?

>> the question is parsing and all blacks versus latinos. >> i asked the over-sampled question. they were the highest proportion. we have been weighted down. of all of those total numbers that we saw, the over-sample was weighted down. i am sorry. i need to clarify that. thank you for your question. the latino vote has been increasing. yes, we have worked with the leadership conference, out with african american voters -- worked with african american voters, and their attitudes. i did not bring this out in the sample because we did not treat

this population overall. we have repeatedly sampled african americans. i think one of the reasons that we talk about the latino vote in arizona, the latino vote is significantly greater than the african-american vote. in michigan, it is the reverse. it depends very much on what state you are looking at. the numbers were not that distinct in the data, so i did not break it out. >> sanctuary cities? >> i think it is a good point. there are a lot of differences. i would just say very generally, i can see a difference between localities, saying they are not going to use these resources, these resources to help enforce federal immigration policy in the entire state and enforcing

policy by mandating law enforcement officers carry out their duties in a way that prioritizes federal priorities in immigration. i think is important say that we are not going to commit to doing this, which is again a federal priority. i would like to also notes that many, if not most, a sanctuary ordinances i am familiar with have some exceptions said in there for people -- violent criminals, but violence -- violent criminals, violent dangerous aliens. so, again, without looking at particular ordinances, i think there is a difference between the two situations. those are significant.

>> ok. there is a question over there. >> this question is for mr. osuna. might the arizona lawsuit be fought in the courts? what might the next steps be? >> there is a question behind her. >> tiffany murphy with the institute for the study of diplomacy. with the law, the briefs were excellent. if you had anything to do with them, kudos. it mentions foriegn policy, but it does not describe that a lot. is says foriegn policy, but it does not expand on that. i was wonderingif you could? >> yes.

>> ok. in terms of the next steps, i wish i knew what the reaction will be. the law takes effect july 29, as you know. there will be a hearing sometime before then, likely, or arguments before the federal district court. they will be hearing this challenge. the department has asked for an injunction, meaning stop the law before it takes effect. the emphasis has shifted to the federal judge here. as to what happens after that, it will be riding on what the judge decides on the injunction. apart from, again, some of the other civil-rights implications with the law, which will continue to be monitored, and the foreign policy front, the complaint does make the foriegn policy argument because, as you

have seen, from the reaction to the law, there are foreign policy implications year. that is not the main focus of the argument. the main focus is on the pre- emption issue, because we believe this is a state statute that crosses the line, hinging on a federal priority. it is certainly an important part of the argument, but it is not the main part of this. of course, that is also a federal priority. >> there's a question here? right here. >> i am with trinity university. my question is for mr. osuna. there's a lot of argument in the national security circles regarding the voters. do you think that argument at the end of the day will win?

for people who think you have to secure the borders, what ever it is. >> ok. there is a question behind him. actually, over here. >> i am from colorado. >> you came along with for this forum. >> the first question is for mr. osuna. you mention the criteria for the new immigration reform. is it an extension of the 1996 reform in many ways? you mentioned border control, job identification, and you know.

one of the features of that immigration reform in 1996 was it open the door to what we are seeing -- it opened the door to what we are seeing today in arizona. it allowed the state governments, it was an option for the state's to enter into immigration policies. so now the government responds to arizona with the supremacy clause. do you think -- one of the criteria you use has to do with allowing for more internal control. is that not a way of extending this power on states, going from policy power to emigration power, and how will you control that? >> actually, let's stick to one question right now. let me answer your border

question and you can answer the internal control aspect of that. your question on the border security and why that has emerged is so important as part of this debate. the simple answer from my standpoint is, this is what people are worried about. when you look at the history of american immigration policy, the fear and emotional component is so strong. when you compare this to other policies like education and health care and energy -- sometimes there are emotional aspects to those policies, but immigration reform has such a high component. so border security has become important because it taps that dimension of fear about borders. crossing the border, terrorism, crime. people who do not look like americans, that kind of thing. it wraps around that symbol. i do not see that issue going away. when you look at what the president has talked about, and

celinda's polling supports this, and democrats have to be tough on that issue, otherwise it will be massacred by republicans. juan, do you want to discuss this? >> just quickly, on the border -- there are two things at work here. that is absolutely right, it is a great counterpoint to amnesty if you say tighten up the border. also, dhs and the justice department cracking down on employers is a very popular with the public. the public believes if there were not jobs, there would not be this pressure. they feel it is unfair to employers who are not hiring illegal workers. having said that, the public is also clear they do not want to stop that border security.

you can go to the american voices website and see a lot of the polling on the national immigration forum. other pollsters have done work on this as well. people say border security is not enough. that does not deal with the problem. it is an important component, but it is not true that it is the only component or if it is the first thing people will give. people will do this in combination with other measures. >> let me take a few points on border security and the question on states. i think it is in -- an important. i agree with the statement celinda and darrell made about the importance of the border security. not only is it important, but it is important for the other reforms that are necessary to get done. there is no way it will get traction if congress and the public get the message we are not serious about controlling the border.

that is absolutely approves the requisite -- that is absolutely a prerequisite for this happening. let me take a little bit of a different spin on this. a lot of people assume that the people that are here illegally all came across the border. up to 40% of the population is estimated to have, legally, with a visa, and overstayed their visas. all the security in the world we put in place is not going to limit the population. that is 40%. our focus is what can we put in place, what is doable, to try to reach the population? to put mechanisms in place that are not border security necessarily, because that would not do any good for people who came here legally with a visa, but to make it easier to track and actually require those

people when their visa is up to leave the country. that is a significant challenge, but it is necessary to making the comprehensive reform we all want. the second thing -- the point of the arizona law and the arizona challenge, the justice department's a challenger to arizona is not that the states do not have a role in civil immigration enforcement. and you are right. the 1996 law -- maybe i should look back at the 1990 act. that opened the door for state's involvement in several immigration enforcement. and the federal government welcomes the state involvement, as long as it is consistent with federal priorities and driven by the federal government. the difference with the arizona law is it puts arizona in the

driver's seat. that is the distinction. it is not that there should not be any state involvement in helping enforce immigration laws. it is a force multiplier issue. it is a force multiplier that can be helpful. instead of the federal government being the quarterback, it is the state of arizona driving the priorities year. that is the distinction. >> ok. in the very corner. question? >> thank you up for coming today. it is good to see you. my name is cheryl. soy an immigration lawyer. i have been practicing since 1919 eighth -- 1998. -- i am an immigration lawyer. >> you're on the front lines. >> i am on the front lines. i see it litigation against

employers. if the jobs exist here, then people, i believe, based on my experience, will find a way to get here and do those jobs. so i am wondering if there is going to be a focus on employers, especially in consideration of the new employment verification system you are talking about? >> there's a question right next to you. right there. >> i am with the american political science association. some of the congressional critics of comprehensive reform said, fine, let's secure the border first -- basically the u.s.-mexican border, and then we will get to the other issues. what does it mean to secure the border and how will they recognize when that time arrives? >> ok. good question. one you want to tackle? [laughter] >> we may not have emphasized it as much because we were going to

quickly. comprehensive reform we tested exclusively, cracking down on employers. it is very popular. as popular as border security. real people have that line in their heads. they like it for two reasons. they believe if the jobs are not the lawyer, -- lure, people will not be coming. they also believe these people are not just recruiting immigrants workers because they work hard or have skills they need, but because they can pay lower wages and a whole bunch of other goals that people think do not observe wage standards, etc. the public has a very strong narrative. they also believe that you put lawful employers at a disadvantage and that is not right. that is in their very, very

strongly. we may have read over that too quickly. in terms of the congress, i think you would have to ask them. probably in their mind, they do not want to separate it out. they do not bother to do the border first. politically, that is absolutely on non-starter. to separate it out. >> on the employment issue -- yes, i think that comprehensive immigration reform in terms of what is being discussed is likely to include additional mechanisms to crack down on employers that actually, after putting in place a very robust employment verification system that is transparent, acceptable, and effective, if you still have employers that go forward and hire someone not eligible to work, then absolutely there should be

additional ways, up mechanisms to go after the employers. i think it is likely to be in any legislation. but the real key, the starting point on the employment side is what senator schumer and senator gramm have proposed, and that will be the starting point. the enforcement mechanisms will flow from that, but that will be the key to drawing this. i agree with you, as i said earlier, all the border and enforcement you put in place is only going to be partially effective if you do not control the workplace, the employment of people who should not be employed. the border security is an excellent question. there is no answer to that, really. people have different answers. some believe the online for were

the border is secure is here. other people believe right here. there is no way of managing that. there is no system of actually assessing that. the border patrol uses the term "operational control of the border." and they feel that they have control of certain parts of the border right now. which means basically they are very confident that particular section of the border, they know who is trying to come forward across the border and they can get to it very quickly. i think the short answer to your question is as long as we can get operational control of the entire border, that is when some people can maybe say the border is secure. that is a shifting standard. you can line up 10 members of congress and ask them what you need to secure the border, he will get 10 different answers. >> you will get 20 different

answers. i just want to go to the employment verification question. there is no question we are moving towards greater enhancement of employment verification. i think it is also important to have an appeals process attached to that. any of the processes we use today, there will be a certain number of mistakes made. i think one of the reasons why people are opposed to employment verification is the recognition there are going to be mistakes made. there has to be an appeals process by which someone who gets spat out by not meeting that verification test should have the ability to bring other evidence to bear. >> i am from a japanese company.

i have a question about enforcement. president obama signs the tourism promotion act, to promote more incoming visitors, tourist, to the states. that is generating jobs. then you definitely need to invite the customers from foreign countries. speaking of enforcement, on the immigration side, how do you coordinate between dhs, doj, and congress to promote tourism? >> we definitely want to risk. behind you, another question. >> my name is joseph. in a private citizen from chicago. regarding the issue of --

correct me if my and then it is wrong. under the 14th amendment, that is probably unique in the world. most countries do not have that law. is there any polling on that issue? there are tremendous costs associated. any more information -- any polling information on that? >> if you can pass the microphone. then we will give our panel a chance to respond. >> thank you. i wanted to pick on a phrase which celinda lake used several times, but the phrase that people are not here legally going back to the back of the line for immigration. i want to explore that a bit. i think one of the worries people have is precisely the fear that people who are here illegally will go to the front of the line, compared to someone who stays home in guatemala. what do we actually mean, in

practical terms, by saying people "go back -- "go to the back of the line?" and how does that relate to the blueprint or any other proposals out there? >> ok. we have questions on tourism and going to the back of the line. [laughter] >> let me start with that. this is not dealt with within the blueprint other than saying, you know, people need to go to the back of the line. there are different mechanisms put in place. the concept is really simple, which is, someone who is here illegally should not, as you said, go ahead of someone who went through the legal process in their home country. all you do that is the difficult part. -- how you do that is the difficult part. there have been examples that

require them to go back to their home country. there are proposals that require some kind of temporary status, whether they should actually get a visa, require visas from people who are here legally. that still has to be -- it is one of those issues that has to be worked out moving forward. the concept itself, meaning that there should not be an unfair advantage for people who are living here, i think that is likely to be enshrines in some way in this bill, if it ever starts moving forward. that is something the president touched on in his speech last week, when he said he rejected the concept of no deportation for people who are here

unlawfully. that sends the message there are no rep precautions to illegal behavior, and there should be. -- that since the message there are no repercussions to a legal behavior, and there should be. that will be a significant bone of contention moving forward. on the tourism issue, the legal immigration system is designed not just for enforcement. it is designed to welcome people we actually want here, for economic reasons and other reasons. and the promotion of tourism is one of those anchors of about -- that. was this enforcement against tourists or -- >> [unintelligible] >> coordination? the department of homeland security has the bulk of the enforcement mechanism on that. they are the ones responsible for tracking somebody down if they overstay their visas, as i

mentioned earlier. doj comes in if someone is put in deportation proceedings. in terms of promoting tourism, i think dhs does coronation with the department of commerce to make sure consistent messages are being sent out. we do have some discussions. >> there is some research that has been done on a. there are mixed views. it depends on how you word the question. if you say to people, if anyone is born in this country, you will have less support. uofd founding fathers wanted this, and i wanted, -- the founding fathers wanted this, and i wanted it, too. many of the attitudes we are talking about have remarkably

little geographic variation, contrary to conventional wisdom. you do see more knowledge about the issue and the problems on the borders. the further away you are from the border, the further you are from the mexican border, the more support you have for people being born in this country being automatically a citizen. it varies a lot. in terms of one other thing i would say about getting to the back of the line, we have a couple of the dilemmas here. one dilemma is people are unaware of the backlog, and they tend to think why is this taking so long? is it because of volume? or is it because of the bureaucracy? if it is the bureaucracy, let's get going. if it is millions and millions

want to come, then maybe we do need to spread it out. that is very confusing to people, about why the backlog. how long is this line? this is a culture actually that really believes in a line. there are all sorts of sociological studies on how people get in line. we are notorious in a culture that people will get in one line and when you see openings you will get in all line. -- a line. this is a culture that really believes in the fairness of the line. whether you're in line for a coke or baseball tickets or immigration. i think the administration stands up for that value. >> i the question about technology. based on my wife's experience, i have spent an inordinate amount of time at a photocopying machine.

you always have to mail everything. this is the 21st century. are we thinking about e-mail documents? >> i am glad i do not have your job. >> are you saving that for another time because of who she was married to? sure, the answer, one answer to a lot of these issues is better technology and trying to make adequate use of technology. i know i keep going back to dhs, but they are the ones who actually handled the green cards. they are looking at a number of technological advancements that possible. the federal government, it is going to take a long time. given where technology is now, i think that we are certainly much better off and i expect

continued advance is going forward. >> ok. ok, we have a microphone coming over to you. >> good afternoon. my name is michael. i am a reporter with the hispanic weekly news service. my question and it's about immigration -- my question is about immigration reform. the dream act. what you think of the chances of something like that getting passed this year? do you think the federal government will support it, or will they say they are fighting for comprehensive immigration reform? >> we have a question over here. we have time for two or three more questions. >> thank you. i am at the center for international studies. if there should be comprehensive immigration reform in the u.s., to you think the

reform should take in consideration for and development, in order to treat the problem, not the symptom? >> pass the microphone to that gentleman. and we are almost out of time. we will make this the last set of responses from our panel. >> what is known statistically about the success of this immigrant workers that congregates at select known locations, to take what ever jobs are available at any rate offered to them? what do you know about the market rate for immigrant workers? >> bouquet. that is a very broad range of questions. -- ok. >> let me take the question on the piecemeal approach, which is -- and it is somewhat of a subject for discussion.

if comprehensive immigration reform continues to prove difficult, is there room for a smaller piece of legislation like the dream act? there is the legislation sponsored by senator feinstein and others. the administration supports them, supports the concept of the dream i, supports the concept of allowing, making it easier for courts to bring in workers that they need. i do think if the debate keeps going on the way it is and there is little action this year or next year on comprehensive immigration reform, we will have increasing pressure to look at smaller pieces, smaller measures of reform. certainly they will not have the impact of the larger form. they do affect significant portions of the economy and people who are here.

the administration does not have a position on that approach yet. we do expect there will be part of the continuing and probably expanding discussion on immigration reform in general as the year goes on. the development systems -- i think it is possible to have additional mechanisms in the immigration reform bill. i would not expected to be of major part of it. -- i would not expect it to be a major part of it. that is because it takes a long time to fully impact conditions -- that is because it takes a long time. to fully impact conditions in mexico, it could play a role. it may be some kind of provision in the cir bill. >> i have of thoughts.

the one thing about development assistance -- that is the one part of the debate that is not very popular. people want to bring the money home. the american public is notorious for having very interesting critiques on that, overestimating our generosity. they think we are the biggest foreign aid country in the world, and of course, we are not. hey, from a political standpoint, the american public is not so keen on that. you are adding controversy to it. i would imagine -- i cannot imagine that would be a huge piece of reform. >> the problem with foreign aid is americans think we devote 10% of our federal budget to foreign aid, and of course, is a tiny fraction of that. it makes it a hard sell.

>> i am sure there are numbers on the impact. i am sure the labor department has them. i have not seen them. i am sure someone has done those. i cannot help you. >> we had a question on the dream i am public opinion on that. have you looked at that? >> we have. it used to be a very popular. it has diminished in support, but it depends on how you explain it. it used to be popular when people thought -- there is a very firm belief. people have talked about the sense of the father should not be inherited. stops do not ask anybody what their parents did. -- do not ask anybody what their parents did. that is really rude. as student aid was diminished and people were wondering, then

you started to see attention. when you tell an individual story, and there are very moving stories, people who were quite young, they move, they excel, whatever, you are able to shift it again. it depends on what values are driven by this conversation. >> you can tell times are tough when -- >> right. that is right. times are tough. >> we are out of time. i want to thank juan and celinda for sharing your thoughts with us. and thank you to the audience. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> and they are the most committed and passionate about the mission. there are a number of them who have said to me, this is something i feel very strongly about. there are a number of them who said, i went into the army -- in fact, tomorrow i will have been out of the army more than i was in the army for my adult life. and thought a lot about that. i went into the army in 1976.

it was not a great time to be in the army. and it was extraordinary, that post-vietnam feeling. i've had people tell me that that is how they feel in our department about the american public. these men and women are every bit as committed as our men and women in uniform. they are extraordinary, the contribution that they are making. so, too, the men and women in homeland security. it is my privilege to be their leader but it is my greater privilege to be one of their number. and what we have to do is give them the conditions, the tools, the leadership, and the working environment that they did serve to match the passion that they bring to the job. >> a lot of americans interface with your department at the airport. a lot of them feel like they are

perked when they walk into a screening line at the airport -- perps when they walk into a screening line at an airport. in the vast majority are committed professionals who have one job alone, to ensure your say air travel, and they do it with a professionalism and commitment. >> one last question on personnel issues. visibility. people have secret clearances to want to come for your department are put through an additional screening for suitability. why did they have to go through that? doesn't the secret clearance do that for you? and doesn't it slow the filling of positions and perhaps keep some people away from government service? >> first of all, we're streamlining the processes. there is a lot less suitability checks being done. it is a requirement of federal service elsewhere. the department of defense takes your security clearance as

evidence of suitability, and we're moving in that direction, but we also have a number of law enforcement, we're also the largest law enforcement agency in the federal government. having a security clearance does not clear you to work in a law enforcement job. but it certainly does slow it down. anybody who is been in the federal hiring system knows that we don't need any help in slowing down. we're working on that. >> a quick question onboarders since that is one of the priorities that you brought up. a lot of concern about how porous the southern border in particular is. do you have indications of that being exploited by terrorists, people coming across the southern border? or, in fact, the northern border? >> as secretary napolitano, who

has driven every mile of the southern border, the southern border has never been more secure than it is today. >> but it is still not anywhere close to 100% scuret. >> but our borders are as secure as they have ever been, and we have to create a system that keeps dangerous people and goods out, but also a system that expedites legitimate trade and practice. -- travel. we have to find ways and we are finding ways working with industry to expedite that legitimate trade travel so that we can focus on those who might be dangerous. >> so how do you make them secure? the f.b.i. in that did not deliver as promised. the personal, you have a lot more people at the border. but a human chain across the border does not cure it. >> and even that, someone goes off shift. there is no question that did we cannot daisy chain our way to security. but what it is, it is a question of working from the federal

government's point of view that this is our robalt. we know that. working with personality, working with technology in procedure to strengthen those areas of the border where weneed strengthening, working with state and local officials to develop a good situational awareness and an ability to interdict. but equally and ability to extradite legitimate trade and travel, to get its on its way in these tough financial times. >> i'm going to open it up to you guys. we have a couple of microphones here. we would love to get some questions here and please identify yourself and your organization. i see a hand up -- but start with a one in the back. get a mic to you. >> i'm a skin. there was a report i saw nearly two weeks ago from a local arizona tv station and basically

it reported that there were hundreds of people from nations that sponsor terrorism, including afghanistan, egypt, or iran, iraq, pakistan, and yemen who had been detained as they illegally crossed into the southern part of the country. and a follow-on question from what you were commenting on, is that a likely number that there are hundreds potential people from terrorist nations who are crossing on a regular basis oy cross our borders? >> i have not seen the report. i am afraid i cannot comment on it. what i can tell you is that we're working every day to ensure the safety and security of the southern border. i know secretary napolitano knows this area well, knows arizona well, knows the border extremely well. this border has never been more secure. and we're working to strengthen the measures that we have in place. no single part of the system,

whether it is a fence, as the secretary said, the fence is not a strategy, but a combination of personnel, processes, and procedures -- and we will work on those areas. >> there is someone there with a hand up? >> i'm from "the washington times." in the current fiscal climate, isn't it time to get rid of the pork barrel funding formula and replace formula based on the fact that north dakota has the same number of senators as your does come up with one that recognizes the different risks? >> in our view, it is very clear. everyone faces some risk. we know that as we have transmitted into this fiscal

environment, certainly a number of things need to be re-examined. we need to streamline our grants program to make it more usable by the states. that is something that we're doing. >> what about the problem of distribution and politics? >> homeland's security is an extraordinary department. there are 108 congressional committees and subcommittees that oversee the work of the department. there are 50 states, untold communities that are important constituencies for the department of home insecurity. so these decisions are always taken mindful of all the needs we need to serve. >> i want to ask you about that congressional piece. there are multiple number of committees that claim jurisdiction. i can see one individual talking several times in front of a bunch of different committees. how destructive is that for the

department? how distracting? how much time does it consume? could converse streamline oversight of your apartment? >> it would be an important strengthening component. we're very grateful. congress has been very generous to the department of homeland security. we acknowledge that. we're very grateful for it. we have to answer. we have to account. it is 108. >> is a lot. >> it's ridiculous, isn't it? [laughter] >> is a lot. >> all right. go ahead. >> i'm with "newsweek." i have to say, secretary, that i am baffled by your remark about the secretary claiming that the border has never been as secure

as it is today. what are you basing that in? what is your metric? given what has happened recently, the state legislature in arizona and this government that secretary napolitano used to be governor of, are they under some mass delusion? what is your basis for that claim? >> i think the secretary has made it very clear. the number of resources that have been committed to the border, level and sophistication of processes that we are applying at the border, the training, the qualification for border agents, combined with other elements -- there is more fence then there has ever been before, greater use of technology and process. >> but there still people coming across. >> the legislature doesn't seem to think that is the case at all. >> i would yacht presume to answer for the state legislature of arizona. >> do you have any idea why they would pass that law if the

border is a secure as you claim it is? >> i'm here to speak about the department of homeland security. >> there is a difference on border security, wouldn't you say? you cited that as one of the fundamental things that the department addresses. >> absolutely. what we have to do in securing our borders is keep dangerous good and people out. and there is no single silver bullet for that purpose. as we discussed, there is no daisy chain. to a combination of personal technology, processes, procedures, partnerships, the federal government playing its role and responsibility. it is a constant challenge your never done securing your borders. >> let me go over here. i see a hand up. >> one of the major recommendations of the 9/11 commission was dealing with the communication systems that the first responders had, the police

and fire not talking to each other. nine years in, there has been some progress but not very much progress. i'm curious about your thoughts my name is david bishop. i work for alcatel lucent. >> i am an old signal officer. interopera built is about whether radio can talk to each other and those talking on the radio recognize each other's procedures. and that may be an interactive way of managing what they have to do in the event of a crisis. this is a key element that really inhibits the best kind of crisis response and the coordination of assets. just as you described, we made some progress and not nearly enough. municipalities have very strong preferences in this regard. we are committed to to the interoperability agenda.

and we will continue to work on that because it is so fundamental to crisis response. and what we know about crisis response is that the department of homeland security is not the first responder. a crisis happened somewhere, and it in false very often the first responders not even local party they're just local. this is where the work is done. we note that this is the front line. and we need to do our part and strengthen it and better interoperability. >> yellow shirt out there. >> good morning. i'm yellow shirt. [laughter] maurice steinberg. i propose some of your statements regarding the

oversight, and 210,000 people, do you think it would be wise to consider breaking up this department? you have an enormous bureaucracy, meaning that which has to do with absolute national security and the other part fema, hurricanes, floods, and all that -- it might serve you if it were two different agency? >> no. you're talking to somebody who spent half of her adult life in the army, and then i go to the department of homeland security. i have a bit of a specialty. we have a hard working bureaucracy. this department is an extraordinary combination of these assets. fema is better off for its location in the department with the coast guard. the secret service better off in this department with its co-location with other assets. that issue is resolved.

>> right down here in front. >> i am happy to talk about it. >> i wanted to ask you about stopping terror incidents while they take place, which, as we know, is very difficult. have you considered launching programs to stop incitement out of the country? convincing people against committing these acts, and on ksm's trial, will it take place -- khalid shaikh mohammed's trial, is it going to stake place in new york and what you think about exposing this trial to the public? >> i am going to leave that for the department of justice to handle. the federal government does engage internationally with the

muslim world. and the president speaking in cairo is now the statement of the president's views of things. and we have all been working consistent within that view. we have a particular challenge here, we know that. the muslim communities that exist in this country bring a richness to our society, bring a condominium to the american way of life that we share. we know that there are larger communities within these communities, within which they exist, and so we do not believe that this is a problem that you can simply arrest your way out of. it has to be one built on engagement of the structural -- putting in place the structural elements of a capable society. representative governance, market activity, robust society based on the rule of law, all of those things that we know and that we're committed to in this country. and we need to remind ourselves

that it is available for all of our citizens. and enlist their help. and that is our concern and we are part of that. >> over here? >> good morning. jeanne meserve asked earlier there are tools that you might need to fight the war on terror. if you look at the international threats that we deal with, we have no n.s.a. and c.i.a., more capability and externally to the united states monitoring what is going on than we could possibly hoped to have internally. internally, it seems like a lot of our ability to catch up terrorist threat in the making comes from a tip from an informant because the terrorist decided to reach out to someone

or light up worked six because somebody screwed up the d.v.d. is that if sufficient strategy? what other tools should we look at? we just went through a bloody battle looking at fisa. >> this is what we're thinking about right now. the tools that work abroad, they may not be the tools that perfectly translate into a domestic environment. we have several of them. we have the tools at the border. we have law enforcement, both federal and state and local. importantly state and local. they have enormous information and knowledge of their communities. they recognize abhorrent behavior. they recognize and they understand when things are very badly wrong. we need to engage them and connect them better through a fusion centers and other processes for information sharing so that people have the information they need and understand the implications of the information that they

have. and we have the american public. it is an important tool and resource. again, it helps us in homeland security every time when we are confronting how to develop strategies like this to remind ourselves of the american public, that power of american values and norps in approaching the challenges that -- norms in approaching the challenges that we face. and i'm very optimistic about our ability. >> no new tools, no new authority would be needed. >> did you want proposed legislation? >> yeah. >> i have a follow-up, actually which triggered something in my mind about a shahzad case. time square, target number one, two or three on the list, i'm sure. a lot of time and effort has been put into securing times square. a guy comes in and parks a truck and leaves. to our knowledge, not one

surveillance camera caught him in times square. is something not working? isn't that why we invested in that sort of technology? >> again, no single piece -- no single link in the chain is going to make you secure. >> but relying on the vendor. >> new york city takes a backseat to -- you can have an opportunity to chat with commissioner kelly with their commitment to counter-terrorism and security. i would just say from our own perspective, i've spoken about the american public. we are our best asset. we are the guardians of our civil rights, our civil liberties, our privacy, but also the guardians of our safety and security. at the beginning of the day. >> but is it appropriate in a place like time square it should come down to a vendor noticing

something out of line but it did work in this instance. your not miced. we cannot pick up. >> i cannot imagine it would be inappropriate. and match and if this individuals had raised the alarm and it would be ignored. >> we need all of our tools. we need to mobilize all our resources and assets together. this is a joint enterprise. >> i see a woman out here. pink around the neck. sorry to do the color i dentifications. >> yes. katherine harris, fox news. i have a couple of questions

related to home grown extremism, if i may. how would you characterize the threat of the american in yemen? and it is in our interest to see him killed, captured for intelligence or kept on the run, as he is today? >> i think he has made no secret of his animosity against this country. i think he is a danger that ought to be addressed aggressively. >> what about the kill, capture, or on the run? >> ok. [laughter] >> what do you think is in our long-term interest? is it to kill him, capture him to glean intelligence, or try to force him underground and constantly moving from place to place on a daily basis? >> we talk about a long-term interest of this country. homeland security, we use the

phrase -- what does this country needs at this moment? we need a safe and secure home land. we need a dynamic economic engine that can generate new wealth. we need strong friends and allies. we need relationships with others within the rule of law. we need fundamentally to keep ourselves secure and address threats when they exist. it is a threat, do we need to address it? yes. in my follow-up question, digital jihaddists, inspired to act through people like alwaki. what do you see as our message to win this war of ideas? >> it speaks to the heart, i think of not just the

disaffection. i spent a lot of years thinking about violent conflict and how to prevent violent conflict. when we started doing that, people laughed at us. conflict has always been around. war has always been around. you cannot prevent war. my reaction was that war is not the weather. we shouldn't act like it is. you're speaking to the root causes, not only of the disaffection and the anger, and that will be for those who specialize in that to address. we're concerned about when that disaffection turns violent and the means by which it turned violence and the potential threat that violence poses to the american way of life and to our homeland. and we're determined to do everything we can every single day to prevent that violence from happening. >> and we have to leave it there, i'm afraid. thank you secretary lute. [applause]

>> coming up on c-span, representatives from ebay and facebook talk about how the internet is changing global conflicts and then "washington journal" and later, our live coverage of the national governors' association annual meeting in washington. the senate judiciary committee returns next week to vote on the nomination of elena kagan. learn more about the nation's heist court in c-span's latest book "the supreme court" providing unique insight about the court. available in hard cover and as an e-book. >> crmp span is now available in over 100 million homes bringing you a direct links to public affairs all as a public service,

created by america's cable companies. >> the united states institute of peace recently hosted a discussion on new media and political movements. representatives from e bay and facebook discussed it. this is just over an hour. >> what i would really like to have both of you speak directly abt some of the interesting work that you're doing in this kind of -- colin, in your case in the dispute resolution area and adam, in your case what facebook is doing in terms of building brings across international boundaries. but first, you have been very gracious in listening to the previous panels. let me just give you a blank check. anything you want to say based on what you have heard so far? >> you bet. i appreciate you giving me an opportunity to respond. i feel based on how many times

facebook have been mentioned and how few times e bay and papal have been mentioned i should just get t out of the way. i think there is a lot that ebay and paypal have done. i think there are a lot of interesting parallels. what happened in e commerce and how that happened in the last 10 years and where we are with the new media. it is maybe at the stage where e-commerce was in 2002. i also feel like i'm here as an ambassador from the field of online resolution. i urge you to check out the website odr. info. this is a global community of

practitioners, academics. many of the people who are in the field, who i'm colleagues with are focused mainly on building international conflict resolution. i urge you to explore the field of odr, as we call it because i think there are a lot of slashtes there. i wanted to echo something i heard several times. when i hear people talk about technologies, we get into this. the paper focuses on iran. we focus on conflict zones. we talked about peace so let's go where there is conflict. in many case it has evolved in a positive direction. it is really valuable for us not to just look at place where is conflict is in hot but also look at places like northern ireland

and cripesuss and where conflict is -- cypress is revolved. a guy in my resolution field runs a division in sri lanka. as many of you know, i'm sure, the civil war has ended because the government has "won" that conflict. i think there is a lot more interesting research in sri lanka now because we're dealing with the post-conflict situation. all happy families are happy in the same way but all unhappy families are unhappy in their particular way. so by studying what i think are unhappy situations, i think it would be interesting to look at the happy situations.

i think the comment that broke out on facebook, i thought that was fascinating because that resonates with my experience in dealing with conflicts through many of these new media channels. why would we think new media would work differently in a conflict zone than in the united states. look at the impact it has had on dialogue in the united states. i think it is pretty clear in the united states, we have a lot of polarizeation. no offense. i am a bay area democrat and i grew up in texas. so all of my high school friends are hard core bush republicans. every time i put something up that says hey, good job, obama. oh, my gosh. game on. there is no positive insight to be gleaned from that.

we need to -- don't just fall into the single frame of thinking about these questions and conflict zones. we need to think more broadly about all of these different trensd. when i first got involved with mers, i've been with ebay for about seven years. between ebay and paypal, we resolve about 15 million disputes a year. we do more volume on a daily basis than nasdaq. ebay is a huge website. you count up the users as citizens, it is almost the size of a country. there is a of talk about marketplaces and people making baskets in guatemala are going to be able to sell on the upper west side of manhattan and make

a lot of money. it has been tempered by reality. people. there is no silver bullet that can come in with this technology and come in with the way the communities operate. ebay has had anfect on the global marketplace. what we're see seeing is things like cross-border commerce are difficult to pull off. you can't just, you know, sweep your hand and say these new technologies are going to change everything for the better. what i would argue is new media is also in that early stage. it is kind of a wild west out there. we don't have trust. we don't have brands. in ebay we talked about building a garden where people could come in and they had trust. they had feedback. there was a layer of security that was provided by the presence of the third party market administrator. we don't really have those in the new media phase yet.

i think part of that is going to come as new media matures. someone asked the question and they were talking about i'm an entrepreneur. can you give me some tips about what to do. he said well, look at search. that's a good opportunity. i would argue, maybe we think entrepreneurialism is a cure for all of the world's ills. there is so much opportunity in this space. who would say that facebook and twitter and youtube is the absolute epitome to be achieved with this technology. we have these new technologies being invented aupt time. i saw a couple of i-pads in the audience. now people want to say let's build android out. let's build i-phone out. we need to think actively about what kind of apps can we build

to achieve the goals of this meeting. the last thing i want to say is i don't think technology is good or bad as a tool. all of these things are a tool and the tools are always changing. i love the comment about every couple of years i have to move my community over to a new environment. it is a real pain. i know all about that. i hear it from our users all the time. facebook, you guys change things every 24 hours. you got to move or you die. that's the way it works in this environment. if we think about these tools in an expansive way, we redefine it, i think we can start to ino vate in terms of building technology that chris the appropriate incentives that connect people. that build connections between people. we haven't had a lot of people that thought about that. that used that opportunity. look at things like trust-building and persistent

identity. so, yes, i guess -- >> what you doing sh trying in trust building. -- >> got it. got it. >> let's turn its over to adam. to some extents, colin has kind of thrown down the gauntlet for you. whenever he jumps into the political arena on facebook, it is kind of a smackdown for colin, and yet, you and facebook are launching a very interesting initiative called peace. facebook.com where you are trying to build brings. can you talk about that, adam? >> is my mic working?

>> important to think about some broader pictures. first i would like to just say this is -- when i graduated from the school of public media affairs i thought i would never have the chance to use the class i took in public diplomacy in my life and now i've had a chance to really take a look at use that knowledge. i'm proud sozz some of my professors in the audience and other things. we look at ebay as someone who really pioneered the understanding that very much conflicts we see in the real world are remember indicated online. it is something we have seen develop on facebook in a very similar way and many of the conflicts that you see dealt with internationally and things that maybe conflicts between people and cultures and border understandings and things like that are replicated in some form of another on facebook.

we have become the arbiters of that. it is a challenge. not only are you looking at a wealth of regulators but also people who are more motivated to seek resolution but also have very powerful authorities usually within their borders. developing a framework and understanding has been a very important and often ignored understanding of operating to scale in such a global world. i think so it is always good to start off with the kind of motto that we have at facebook, our mission, our statement, our goal is to help the world become more connects and help people to share. this is really important when you understand how facebook is working and what what we're doing and why we're rolling out new products. i get a lot of questions, you know, coming right at me. why are you not building x,

which would be specifically useful to n.g.o. in africa or y for the compliance sector act? the answer is always from the beginning at facebook, we built the tool of making the world more open and allowing people to share and become for connected and all of these groups are going to benefit. one of the nice things about facebook is in addition to all the great things we that we have at facebook.com, the facebook platform, which is really an ecosystem unto itself, the platform allows you to build on top of facebook and take it off site. you are not limited to what facebook is doing. we talked about apps and pushing that out in a wider world. we get asked why are you not doing x to help non-profit groups? the answer is we need to improve facebook for all of our users. facebook now has more than 400

million users. if we were a country, we would be the fourth largest country in the world. that's an immense challenge. there are all sorts of things a come within that one your users, how to keep them safe and security and ebt them about your systems and changes that you're making that are unique to our company. a couple of points i will make. the overriding goal of friends connecting with friends, relationships, you talk about being unable to have the conversation. that's nozz silence in any sen -- that's not sense in any sense. i think that is important. there was a lot of talk. i used to be a political blogger. there was a lot of talk about siloing. you think communities like this, common interest or common points, maybe disagreements is not an unhealthy thing.

one of the things i had to stress, that i think government and politicians haven't learned is that you know, in the past, you were able to shield your boss' criticism. hide the negative oped. there is nothing wrong with that. people need to know there is disagreement out there. i think when you look at conflict resolution, when you policy makers who are trying to make better decisions about this, we shouldn't be trying to shield them. one, is it possible? two, it may better help and form the decisions they make. i heard someone say earlier that facebook is really a tool. i completely agree with that. you know, we are not the ones building this bridge between people and conflicts and things like that. we're giving the tool to people in this conflict, to rea out and have their networks and to extend and i think that is a really important and human coreson concept to understand. one of the great stories i heard

was everyone focus on technology and the events last year, iran, everything else. technology is not an end point. individual with access to facebook or twitter, who gets your message about the latest piece of news, that is not an end point. the information does not term nate with that individual. i heard a wonderful story on n.p.r. what was napping aaron. they would -- what's happening in iran. the information would continue to spread because they would run to their roof tops. message and information doesn't wednesday the last person who has access to facebook. that is a really porned concept to understand. we're a tool that individuals are using. you know, we are a company that

is engaged in various resolutions from conflicts to geography and language. it is a complex system that we do with a fairly small staff. i will close with something affiliated with a project out of stanford, university. we think it is very important for people to connect on facebook. it is not something we're suggestsing that people with conflicts should friend people on the other side. what we do is reflect the national friend statistics and what we see of differing cultures. something like 11,000 muslims and jews have become friends in the last 24 hours. 20,000 christians and muslims will become friends. it is not something we have done but it is a tool that allows it. how do we maybe for the first time bridge gaps?

the world of taj has the power to help. how do we bring together that other more human concept of it? i played farmville with them. they threw a sheep at me. does it make it harder for me to pick up a gun against them. that i think is a really important thing to ponder as well. >> all right. that was a -- a good setting of the stage, but we're not going to let you off the hook that easily. facebook is just a tool and for others to be leveraging it how they want, whether it is building brings or taking people apart for their political views. adam, you're capturing incredible data on facebook with that kind of a use you see users

base, 400 million, i think i heard you say. you are also trying to parse that data by looking at friends -- friendships that are being held across international boundaries among traditional adversaries and so forth. when you have that kind of a resource, certainly the researchers in us want to know what we can learn from that data. so, is facebook trying to understand what are the drivers, for example, for why people -- some people use facebook as a means of reaching out, across adversarial lines and others don't? are you trying to understand the meaning of that data and if not, are you happy to have the academic community or the research community work with facebook to try to understand this? >> overbly we have a variety of -- obviously we have a variety of in-house data scientists.

we're trying to take a look at that and always trying to understand how people operate within the facebook community, what their motivations are. you know, i think it is less an understanding of folks who are reaching out trying to bridge conflicts because there is kind of that personal boundary. personal motivation and use of an accountant which quonet don't do. that would be -- which we don't do. that would be too obtrusive. it is more constructive to have a better understanding of how maybe a general population is operating in addition to the -- or maybe those stirring conflict or those stirring up peace. we have made limited data available to the research community. it is a very tricky thing. i'm sure you're aware of some of the conversations we have had about privacy.

it is a very difficult showing do. unfortunately, you know, i think we're still figuring out better ways to do that. certainly our in-house data scientists started awarding fellowships and other things while not necessarily using facebook data to do this research, that reused facebook to help bolster the academic community. >> before we jump to colin, here, one last question. we're going to take questions from the room as well. folks can start to line up if they have questions for these two. adam, has there been any effort to -- any consideration within facebook to facilitating -- bridge building between folks, meaning a completely optional opt in feature whereby people can say sign me up. i would like to meet someone.

i would like to friend someone in this country and you would facilitate that? has there been any -- >> no. the idea of facebook is to help you connect with real people that you know or encounter. you know, it is to connect with your real world connections. we think there are forums and other places where those things can happen. i've been to theacebook platform. we get questions why haven't you tried x, y or z? you can take data and it is a way to build thing. that's something i would put out there to take a look at. >> actually, i have to weigh in on that. there is a lot happening in the conflict resolution field about how to use common technology. there is an organization, the public organization project that

convenes in the united states to match people up with different political perspectives and have conversations. i'm very active and there is a lot of discussions about content,, multiparty issues. in haifa last year we had dialogues. there are ways, there are experimentations that are happening here. what i would say and this is no offense to facebook. i think facebook is in a difficult situation. having an incredibly valuable tool that everyone wants, they can'tsoever every problem in the world. the priversi challenge is difficult. -- privacy challenge is difficult. there are a lot of people using facebook to convene groups that might not necessarily be working on a cause for understanding. >> i agree but not on a

one-on-one ratio. >> terrorists also use technology. the technology is merely a tool. we need to create a lot more energy and investment and research and figure out how can we use technology tools in order to build those brings. the last thing i will say is i don't know how many of you heard the mcdonald's analogy like no two countries with a mcdonald's will ever go to war against each other. ink that was true until -- he created a new one. his newest one was no two countries that build a product that is integrated into a dell laptop will ever fight a war against each other because their commercial interests are too strong. they don't want to disrupt those things. i think commerce could be a very

powerful engine for building the cross-border connection. it doesn't care about borders. fundamentally it is about making money. what you see there are some very interesting dynamics introduced by this global marketplace. that are helpful in trying to avoid conflict. >> now that's why we brought you here. i think my mics working now. >> that's why we brought you here, colin. we would like to hear about what ebay is doing in this area. >> sure. >> it was hoped for a long time, as you said in your introduction, that commerce across international lines is going to be the next great thing as a result of the internet. and, in fact, it didn't take place due to the complexities in resolving disputes across national bound riss, but i understand you have made some

real major progress. can you tell us where that is? >> sure. absolutely. when i say that the vision was not fully realized, it was because that vision was hopelessly utopian in my perspective. it is interesting when you think what has happened with commerce in the last 10-15 years. ebay transactions, 15% to 20% are over borders. people are selling items oufert their garages all over the -- out of their garages all over the world. there are major shifts that have occurred, but the fact is why have we hit this limit of 20%? we're seeing flat-lining in termors that cross-border transaction. in europe, that is a very shared marketplace. australia, almost 60% of

transactions are across border. it is because australia is so land-locked. these tools have begun to deliver on some of the promise but why can't it expand beyond that? a lot of it has to do with the limitations of our judicial systems. if you're a consumer and you're in buenos aires and you buy from somebody in munich and you have an item and they said it is new and it is clearly used and it doesn't work, what are your options? if you buy it directly from that seller, you can send them an email and be mean to them online and see if they will let you return it the court of buenos aires has no jurisdiction over them. how much is it going to cost you to find lawyer in germany to handle your case?

fundamentally they don't work. so we do have -- this is a big breakthrough, a u.n. agency responsible for harmonizing global law and it is a global online dispute system for low dollar cases. we're still talking about what form that would take. if you're a buyer in buenos aires, you would be able to file a case in argentina and it would go through an international network. this is the kind of thing that we need to think about. these are second order challenges that are creations of this network. now we need to filled with infrastructure, public and n.g.o. and private to handle these kind s of issues. these new technologies have created disputes and conflicts

that they have never had to wrestle with before. we're going to see this emerge in new media as well. i think there is some very, very interesting lessons to be gleaned from the commerce space. -- e-commerce space. >> do you see this breakthrough, if you will, in the e-commerce space to have implications with relationships to other countries? >> maybe at a macro level. we're still in the early stages. i do think that governments are going to have to realize. the thools we have now, in 10 years, are going to seem primitive for us to have our

clam shell laptops. there was rumor that googing was researching something. some of that stuff is so futuristic. think 10 years ago, what are we seeing? the i-pad, the innovation is just going accelerate. i think we need to respond to these things and i think the instinct to quantify and do research is the right instinct to get our hands around some of these things. come out of silicon valley, there are many more "miracles" to be released that haven't been conceived of yet. >> one of those might be facebook and ebay getting together. >> should we do it now? should we shake on it? >> i think the main thing i keep hearing about today is

technology. we do relationships -- people, people, people. the communication that we use. we try to do conflict resolution. the way you do that is to not talk about the conflict but to talk about common interests like you guys were talking about. i think that my issue is yeah, there are technologies that can improve this but i think most of the time people are not thinking about how to facilitate this online. we use really boring old school technology but we get good comments online. we say my aunt, who is interested in entrepreneurship and they are from different parts of tehran and they don't know it because all they are talking about is their interests. sometimes it is soo sexy, this fighting and stuff like that. there is a lot harder and maybe

more boring to talk about mundane interests. i think social media has to be used in that way to resolve social conflict. >> you know, to those people that are making those connection, that is not a christian befriending a muslim. it is me befriending a friend. >> i don't know if wesht necessarily emphasize it. we might be or might not be perpetuating the same ideas and in the same way, we try to really understand the other side of iran, for instance, the side that is non-english, the side that is not secular and free movement. you have to have people on your team that think that way and believe that way and can express themselves that way. that has a lot nor do with us in this room than with the technology we're using. are we all just talking to ourselves face-to-face as well.

that's my point. >> i think that is a very, very important point. i've read thousands and thousands of threads between buyers and sellers and looked at the language used. report-building. that human connection. wheen people have a conflict, you don't spend that time making that human connection. the first message from the buyer to the serial is you liar, where is my item? if you were to meet this stranger face-to-face, would you ever say that to them? you would say hi, i'm so and so. i was your buyer. nice day. there are certain things we do face-to-maste face to establish those human -- face-to-face to establish those human connections. they are talking about shared interests. it could be a community of

science or sports people. facebook has billions of those groups. if you're only looking for threads that talk about political issues or am incident jad, -- mahmoud ahmadinejad for example, that is one of the problems about media. the media is looking for attention. what gets that? conflict gets that. working on problems. that's a human interest story. it goes to the end of the hour. i think your point is it is very well taken. we need to focus on that. >> one of the things to go back to technology for a moment is exacerbate some of the things you hear and replicate some of the things you hear. a great example is there are several technologies now. facebook has one. threads or blogs. they can run the gauntlet from