the sort of hatred and ideology that feeds right isis.l qaeda or ,his question of militant islam becoming a term that we don't use a lot right now. david ross, the ceo of foreign policy talking about how we lack in global policy dealing with militant or radical islam. i think what we're seeing right now has refocused. there is a sense maybe over the last six years and this is been one of the critiques i have had, we weren't calling this phenomenon what it was. we were talking about violent extremism and trying to define the definition down of what it was we were fighting. think it is become a little difficult to deny that we are fighting an islamist threat when the main group we are fighting is called the islamic state.

it makes it difficult to deny this. but certainly it is part of a broader phenomenon, the idea that al qaeda and hamas or isis are one and the same, no. they are very different. each has their own local grievances that are married to the broader ideology. i should note that there have been links over time. and also the same goes for hamas links to iran and some of it acts as well. we are still dealing with his broader phenomenon and it has been written us an surged in the 1990's. we tried to deal with it in the gulf and iraq war era. failed, we tried to pretend it wasn't there but the phenomenon still exist. that withting a sense the amount of critique i am nowng, we need to refocus

on the islamist threat. question did a fantastic job of virtually every scrap, globally, that could possibly be used to weave these together. i think there are two registers. are linked in a reinforcing way. you asked in what direction does it reinforce. but there is also a non-reinforcing way. all islam and there there is aslamists core at the base and you can even expand it and say there is ultimately a connection of nonviolent islamists.

what that means is ultimately, the idea that brotherhood parties are the proper corrective is the wrong idea. on the other hand, there is an extent to which the thomas relationship is very problematic. if they are vulnerable on the ground, it's probably to a threat from their religious rights. it would be people flying the banner that might bring them down more easily than anyone else. and they have confronted small groups like that and have reacted in a very violent manner. the just wipe them out because they know very well that this is a potential threat. and certainly when you see any group that used to represent the religious right moving to the center or becoming the center by virtue of ruling, it opens up space even further. that is what has happened here and in other places.

>> i would add that in the case of isis, they are being fought right now by an iraqi army supported by iran and in syria they are fought by the iranians and on and off. they have recently been thanked for being provided with the advanced rocket technology they use. it's an important distinction and iran itself is an islamist state in many ways on the shia side. >> and the muslim brotherhood jihads, other lesser arrests that are not on good terms with isis. >> and those in iraq that fought against the al qaeda lunatics. >> i would add one more thing. about a yearense ago after the fall of mohamed is extremelymas

vulnerable and could potentially even be defeated you are financially or militarily, politically, that this was a devastating blow. and if you talk to the israeli leadership, there is a debate about what would happen and the way it shook out was there was a real fear of doing anything. they would rather keep they itbled hamas then destroy and send the lessons of the rest of the islamist groups in the region that they can destroy israel. theys an accurate that thought it was somewhat predictable and they wanted it weakened. and they did not want a vacuum that could create some of these jihadi groups that are running around in the gaza strip. >> good afternoon. it's a pleasure to be here. in terms of the u.s. leadership,

we have never heard an american president speak almost daily about the u.s. can't do. i thought i would share that with you. focused on the palestinian and unity government, something that was skirted around. thomas that the finance minister made today who basically said -- awe fear or any and -- what has happened here? the israeli cabinet voted off talksy to break

because of the reconciliation agreement. iny voted with the cabinet that regard. what is your view on the palestinian unity government now? >> i don't think there is a consensus view at the wilson center. he made a compelling point that the israeli government is not at all certain that when the palestinian authority back in gaza for one primary reason. that is because there is a fear hamas'smas --hama objective, knowing that they need some measure of palestinian authority and support that the game is to deliver benefits. it however retains control of

gaza and its repository of weapons. it is in some respects the hezbollah model. it preserves its ideology, coherence, and the veto power. realistic not that is , the reality is the peace and focus of this has been driven by a bunch of guys living 20 or 25 meters below ground in bunkers. .ou may be right it seems to me that those that have the military initiative are essentially controlling the fight here. can and undermine hamas as an organization? and yet to degrade and the terror.

>> there is a good bit of disagreement if this was at technocratic government. it was clear that the government was formed based on an agreement with the maas -- with hamas. to say it was merely , they did not want to be friars or suckers. it is well known on the subject. excuse me. i think the other problem was this hezbollah model that we discussed, that it would be able to be this state within a state and it was not going to address that problem.

the implication was that hamas would be able to take part again and you have 2006 revisited. it leads to another political crisis and we never actually answer the question whether hamas should or can be involved in the next round of elections. we have kicked that can down the road. the more important thing i would think about now, there has been a shift in israeli thinking. you will hear some people say that we haven't come around to this. but there is a shift in thinking with most of the israeli figures i have talked to saying we are now ready for this, ready for abbas to take over. is in the drivers seat, that's fine. let's do this. this is something i have talked colleagues and

we have had discussions here as well. this idea that it is either abbas or hamas, making these for theare horrible palestinians. there needs to be a political reform process that lends itself to having different choices and having different leaders. he is now 80 years old, nine years into a four-year term. this is not the guy that will be delivering the gaza strip let alone the palestinian people. perspectiveisraeli right now is shortsighted much in the same way the international community is. if you're not looking at the long-term horizon for political participation and trying to figure out how to make a , wernment really function are going to go right back to where you are. >> it is essential and a medium-term project. you're asking about the immediate aftermath, really. to the sameing back

question of is hamas weakened or not? it depends not on the relationship with israel but its relationship with the tla and plo.plo -- pla and the that is where the wins and losses get tallied. concerned,hat is what happens and what doesn't happen. how does the aftermath, the cease-fire process, and the winding down of this wave of hostilities play out politically among palestinians? does hamas have a case to make? why did you keep fighting for 28 days after the egyptians offered you -- you basically took that .ore or less later on, what did you accomplish?

right now, they don't have a very good answer but they might at the end of the day. even if they are politically damaged him a if the palestinian authority is not in position either because they have not been put in that position internationally or they have not been able to take advantage for opportunities that were created for them, you can have a wash in which hamas comes out better because they seem more dynamic. equalarties emerge with credibility. we have no idea. that's why the terms and conditions under which this ends, either through agreement or de facto, becomes absolutely decisive. in determining how this plays out. that is when you will know the answer. is hamas weaker or stronger? stay tuned. first of all, thank you all.

i would like to follow up a bit on previous points. the issue of public opinion. high.e been talking very i want to go down to public opinion. you brought up the issue of public opinion among the palestinians. whether hamas will answer well is up for grabs. on the israeli side, as you said, this was about security and the perception of security. what we are seeing now is israelis are talking about feeling less secure, both in the north and south. the change in the israeli position on security. the iron dome was a changer.

you are talking about something that will sense tunnels. it a defensive measure where been to gotrine has in and fight it on their territory. the best defense is an offense. you see that changing anyway? -- in any way? sense that they brought nothing to the israelis and left people feeling less secure? to riskis a tough one, generalizing for a society that has different currents and his different political streams. my sense was the israelis were looking for something more than a tie. 2006could not be 2012 or in lebanon. the reality is -- sharon broke

the back of the second info todd a -- ifitada. his objective was to create the authority that sharon developed. beyond hisim perceived transactions -- transgressions in lebanon. but netanyahu is to risk -- is t oo risk aver in the end,se. you are left with an this is and will -- you have two choices. where a transformation fundamental crisis literally leads to a shifting of the tectonic plates in some regards. calculations.ders

a new dynamic is created. sorry, i don't see any single factor emerging out of this equation that would lead to such an outcome. back to the-- default positions. the way itome out usually comes out. some transactional agreement. which is probably better than 2012. it will have to be better than 2012. what then create as much time -- will it then create as much time as 2008-2009 created? that is my take because i cannot divine the transformative it -- information's transformative and -- transformative implications of this. it is localized with some interesting tales, if they can

be connected. this on thedd israeli public opinion front. israelid a ton of the tv during the conflict. there was a clear sense the israelis rallied around this conflict. there was a strong sense of national interest, national pride. --re was a specifically specifically pride in the id f. this is a redemption of the idf after the hezbollah conflict. problems on the ground. the ground troops proved able, relatively speaking. there is pride in the defensive technology. the idea that the startup nation is all blending in -- is now blending in with the defense needs of the country. there's a frustration. part of it had to do with the

way that israeli leadership frame the conflict. hamas was going to get defeated. it got a hard strike. that was the term that was used over and over again by military leaders. it it is unclear whether that was in fact the case. no question that, on a military level, it was overwhelming force. what the end result was remains a question. driving this debate now in israel is going to be the southern community without question. they are far further to the they then way -- than were before. they are unhappy that hamas was not destroyed. youink there's a sense -- can't meet hamas halfway in

terms of israel's existence. to negotiateay with hamas. there may not be a way to fully defeat it if you are going to operate as a moral or ethical army. if you got the casualties were bad from this last month, imagine if israel went all the way in and did what it did that the south wanted them to do. it is impossible. it is hardsense now, to make addictions but you see a sense that guys have a little bit more prominence right now. the center can use this as perhaps an opportunity to talk about working with epa. -- with the pa. that me be where the discussion is heading. >> i want to thank our panelists and audience. i think this was a useful discussion. the meeting is now adjourned. [applause] >> thank you very much committed him and -- thank you very much,

gentlemen. >> we were right on time. all right. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

many of the problems that we saw at the end began at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. one of the problems is that when you do that, when you try to control everything, then you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to paint the same way and one artist says i don't want to

paint that way, you have made him into a political disdent. if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about it and the populous agrees, then put it on the balance sheet. and make it clear. and make it evident. and make everybody aware of how much it is costing. but when you deliver it through these third-party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidy through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extreakt a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. >> several live events today. including a middle east institute forum on religion and

diplomacy at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at noon the hudson institute looks at the national security threats posed by iran and the errorist group isis. a u.s. strategy in iraq with the heritage foundation. >> here's some of the highlights for this weekend.

the program that allows young immigrants to live with

>> good afternoon. a couple notes. if you do need the restrooms they are outside of this door you will find them on either side of the reception desk. also if you haven't noticed we are encourage youg to live tweet the event. the hashtag is here on this screen. and finally as you've also seen we are recording and live streaming so when it does come time for the discussion later in the program please be sure to use the firework fonse at both sides of the room -- microphones apt both sides of the room. it is my pleasure to introduce to provide some words of welcome. [applause] >> good afternoon and welcome to the pew charitable trust. i am very pleased to welcome you to this expert panel

discussion that we are going to have today. we are an independent nonprofit nonpartisan organization established in 1948 by the four children of the fund oil company founder and his wife. we are guided by the values and the vision of those founders and their direction to us to tell the truth and trust the people, and that shapes our commitment to rigorous and objective research and analysis that can inform public policy and policy change. now, today we operate several research and advocacy projects focused on public opinion, the environment, and state policy. our mission to inform the public and improve public policy has led us to work on a broad range of critically important issues ranging from state fiscal health and economic growth sentencing reform children dental health, the economic security of the american family, food drug and

med withcal device safety. we have a long history of working with states on policy issues and have begun to look more deeply at the federal state fiscal and economic relationship. to that end, our immigration and the states project began about a year ago and focuses on the intersection of federal state and local immigration laws and policies. at the two-year anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program we had an important opportunity to stake a look at the program. today's discussion is not only timely but it serves to highlight the important role that state and local actors play and are often overlooked when programs are designed and implemented. i thank our panelists for joining us this afternoon and thank you for joining us as well. i will turn the program over to the project's director and our moderator for today's event. thank you. [applause]

>> great. we have a stellar panel this afternoon, so we want to get to it. i want to make some brief introductory remarks here. as sue mentioned, our project , the immigration and the states project, focuses on the intersection of federal, state, and local immigration laws and policy. we provide nonpartisan insights and analyses to inform policymaking at all levels of government. up until 10 weeks ago i was in federal service as the acting chief of staff at u.s. citizenship and immigration services within the department of homeland security. i worked during that time on the daca program. i am pleased to see colleagues uscis here today. i wanted to acknowledge there has been a lot of immigration in

the news as of late, particularly around two issues. one, the ongoing crisis with the children coming to the southwest border, many without their families. this is not our focus today. these individuals are not able to qualify for daca. the second pertains to, now having gone on summer recess, the congress has not sent the president an immigration bill with reforms he would like, and as he stated earlier this summer, that he intends to take executive action within existing laws to fix as much as we can. the administration's approach in daca, they deferred action for childhood arrivals process, is thought by many people to be a model program the president may be considering for possible changes or expansion. pew does not take a position on any current or proposed immigration related legislation or policy proposals. the nexus for our project is to examine federal programs such as daca to highlight the role of states and localities have played and why policy makers at all levels should consider the

these roles when contemplating other changes. let me provide background on daca and who is eligible. two years ago this week, on august 15, 2012, u.s. citizenship and immigration services began accepting requests for daca. daca was created for individuals who, at the federal government's discretion, were deemed low priority for removal from the united states and thereby met several criteria. they had to be under 31 when the program began. they had to have come to the united states before their 16th birthday. they needed to have been here continuously present in the united states since 2007. this is why none of the children on the border could qualify. they need to either be in school, have completed school, or served in the armed forces. importantly, they need to not have any serious criminal history.

as an act of discretion, daca recipients are not gaining legal status and did not have a pathway to citizenship, but for the nearly 600,000 who are in the program, what they get is a two-year renewable reprieve from deportation and the ability to work lawfully in the united states. the idea of estimating who might actually be eligible for daca is a challenging one for many reasons. there are not the data available, but last week i will note that the migration policy institute published a report where they estimated 1.2 million people were to be eligible for daca at the outset of the program and they recommend -- excuse me, they recognized that 55% of those have since made the requests with u.s. cis. turning to the panel, we will not be able to focus on the pros and cons of the policy choice or to recommend administrative approaches, but on what we can learn from the daca program as it exists about the unique

roles states and localities have played in this traditionally federal policy arena. we will highlight where states and localities have played a role, looking at specific state examples. we will then assess the program's impact nationally and across key metro areas and states, and finally we will turn to how the public views daca in light of other proposals on the table and, generally, how the public views migration in -- how the public views immigration in america. you have panelist bios at your seats. i will briefly introduce each panelist as they come up for the discussion. i am pleased to start with my colleague here at pew, michele waslin, who manages our agenda at the immigration in the states project. michele has come from the immigration policy center, where she is the author of many studies and reports on immigration policy and is a frequent commentator in english and spanish-language media. michele, we look forward to your

observations. [applause] >> thank you very much. thanks to all of you for being with us here this afternoon. we generally think of immigration as a federal issue, and especially when it comes to something like legalization programs or a deferred-action program because it is only the federal government that can protect someone from deportation or change one's immigration status. states and localities also have important roles when it comes to implementing these programs. i need to first point out that this is now an issue that all states need to be thinking about, because today there are many more unauthorized immigrants living in nontraditional immigrant-receiving states. here on this map in dark blue you see california and illinois, new york, texas, new jersey -- these are your traditional immigrant-receiving states.

they had the largest number of unauthorized immigrants in 1990 and in 2010. the states here in green, including nevada, north carolina, arizona -- these are the states that saw the largest growth in their unauthorized population between 1990 and 2010. texas and new jersey fall into both categories. you can see there are more unauthorized immigrants living in states that do not have a lack of experience with immigration policy. similarly with daca, we are seeing that the largest numbers of people applying are in these traditional immigrant receiving states, but other states, like georgia, north carolina, virginia, are also seeing large numbers of people applying for daca. you will hear more about these numbers in a bit. in april, pew released a paper called "immigration and legalization: roles and

responsibilities of states and localities." in this paper, we looked at two programs -- the immigration reform and control act that was passed in 1986, about two point 7 million people were legalized under that program. and we looked at daca. looking at these two programs, we identified four potential roles for states if there was to be a new legalization program or some kind of expanded deferred action program. these roles are outreach in public education, documentation, education, and protecting immigrants from fraud. let's look at these on by one. first, outreach and education. states and localities can and do play an important role in educating communities about how to apply and assisting with the application practices. we found that in new york when

implemented local , officials publicized the legalization programs. the mayor's offices created task forces to identify barriers to legalization. and there was a legalization information hotline that was funded jointly by the city, the state, and the federal government. now with daca, we are seeing the same thing, that some states and 9 localities are doing town halls, conducting community meetings, organizing application workshops, creating informational materials in multiple languages, and trying to educate the community about daca and the application process and help them with the application process. i think amalia is going to talk about these efforts in illinois in a bit. the second role is documentation. this is key. this means states and localities are often the source of the documents that applicants need to prove that they have met the eligibility requirements. this includes proof of a high school degree, proof they have been living in the united states for a certain number of years.

documentation, schools, state and locally, operated utilities and other government agencies, provided documents like school records, tax records, and utility bills that helped applicants prove they have been living in the united states for the required amount of time. for daca, we are seeing that public schools are very important because they are involved in providing transcripts to students so they can prove they have met the education requirements by completing high school or by getting their ged. third is education. public schools and community colleges may already be providing education that applicants need to meet the program's educational requirements. or if the program requires additional education, like irca did, states and localities may be providing english-language classes or other types of

education as well. under irca, applicants had to meet english language and u.s. history and civics requirements, and states and localities were a big part of providing the classes that the applicant needed to fulfill those requirements. under daca, applicants have to have a high school diploma or a ged or must be currently in school. job-related english courses or other adult education courses can also be applicable, and these are things that are often coordinated by states and localities. some are going above and beyond. in new york, the city council created additional adult education slots and prioritized unauthorized immigrants that were applying for daca so they could get the education courses they needed to fulfill the educational requirements. finally protections from fraud. ,protection from fraudulent or predatory immigration legal service providers. this means that states and localities can play a role in

protecting immigrants from people who try to target them and charge exorbitant fees for services that they may or may not be able to provide. we know these types of predatory practices are common when there is a new legalization program or even when there is rumor of such program might be passed. currently at least 29 states , have laws that are specifically regulating the unauthorized practice of immigration law. last year in 2013, california passed a new law that makes it a violation for attorneys to charge immigrants in advance for any services related to legalization programs before that legalization program has actually been passed by congress. last week, new york enacted a law that creates new crimes and penalties for immigration assistance fraud. there are a couple of other areas were states and localities could play a role in implementation, including coordinating all the efforts

taking place amongst government agencies and with nonprofit organizations that we know are doing a large amount of work with implementation as well. states and localities are monitoring the implementation and assessing ongoing needs, and they may be also assessing the future needs of a newly legalized population. we also recognize that all states and localities have not been actively promoting or implementing daca and devoting their resources to this. there is a great variation among states regarding the amount of funding or other resources that they are allocating to create outreach materials to reach out to their communities. and beyond the initial implementation, states and localities make other decisions regarding the broader implementation of the program. so what types of benefits and services will daca recipients be eligible for down the line? for example, while most states are issuing drivers licenses to

daca recipients, at least two states, arizona and nebraska, announced they have chosen not to issue drivers licenses to daca recipients. it is important to recognize that the roles and responsibilities of states and localities are somewhat determined by the federal government, but even if the federal government does not include explicit roles and responsibilities for states and localities, the details of the program really do influence the level of involvement. and the federal government really needs to be aware of this and take states and localities into account as they move forward. these things include the eligibility requirements. applicants are going to have to prove they have lived in united states for a period of time or receive a certain level of education, paid taxes, and they need documents to prove these requirements, and states and localities may be the source of

the application that applicants will need. the timing is important. the length of time that applicants have to get their materials together and turn in their application is likely the same amount of time that states and localities will have to prepare for their roles and get their materials in order. daca was implemented very quickly, just 60 days between the announcement and the first application. under irca, applicants had one year to meet the english language and u.s. history and civics requirement. there is a real possibility that states and localities could be completely overwhelmed if there is a large number of people looking for these documents or services in a short time. the federal government needs to give states and localities and other service providers adequate time to prepare. and finally, funding. we recognize that funding is an issue. there is a precedent for congress to include funding for

states and localities for implementation. in 1986, irca included grants that partially reimbursed states and localities for english language classes and other services that they provide. the federal government needs to take all these things into account if and when they are designing new programs. i want to quickly point out that immigration in the states is currently working on another project. we are looking at state implementation of new drivers license laws. we are looking at states that issue drivers licenses to people who cannot prove that they are lawfully present in the united states. as part of this drivers license process, what we're finding out is states are already verifying identity documents, including foreign-issued documents. dmvs and other agencies are

meeting with foreign consulates to discuss the security features of foreign issued documents. states are verifying state residency. some states are requiring drivers license applicants prove paid taxes for a period of time in the state. these states have set up a system to verify tax payments. the state and dmvs are reaching out to the communities in multiple languages, working with community-based organizations, providing materials in multiple languages, and they are handling large numbers of applicants and long lines at dmv's. what we're seeing is we think a lot can be learned from the state experiences with issuing drivers licenses to unauthorized immigrants that may be applicable to future immigration programs. finally, in conclusion, all

states and localities need to be thinking about this and preparing for how they might respond if there is a new legalization program or some kind of expanded daca program. some states and localities are already playing a role in implementing daca. some states are already issuing drivers licenses to unauthorized immigrants, and they are providing them with information on how to apply, and providing documentation that applicants need. states and localities are already preparing themselves for their roles and response in case of a future legalization or deferred action program. we know policymakers have choices, and when the federal government makes choices, those decisions affect states and localities. we hope that today's presentations are our first step towards helping policymakers from all levels of government make informed decisions. thanks. [applause] >> thank you very much for the astute overview of the different

roles that states and localities can choose to play. i would like to turn now to amalia riosa, who joins us from illinois where she is the deputy chief of staff to illinois governor pat quinn. her charge is to engage across state agencies, to set the latino and immigration affairs agenda, and it is important to note that illinois is an often cited example of a state that has a real long-standing immigrant policy agenda. with that, we look forward to hearing about her experiences. thank you. >> think you, adam. i'm happy to be here. i want to thank the pew charitable trust for addressing a really important issue. it is hard to know it is two years and it is nice to think back about how far we have, and what is ahead. in illinois, we are a pro-immigrant rights state.

governor quinn prides himself in being the most welcoming state, the governor of the most welcoming state. and that is really true, and we have legislative and executive action to back that up. what i want to do is give you a quick overview what illinois did in response to daca. once the program was launched, one of the first things we did we look across state agencies to see what barriers there might be for daca-eligible individuals in obtaining employment. as part of that process, we realized there were no barriers. there's no requirement to be a citizen or be a permanent resident to get a license. hundreds of kinds of licenses -- nursing, cosmetology. it was nice to know there were no concrete barriers, but on the other hand on our part we did a lot of public education in letting people know they should be applying. it is also part of the community effort in making sure that

individuals know they have all these other options as well. the governor created the illinois dream fund commission. this predated daca a little bit. it was fully launched post-da daca. what it is, is a commission that is created by the governor. board members are appointed by the governor. they are charged with creating a nonprofit that raises private dollars to fund scholarships for undocumented individuals. individuals.aca we are in our second and going into the third year. to give you an idea of how successful it has been during its first year, they get about 100,000 dollars in scholarships to 35 students. the demand was intense. there were over 1200 applications. for this year, there is 2400 applications -- almost double. incredible demand on that end.

related area, still education, we did something really unique in illinois. being really creative, we arranged for the only finance authority, a state agency that provides financing to municipalities, and other governmental and nongovernmental bodies, if they were able to thete a loan fund to fund medical education for students at loyola university, i think it is the first one in the country. last week i was at a press conference, the first day of the medical students starting their students.s for daca it is a phenomenal program. the students who meet all the requirements are selected with all the other students, the standards are the same. the students who are daca- eligible apply with everyone else. in this first class, there

happens to be seven students. the students will receive loans through the illinois finance authority. education of their when they graduate, they will work for three or four years in illinois in an underserved community. that is how they contribute back towards the purpose, a charitable purpose in terms of providing much-needed medical services in underserved communities. we have had a wonderful response in chicago. the governor is looking at expanding that. we would love to have all the medical schools and dental schools in illinois participate. we are currently looking at expanding that. i hope other states will follow. as was mentioned earlier, the temporary drivers license. illinois it was really the largest state, there were a few that already had the temporary drivers license for unauthorized individuals. only it was the largest one to do it. the governor signed that last

year. its implementation began in january. we are eight months in to it. it is an amazing program whereby individuals who cannot provide proof they are here illegally can obtain a drivers license. it is a temporary drivers license runnable every three years. in illinois, the secretary of office is in charge. it is run out of the secretary of state's office. we have been working with them in the implementation. it has been going very well. we have had glitches but it is a wonderful program. they estimate about 250 thousand individuals in illinois would be eligible. up to this point, there have been 90,000 licenses issued. very impressive. we also have looked at the regulations that implement it. the regulations are critically important in making sure that the program will be successful. a couple other items i wanted to mention that are in the works.

individualsto daca as well as other immigrants. the affordable care act was launched, as everybody knows, undocumented eligible -- undocumented individuals are not eligible to participate. we are exploring the possibility of creating another exchange ablewould serve those not to participate in the aca exchange. california has taken steps. this is something that is important to the governor and will have a positive impact in a lot of communities. the other item i wanted to mention was the welcoming centers. illinois has several welcoming mainly that are based in immigrant communities. whereby several state agencies are -- have staff members there and provide services. the family walks in, there is a comprehensive assessment done. if they come up for information

on food stamps, they will be evaluated for childcare or job training or employment benefits. it is a way where we get all our agencies, expanding this so that we can provide many services in the community. are alcoming centers really good model to use in general. if there is something that the president, if he takes action, this would be a great model to expand and to be able to assist individuals who could benefit from having some sort of status here. ideao, that gives you an of illinois, we are really busy doing what we can until the federal government takes action. really important to understand. in illinois and in other states, we try to approach it as best we can. in a kind of piecemeal approach, prioritizing and filling in the gaps where we have the authority to do that. hopefully, we will be at a point in time where we will not have

to do that anymore. and we will have a lot of individuals who can live here and live the american dream. thank you. [applause] >> now that we've heard about the state and local roles and responsibilities during implementation and right after implementation and how they respond, we will back out a little bit. with that, i am pleased to from thedrey singer brookings institution's metropolitan policy program. she has written on immigration and demographic trend issues and is in the midst of a study that is looking at the impact of daca across key metropolitan areas. please, audrey. [applause] >> thank you so much. forg thank you to pew

putting this together. it is a great opportunity on the two-year anniversary to talk about one of my favorite topics -- daca. the program was announced a little bit more than two years ago in june 2012 and was implemented two months later. the program identified a group who were considered very low priority for removal from this country. those who have come to the u.s. as children and were educated in u.s. schools. bit about what we dacaso far about applications and some preliminary findings from the a project.dac we are particularly interested in metropolitan level questions and particularly the behavior of the potentially nonprofitshe role of

, and the administration response by u.s. cas. the two months between the announcement of the program in the beginning of the application process was a short period of time for the actors to gear up. there was no federal funding allocated for the services of a based on the stations, legal service providers, and others that make up the infrastructure that serve immigrants. underlyingt both the composition of the eligible population and the organizations and agencies that assist them very by place. we are interested in learning about experiences across localities in the u.s. in order to understand the variation in success in the daca program. we designed a study to inform a broad legalization program, those were more hopeful times. what we are learning from this study and eddie's -- and others currently underway should be helpful as the administration expansion of daca.

there is a quantitative conductingnd we are interviews with nonprofit advocacy groups, legal services activists, ander municipal leaders in metropolitan areas around the country. who are the daca population? can break this group out into several subcategories. of potential participants. are immediately eligible. they fit the age and arrival criteria and are currently enrolled in school or have graduated from a u.s. high school. this group has the easiest time accounting for their presence in the u.s.. they tend to be younger. trail toasier document. there is a population that will age into eligibility. they arrived prior to 2007 but

were not 17 at the start of the program. point 5 million young people could age into eligibility in the near future, provided they stay in school. there is support for the program within schools and organizations that promote the program and assist applicants. a third group who otherwise meet the program requirements must enroll in school or earn a high school diploma or equivalent in order to become eligible. they are estimated to be more than 400,000. this group is the hardest to reach and the hardest to convention -- hardest to convince daca is for them. they tend to be older and isolated from support organizations. they would have to enroll in an educational program like the ged. acquires different methods of outreach and different methods of assistance. we have heard from service providers that there is a fourth, much smaller group that is daca eligible.

these are you being screened by legal service providers found to be eligible for other legal statuses. most commonly, new uses for victims of certain crimes and special immigrant juvenile status, which helps foreign children in the u.s. who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected. a really quick run through the numbers before adam gets the hook. i will start with the total program applications by quarter. applications came in very large numbers in the early part of the program. million people applied in the first three months. the number of applications remained high and has since dropped. s has adjudicated most of the applications, it appears as though 80% have been approved, 3% denied. the remainder are pending. granted action is only for two years. those that applied early and had their applications accepted early on must not reapply for

another 2 -- must not reapply for another two-year grant. applications have come in from more than 200 countries, at least 25 countries have over 1000 applications. applications, nearly .5 million have come from mexico. central american countries have a next largest numbers. el salvador with 4%, guatemala 2.5%.ndreds each with the next largest number of applicants is from south korea, about 7500, 1% of the number. colombia, echo, and the philippines round out the top 10. the other 15 countries and in the region of the world. this map shows the number of , reflectsns by state a pattern of the growth of the unauthorized population on the map that michele showed earlier.

there is no surprise that california and texas have the largest number of applicants, followed by illinois, new york, and florida. these are the states with the greatest number of unauthorized residents. many of the newer destination states, those with the greatest change in the unauthorized population, such as nevada and arizona in the west, georgia and north carolina in the southeast, has had a relatively large numbers of applications. fortunately for the purposes of our project where we are interested in the local level, u.s. cis released data on daca applicants in 75 metropolitan areas. these areas account for 82% of all requests nationwide from the start of the program through september 2013. areas on this list have between 1000 and 9000 applications, 11 are home to more than 11,000 daca

requesters. los angeles has the largest number of publications -- of applicants, approximately 78,000, 13% of all applications requesters in the new york metropolitan area supported 44,000 applications. the rest of the area in orange have between 12 and 31,000 applicants together. these 10 metropolitan areas make up half of all applications nationwide. are another thing we are interested in. how they vary by place, where they are the highest in the lowest. in blue, you can see the venture see the metroan areas with the highest rates. above the average of 89%. chicago and riverside, california are metros with large numbers of applications and have some of the highest approval rates. 93% each. fairs welllifornia

with seven smaller metros with a high approval rate, as do some smaller daca metros in the west , andas albuquerque, tulsa oklahoma city. some areas of standout, new york , due to the large number of applications. while the number of applications is not large in miami and boston, they are notable as well , established immigrant it weighs with lower numbers and lower approval rates. in many of the newest destinations such as las vegas, indianapolis, charlotte, and several areas in florida. what accounts for these differences question mark lots of things. that is what we are doing out there, trying to figure things out. we do not have enough information from these particular date of two male among those applicants that have

not been approved, how many applications have been denied and how many are still pending. we can't assume differences in application levels and approval -- we can't assume differences in application affectand approval rates acceptance. the infrastructure in place to assist immigrants considering serviceters and providers may be the most effective in helping the daca eligible for the process. what are we finding out in the field? we have been to six metropolitan areas. they are listed here. boston, chicago, los angeles, phoenix, new york, san francisco. we have talked to and interviewed scores of legal services providers, nonprofit and community-based organizations, municipal and various advocacy

groups. from these interactions, we are hearing about what is happening on the front lines. how service providers view the program and how they have approached out reach of assisting the daca population. its own services and policies that support or drive away immigrants, each has its own story. is pretty clear that the first wave of applicants has -- i will talk a little bit about how the timing of applications and adjudications vary across places. the first wave of applicants, and the earliest one, have a large share of those we consider daca-ready. younger people, teenagers with connections to schools that help demonstrate a continuous presence in the u.s.. older applicants had more time in the u.s. to prove. the farther you are from school, the more likely you are to have

to use other types of evidence, including things like library cards, paypal histories, mobile phone contracts, bank statements, enrollment in post-high school courses -- there are a range of things. many of these things are not typical for young people who are undocumented in this country. finding that evidence and documenting their time in the -- thets much higher as farther away from arrival but you get. we can see in our data that younger applicants are processed faster and approve more readily. older applicants apply later and have larger numbers of pending applications. these findings have implications for renewals if they are tied to the date and the case adjudicated. also for thinking through what an extension of daca would look like for adults who would have to document their presence in the u.s. a lot factors come into play in

making daca a successful program in individual places. the history of immigration matters. well-established gateways have better systems of support in place. wewere surprised that what found, places with shorter histories and not as well developed infrastructure, we thought they might have a harder time with outrage. this is not a surly the case. --have to go to a few more this is not necessarily the case. we have to go to a few more destinations to explore that. the composition of the seems to matter. mexican applicants drive the numbers but they are younger and have higher rates of approval than average. some of the differences across places have to do with a more

diverse population that tends to be older. that may have something to do with lower application rates and lower approval rates in places like boston and miami. other issues that can induce people to apply include state , particularlycies around drivers licenses and in-state tuition. finally, i just want to say something about barriers to applying for daca. another part of our inquiry is around why people are not applying, what is holding them back. we have identified a number of barriers. some people do not have the kind of documentation they need. others are hard-pressed to come up with the application fee, y to apply.saril others fear they are taking a risk and will put their families

in jeopardy. particularly from asian companies, who believe they might ring shame on their families. this is a group that is not typically used to talking about or being viewed or viewing themselves as being in the country in an undocumented status. that is quite different from those from latin american countries, particularly mexico and central america, where it is very common. other people have been holding out for a clear pathway to legal status. they are waiting for a .egalization program another group are hampered by their own perceptions of themselves and how they fit into the program. are people that would otherwise sit the eligibility criteria but they do not see themselves in the program. toparticular, this relates what i was talking about with

certain asian groups. it extends beyond that. non-latinos often are not proceeding this program as one for them. and the noncollege bound also. this program was originally tied up with the dream act and the wouldor something that help people who were going to college in this country but were undocumented. if there is further executive action for a broader group of immigrants, the federal government, state and municipal governments, and a host of nongovernmental organizations on the ground will have to act quickly to organize, educate, and assist. at least they will have the experience of daca to draw on. thank you. [applause] rex thank you very much, audrey. now we are going to get a bigger

picture. beyond the impact of the program and who is a daca recipient, we're going to talk about what people think of the program and what people think about immigration in general. the pleased to welcome director of hispanic research at the pew research center. in case you are wondering, pew research center is a separate subsidiary organization. we do not even get to work in the same building, they have their own offices around the corner on l street. mark is a well-known commentator in english and spanish-language media on all things opinion, attitudes, political engagement, and other things. with that, we welcome him to the panel. >> good afternoon and thanks for that introduction, adam. i appreciate it.

it's a real pleasure to be here today and i want to talk about some public data we have on the pew research certificate to the current immigration reform and ideas that are out there in addition to the views of the general public about immigrants and how they see them in the united states. let me get started. first, i want to start by talking about deportation. daca is directed at providing relief from deportation for children, young people who came here as children and are unauthorized immigrants. you look atmosphere of deportation particularly among two games are represented, hispanics and asian americans. foreign born latinos are worried about deportation, whether it be for themselves or friends or family member or somebody that they know. and these are results we've seen that have been consistent over the past few years, particularly for latinos in terms of worrying about deportation. for asian americans on the other hand, it's a different story. most unauthorized immigrants are from latin america and the

hispanic members are perhaps no surprise but i think it's important to note there are also unauthorized immigrants from other parts of the world. about 20% of the nation's 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants are from places other than latin america. asia as part of that. immigrant asian americans we found few who say they worry a lot or some, somebody they know or they themselves may be deported. we've always been asking more recently about support for providing some sort of legal status on documented immigrants but also perhaps providing some sort of citizenship. this is data from the general u.s. public or databased off a survey of the general u.s. public asking americans in both february and july about legalizing or providing some way for unauthorized immigrants to become legal. and you can see here, for example, in february, 73% of

american adults said that yes, they supported some sort of a legalization for unauthorized immigrants. in july, just a few weeks ago, those numbers had slipped to 68%. so there has been a decline of five percentage points for support in the general public of some form of legalization. there's also been an increase in the share who say that unauthorized immigrants or people in the country illegally should not be allowed to stay legally. that number went up by six percentage points. there's been some change in the views of the american public about unauthorized immigrants, whether they should be given a path to legalization. now, it's interesting, where did the support change? well, a lot of the support has changed particularly among republicans. interestingly enough, back in february, tea party republicans and republicans in general, these are americans who identify or lean towards the republican party, generally speaking, they were supportive of some sort of

legalization but as we've had a discussion about and a lot of news coverage of the unaccompanied minors at the border that led to change and opinions particularly among republicans. you can see here 54% of republicans say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the u.s. that is down from 64% in february. among tea party republicans, the numbers have gone from 56% support in february to 41% today. so some of the biggest changes have been among republicans with tea party republicans having moved from a majority saying they support some sort of legalization to now only 41% saying that. to just show you how democrats feel about this, you can see their numbers, too, have slipped a little bit but not what you see for tea party republicans. now, how important is it to pass some sort of immigration reform this year? how important is it to do something significant in terms of legislation? you can see here there's been an increase in support among the american public that -- or view that something should be done. 49% in february of this year

said that it was important to pass some sort of significant legislation, but now july 2014, we find that number is up to 61% with 12% increase over february. you can see the numbers are up virtually everywhere but particularly among republicans, up 15% and republicans, up -- and among independents, up 17 percentage points. you see growth in the share of american adults who say it's important something be done. on the one hand, there's somewhat of a change in the view particularly among republicans and tea party republicans in support for some sort of legalization but there is strong support, growing support, in fact, for passing something significant soon in terms of immigrant legislation. now, we are obviously here to talk about daca and i wanted to show you some results we've had for daca but this is actually a little bit old now. this is from 2012 and we're planning to do some new work on this to see whether or not there

has been some change in opinions about daca. you see in 2012 when the program was announced, among the general u.s. public, 63% approved of the program and 33% disapproved of the program. among all hispanics, that number was 89% and you see across hispanics, native or foreign born or registered voters, very strong support for the president's deferred action program when it was announced back in 2012. now, unfortunately, i wish we had some new data on this. but we'll get to that sometime later on this year. nonetheless, we've also asked about whether or not latinos were aware of somebody who has or said that they will apply for daca. you can see that back in 2012 when the program was announced, about 31% of all hispanics said they knew somebody who was either planning to or has applied for the deferred action program. of course, foreign born latinos, more likely to say this than the native born.

when you take a look at among the foreign born, those who are legal residents, a greater share say that yes, they know somebody who was planning to or had applied, but among those who are not a u.s. citizen and not a legal resident, they're likely an unauthorized immigrant, you see more than half said that they knew somebody who was planning to or had applied for the deferred action program. now, i want to close by showing you a little bit about something we've been tracking a number of years. the opinions americans have of immigrants has changed. now, we've been asking this question about whether or not immigrants are a strength to our country today because of their hard work and talents, or are they a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care? it's an old question and a question if we were to write it today might write something somewhat different but nonetheless we've been asking it

, for almost two decades now. and you can see that the share of americas who say immigrants strengthen our country is now at 57 percent. back in 1994, it was only at about 30%. and the share that says that immigrants are a burden our country, that share has dropped from about 2/3 in 1994 to only about 35% today. so the opinions that americans have of the nation's immigrants, and by the way, the u.s. has more immigrants than any other country, both legal and those who are unauthorized, the number stands at nearly 42 million and no other country comes close to that. it's also interesting to note that today's immigration wave is somewhat different than previous waves, latin americans and asians play a big role in shaping today's immigrant population compared with previous waves which were largely european, german or irish, or italian. so we've seen some big changes in terms of who is an immigrant and how big of a population that

is standing today at about 42 million. so i'm going to close there because i have a cough. so excuse me. but i'm going to close there and look forward to our discussion and conversation. thank you. [applause] >> so as we transition now to the q&a portion, i wanted to remind everyone, pew once again does not take any position either on current or proposed immigration law or policies. as we move to the discussion, if you do have a question, please already, you can get up and start to approach one of the microphones at either side of the room. when you do ask a question, i would ask that you please introduce yourself both by name and affiliation and i thank you

in advance for keeping in mind our topic as well as to keep your comments succinct. while you're gathering your questions, i'm going to start by throwing one audrey's way. so it was really interesting, i think, to note the application outcomes across different metropolitan areas, and as we've been looking at state and local activity, we've cited both new city, illinois, and chicago as all jurisdictions that generally for immigration measures in the past. so i wonder if you could unpack a little bit more of what you've seen and your interviews of what might explain some of the -- a bit of a differing outcome in those two major jurisdictions. >> sure. well, new york is an interesting case because it's a very geographically compact, dense, urban area with public transportation, lots of

immigrant residents, lots of work opportunities for immigrants. it seems like the underlying composition of the population there is slightly older and may be a number of people who have arrived in new york and on directly to work and never been in school. and i think that the new york city program that michele mentioned, i believe, is designed in part to help encourage that population to get the educational credential that they need and to move those people into daca but also just to be able to have that training is very important. and i think both chicago and new york have very diverse immigrants, immigrant compositions. chicago is a little bit more concentrated with a higher share of mexicans and central

americans than new york, and that may also be affecting the outcome there as well. >> great. i know many of the people in this room and i know you have questions so i would please encourage you to come to a -- yep. there's one coming. you can always count on delancey. >> delancey guston with u.s. citizenship and immigration services. this is a follow-up question for audrey. in the six cities you were highlighting, texas seems to be conspicuously absent. and as a native houstonian, i was wondering if you can explain why that is. if you -- especially from houston, it's interesting to see the

approval rating is lower there than other places because it's a very much established immigrant destination. >> thank you. we are currently still in the field and houston is on our list. and we'll probably go there next or maybe second next. and texas, you know, every place is different. and houston really stood out for the lower approval, current approval rate. and so there's really no way until we go there to figure out a little bit more about that. but i do think it's hard to take these approval rates, the lower ones, to heart because it may be a wave of applicants came in much later or the adjudication is taking longer. but we cannot differentiate those who are not approved into those that were denied and those who are still pending. so, you know, with such low denial rates, we kind of think it is going to work itself out,

if every place is being treated more or less in the same way. i don't really have a great answer but we'll talk again. >> sticking on the state and local theme, if i could throw one amalia's way. you talked at length about significant investments the state of illinois has made over the past years and even beyond so from the illinois perspective, what's in it for the state? why make this investment for daca recipients for the unauthorized? >> well, in illinois we have a very vibrant immigrant community that actually spreads across the state. so, contrary to what the general impression is, there is immigrants all over illinois and we see it as an important part of our economy and community and to the extent we can invest in human capital

is going to benefit the community at large and the state in general. it's something we feel is very important. so like a lot of states, we were facing a very difficult fiscal situation but this is an area we feel is a wise investment. >> the microphone, if the people in the audience have questions, please do approach the microphones. mark, i was wondering if you could talk about, in light of all of the immigration news of late, if you have data that also show why people want to come to the united states to kind of back out that issue a little bit for context. >> we've done some work looking particularly at latino immigrants and asking them why they've come to the u.s. and in many respects, economic opportunities is among the top, if not the top issue that they point to as a reason why they've come to the united states. but there are a number of reasons, education, family, those are also reasons why many people come. you also asked them about how

they feel about life in the united states compared to the countries that they're from on a number of measures, everything from job opportunities to school opportunities to even raising children. you'll find that generally speaking, hispanic immigrants will point to the united states as being perhaps better on some of these measures than their home countries with the one exception, connections to family. so when it comes to connections to family, the home country is oftentimes seen as the better place. but i would be very cautious in interpreting some of these results, partly because we're only interviewing immigrants who stayed. we haven't interviewed the immigrants who left. in fact, when you look at immigrants who arrived, say, within the last five years vs. those who have been here, say, for 20 years and ask them the following question, would you do it again if you could? you'll find that among immigrants who have been here 20 years or longer, virtually all of them say yeah, of course, but among those who have been here only for a short time, about 1/3 will

say no, i would not do it again if i had the opportunity to do so. so i think that we're looking at so i think that we're looking at and seeing, of course, immigrants who have quote, unquote found a place here. and those who haven't, we didn't interview them so we don't know how they'd feel necessarily on some of these issues. >> i would ask michelle if you could weigh in a little bit more on the state and local roles. so looking at actually starting michelle and maybe others can chime in on this, given that the president has stated his intention to act, what would be really your short point of what the federal government needs to be aware of to ensure that states and localities are in a position to effectively implement what decisions may be taken at the federal level. >> that's a big question. i think that the federal government, as i mentioned in my talk, needs to be aware that states and localities play a role. that they need to be aware of these roles, that states and localities are already taking on with respect to daca, looking

into the history and see what were the rules that states and localities took on with respect to irca in the late 1980's and issuing driver's licenses to unauthorized immigrants, provides clues to what the potential roles and responsibilities of states and localities moving forward. i think the federal government needs to be aware of the impact that their discussions in terms of eligibility requirements and documentation, what is the impact on states and localities as well as the timing. i know that the federal government, of course, also needs to think about timing and how long they have to get ready to implement a new program. but there are many other people in state and local governments and in nongovernmental organizations that are also adhering to that time line. and of course, funding. i think that states and localities want to be involved in

implementation but they can't necessarily do it for free and they may not have their own resources to be able to kick in. so i think that there is something that federal government needs to think about is it there is going to be a role for states and localities, will there be any federal funding available to them? and also with, i just want to say again, this is something all states and many localities need to be thinking about. i think there's still an impression that this is an issue for new york and for chicago and los angeles, but as we're seeing with application rates for daca, many people are applying from these nontraditional immigrant receiving areas. and those areas need to be prepared in case there is some kind of expanded deferred action program in the future. >> let me just follow up on michelle's comments. this is a program that takes a lot of work, a lot of work on the ground. so maybe close to, i don't know,

over 675,000 people have applied so far, and we have an understanding of the federal role, they're responsible for setting the rules and for judging who gets into the program or who doesn't. but how a person who is potentially eligible for the program gets from thinking about it to actually doing it requires a lot of work, and in some cases, courage on their part, but the kinds of documentation and the type of information that is being tested almost through this process through trial and error is something that legislative -- collectively people are learning about but each individual is responsible for putting their own application together. so in terms of the state and local role, these nongovernmental actors are playing a huge, huge role.

and in some ways many of the service providers are actually shaping the program and shaping what it means to have a successful application. and they're learning from each other and there are some networks that exist usually in localities and regions but it could be important for places to share that information, especially when you think about more established places like illinois with strong infrastructure and strong advocacy even from the state to places where service providers are working on a much more either uncaring environment or in an actual hostile environment. so there's a lot of variation out there and it does require a lot of work. >> mark, did you want to say something? >> yes, i wanted to talk about, everybody, the renewal process

and what we're expecting in terms of this, in terms of the difficulties people might have of reapplying, etc. and want to talk about what you know. >> the renewal process has gotten underway and we don't know much about the numbers though anecdotally it will take a bit to ramp up but people need to know in advance of their two-year anniversary, there is a window of time and they have to be aware in order not to be caught in a moment when uscis is superbusy and can't get to their application. so fortunately, the documentation required for renewal is not as onerous as the initial application. it's very straightforward and people have to demonstrate a few

things but the thing that seems to be the hardest for many people, particularly those that don't make a lot of money or families with more than one applicant that needs to renew is the application fee, it's $465. for each person. and this is a large sum of money when you come from a low-income family. so there's a number of considerations out there, and i think people also have to weigh whether they think it's worth it to renew. and that's another thing that's on the table. >> yeah, i think it will be interesting for us to revisit this issue after renewal and given their experience with the initial daca application process if states and localities take on a new or different or expanded role with respect to renewal.

we'll have to revisit that. >> great. we have a question on this side. >> hi, i have a question for audrey. >> please identify yourself. >> yes, my name is anna gonzalez, i'm from pew research center. and i have a question for audrey. i was wondering if you explored the effect that some of these decisions, but particularly lawyers who are working pro bono to apply to prepare the applications for daca applicants have in this, one, the effect they would have in what you found of the ages and all those relations. i know from experience that some of them have gone first, sent first applications that they know that they have all the documentation and they will be approved and then continue to follow up. so how much do you think this will have an effect on what you

found about the ages of the applicants and also the geography, the rights of approval you have found, first of all. >> right. so the question is really how much are these actors who are providing services shaping the outcomes that we're finding? and it's really hard to know, to be up front about that. but one of the things that's very hard to know, and my colleagues who are working on the project with me who are actually here, jill wilson and nicole swarlinka. i'm not calling on them because they're talking over there, they're worried about that -- no. one of the things that's very hard for us to know is what of all applicants are actually using somebody to assist them in the application process, right? so we've talked to dozens and dozens of people in six places across the country. and we have a bit of a gauge on first and foremost how many

people are being served by those organizations, and it seems like it's possible that most people aren't using a service provider. and we have no way of really knowing that. with the way that we're conducting our research and also with the way that the data is collected by uscis. because a lot of people may be using a provider but that may not be recorded on the applications. that's a first order question. then the second question which gets to yours, anna, is how likely is it that people are moving forward, etc., easier and how does it affect the pattern of outcomes that we see? it's pretty likely those came in first and went out first. and it's pretty likely that those case are still coming in. but i think in the beginning they were the daca ready situation

i referred to but i think the adjudication process on the other end probably works in a similar rhythm. so that's the best answer i can give you at this point. >> thanks. >> madly sbotny from madeleine scott college. i'm interested in hearing from all of you what do we know about the localities about the effects of daca on recipients going back to school or entering the labor market or changes in their labor market outcomes, what do we know so far? >> i'll say something. so anecdotal evidence, just the young people that i know, because i don't have hard evidence to point to but it really, really has made a difference for a number of young people being able to pursue their careers after finishing college. some young people decided to return to school having not gotten

their complete school diploma but trying to get that done. that's a simple of three or four people i know so that's really small but seems to have made a big impact on their lives. >> and just to add to that, while we don't have hard evidence, that's exactly right. i think in our communities, we hear about it all the time where young people are actually pursuing careers in areas of their interests, whereas before, they were scrambling and didn't have any opportunities and certainly had a big impact not just on them but their families and the entire community, really. >> i have some also anecdotal evidence, mostly because i'm talking to service providers so it's a little bit broader. but one thing to consider is one of the best benefits of daca for any young person is the work authorization card so this gives people the right to work legally in this country and also improves their chances in getting a better job or job in

the formal sector or any number of good characteristics for better jobs. and i think in terms of educational outcomes, there are programs in many places across the country that are reaching out, not only to the daca population but to undocumented students and offering in-state tuition and other ways of serving this population better. so people who are taking advantage of that are improving their chances. how large a scope, we can't tell right at this moment, but we are looking into programs that actually are trying to link the daca applicant, the daca recipients with jobs programs and better outcomes. so we'll at least know a little bit more about that.

>> let me add one other perspective. this is from an employer. used to get a lot of questions from unauthorized young people asking if the pew research center would hire someone who is undocumented. we could not. i is interesting that lately, have seen many more young people who would come up to me and say i would love to work at pew research. i want to apply for an internship, job. anis interesting to see from employer's perspective how many people are coming forward. fyi, but also interested in working at the pew research center. >> this is an area that is rich in future research. there is some new promo very research that has come out at harvard. he has a relatively large sample of daca recipients.

one of the things he looks at is whether they get jobs. yes. but they are also getting drivers licenses. this allows the much more mobility, the ability to get to school and work. i think there is a lot more to look into there. >> other side? >> thank you for indulging one more question. know, it is indisputable that illinois and chicago are leaders in this area. they want to be the most welcoming state and committee. and i have done a lot of international awareness in the united states and other countries, particularly europe. there is an integration -- immi gration index in terms of how welcoming they are to immigrants. sweden is always the top of the list, followed closely by canada. itn i think about illinois, is kind of the sweden of the

united states. people from far away, external s left-leaningha politics that often make immigrant friendly policies a lot easier to implement. even though you guys are leading the charge -- a lot of other states could possibly follow in your foot that's. -- footsteps. do you think that illinois has some natural advantages? >> thank you. being compared to sweden -- that is a compliment, so thank you. i think it is true that illinois is to make. unique. we are a blue state, where liberal. we have a democratic governor, democratic mayor. forad bipartisan support the dream fund and the drivers license issues.

we also have a very well established advocacy in grand through community group. we are way ahead of the curve on that. it is like the stars aligning. we were able to really be at the forefront on these pro-immigrant rights issues. having said that, we also hope that other states will follow and they are following. more states are passing drivers license laws, which is wonderful. ourope that they learn from experience and our implementation process. anything that we can share with others, i think that could be replicated in other states. there is no reason that what is happening in illinois cannot happen in other states, with less infrastructure and less -- more evolved political mobilizing and activists who

understand the issues and how to organize. illinois isthat unique and it is a trailblazing area. other states are following. a lot to see many more on of these issues, whether drivers licenses or unique loan programs for students. care looking at the health issue, which is critically important as law. >> please? julio from the u.s. embassy in mexico. you have mentioned the role of the states and local governments, foreign governments in daca. what about agreements? what has been the role and do thyou think they have made a difference? >> i think dreamers have made a

role.ayed a critical a numberis, there are of advocates who have been dreamers and were not afraid to come out. they were part of the coalition that really cares about these issues. the dreamsers -- they all have unique, amazing stories. i think they really were vital for people to understand, in a very personal way, how important it is to support them. they are americans, this is their home. there is no reason not to give them the opportunities that everyone else has. specifically, we see illinois dream fund. on thes one position board that is specifically for a dreamer, for a student. that student serves on it. he was completely open about his status.

person,ally a wonderful an amazing story. he is finishing up his graduate degree. i think he embodies with the whole program and with the dreamers are about. he plays a very important role. >> i think the dreamers are credited with pushing the obama administration for the doctrine. their work really move to this program into place. and i think they have been instrumental on the ground in many places -- leaders working with other organizations, working in communities, working with par tners in schools and community-based organizations. and, i also think that their ich helps to lead into fruition, was important. but we are learning about the

daca eligible population is that they are more than just dreamers. college-bound or college-educated. jobworking on moving into a trainings. that their will support. so, what we're finding is that there are a lot of people who are not dreamers per se. it is a much broader group of people who are either too young to be a trimmer, but have a sensibility of dreamers. are people who would otherwise qualify for the program, but do not see themselves in the program. it has been an interesting lesson for all of us to understand that this is the bigger, more complex population than we think.

>> thank you. thornson with the pew charitable trust. you mentioned some of the things you're looking forward to continuing to work on in the health care areas and one of the two things that are a real challenge for you. the second part of the question, maybe michelle can comment on this -- what kind of collaboration are you saying among the states in trying to figure out what works and what does not work? sharing information with each other about on the ground implementation of the doctrine? >> in terms of other programs come i think the help for peace is the biggest one now. what that would look like and the funding for it is the most important hurdle. i mentioned the welcoming center. that is a unique model.

but, if there is a major expansion of daca, i think that would be the venue or the platform where we would address as manyake sure that people can benefit from expansion of daca. we are always looking at trying to be very creative. we are always looking at different ways that we can fit daca eligible individuals into access for state services. example, looking at legislation that might indirectly impacts them in a negative way. for example, if to their -- if t heir is a licensing requirement for getting a nursing license, to be a cause pathologist. -- to be a cosmetologist. too narrowlyes are drafted so that someone has to

expertise, but is from a different country, you cannot be validated here. how can we be able to allow them to utilize their skills in their experience and maybe transfer that in a way? so it is not a barrier to them. we're always looking at whether it is in the employment arena, our health care education. how we are able to assist the population, as well as undocumented population in general, to be able to receive the opportunities that are available to everyone else. i do not know if that answers your question. but yes, we are always brainstorming and trying to be as creative as we can, within the bounds that exist. to the extent that states have authority to take action, because this is a federal area. we are just jumping in and filling in the gaps where we can. we're going to do one final

question from the audience and then a lightning round final. inot from thesa p national academies. showsu have data that that latinos are much more worried about the deportation than asians. i wonder if that is a function of the number of unauthorized or if that is the difference in peer profiling as well by employers and police. likely people are less to fear profiling, are they less likely to use daca or other programs? of the peoples who fear deportation numbers -- it is lightly tied to the shares that are unauthorized. about 80% of the unauthorized immigrants are from latin america. so, our numbers are more than likely picking that up. i do think that there is also

some connection to some of the things that were happening around sb-1070 in arizona. that was one of the first times we ask the question. it was coupled with the fear of deportation between the nativeborn and foreign-born. they were much closer then. partly because arizona was one of those instances where the spanish were feeling like they were being profiled. in 2010, we found that among nativeborn hispanics, they were just as likely to say that they have been stopped and asked about their papers as foreign-born. still, it was equal. in terms of fear of deportation, the numbers of close -- were cl oser then as well. for the nativeborn, we have not seen the numbers change that much. the foreign-born are the ones that are really attuned with what is happening. they're fearful that someone they know or themselves may need it -- be deported. >> i think that is pretty good.

i have nothing more to add. >> we have painted quite a wide arc this afternoon. i would like to close by returning to where we started off at. en noted that for any type of program of this size and complexity, there are obviously actors well beyond those that we talked about today, who play critical roles. i want to ask her panelists to focus on the question of roles and, from their various perspectives, if you would have won a sentence for federal policymakers on what they should be considering in terms of the role as you see it for your respective constituencies. what would your one sentence closer be? michelle already partially answered this. because she is my calling, she gets to work twice as hard. maybe start with mark? >> so this is -- >> your one observation for

policymakers. >> i will tell you this. i will say this -- it would be really nice if they give islam or data. -- gave us a lot more data. >> mark stole my message. >> if they gave the pew research center more data -- >> well, yeah. i was going to say something about the data. it is so useful. can get into it and analyze it and understand what is going on. um, we have been fortunate to get some. it is really hard to know more about localities and about manys over time and about of the things that we have talks about that are associated with other things we have talked about, without knowing more on the big gail. -- scale.

there are some good studies out there, like the one michelle mentioned. and there's a lot of ongoing research. it is looking at small pieces of the population to know the bigger picture. >> i think from my perspective, from a state perspective, it is funding. we have all the best programs. we need the federal government to be able to identify the ording for providing, launching in implementing these programs. >> i say remember states and localities, particularly the nontraditional immigrant receiving states that have growing populations and unauthorized immigrants and see large numbers of daca applicants, but have little experience on immigration issues. >> great. with that, it is what to do if you think use. an event like this does not come together by itself.

we have an exceptional events team and communications team. thank you very much to my own team on immigration states project for all of your help. please join me in thanking all of our panelists. and thank you all for participating. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal," we will discuss foreign policy and the obama doctrine with robert zarate and brian katulis.

we will also be joined by an investigative reporter from washington examiner to focus on a recent series of articles on congressional incumbency and proposals for term limits. is liveton journal" every day at 7:00 eastern. here is a great read to add to your reading list. c-span's latest book, "sundays at eight," a collection of some of the most influential people. >> i decided to take -- whether it is an allusion or not, i do not think it is. it helps my concentration. it stopped me being bored. it stopped other people from being boring, to some extent. it would keep me awake. it would be easier zero longer conversations. if i was asked, what i do it again?

the answer is probably yes. hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say, of course. if i say i would do that -- the truth is, it would be hypocritical for me to say no, i would never have touched the stuff if i had known. because i didn't know. >> the soviet union contains the seeds of its own c destruction. many of the problems at the end were there at the very beginning. thew attempts to control parts of the economy and political life and socialite. one of the problem is that when you do that and try to control everything, and you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists that they have to pay the same way and once as they do not want to pay that way, you have just made him into a political