d-a-c-a, does not apply to a child who crosses u.s. border illegally today, tomorrow, or yesterday. doesn't apply. secretary johnson reiterated this point in the very next paragraph when he said -- quote -- "there is no path to deferred action or citizenship or one being contemplated by congress for a child who crosses our border illegally today." now, if the sole driver of the border crisis was, in fact, central american violence and poverty, or smuggling organizations, there's no reason to believe that secretary johnson needed to clarify the details of u.s. immigration policy. after all, if the migrant surge has nothing to do with u.s. policy, as the white house initially insisted, then clarifying what that policy is

won't affect it at all. but it's become simply undeniable that president obama's policies, including his unilateral deferred action program, as well as the perception that he is less than seriously committed to enforcing current law, and, in fact, has ordered secretary johnson to investigate and recommend a further relaxation of his enforcement policies, all of this has played a huge role in creating the perception to tens of thousands of unaccompanied children that you should risk your life and travel unaccompanied in the hands of the cartels to the united states because there won't be any consequences associated with it. it's that perception that the president continues to create by his silence, that is, the magnet for this illegal immigration. don't take my word for it.

according to an internal department of homeland security memo, it says -- quote -- "the main reason the subjects chose this particular time to migrate to the united states was to take advantage of the new u.s. law that grants a free pass or permit." in other words, they came because itself widespread perception that unaccompanied minors and women traveling with children would be allowed to stay, even after crossing the border illegally. well, i think there's more to this story. in fact, what we've learned is that women traveling with children are frequently given a notice to appear once they are processed by the border patrol. a notice to appear for a hearing and a court that would then determine any claims of asylum or then determine whether they

could stay in the united states or they would have to return to their country of origin. this is called a notice to appear. strangely enough, the vast majority of immigrants that get a notice to appear never show up. it makes you wonder about the ones who do show up because there's absolutely no follow-through. this is what is perceived as being this permission or free pass or permiso in spanish. meanwhile, a study of the department of homeland security office of science and technology directate -- directorate concluded that unaccompanied minors are -- quote -- "aware of the relative lack of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the u.s. border vrntle r -- border. relative lack of consequences. in other words, nothing happens to them. if you make it here, you'll be

able to stay. that's the perception. again, it's puzzling to me that even though the administration's own documents show a clear reason for the surge, they initially continue to offer the public a shifting narrative. now, there is no doubt that drug and gang-related violence in central america is bad. it's a matter of tremendous concern for u.s. policymakers, it's heart breaking, and it's something that i propose we try to address. i had a great conversation, for example, on the floor a couple days ago with the senior senator from california, senator feinstein, who said maybe there's something we can do as we've done in the past, countries like colombia, countries like mexico and elsewhere where we have worked with our partners there to try to help them restore security in the rule of law, and that's

certainly something i look forward -- a conversation i look forward to continuing. but the fact of the matter is the violence in central america didn't just begin a couple of years ago. as a matter of fact, the murder rates in guatemala and el salvador were higher in 2009 than they were in 2012 and 2013. but the massive spike in illegal immigration by unaccompanied minors didn't start until 2012. the very same year, not coincidentally when the president announced his unilateral deferred action program. again, creating the perception that if you came here, you would be able to stay, and thus there is no wonder that people felt like the floodgates had opened, creating the humanitarian crisis and overwhelming the capacity of local, state and federal authorities to deal with all of these children. by fiscal year 2013, the number

of unaccompanied minors detained on our southern border had grown to nearly 25,000, up from 6,500 two years earlier. from 6,500 to 25,000 in two years' time. according to "the new york times," from october to june 15, 52,000 unaccompanied minors were quality at the -- caught at the american border with mexico, twice the number for the same period in the previous year, and there are estimates that it could turn out to be 60,000 or more this year, could double next year. and you begin to wonder where does this end, how does this end? so between the president's refusal to enforce our immigration laws and his ever-shifting explanation as to the source of the ongoing crisis, it's no wonder that the

president has lost so much credibility on this issue. indeed, if the president wants to know why he hasn't been able to pass immigration reform in the house and the senate, all he has to do is look at the fact that people have lost confidence in his willingness to enforce the law. i know the senior senator from new york has suggested well, we should pass an immigration law and just postpone its effective date after president obama leaves office. that's a shocking statement, it seems to me, that has been reiterated by the majority leader, senator reid. so there is an enormous amount of distrust about the federal government's commitment to enforce the law. so i don't care what the law might ultimately be. if the american people don't believe the president and the attorney general and the executive branch will enforce the law, we've lost their confidence entirely and we will never be able to improve and fix

our broken immigration system, something i am commited to do. but given all the different narratives coming out of the white house concerning the surge of unaccompanied minors, i think it would be a good thing for the president to directly address the issue. he's sent vice president biden to central america. that was a positive step. i know secretary johnson has visited the rio grande valley and some of these detention centers for unaccompanied minors. that's a positive step. he's written this open letter to the parents of children in central america, discouraging them from sending their children on this long, perilous journey from central america to the united states through these drug smuggling and human smuggling corridors controlled by the zetas and other cartels, but yesterday i introduced a resolution with my friend, the junior senator from florida, senator rubio, that calls on the president to do five things.

number one, it calls on the president to publicly declare that the deferred action program he unilaterally announced in june, 2012, will not apply to the recent waves of children who have recently crossing our southwestern border. now, that's the same thing that secretary johnson has been saying and others, but it's different coming from the president of the united states. it will be covered by the press. it will be communicated to parents in central america. don't send your children to the united states and turn them over and make them an additional part of this humanitarian crisis and subject them to all the perils that i have talked about repeat edly of that treacherous trip from central america to the united states. secondly, this resolution calls on the president to publicly discourage parents in central america and mexico and elsewhere from sending their kids on one of the most dangerous mieg --

migration journeys in the world third, it calls on the president to fully and faithfully enforce u.s. immigration laws. now, i don't know what the facts are, but i do know some of the members of the house of representatives, luis gutierrez has very recently said if we can't pass immigration reform that suits him, he wants the president to take further unilateral action, declining to enforce our immigration laws. that just contributes to the impression that's causing this wave of humanity that is coming to the united states and creating the humanitarian crisis. it doesn't fix it. it makes it worse. and i hope the president is watching and listening and decides that he needs to be the one to make this statement because only the president has the bully pulpit necessary to deal with this. fourth, our resolution calls on the president to ensure that states like texas -- and i see

my colleague from arizona. i would include arizona, california and other border states -- have the resources we need to handle the crisis and to guarantee humane treatment of unaccompanied migrant children. some of my colleagues from texas visited the facility in lackland air force base on monday, including senator cruz and others, and they reported back conditions which, frankly, are very disturbing. and fifth, this resolution calls on the president to work closely with mexico and central america officials to improve security at mexico's southern border. mexico has a 500-mile southern border with guatemala, which is insecure and porous, through which many of these -- or all of the unaccompanied minors from central america come. so, madam president, i realize how controversial and polarizing the whole discussion about immigration can be, but i suggest we need to try to work together on a bipartisan basis to deal with it and that we

should, by hopefully making this above partisan politics and doing our job, that we can help resolve this immediate crisis, but then we can help regain the mick's confidence so they will allow us to take the reasonable steps we know we need to take moving forward to fix our broken immigration laws. passing this resolution, i believe, would send a powerful message about our commitment and the president's commitment to the rule of law. our commitment to resolving the current border crisis and our commitment to saving these young children from unimaginably treacherous journeys through mexico, which i previously described. so i would urge all of our colleagues to work together with us to send that message and encourage the president to use the bully pulpit to send the message i have outlined. mr. mccain: would the senator yield for a question? mr. cornyn: i will. mr. mccain: first of all, i thank him for the resolution on behalf of myself and others.

i appreciate your representation of the people of texas who are experiencing literally a crisis on the southern border of our state -- of your state as well as mine. i note the presence of the senator from illinois. no greater advocate for the dreamers, the children who were brought here not willfully, and i believe that in our immigration reform bill, we address that issue in a humane and compassionate fashion. but i -- i ask my colleague now isn't it terribly inhumane to see these children taken from these countries by some of the most unspeakable people on earth, these coyotes, and their trip along the way, these hundreds of miles is -- is so cruel and inhumane to many of

these children that it's chilling, that there are these coyotes are terrible people, they commit crimes to these people, on these young children. they do terrible things. they sometimes ride on the top of a train where safety is -- obviously their lives are literally in jeopardy. and so we talk about -- and again, i appreciate the work that's been done on behalf of the dreamers, but shouldn't we care a great deal about these children, even if they are not in the united states for what they are undergoing now? and isn't it a humanitarian issue of the highest order and wouldn't we be better served if we told these children and the people who are motivating them and making a lot of money bringing them here, wouldn't it be better for us to say look, anybody who shows up at our

border is not going to be allowed to stay in this country, but if you go to our consulate, if you go to our embassy in the country in which you reside and make a case that your life is being threatened, you are being persecuted, whatever the conditions are for asylum in our country, then those cases can be judged and we can bring them, if it is a humanitarian case that warrants it, bring them into the united states of america, but say if you come to our border, you cross those -- how many miles is it from the guatemalan border? mr. cornyn: 1,200 miles from guatemala city to mcallen, texas. 1,200 miles. mr. mccain: don't subject yourself to a 1,200-mile trip which is hazardous to your life and can be -- terrible things can happen to you. why don't we send the message that if you think you deserve asylum, then you go to the consulate, you go to the

embassy, and we will have sufficient personnel there to take up your case, and if your case is compelling and meets our standards for asylum, then we're going to give it to you. but whatever you do, don't risk your life and your well-being to travel 1,200 miles in the hands of a coyote. this is what -- you know, i would say to the senator from texas, sometimes when we say we have to have a secure border and the things that we need to do, we are viewed sometimes as inhumane. what is more -- my question is what is more inhumane than what's happening to these children now, some of them four, five, six years old. what is more inhumane than what is happening to them as we speak? and shouldn't the president of the united states do as the secretary of homeland security did yesterday and said you cannot enter our country even if you show up or you cannot stay

in our country, you cannot stay in our country if you show up on the border, but you can apply for humanitarian asylum in the united states of america. mr. cornyn: madam president, i -- i appreciate the question. i would say there is nobody in this chamber who has been more involved that long trying to fix our broken immigration laws than the senior senator from arizona, and certainly the senior senator from illinois has been very much involved. both of them are members of the so-called gang of eight who were the primary authors of the senate-passed immigration bill, but i would point out that not even under that bill would these children be covered, because they wouldn't qualify for the so-called dream act provisions authored by the senior senator from illinois, and that's the point that the secretary of homeland security has been

trying to make, is that this is not a green light to anybody and everybody who wants to come to the united states. for their protection, for the protection and safety and security of the american people and in the interests of an orderly immigration flow and the rule of law, we need people to play by the rules. as to the -- and it's the perception that there are no rules and that if you make it here, you will be able to stay regardless of whether you qualify under a law that's created this flood of humanity. and the second thing i would say, the senator is exactly right. i think people underestimate the horror inflicted on migrants who are transported from central america through mexico up into the united states at the hands of transnational criminal organizations. the quie yoat coyotes, as we'ves called them, they have to pay

for protection or they can't travel through these corridors up through mexico to the united states. and these my grants i my migrang transported, they could be kidnapped or held for ransom, women will be raped and assaulted. it's horrific. who in their right mind would subject their family to those sort of horrors only to end up here in the united states when our laws do not permit their entry into this country? so somehow the president i think is the only one who has the bully pulpit who can send that message in a way that none of us can. or the homelan secretary of homd security to. let them know we're going to enforce the law. mr. mccain: isn't the only way we're going to stop this is to convince these people not to listen to the coyotes that are advertising on radio and television in these countries, but to convince these people that that trip will not lead to

the result of being able to stay in the united states of america? until that happens, then they're going to believe that if they can get here, they can stay here. and, look, i -- all of our -- all of our hearts and sympathies go out to people that live in these countries in terrible conditions. we understand why they want to come to the united states of america. but they're on a fool's errand. they're on a fool's errand. and meanwhile they're putting their very lives at risk by taking that arduous journey to texas from guatemala or el salvador or honduras. i see also, by the way, my friend -- as i say, no greater advocate have i ever known for the dreamers than senator durbin. he was one of the earliest and most outspoken. and i hope he will join us in recognizing that the only way we're going to stop this is to make sure people know that there's no pot of gold at the

end of this terrible trip that they're on? mr. cornyn: i would say to the senior senator from arizona and i note the senator from illinois is here and i'll be glad to turn the floor over to him momentarily, but i see two big problems. one is that this wave of children are coming and not allowed to legally enter or stay in the united states and thus are subject to being returned to their country of origin. that's what vice president biden said, former secretary of state hillary clinton. that's what -- that's the law of the land. but think about what -- if the president doesn't step up and use his bully pulpit to send this message in a way none of us can, because people pay attention to him, and not as much to us -- i think that's a fair statement -- then this wave is going to continue and it's going to get worse and worse and worse. but here's the other part of it, i would say to the senior senator from arizona and the senior senator from illinois, both of whom i know passionately

care about fixing our broken immigration laws. we've had our differences but i know you're committed sincerely to trying to fix our broken immigration laws. it is -- how will the american people let us do this if they've lost confidence in the executive branch's willingness to enforce the current law? i think it makes it much, much, much harder. and, in fact, as i alluded a moment ago, you know, the majority leader and senior senator from new york have both said, well, let's pass immigration reform but let's just delay its implementation until after president obama leaves office. that ought to be an embarrassing proposal. mr. durbin: will the senator yield? mr. cornyn: i will yield in just a moment. that's got to be embarrassing. why -- that shows a lack of confidence in the president's commitment to enforce the rule of law. and i just think it's a problem. so i think the president can help mitigate that problem and help restore the impression that

you're not going to get a free pass if you make it to our southern border. i will gladly turn the floor over to -- mr. durbin: i would like to through the chair ask the senator from texas a question. he has said repeatedly that the president is not enforcing the existing law. mr. cornyn: i will be glad to answer the question. mr. durbin: this humanitarian crisis on our border we all acknowledge and i think we agree more than we disagree. but i do not to question your premise. would the senator from texas tell me which existing law the president is not enforcing that has created this crisis? mr. cornyn: well, i would say to my friend from illinois, i've tried to make clear that the current law bars the entry of these children and people across the border because they wouldn't even meet the terms of the president's executive order, if you believe the president's executive order has the effect of law. i don't. but what i'm saying is, it's the impression -- it's a couple of

things. it's both the impression that the president is not committed to enforcing the law and the fact that now the -- when these adults are detained and children are placed with relatives in the country, there are virtually none of them show back up for their -- for their hearing. and so the effect is, because we don't have a comprehensive system to enforce our immigration laws even after people come to our country, it's the perception and the reality of how that works that tells them if they make it here, then they won't ever have to leave? mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a further question? mr. cornyn: sure. mr. durbin: does the senator know the origin of the law which requires that an unaccompanied child be turned over within 72 hours by the department of homeland security to the department of human -- health and human services, specifically the office of refugee resettlement? does the senator from texas know who introduced that law -- who

introduced that bill and who signed it into law? mr. cornyn: i would say to the distinguished senator, i don't know who -- who introduced the bill but i do know who signed it into ball, president george w. bush. mr. durbin: i might say through the presiding officer, the bill was introduced by your former colleague from texas, richard armey, and was signed into law by president george w. bush, which required what is currently taking place, that after -- within 72 hours, unaccompanied children needed to be taken out of the department of homeland security, a law enforcement agency, and placed through the departmendepartment of health an services into some protective situation. so the president is enforcing a law signed by president bush, authored by the congressman from texas, senator -- pardon me, congressman armey. so to say the president is not enforcing the law, i ask the senator from texas, by what --

on what basis are you saying that? mr. cornyn: i would say to the senator from illinois, here's how it works. and i -- i don't think we disagree about the law or the origin of the law but how it works in application is that these children are now being placed with family members who they themselves may not be documented. they may have entered the country themselves in violation of the immigration law but because it's perceived as a relatively safe place for them to temporarily reside, pending further court proceedings, that's why the placement is made with a family member in the united states. and absent a family member, i presume it's going to be some legal guardian or foster family or the like while the legal proceedings go forward. but here's the practical probl problem. it's once they make it here to the united states, if they never return back to the court in response to their notice of appear -- to appear, then they are lost forever to the immigration enforcement system and they become a part of the great american melting pot,

never to be heard from or seen again unless they commit some other crime. so that's what's -- that's what's being referred to i believe in the press coverage in mexico -- or i should say central america and elsewhere. and this is the report we hear from migrants themselves, they're referred to a permiso which is the notice to appear, which they think once they get, they're home free and they never have to show back up for their court hearing. so it's as good as a permission slip to enter the country. that's i think what's actually happening. mr. durbin: if the senator would further yield for a question. if i understand what he said, we don't argue with the fact that the law governing this situation was a law that was authored by a congressman from texas, republican congressman, signed into law by a republican president, george w. bush, and currently is being enforced by this president. and what the senator from texas has suggested is that the law in and of itself has at least a loophole or an opening that if the person doesn't appear, the

young child or the parent with the child, then they could be lost in our system. i would ask the senator from texas, it seems to me that you are suggesting we need to change the law or at least address the law. so two questions to you. if you will concede the fact that president obama is enforcing the law as written, i'd like to ask you, secondly, what you would do with these children once they show up in the united states? let's assume you have a 12-year-old child, as i heard a case last night, who was on top of a freight train for four da days, finally made it into the united states, possibly at the hands of a coyote, a smuggler -- i'm making no excuses for the them -- pushed across the river, rio grande, in a raft, and told to report to the first pers pern uniform. what would you have us do with that child at that point? mr. cornyn: madam president, i would respond to my friend from illinois and say i would have them enforce the law, which is,

as you described, that border patrol once they've processed the child or the migrant, then they turn them over to health and human services where they can be placed in a humanitarian and hopefully clean conditions so they can be -- their interests can be looked after while their legal case proceeds. but the problem is, is not just the fact that there are no consequences once these children or others are released on a notice to appear, which is never enforced, it is also the perception that for people like, for example, congressman luis gutierrez this morning, who is so frustrated by our inability to pass immigration reform, he said, the president needs to basically withhold any deportations or he needs to radically essentially refuse to enforce the law even further. you know, the american -- america is the most generous country in the world when it

comes to our legal immigration system. we naturalize about 800,000 people a year. it's actually been up to as many as a million people. we are very generous. but it's not too much to insist that people do it through legal means, for their protection and ours. and i would say this -- these statements the president's been making -- and certainly the unilateral actions he continues to take -- give the perception he doesn't care what congress says, he's going to go it alone. as a matter of fact, this morning, the supreme court rebuked the president on an illegal recess appointment. unconstitutional recess appointment. so i just think that it's not just the law, as written on the book, it's how the law is actually implemented and it is also the further perception that the president's going to continue to basically refuse to repatriate people who enter the country illegally. madam president, i would yield the floor.

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, i went to the white house last night. the president invited democratic members of the senate and we met with cabinet members and staff members and this topic came up. and i met with one of the president's close advisors on this issue. and she was describing to me what she had seen in mcallen, texas. and there were tears in her eyes. heartbreaking stories of babies, children, infants who are coming to this country and many of them are in the hands of smugglers and coyotes who have gotten money from their parents or family to transport them to the border with the united states. and she told me the story of a 12-year-old boy that i mentioned earlier in guatemala who was put on a freight train, the top of a freight train -- one of these cars -- and said, hang on. for four days. four days this 12-year-old boy, scared to death, was on top of this freight train as it barreled through central america on its way to the united states.

he had with him the name of a relative in the united states. that's it. and he was told as soon as he got across the border, look for somebody in a uniform. don't show any resistance. and present yourself, which he did. and now he sits in a facility in texas. this is a horrible humanitarian situation. the numbers that are involved here -- i just want to give for the record the numbers that have been reported here. they're worth noting. some people may think we're talking about hundreds of children. this year -- this year alone -- as of june 15th, unaccompanied children apprehended by the border patrol from honduras, 15,000. guatemala, 12,000. el salvador, 11,000. mexico, 12,000. almost 80% of these kids come from three countries, honduras, el salvador and guatemala.

why are they coming here? they're coming here for a number of reasons. number one, there is this network, criminal network that gets money to transport childr children. and they promise to the families, we'll get them to the border. god only knows what's going to happen to those kids on their way. some of them will die. some of the girls will be raped. their lives may never be the same. it is a desperate, awful, tragic situation. and there's no getting around the fact that it's occurring. why are the families doing this? why would you turn loose a fourth or fifth grader in your household to make that awful, deadly journey? well, part of the reason is those three countries, honduras, el salvador and guatemala, are virtually lawless. they are three of the top five countries in the world when it comes to a murder rate. there's a fear that the gangs in

these countries will kill their kids anyway. a young girl in one of these countries said, "i ran. i didn't know what else to do because i was told that one of the members of the gang wanted to take me on as a girlfriend. and i know what happens to girls who become gill friends. they are raped and they are killed and left in a plastic bag by the side of the road." that is the life sadly in some of these countries, and the united states now is at the end of this journey trying to decide what is the humane thing to do when an infant, a toddler, a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old shows up. there's no easy answer. the one point i want to make and clarify here -- and i hope i did it in the course of my colloquy with my friend and colleague from texas -- this is not a question about whether president obama has dreamed up a new law or is not enforcing an existing law. the president is enforcing an

existing law in america and here is what it says. when an unaccompanied child shows up at our bored -- border and is taken into custody, within 72 hours we need to put this child in a different place outside the law enforcement agency. technically take them out of the police station part of the world and put them in some part of the world that's best for a child, and that's what they're required to do under a law introduced by a republican texas congressman, dick armey, signed into law by a republican president, george w. bush. what president barack obama is doing is enforcing a law which president bush signed and was supported by republicans. so, please, for a second can we stop the partisanship on this. let's view this not as a political crisis but a humanitarian crisis. and let's acknowledge the obvious. the president has tried in his capacity to deal with the

immigration issue. he's done more than he wanted to do as president. he said last night to a gathering, he said do you think, i believe that executive orders are the best way to govern america? no. it's better to do it by law. but let me tell you why he's forced into executive orders. 365 days ago on the floor of this united states senate, we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. one of my prouder moments as a senator. there were eight of us who wrote the bill, and it took us months. four republicans -- john mccain who was just on the floor, my friend. marco rubio of florida. jeff flake of arizona. and -- i'm thinking for a second. i blanked on it. i'll think of the other one in just a second. lindsey graham, south carolina, came to me. the four republicans on our side of the table, chuck schumer of new york, myself, a senator from

new jersey, we went at it for months and we wrote the bill. we covered virtually every aspect of our broken immigration system start to finish. not easy, but we covered it all. the bill passed here, got 68 votes. we had 14 republicans joining the democrats passing the bill. it was supported by the chamber of commerce. it was supported by the labor unions, the faith community, grover norquist, one of the most conservative republicans in our country, supported it publicly and said it was a good idea, and we passed it, and we sent it to the house of representatives one year ago. what has happened to comprehensive immigration reform since we sent it one year ago in the house of representatives? nothing. nothing. they refused to call the bill for consideration. and so when members come to the floor and talk about how broken our immigration system is, i agree. and many of us tried to fix it, and we did it the way we should

do it. in a bipartisan fashion, give-and-take, compromise. we are sending under this new bill more enforcement to the border between texas and mexico than we've ever seen before. i said somewhat jokingly people at the border can reach out and touch hands,; there will be so many of them figuratively at our border. and that was the price that the republicans insisted on. border enforcement. all right. what we insisted on was take the 11 million undocumented in america today, and if they have been here for at least two years, give them a chance. let them come forward, register with the united states, who they are, where they live, where they work, who's in their household. let them pay their taxes. let them pay a fine. and let them learn english. if they do those things, we'll do a criminal background check to make sure they're no threat to anyone in this country, and

we'll watch them. we'll watch them for 13 years. 13 years. then they have a chance at legalization. that's what our bill says. they go to the back of line and they wait 13 years while they pay their fines. it's tough. some of them won't make it to the end of the line, but it's there. it gives them a chance. so when members come to the floor and criticize our current immigration system, i say to them, there was a repair of that system, there was a fix to that system. it passed the senate one year ago, and speaker boehner refuses to call it on the floor of the house. i don't know why. well, i do know why. because it would pass. there would be enough republicans joining democrats to pass it, and we would finally have done something on the issue of immigration. now we have before us the suggestion by the senior senator from texas, he has a resolution and we should take it up. in the first part of the

resolution, it says the president would have to make it clear that the daca executive order does not apply to the new people coming across the border. well, that's a fact. those who are coming across the border today can't qualify to become legal in the united states, not under any existing executive order or under the proposed comprehensive immigration reform that we passed in the senate. they can't become citizens. the president is saying it personally. i'm sure the president would say it personally because he sent the vice president out to central america to visit the countries and tell the leaders there this is a mistake. if your people believe they can stay in this country legally, they cannot. secondly, he said we have to discourage this migration. i'm for that. who isn't for that? we need to discourage the exploitation of these children and their families and do it in every manner possible, so there's nothing in that suggestion that i think isn't already being done. and the third thing is to fully

enforce existing laws. the point i tried to make to the senator from texas is the president is fully enforcing existing laws. if you want to change the laws let's have that debate but to argue the president is not enforcing existing laws is not correct. he is. those laws may need to be changed or addressed but he is dealing with them. i want to just say a word if i can about an issue which has come up on the floor and one that is near and dear to my heart. it was 13 years ago, madam president, when i got a call in my chicago office. there was a korean american mother who had an 18-year-old daughter who was a musical prodigy. she played classical piano in high school, and she had been offered a scholarship to the manhattan conservatory of music. her family was a poor immigrant family, and this was the chance of a lifetime. and when the mother and daughter sat down to fill out the

application to go to the manhattan conservatory of music, there was a question which said, what is your citizenship? and she turned to her mother and said what do i put there, and her mother said i don't know. we brought you here under a visitor's visa when you were two years old and we never filed any papers. the daughter said what am i going to do and the mother said we'll call durbin. we called our office and we looked at the law and the law was clear. the law was clear. this 18-year-old girl under our law had to leave the united states for ten years and then apply to come back in. where was she going to go? her family was here. and so the mother said to me, what can we do? and i told her, under the law, almost nothing. but that's when i introduced the dream act. and the dream act said if you were brought here as a child, an infant, under the age of 16 and you completed high school and you had no criminal record of any substance at all, if you served in our military or went two years to college, you had a chance to become an american

citizen. that was the dream act. i introduced it 13 years ago. 13 years ago. it has passed the house but didn't pass the senate that year. it has passed the senate as part of comprehensive immigration reform but it hasn't passed the house. several years ago i wrote to the president. i said to the president with 22 other senators, would you consider issuing an executive order saying you will not deport these dream children, these dreamers because they're eligible under bills that have passed both the house and senate. give them a suspension of deportation and allow them to stay in the united states without fear of being deported. he signed the executive order. so for 600,000, so far almost 600,000 have stepped forward and they've agreed that they will submit the information to our government and in turn they will be spared deportation. they're getting on with their lives. they're going to school.

they're getting jobs. amazing things are happening. i come to the floor and tell them all the time but we still don't have the final law. we have the president's executive order which gives them a break now, but we still don't have the final law to resolve it. i want to tell you a story about one of those dreamers today. this is maria gonzalez deale and her parents marvin and marina gonzalez. they brought maria from costa rica to the united states in 1991 when maria was five years old. they came to the united states legally on temporary visas and settled in jefferson city, missouri. a lawyer said to them, put down roots, get a job, and you've got a chance to become citizens. the gonzalez family bought a house, paid their taxes and were active members of their church. marvin was a mail courier for the missouri governor and maria

was at the top of her high school class. they thought they had done everything right. then maria's family was placed in deportation proceedings. the community of jefferson city was angry that a good family like this that was a part of their community was facing deportation. they rallied around them. i first met maria in 2005. she was one of the first dreamers to tell her story publicly. back then it was a pretty courageous thing to do. still is. at my request, the department of homeland security granted maria a stay of deportation. but on july 5, 2005, nine years ago, maria's parents were deported back to costa rica. in 2008, marie graduated from westminster college in missouri with a degree in political science and business but her parents couldn't be there to see her. they had been deported back to costa rica. in 2009 marie married her college sweetheart. they planned a second ceremony in costa rica. on thanksgiving 2010 marie and

her husband flew to costa rica. as you can see from this picture, they were elated to see one another for the first time in five years. just a few hours later marvin, her father, who had prostate cancer, collapsed and was rushed to the hospital, passed away later that same day that this photograph was taken. luckily they got to see him before he passed away. the family held a funeral the next day and carried on with the planned wedding, costa rica wedding the following day with an empty charity head table for her deceased father. today maria is the proud mother of an 11-month-old baby girl. in march 2014, maria became a citizen of the united states. here's what she wrote. i was very blessed and thankful to get the opportunity to stay in the united states on a temporary visa and be able to finish my education, get a job, find my soul mate and eventually

become a citizen. though at the cost of not spending that time with my family and feeling alone for so long. my family was torn apart when i was 18 and we'll never able be able to be reunited. migration struggle continues until the day i can once again have my mom at my side. i hope other families don't have to endure this pain. there are 11 million stories in america, many of them just like this. hardworking men and women, law-abiding families, viable parts of our churches and our communities who have the courage to leave everything behind and come to this great nation. those of us who are immigrants to this country, which includes the presiding officer and myself -- at least my mother -- thank our lucky stars that we were given this chance. my mother was an immigrant to this country. her son is a united states senator from illinois. she came, was brought here at the age of two.

her naturalizeation certificate is in my office upstairs. i'm very proud of it. it's a reminder to me and a reminder to anyone who visits me that this is a nation of immigrants. we are a nation that thrives with the diversity of our immigration and the energy they bring. the courage which they bring, leaving everything behind to come to this country. that's your family. that was my family. that's our story. but that's america's story. that's who we are. and if we reach the point where we can't even discuss future immigration in the u.s. house of representatives, have we reached a point where we can't even bring the matter to the floor for a vote? are we going to ignore what that means to this family and millions just like them, what it means to the thousands of kids presenting themselves at the border. we are better than that. america is better than that. and when we grac embrace our

diversity, welling strorpg for it. not just in the creation of new businesses and jobs. these immigrants are some of the hardest-working people in america. they take the toughest jobs that a lot of americans wouldn't touch. but they know that's what an immigrant does. what's their dream? that their babies, their sons and daughters, will have a better life. and thank goodness that story has been repeated over and over and over again. that defines who we are in america. and now a, a year later, the house of representatives, is about to throw up its hand and walk away from even addressing immigration issues. what a heartbreaking situation. what an be a did i dation indication of responsibility -- what an abdication of responsibility. i honestcally believe that the speaker had the political courage to call the comprehensive immigration bill the bipartisan bill that passed the senate, we would find enough

republican house members who would stand upped and vote with the democrats and pass it. sure, there will be critics of the speaker. shouldn't have done it. but that's what leadership calls for, for the speaker to have that courage and to get it done. i hope he will. a year is a longer time to wait. and for these families, years and years, some of them with broken dreams that will never be fulfilled, families that have been split up and try to survievment but that's our responsibility, not just for dreams but for our country. host: we want to welcome eric olson with the woodrow wilson center for international studies as we focus on latin america and

in particular, those unaccompanied minors were coming to the u.s. across the mexican border. let me begin with news on the sunday morning from the "l.a. times." the president to seek $2 billion just in the search of the central american immigrants. the president will be asking congress to give them broader powers to speed up the deportation of unaccompanied minors and parents along with children and also the president saying he will need the additional money to try to figure out of deportation process. also dealing with the humanitarian needs of these young children. ,uest: it is incredible story unexpected in many ways. 52,000 young people, minors, have shown up at the border since october of last year. more as 60,000 coming before the end of the year. the processing that takes place with these children is overwhelming. there are not able to handle it

as quickly as they might. they have to hold them in detention facilities that are overcrowded. it is creating another problem, which is big holding facilities of young people until they can figure out what to do with them. host: eric olson, let's take a step beyond the headlines. you are recently in south america. what is happening? why are these young children coming to the u.s.? why are their parents allowing them to come? what is the economic situation that is driving them to do this? guest: there are probably three factors come in many more, but at least three. first, historic migration. this is a region in the 1980's and 1990's has settled from civil war, civil conflict, so there was enormous amount of migration out of el salvador, honduras, and guatemala. some of this is a historic pattern. people wanting to reunite with family members, parents, so that

is one factor. the second factor is economic. this is a region that is extremely poor. there suffered from a great deal of poverty and inequality there. 50% of guatemalan children under the age of 5 suffer from chronic malnutrition. 80% of children under the age of 5 in rural guatemala suffer from non-attrition. there is economic duress and problems in the region. thatore recent phenomenon has been a dramatic increase in homicides and violence related to two things. one, drug trafficking and the other, gangs in those countries. some of the gains were deported southmerica to centra america, and that is leading to an increase in migration from northern tribal of central

america since 2008. the other question which you alluded to is why these children are leaving now and why they're going on their own. that is a little more difficult to know. part of it is the need to reunite with family members. the other part of it is, rumors have gotten started in central america that somehow the united states is going easy on children if they show up at the borders. i think there's misinformation. the coyotes, the traffickers in a belated the story, try to thisrage people to go now, is your moment, the u.s. is being easy. obviously, they're not held to truth in advertising standards as traffickers, so they will say whatever they need to say to get people to go. all those factors together i think have led to this surprising exodus of young people from the region. host: i want you to explain how

they're getting from ecuador and honduras through mexico to the u.s. border. guest: it depends on where they're coming from, but el salvador and honduras are the southern two countries. they're coming through guatemala, across the guatemala-mexican border. erratically, some go through will ease on the way. really overland is the preferred route. there are two trains daily from southern mexico and many people jump on those trains, ride the trains on the top of the train. very careless journey. ous journey.l they try to jump those trains and force people to pay passage in an unofficial way. otherwise, they take buses and walk and hop on trucks and whatever they can do to make it through mexico, which is a very long journey to the u.s. border. host: and are most coming from

guatemala and honduras? guest: yes, most of them are coming from honduras. honduras has the highest homicide rate in the world right now. 90 per 100,000. extraordinarily high. the u.n. says anything over 20 per 100,000 is war-like in nature. secondly is guatemala and thirdly, el salvador. all those three countries together are the most violent countries in the world not currently at war. host: complicating this, some of the diseases these children are bringing in -- swine flu virus hepatitis. how do we deal with that? guest: that is why there is important to be screening. obviously, the first up is to try to discourage them from coming, for there to be more programs in their countries that would discourage them from coming. but once they're in the united states and in detention, that is

why there is a screening process, not only in terms of a legal hearing, but there should be help -- health screening. sending a child back to honduras --h 10 centigrade another with swine flu virus create another epidemic that doesn't help anyone. the first up has to be dealing with root causes in those three countries and then screening along the way. host: jeh johnson testified on capitol hill, getting tough questions from members of congress including this from mike rogers of alabama. have a crisis and i don't see this administration doing anything about it other than trying to house the children. i understand the humanitarian basis for that, but we need to send a signal to these other countries that it is not going to work. you can't send your children appear and let them stay. we're going to give them right back to you. i'm looking run you a way to do that.

a clear signal to not send these parent -- for parents do not send these children. tell me what you can do other than giving them to hhs. nothing? have you called the national guard out or ask for it? >> i would like to consider every option that is presented. i went through in my prepared wetimony the 12 or 13 steps have taken to deal with the crisis. which includes building more detention space. >> the speaker of the house last week called on the president to mobilize the national guard, to go down to give some relief to fema in this crisis. why can't you call on the president to do that? i sir, if you're asking me if can take an unaccompanied child, turnaround at the border and send them right back to guatemala, i don't live the law would permit us to do that. host: eric olson? guest: it is a complicated situation, no question about it. obviously, the congressman would

like u.s. government and the administration to be more aggressive on this front. in many ways, they have been. vice president biden went to guatemala a little over a week ago and sent a stern statement of the public and central america that this was a dangerous thing, that the u.s. was not going to admit children. and president obama yesterday basically said the same thing, does in your children. the problem is, that message sometimes falls on deaf ears when people are desperate, when their children are being killed and the communities, where they are faced with gang violence, the possibilities of economic , opportunity. it is a real tug-of-war. is a solution on the border? no, i d no, i don't think so. i think he was could do more on terms of processing these children, processing and more quickly. but some of these children do have a legitimate claim to come but some of these children do have a legitimate claim to come

into the united states. let me give an example. the president said yesterday that there are traffickers of children in central america involved in child trafficking. if those children are here -- ite they did not wasn't their choice, necessarily, we have an obligation to hear them out and deal with the criminal activity. that is part of what was in the president's message yesterday. i'm not saying they're all in that boat, not at all, but there are clearly people here not because they chose to be, but because in some ways they were brought. those situations due to be taking care of as well. host: if you live in a southern border state, we want to hear from you. our guest is eric olson was with woodrowld drew -- wil wilson center. is a graduate of trinity college and american university.

chris, brooklyn, new york. caller: thank you for c-span. a couple of quick comments. first, we don't have an obligation to take care of the children of the world. their parents do. their parents are the ones trafficking them. something else, this is a highly organized effort for tens of thousands of people across the u.s. border. this is not some haphazard event. security put out a request back in january, anticipating this many people coming. also, talk about the traffickers. these parents have an obligation to their children. i, in new york, do not. guest: i certainly understand

the frustration, and simply saying some of these children, not all of them, have been trafficked either through sex trafficking or other trafficking . as a result, we need to be able to try to distinguish what the motivation for them coming was. that is what is going on at the border now. people are going through hearing process, and initial hearing process. being released to a parent or relative been asked to come back to court. that process takes a while. i think that is with the administration is trying to change the dynamics that there is not an impression you're giving them a free pass into the united states. the hearing takes place at the detention facility and there is a determination, whether it is a legitimate claim or not. host: this follow up who says -- refugee status is something the u.n. determinants. in this case, the u.n. has not

designated these as refugees. toy only have claims clinical asylum if they are fleeing persecution or particular violence. legitimate claim. but that is not the case at all. the vast majority of these cases will not meet the standard of political asylum and will likely be deported. host: jan makes the comment -- let's go to john in west palm beach, florida. caller: this has been going on for many years. reificationly planned by the obama administration. it started in 2008, as soon as he got elected.

everybody knows about this. in palm beach county, the sheriff's office has a program that gives them identification. what i mean by identification, i work for the postal service. for the last two years, we have been flooded through third-party, from guatemala, and it was a concerted effort to get people in this country illegally identification. people have toy dance around this issue. it is quite clear that what they're trying to do is reunify the children with the people that are here illegally. host: is that the case? isst: i would not say that the obama administration's goal necessarily. the losses if you're here legally in the united states, there is a process whereby you could be reified with your family over time. it is a very lengthy process.

those who are here without documents or here illegally don't have any right to reunification. the motivation of the children and the parents whether they're here legally or not is to be unified, to come together, but i don't necessarily agree that is the obama administration's policy. they have said quite the opposite and have said they're going to deport these children. host: another comment from a viewer -- our next caller is from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i thought i heard mr. wilson say this great wealth disparity down there in those countries. and that makes me think of mexico with its wealth of resources and the ruling class

doesn't seem to be able to share domestic tranquility in their country. i wonder why the state department hasn't been involved in diplomatic channels to get this under control or sanctions to these other countries who can't provide or won't provide for their population, share their wealth so they have a future and don't have to come to our country? i understand it is such that mcdonald's has people applied for welfare because they don't want to take care of their responsibilities, either. host: thank you, pete. guest: it is true much of the origins of this problem lie in central america and the inability of the government's there to create situation of economic opportunity for their

citizens. the situation of stability and peace. there have been numerous problems in central america for decades now. the u.s. does have a program called the central american regional security initiative. million around $800 focused on all of central america since 2008. it is designed to deal with some of these underlying problems. some would say it is not enough money, it is not targeted properly, it doesn't go far enough. but the u.s. is engaged in central america with a full diplomatic presence there. thereresident biden was just over a week ago. i quite frankly think that is where we should concentrate what we do, and i agree with the caller on that. host: roger green asking and

answering in a tweet -- another caller from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. or thoughts for this , being in a border state, the comment earlier about it's not an issue -- it is definitely an issue and protecting those , is an and my opinion issue. the other problem i have is those of us that live in one of these border states that are getting the massive number of migrants like 47,000 in six months, a good portion of the resources to house, check on the medically, feed, come out of the

state coffers and not out of the national coffers. host: eric olson? guest: most of the immigration enforcement responsibilities fall on the federal authorities. we spend roughly $18 billion a year on border enforcement. so it is an enormous federal responsibility and federal cost that deals with these things. there aren'tsting certain state responsibilities and costs associated with that. if people are released and allowed to go to school, obviously, that is a local expense. but overall, border enforcement is a federal responsibility and it costs an enormous amount of money. host: joan has this question -- guest: mexico is in a difficult

situation as well. they are deporting hundreds if not thousands of people weekly back to central america. they could possibly do more. i'm not saying they can't. but they are to scramble angela this problem like we are as well. but they are trained to scramble and deal with this problem like we are. host: myrtle beach, south carolina. good morning. caller: yes, my question is, don't you think that maybe karma is responsible for the situation? i mean, after all, 500 years ago, the native peoples in the western hemisphere could not stop the hoards of european people to come to the western hemisphere, and they brought their diseases along with them.

badet's not put all the health issues out there on these poor, wretched children from central america. if they were coming from european countries, the american people would be throwing roses at their feet. guest: well, i mean, central america, especially in the northern tier central america, the countries where talking about, do face in norma's challenges. charges.e enormous guatemala has problems with extreme poverty and malnutrition. some of that has historic routes, no doubt about it. with the question is, what are the government's going to do now? what is the u.s. going to do now to address these long-standing problems. ? host: let's take a look at how many border patrol so far in

2013. for added 14,000 total. three to 67,000 adults. 38,000 unaccompanied juveniles. ..5 thousand unaccompanied >> explain the difference. >> accompanied juvenile would becoming with the mother or father or some kind of are responsible adult. carlo.he next call, welcome to the program. caller: my issue is homeland security as a whole is broken. this is something set up by the bush administration. of the obama fault administration is much as the politics would like to explain it. my problem is the way legals are being treated. they're being abused in the immigration process. national, a foreign

her daughter was born abroad. first time traveling alone, she was accosted at customs and said she was a liar, she is not welcome here, things like that. and this was by a non-us born immigration officer. so someone who possibly had a chip on their shoulder. what really bothers me as well about the whole situation with illegals, illegals are being given health care. legals are not. in theay they are two-year process of becoming legal. they're not eligible, from what i've been told, to get health care. it has become nature delays for the legalization process for people doing it legally are people starting the process legally than the once doing it illegally. host: thank you, carlo. it is in my area of expertise, but it is true when a

person arrives without proper documents and they're allowed to stay in the country, they do have to have certain services until they have a hearing. that is what is going to happen with these children. there given a court date or date to appear before immigration officer. during that time, they will receive certain assistance as children. these are children. they need basic nutrition, basic health care. the question is, can that process the sped up so it is not six months, nine months, overwhelmed. that is what they're working on now. that is what the administration is working on and what president obama said in announcing his request for $2 billion to try to improve our process at the border. host: this is from jay sanders saying that pay smugglers to deliver children to the border where our government and delivers them to the parents.

is that over civil fight? -- is that oversimplified? guest: a little bit. the parents can either be in the country of origin or in the united states. moves to the united states and they can be identified, then they are released to the parent in the united states. but ultimately, unless they can prove some basis for persecution, they're going to be returned to their home countries. pays the coyotes and smugglers? it depends on the particular situation. host: many get your reaction to what the president said in his interview with abc news. is, under current law, once those kids come across the border, there's a system in which we're supposed to process them, take care of them, then we can send them back. >> [indiscernible] >> our messages, don't send your

trainsn unaccompanied on or through a bunch of smugglers. that is our direct and such to the families and central america. do not send your children to the borders. if they do make it, more importantly, they may not make it. guest: i think that is what i was trying to say. when a child arrives without an , tot to accompany him reunite them with somebody who's going to be responsible for them if they can identify them, then call them back in for hearing to decide their ultimate fate, whether they're deported or allowed to stay in this country. the administration is trying to send the message to central america that sending your children on this perilous journey where many are abused, it is not a good idea. alternately, there will probably

be deported again. secretary john kerry was in panama was before the inauguration of the new president. he met with the president of honduras and other presidents to again reinforce this message that they need to do more to keep the children from coming because, my gosh, they're going to suffer enormously along the way only to alternately be returned. host: this is from colorado -- the vast majority are going north three mexico into the united states. there's some evidence of them going to the south, but that number is quite small. host: from new jersey, stella is on the phone. good morning. the thing i have to say is, i am so glad that you used the expression somebody to take responsibility for these children. first of all, we have no way of knowing who is actually gathering that these children,

who is sending them, and who is taking responsibility for them. this is human trafficking, clear and simple. there is no way of knowing whether the people assuming responsibility for these children are actually parents and family members, because there is no actual documentation. are we to give each child and each adult a dna test to be sure that they are actually being given to parents and family? this whole situation is completely illogical. are minorsthat there being gathered up, being transported, and we do know adults are taking responsibility. right well, the caller is in some cases. but in other cases, the children are striving to come to the united states to be reunited

with and on tour uncle, a family member who may be here illegally. they may have gotten their documentation transferred into a legal status. there is a variety of possibilities. not all of them are coming to join with somebody that is here illegally. why this becomes an issue is, even if you're here legally in this country, let's say you're from honduras and have a residency visa, and you want to bring up your child, your nephew because you're fearful they will be killed in the community they live in. that legal process of family reunification can take years, if not decades. people become desperate. they say, i will take my chances. i will pay and have them brought up so they can be with me because otherwise, the alternative in their mind might be, having a child i by staying

in honduras. that is the component of this that i think people don't realize. hunters is the most homicidal country in the world. 90 per 100,000. in some communities, 15 to 25 years old, nearing 400 per 100,000. the options are pretty stark for people in their making very difficult choices. .ost: our guest is eric olson what drives the economy and honduras? line: they have assembly ,here they do textile assembly low skilled labor. agriculture. shipping out of honduras. but it is not a very sophisticated economy.

so this is where the problem lies. people don't have many options. host: good morning from texas. caller: about 40 years ago i was driving on the highway and past the border patrol car and i had seen in the legal walking on the highway, which you come to know as such by their dress. i stopped him and he said, oh, we don't gather one by themselves. we wait for groups of 10 or 12, that is the policy. yet the genesis of a problem. the single came through. i asked how often and he said, night and day. the other point i would like to raise is we need education about what constitutes the rio grande valley. where 75% hispanic. we are undereducated. changes are coming that are slow. tois also very easy for them

disappear into the fabric work, raise your children, the illegal and be perfectly anonymous and the rio grande valley. i spoke at the seabrook foundation for the world affairs council last week, and they were shocked to learn of these tracks. is other important factor between a 76 mile stretch from brownsville commission taxes, i believe there are in excess of seven bridges that cross. in a 76idges at least mile span. that means if you apportioned it out every 10 miles, there is a bridge. host: thank you for the call. guest: the caller makes an interesting point. these border communities are very close to one another. they are twin cities on both

sides of u.s.-mexican side. byse are communities divided a borderline, but there's a lot of back and forth between them. commerce, families that live on both sides of the border, people moving back constantly. it is a complicated reality. also in the rio grande valley. when you go there, you are in this world of mexico and the united states where things are so closely related that you can't really separate the two other than say, here's the border. people rely on each other, depend on each other. it is a complicated reality. host: give me your tired, poor, teeming masses yearning to be free. do not subscribe to this anymore? and in an e-mail --

guest: well, on this last point, the dream act. people -- i have to be honest. when you visit the poor committees like i did two weeks ago, the capital of honduras, people are poor and living without a lot of economic opportunity. they're not really thinking about the dream act and legislation and the u.s. legislation. they hear rumors. they hear u.s. laws are changing, that maybe the u.s. is going to reform its immigration laws. and that sort of is enough for them to have hope that things will go well. but there is -- this is not an area where people are expecting the legislation of the united states. they're not thinking about these different proposals and their prospects in congress. i do think it is more at the

level of manipulation by the traffickers that suggests, now is your opportunity. host: is it even feasible to close the border between mexico and honduras or mexico and guatemala? guest: it is not at all feasible. i think people have the notion that you could close that border. listen, as i said earlier, the u.s. spends $18 billion year to protect its border and we have not closed one border. to think mexico and guatemala are going to do the same is not realistic in the least. neither of the countries want to do that. they depend on each other. there is enormous amount of labor that flows between guatemala and southern mexico. mexicans to -- depend on them for the mystic labor. this notion that somehow the border between mexico and guatemala is going to be closed down is not very realistic. host: simi valley, california.

good morning. caller: i believe the united states bears jury met -- direct responsibility because of our connection to illegal drugs. the million's of dollars that go down to these countries and corrupt the government, the military and police forces, and create a tremendous amount of violence is our is possible to because of our addiction to drugs. i would tend to agree to some extent with what the caller said. there's no question that part of what is going on in that region has to do with our demand for drugs in the united states. where the largest market, consumer market of consumer drugs. cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin , coming to those areas. it is had a profound affect. not only on the people in that region, but the money that comes people, weakens

government, infiltrates the banking system, all those things. host: our last call, new york city. caller: i'm wondering how much our trade policies, nafta and cap to, have brought about this increase in immigration from central america and mexico? we stay have a trade surplus bought thehere we agricultural products and they bought our manufacturing goods. now we sit down and factories down there and we threw the mid to low wage factory jobs, so they're forced to come up here for employment. guest: well, central america still benefits from some provisions that gives them preferential treatment when it comes to textiles, clothing, and that sort of thing. there is enormous concern that that might end in the near future, and it will lose a lot of jobs. benefit from

protected status on certain industries and certain products. and i think that is an important thing to keep jobs and create jobs in those countries. follow-up, are the trafficker gains paid for the services? guest: they're paid for their services. worse than that, i will give an example, you might give them $2000 to take your child, brother, whatever up to the united states. along the way sometimes, they begin to extort you. where is your family in chicago? where's her family in houston? they will start to say, if you want your child free, semi-another $500. sometimes they're forced to carry drugs as well. network thatlow also extorts and also carries drugs. it doesn't happen in every case, but it is happening. host: eric olson of the wilson

>> tomorrow, the future of american warfare in discussing u.s. military options in iraq. john gable, from the university of chicago's research center looks at the impact of the health care law so far on insurance plans and pricing. of the bipartisan policy center's commission on political reform talks about the group's recommendations to rake political gridlock in washington . as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" on c-span, live at 7 a.m. eastern. years, c-span

brings public affairs of ends from washington directly to you. offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago, brought to you by your local cable or satellite tv provider. >> the u.s. supreme court concludes it term on monday. two cases have yet to be decided, one dealing with the contraceptive mandate under the health care law and the other on employee unions. next, the discussion of this -- discussion of the -- discussion of decisions that have already come down from the court, including presidential resource appointment. this was hosted by the american constitution society for law and all at sea. it is an hour and a half.

thank you all for coming. my name is jesse gralman. i am in constitution for law and policy. it's my pleasure to welcome you all for the supreme court review for the 2013-2014 term. acs was founded in 2001 and is a national network of lawyers and law students, politicians and policymakers who believe that the law should be enforced to improve the lives of all people. acs works for positive change by shaping debate on critical and constitutional legal questions, such as those we'll be hearing about today. the decisions the supreme court has issued this term and those they have yet to issue cover a wide variety of areas touching numerous aspects on american life, from our money on elections to executive rights to the scope of executive power to organized labor, to digital privacy and many other issues. we look forward to hearing the

insights of a sensational panel of experts this morning. before i turn it over to our panel, i invite you all to go to our website, www.acslaw.org. it also includes acs's issue briefs. we have some sample issue briefs here today, though i understand they've all been taken. they include one on religious exemptions for corporations, which is one of the issues in the supreme court's hobby lobby case you'll be hearing about, one on the constitutionality on the voting rights of which a senate was heard this week, one on the association rights of employees and the knox and harris cases, as well as a brief studying the behavior of supreme court justices' most critical cases. since the paper copies are all gone today, feel free to visit our website, acslaw.org, and

download those and many others. it's my pleasure to introduce our moderator, tom goldstein. tom is a partner at the firm of goldstein & russell, and he has served as counsel to the petitioner or respondent in about 10% of all the court's merit cases in the past 15 years, permanently arguing 51 of those cases. tom sauis also the cofounder of blog to ever receive the peabody award. yesterday during the court's release of opinions starting at 10:00 a.m., there was nearly 20,000 people following the live blog, including me and many of you as well. tom has taught at harvard law school since 2004 and he previously taught the same subject at stanford law school for nearly a decade. please join me in welcoming tom goldstein. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you very much. it's wonderful to be with you on

an almost court term. i know i speak for all the panelists who were incredibly grateful to each of you to take time out of your day to come and visit with us and have a conversation about the court's term, obviously a shared subject of interest to everybody in this room and to c-span and the audience that's watching there. the format is as follows. i'm going to give just a touch of background about the term to give some context of other things that are going on. then we're going to turn to the big cases of the term, including the two cases left to be decided. we're going to really assume a fair amount of knowledge on your part, because this is a self-selected group of folks whon a lot about the court, so we're not interested in telling you here are the facts of the case, but we want this group of experts, who we're so lucky to have here, to talk about the implications of the case, what might come next, what the surprises are, to delve into analysis. we're going to go through probably the top eight cases of

the term. we're going to stop about 20 minutes before the end of our time here, we have an hour and a half in total, to answer your questions. just a touch of background. there is a term that's gotten a lot of notoriety not only for some of the big cases, though we don't have same-sex marriages or obamacare, but there are certain issues we're going to talk about. also the anonymity of the term in the court. but it is striking there is going to be the lowest number of 5-4 decisions in the court's history. i think there will be somewhere between eight and ten. that's less than half the number the last term. the idealogical lines drawn by those decisions are not classically the 5-4 ones, but right now there are two with justice kennedy and a majority with the left and the right. justice kennedy has been in the majority of all of them and he probably will be in the majority and opinions that come down on monday as well.

though court has fewer dissenting opinions than any time in its modern history this term, there seems to be something afoot, an effort by the court to try and come together, even if it's just nominally in the result and not in the reasoning. so it shouldn't hide the fact there is still significant disagreements on the court. with that, just a little context for the term. let's turn to the big cases and let's start with privacy. elizabeth widra is chief counsel of the constitutional ability center which has emerged as an incredibly important voice in the court on structural constitutional questions, really major constitutional issues of the day. the raleigh and worry cases about cell phone privacy involved two different cell phones. one a one was a flip phone and one was a smartphone, and the question was, when these people were arrested, did the police have the rights to search the phones incident to arrest without going and getting a warrant? >> thank you, tom.

it's great to be here with you and this great panel and with all of you here today and watching on c-span. you know, it was a really interesting decision, and i will say that it was a truly unanimous decision. it wasn't one of these phonanimous decisions we're going to talk about later. what was really interesting about it was the court issued a very broad and sweeping ruling in favor of fourth amendment protection, in favor of the privacy of the information that people keep on their cell phones. for those of us who are at oral argument, it seemed as if the justices were playing around with having a possible middle ground. so you have the concerns of law enforcement which went to look through your cell phones, your smartphones, and go through that incredible cache of information and try to find evidence of a crime, and at the same time the interests that american people, that the individuals who live in this country have in protecting

those vast stores of information. as the chief justice noted in his opinion for the court yesterday, the information that we keep on our phones is quanti quantitatively different, of course. we have the ability to keep vast amounts of information. in the past you would have to lug around a trunk with you if you wanted to keep a portion of the records that we can now keep in our pockets. it's also qualitatively different. you can get a much broader picture of a person's life, their private information from all this information we keep on our phones. so the justice has played around oral argument with sort of middle grounds of balancing those interests. whether it would apply to -- whether you could have exemptions for the police to look through a phone if someone was arrested for a very serious crime as opposed to not wearing your seat belt. and what was interesting about the decision yesterday was that the court unanimously rejected

all of those middle ground positions and went for a very broad ruling that says that even if you are arrested, which reduces your privacy interests a little bit according to court precedent, even if you're arrested, if the police want to look through your phone, they have to get a warrant. and the only exemptions are these very limited sort of emergency exemptions. so, for example, if the police have reason to believe that you might use your phone to detonate a bomb remotely or something like that, these emergency exemptions. so it was a very broad ruling and that was surprising. and it was unanimous. justice leto wrote separately just to emphasize the fact that what the court was essentially saying -- and this is one of the important parts of this ruling to keep in mind -- was that the digital age changes the way that the fourth amendment applies to certain devices. and essentially, what the ruling

yesterday said is that computers and computer-like storage devices are different. and i think we'll see the fourth amendment applying differently to those sorts of devices. and that was why justice aleto wrote this specifically, saying that there could be anomalies that result. in the past if you had a wallet in your pocket that had some of the analogous things to what you might find on a phone, photographs, maybe a note from your spouse or something like that in your wallet, the police could look through it. but now if something in your pocket is your smartphone or if you have a laptop in your backpack, then the fourth amendment might apply differently. you might have greater privacy protection because of the types and the amount of information that we keep on those sorts of devices. so i think the broadness of the ruling was something that was surprising and is really important. the recognition that in the

digital age the fourth amendment might apply differently to certain methods of storing information than we've seen in the past. that is another, i think, really interesting point from the ruling. and i think in terms of implications, one of the things that will be interesting to see is whether the government, both federal and state, step back from some of these more agressive positions that they've taken with respect to being able to access information stored electronically. i wouldn't really expect to see them walking back. i think maybe there will have to be several more cases in which the supreme court says that the fourth amendment applies robustly to digitally stored information. but this did seem to be a clear signal from a unanimous group of the justices saying that the fourth amendment replies robustly to this sort of information, whether it's stored on the cloud, in the cloud, whether it's stored on your phone, on your computer, your

ipad. i think the implications is the fourth amendment will apply very strongly in that case. and i think there is one other point that i want to make with respect to this case, which is there's been a lot of talk, especially in progressive circles, about how you want to avoid taking cases to this particular supreme court because it's difficult to win progressive victories. in one of the areas in which we've seen the roberts court taking what might be called somewhat liberal positions are areas in which there is sort of a liberal libertarian alliance. so we saw in the defensive marriage act case, the court striking down that provision. and in this case as well, both my organization, the constitutional accountability session and the cato institute were on the same side of this case. similar to the merit quality case, we were on the same side. i think one of the ways you can see progressive outcomes in this court is in these sort of

libertarian types of cases where you're talking about individual liberty. so that's interesting. and then sort of the last point i would make on the case is that i personally was really interested to see chief justice roberts and his opinion sort of analogize the privacy interests that we have and the desire to keep private the information on our smartphones to the founders' opposition to the british use of general warrants, which this way they could break into your house and go on a searching expedition for incriminating information. they sort of get that these private issues such as on phones we carry oraround in our pocket every day shows they were with it both technologically and spiritually with the american people. >> i was just going to say one of the themes of the term that these cases fit into involves

the court struggling with technology and computers. we're not going to talk in depth about it today, but the big patent case involving abstract ideas being turned into computer programs. you saw the court being very nervous about not sure they understood the technology and afraid they might do something to interfere with the technology. of course, in the fourth amendment case by saying these devices are protected, they didn't have to worry about causing any harm to the technological involvement. the court will have to face new technology every term, i think. >> i think one of the themes we're going to see throughout this morning is that where the justices are familiar with something, they are more likely to have a view of it that is different than when they are not familiar with it. there is a lot of legal jargon in this case, a lot of technical fourth amendment analysis, but the l the bottom line is all nine justices have cell phones, all

nine justices understand the privacy on the cell phones and all nine don't want anyone to search their cell phones. >> i think elizabeth made a great point -- what is the phrase you used liberal libertarian? i think one of the most interesting phenomenons i think we've seen in the court in the last 30 or 40 years is what i call the evolution of conservative instinct. if you go back 30 years, the conservative judicial instinct was largely a status instinct, a thumb on the scale of government instinct. we saw that in its rulings up holding statutes, we saw that most prominently in the criminal sphere. i don't know if i call it a sea change but a dramatic change in the modern conservative judicial instinct which is much more of a libertarian instinct. we, again, see that in the criminal sphere in cases like this, we see it in a judicial

mindset that is much more likely to strike down laws seen as overreach. remember, 30, 40 years ago, many conservative jurists didn't believe that conservative speech was protected by the fourth amendment, that was largely advocated by the liberal wing of the supreme court. today we've seen almost a flip-flop where the conservatives are almost the most robust embracers of that kind of speech protection. >> just to put two points together, it is a little hard to look at the chief justice's opinion is think about things they see in the newspaper, are very familiar with and not hear echoes of the discussion of the msa data program and the collection and migration of that program. so it will be interesting to see the impact of that decision when it eventually comes up. noah francisco is head of the practice and also a supreme court litigator which made for the perfect combination in

dealing with a historic case about the relationship among the branches of government, the nocannon case which he argued and won successfully yesterday. with a few seconds of backdrop, the president, during a recess informed by only pro forma sessions, the nrb was requested to give a quorum. that was an expansion of historic practice of making recess appointments under the president's recess power and spoi appointment constitution. the supreme court asked for briefing yet on another ground and had a very significant decision on the scope of the recess appointments power. >> sure, and if you'll forgive me, i'll do a little bit of chest thumping because we're very proud of the result we achieved in that case, and this

was a resounding 9-0. there was difference in reasoning but a 9-0 rejection of what we considered to be a very abusive reach of the recess appointment power. and i think it underscores what in my mind is the important role that courts play particularly when it comes to separation of powers, and another trend that i think we've seen in this context over the last ten years or so where the court is much more willing, across party lines, to restrain excesses in executive power. we found it in the context of the war on power. we've seen it carry through to president obama's power, albeit in a domestic context. one of the problems you have in the political process when it comes to assertions of executive power is that you always have a president that is interested in expanding executive doesn't matter the president is a democrat, a republican. that president is always interested in expanding

executive power. on the congressional side, you always have a constituency that supports the president because the president's party generally is supportive of the president's assertions of executive power, even if it's a different party president making the same assertions. those members of congress will be taking a different position. so what you have is a dynamic that leads to an ever-increasing expansion of executive power because you have a president that always wants to expand it and a congress that is kind of wishy washy on it. some of them are favor of it and some of them against it. that's why it's so important to bring the judicial branch into the fray whenever possible because it's the only neutral arbitor to enforce the lines of the constitution draws. brings us to the noel canning case and exemplifies this expansion. in my view, justice scalia's concurring opinion was correct on the original understanding of

the clause, but more importantly it reflects over time we have seen the president gradually expand the recess appointment power. the first expansion was early on to any vacancy opposed to those vacancies arising during the recess. early presidents rejected that. shortly thereafter, other presidents embraced that power. the senate essentially, you know, there was some back and forth. but as the court found, the senate didn't vigorously oppose and maybe acquiesed but there's another limit. only exercised in between sessions, so-called intersession recesses. that gets us to around 1921 where we then see the executive branch jetison that limit and make rejess appointments in that period, as well. we saw another dramatic expansion of the power. but even then as we saw at the end of the bush administration, they saw control over the

process and so it could still prevent recess appointments if it actually convened sessions every three days and doesn't take any break during which a recess appointment is made and then finally we saw president obama with these recess appointments jetison even that limit, essentially asserting the power to make a recess appointment any time to any vacancy and when the senate was convening sessions. short ones and ones that were likely designed for the primary purpose of preventing recess appointments but they nonetheless were sessions. when it gets to courts, i think what we saw was a resounding rejection of that assertion and expansion of executive power, not really that different from what we've seen in context like the war on terror. there is a difference of approach that the majority took and that the concurring opinions took. the majority took what it would characterize as a much more pragmatic approach and going to

tolerate these first two expansions. these two historical expansions, too much water under the bridge at this point. to overturn that. but we're going to recognize that the senate has control over its own calendar and if the senate says it is in session and capable of conducting business during those sessions as it was here that's the end of the game. it was in session. no recess appointments. the concurring justices studied the text and original understanding of the constitution came to a different conclusion on the first two historical questions but i think the point i want to leave you with is in my view the debate of the majority and concurring justices is largely an academic one. it largely goes to how many past recess appointments are going to be called into question. going forward, i think any of the -- either the majority's rule or the concurring justice's rule largely returns the power to where it belonged in the first place. that is, the power of advice an

consent to the senate because even under the majority's rule the senate or the house, as well, has the authority to -- has the ability to prevent recess appointments if it wants to. the president is allowed to make the recess appointments if the house and senate actually agree and allow him to do that by not convening these so-called proforma sessions so while there's a huge difference between the majority and the concurring justices in terms of their approach to the law, in terms of reasoning and bottom line rule they adopt, i don't think there's a lot of difference in terms of the practical impact that the rules -- that the different sides advocated would have going forward. >> yeah, so, you know, i guess i don't want to rain on noel's parade at all. i want to throw my own mini parade is what i'm saying. so my reaction to the ruling was that it was not as bad as it could have been for those of us that supported the

constitutionality of president obama's recess appointments in this case and that's because of this difference between the justice breyer opinion and the opinion that would have been controlling if the more conservative justices had held the day. and i think that what's important about the difference between those opinions that it does preserve a core aspect of the recess appointments power and the court refused to go down the road that the d.c. circuit took, a much more radical interpretation of the recess appointments clause preventing presidents from making appointments during intrasession recesses and for vacancies that arose prior to that recess. and so, i think the fact the court didn't go down that road is a really aspect of the decision that sort of has been not focused on as much and instead seen -- the decision has been seen as sort of a rebuke to the obama administration and point out that this is not

something that the obama administration invented as has been noted. presidents from both parties used the power though i'm sure that noel would say in use of the power is a step more than -- >> but i would say what president obama did invent was the use of recess appointments to circumvent so-called proforma sessions. the senate convened under majority leader reid proforma sessions in the bush administration for the express purpose preventing president bush from making recess appointments. president bush whether he agreed or disagreed, i don't know, with what the senate was doing but honored and never attempted to make a recess appointment while the senate was convening proforma sessions. president obama jetisonned the one last limit and that was the principle argument we advanced in the d.c. circuit. the proforma session issue and we were the ones that asked the court to add the proforma session question to the petition when the government tried to take it up without that issue in it. we've always believed that what

was particularly wrong here was the context in which these recess appointments were exercised and the unprecedented nature of it. in our case, focused on that nature. that's why i really do believe that this decision was a direct rebuke to that overly zealous exertion of executive power. >> i guess one thing that stands out about this, though, is when we talk about this from the academic perspective versus practical perspective, i'm always thinking about the academic perspective and i find this decision particularly interesting in terms of, you know, what we would talk about as a formalist perspective versus a functionalist perspective but looking at the function of this decision going forward, there's a question of whether speaking practically of a president in one political party and a senate majority in another party what the future of recess appointments are. >> or a house majority of the other political party. >> yes. >> because the house likewise

can refuse to allow the senate to adjourn more than three days and hence requiring proforma sessions. >> right. >> that's why i think the practical distinction between the rules is not all that great. whenever one party controls the presidency and other party controls either house of congress, that other party has the ability to trigger proforma sessions and prevent recess appointments. the only time you wouldn't have that dynamic is when one party controlled all three branches, both houses of the congress and the presidency. but that's precisely when you don't need recess appointments. >> right. >> particularly now that there's no filibuster for presidential appoint appointees. >> yeah. >> a comment about justice scalia. may not be the last one today. his excessive rhetoric in his concurrent/dissent in this case, which is typical of his excessive rhetoric in separation of powers and federalism cases generally, is, i think, really

ironic because he uses -- he ignores 150 years of tradition, however you count it. he ignores that. he'll not ignore that in the prayer case, for example. but here's the thing. justice scalia's approach to constitutional law in separation of powers and federalism cases is completely different than his approach to individual rights cases. and if he were here he would be yelling about law, law, law. but the difference between his separation of powers perspective and his individual rights perspective is one of values and experience and living his life not law. and i think i would love to ask him that question, why he treats separation of powers cases so differently than individual rights cases. >> tom, only because i clerk for justice scalia and i love the man, i have to step in and defend him. i don't think there's any difference. if you look across the areas of law, he is very much a strict

originalist and sometimes views align to his views and sometimes contrary to his views like the right to burn a flag in texas against johnson. that is not consistent with the political views. but whatever -- wherever he lands i can guarantee you he lands there passionately. you can find cases in the most mundane areas and we can -- where he is in dissent and you may think the world is ending because the majority went the other way. that's his personality but i don't think it reflects any difference or any inconsistency in how he approaches different legal issues. >> one response. his ralph kramden approach to passion i agree with. i don't -- listen. affirmative action, takings, 11th amendment, all areas -- and shelby county, adopted a completely unoriginalist approach to constitutional law so this american myth -- >> that's the longest sentence. >> yeah.

>> like semicolons and dashes and few ellipses. two things on the table and then move on. they point in opinion zit direction. does the recess appointment power matter after the muk clear option? if you have the president in the same party as the senate majority, well then the nominees will get confirmed f. the senate is not in the same party as the president, then the nominee's going to be rejected anyway and it has been the case that presidents haven't made resez appointments for nominees rejected. that could change. so it may be that noel canning, though a principle may not have a ton of practical impact. the second is nile noel thinks and also eric thinks that the difference between the majority and the concurrence is not a big deal, i have written today i think that's wrong. and that the art of justice brey breyer's opinion on purpose or not the president can evade the restriction in the majority opinion because it depends on