uproar about the black killings in chicago. i hear this every day. "why isn't there an uproar about killings in chicago as compared to this 1 --" there are so many different reasons and responses to this. covering this since i was a student in the 1960's. i've seen a jesse jackson and the urban league, etc.,, constantly talking about black crime, this horrendous homicide rate. webpage, everye" day we have stories on the front page about fatalities in the neighborhoods of chicago. why don't they get more attention? because they are in isolated, poor neighborhoods, mostly black or hispanic communities that are isolated economically, politically, and socially. while you are having fun with

partsts and the wonderful of chicago -- and it is the best city on the planet, by the way -- there are still people dying in the more isolated neighborhoods. it becomes part of the background noise, doesn't it? i would not be so upset about people saying that if they really cared about kids dying in chicago but i suspect they're just trying to change the subject from the tragedy in ferguson. we need to deal with the tragedy in ferguson, the tragedy in chicago, and the rest of our country and not just play games. host: texas, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. page. guest: good morning. caller: i am 60 years old and i live outside austin, texas. we have had several police shootings of black men and we were doing a talk on the radio station and i called in and i asked the police chief, how many white people have been killed by black or hispanic police

officers? in my 63 years of being here in this area, none. manyhen i ask them, how black people have been killed by white police officers, and were they ever armed? the question was several and all of them were unarmed. so i've got a problem with that. they can say what they want, they can do what they want. you are supposed to be taught as a police officer how to handle somebody that is unarmed. one thing looking up in our favor, son of the families have been granted over $1 million in ,ettlements for these incidents which never happened before, but it is starting to happen now. maybe this will change the reaction. are black police officers and hispanic police officers better controlled police officers than

white? guest: you know, this is an ongoing problem, but it is true that lawsuits and all do have an impact over time because cities get tired of paying out settlements for wrongful s,rests, wrongful beating wrongful shootings, etc. new york city is a good example of that because they shifted to smart policing -- fixing broken windows approach, etc. -- they have found over time and not only do they pay out a lot less but alsoul lawsuits, the crime rate has gone down and homicide rate has gone down. new york and l.a. have lower homicide rates than chicago now because of these differences in policing. host: i suspect some of the trust issues the caller run-up there were also in the kerner

commission report, which we have been talking about. guest: it was, and i was disappointed it was not more directly addressed. we found a laundry list in the commission report of remedies that virtually matched johnson's war on poverty. but the police-community relations were mentioned, especially in surveys taken of attitudes at the time in black communities across the country. -- i don'tality wask the word "brutality" used, by think it was "abuse by law enforcement" -- came out is number one on the complaints by african-americans in cities, head of jobs and schools and housing -- a head of jobs and schools and housing. never underestimate the impact of allegations of police brutality in african-american communities. host: brian in lakeland,

florida, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. how you doing? how you doing, mr. page? guest: good morning. caller: the commission report was done -- you say it was finished in february 1968? guest: that's right. caller: ok. my point -- it could be a point or a question -- why after all this stuff in ferguson -- i've switched to different channels from i've watched cnn, msnbc, fox, because i feel it is fair to listen to everybody's opinion. guest: you might need therapy after all of that, but thank you. [laughter] caller: one thing i've noticed is that most of the older african-american men and women that i hear speaking and talking , what they're saying with the commission report, everything is about the past him and i don't feel as americans that we can the waye forward in that i think we can as a nation if we keep letting the past

creep up and inject into things that are happening now. i was born in the late 1960's myself. things are obviously a lot different when i grew up in the 1970's then what they are now, but i he keep hearing about the 60's and everything else. why can't we move past all that and move forward as a nation, holding hands and being together instead of keep going backwards, keep going backwards? i was always taught that you can move forward if you are always looking backwards -- can't move forward if you are always looking backwards. guest: we baby boomers are convinced that the 1960's are the most important decade that ever occurred. but you are right, we need to -- at therd and i was same time, we need to learn the lessons of the past. that is why i am disappointed in ferguson that the local authorities -- i've been a police reporter for years, i was

very disappointed that local authorities just didn't heed any of the lessons of the 1960's of how police are to deal with their communities or the press. that is why this one a local episode has become this big national blowup. host: this headline from "the washington post" this week. "we keep pledging to study the causes of riots like ferguson's. and we keep ignoring the lessons." guest: it's funny, because we don't want to have a national conversation on race. bill clinton announced one. it flopped. eric holder called for one, he got called a racist. i get called a racist for wanting a national conversation -- host: what does that mean, national conversation? guest: it means let's be honest. book was called "muzzled," because honest debate is muzzled in this country could

it is like bad etiquette, like talking about sex in front of the children. but these blowups are how we have to national conversation in the country. i am ons a columnist -- my third ferguson column now. this is not what happened after fallujah. this country wants an honest talk about race, but conservatives say "i cannot talk honestly about race without being called a racist." isn't that a problem itself? it is only after we get a trade n or marti -- trayvon marti ferguson that we have to talk. host: lydia. caller: good morning, mr. page. i have followed your career for years and i agree with you on most things. guest: well, that is better than my wife. [laughter] caller: but the idea that the

president needs to be saying about race -- if we have insulted the racial problem in the country 300 years after civil war, what can the pet -- if we haven't solved the racial problem in this country 200 years after the civil war, what do you think the president can do in five years? guest: that is a good question. caller: we need a plan for revitalizing black communities across the country to create jobs. hud would be a big help in this -- caring down these -- tearing down these boarded-up apartment buildings, and give young people jobs. as long as there is no jobs in the black community, these kids stand around and walk around all day. they see other people with jobs and money and cars, all the things that they aspire to half. as for ferguson, they have a fergusons all over this country, right here in baltimore, maryland, where i live. on the police

force when they can't find a job anywhere else, and these barney fifeone of t -- barney wannabes protect and serve the white community, and they harass black men. you cannot stand on the corner and talk to your friends -- you don't have a swimming pools and recreation places to go. get in me to shut up and my house or he would arrest me. host: we will let clarence page comment. guest: there is a lot there. for one thing, she sounds like the kerner commission report, talking about a marshall plan. whitney young for decades called for a marshall plan for america's cities to redevelop these communities that have been devastated. for the last couple decades the urban league stopped calling for it. they were getting nowhere, and i

certainly expect barack obama to get nowhere proposing it with this congress. washington is not in the mood to help inner cities in that way. but there is no question that we have to deal with the underlying causes of these racial interruption -- racial eruptions. and it is not just the black community. there have been other communities as well. and stories talking about why property -- white poverty. in appalachia, where i was a war on poverty volunteer as a college student. i watched poverty take on a black face in the media, but still white poor outnumber the black poor. we should not forget that. host: michael is waiting on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. clarence, i appreciate the opportunity to talk to. -- talk to you. guest: thank you. caller: i am a thomas sowell,

gu guy. guest: i don't hate thomas sowell. caller: i hope you don't hate me for being that. guest: i love everybody, just want you to know that. caller: i was raised by a white liberal mom, but i've seen the light, so to speak. as a white radical guy raised by a white mother, white grandmother, with dark skin. that is what i see. nic liberals -- and i see beerals -- they always can judged by their intent and not the results. give you an example, johnson's great society, they paid women to have babies if the father left the home. now we have 70% of the inner-city, blacks, minorities, whites as well, households with

no daddies. that is the problem right there. guest: the welfare reform plan that newt gingrich and bill clinton pushed through in 1996? i'm sorry, still there? host: still there, michael? guest: how did you like the welfare reform bill that in bill clinton and newt gingrich pushed her in 1996 to change the system? caller: well, i liked it, but obama has taken the work requirement out of it. there is a problem there. guest: that's the problem we have today, misinformation, because obama has not taken the work requirement out of welfare reform. the misses out there -- the myth is out there. it is fair, it is up to president obama to sell this programs. it is not my job in the media to sell his programs. i think he has undermined his own -- both within aca -- with the aca and other programs, by

not pushing them hard enough. this is what makes politics in america. i bring up again the "new york from this week and looking at black and white attitudes, two thirds of the white response sounding like the caller justin out in terms of how the war on poverty was a lah, whilelah blah b two thirds of blacks feel the other way. that is a big divide in this country, just perception, and perceptions of police are some of the biggest divides of all. host: the caller rings up president johnson's vision of a great society and that is our next segment in "washington journal." time for a few more calls. donna in massachusetts on our line for democrats. caller: good morning to you, and thank you for having such a wonderful discussion at a very serious time, mr. cage. -- mr. page.

i am in my mid-60's and grew up during the age of the 1960's, but also, i grew up in a family that not only spoke of their history and their culture, but did it in a way so that their actions showed what was important to us. do needthat really, we to go back to be telling the truth of the history of the colonization of this country. until we can really tell the truth about what happened and how america became the way that it is today, and people understand their own history, i bet you a very few of the irish realize that they came to be the indentured servants of the english. so there is always a caste

system, no matter what plan you come from. there has always been the underclass, the people who were made to do all the work with no pay and no power. has continued since the english walked up on the continent of north america. guest: you know, i agree, we need to look at the history of the country, the rich ethnic history of the country. greatmccourt, the late, frank mccourt of "angela's ashes" fame, was a friend, and he opened my eyes to a lot of irish-american history. one thing he mentioned, the harbor in new orleans, they would send irish workers to unload the cotton because often -- or i should say to load the cotton, because they were explosions with rotten fibers in the air and people would die.

slaves cost money, whereas you could buy an irish man for pennies a day. enat is why they send irish m to do this. it says so much to me about the dynamism of class in this country and ethnicity that continues today. americans, rather than trying to pretend, "we are all the same," blah blah blah, no, let's talk about diversity. our strength is our diversity but it has faultlines, it has weaknesses in it, and if we play to those weaknesses, we fall apart, but if we play to the strengths we prosper. host: tennessee on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. during 1967i live in the city of detroit, where they had the rights. in the national guard, tanks down the road. the problem with the riots,

detroit suffered a very huge economic disorder because of it. when you bring your own neighborhoods and loot a lot of detroit was divided, 52% white, 48% black. residents.lion at that time, that just escalated. it got to the place where businesses -- like for example, if you wanted to buy your groceries, you could not buy them within the city of detroit. but if you found somebody, or you could actually buy your , it is almost 1.5 times what it is. ferguson, with the writing, will suffer some of the same economic punishment. host: before you answer, should know that some images we are showing of the tour came from 1967. i will let you respond to the

caller. guest: detroit is like a second city to me. i have so many relatives in town . i was in detroit days after the riots. and working on the war on poverty in appalachia, i went up. the caller is right about the negative impact of those riots. but it is also true that those riots were caused by complaints over police action. contrary to the label "race r it started in those after-hours bars were black and white would get together, and 4:00 in the morning, please came and -- police came and raided it and it turned into a mob scene that turned into a riot, etc. it is a fact of life up there that detroit suffered as a result of that, but it was

something that was the result of result in sentiment -- of problems that had been brewing for a long time. i went back to the troy recently and it may -- i went back to detroit recently and it may go through a second recount now. sameson shows some of the sense, but ferguson is right next to st. louis, let's remember, so they are not as isolated. .etroit is so huge you could put manhattan and san francisco on it and still have land left over. detroit was built for previous economy back in world war ii. in any case, the period we're talking about in the 1960's has shaped our concept of cities today as we know them. i think this younger generation is coming along now in places like detroit and gentrifying the city. look at d.c. in the mid-1970's it was chocolate city.

suburbs, city, vanilla according to the funkadelic at that time. but now, the city council is majority white. we are seeing a revival of neighborhoods here. for now we can't find places for poor folks to live. host: one more call, william interest in, virginia -- in reston, virginia, on our line for independents. caller: good morning, gentlemen. part of all, these key --t tea partiers, do they know who -- [indiscernible] and what would the amount of hate be if these people were white? guest: what was the tea party question again? of the membersy atticks is?spus

and if the protesters were white man, with a have all these hate rs? guest -- if the president were a white man would he have all these haters? guest: i can't say he would have with a whiteters father, but would he have been as impressive 10 years ago at the democratic convention if he were another white speaker? he would've been a more eloquent john edwards but i don't know if you would have had the kind of impact that he did. i think his racial background is significant, his international background is significant. it says a lot about him and us. host: clarence page is a columnist with "the chicago tribune" and

>> on the next "washington journal," andrew tillman examines the role of the defense department in combating isis. and matthew segal discussion issues per millennial voters in the 2014 and 2016 elections. huntley talks about the 15th anniversary of the wilderness act. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, the white house senior director for cyber security talking about how americans can protect their privacy online. then a discussion about immigration and executive power. arkansast, former governor and presidential candidate mike huckabee on

education standards. >> this month, c-span presents debates on what makes america great. evolution and genetically modified foods. issue spotlight with in-depth looks at irs oversight, student loans debt, new perspectives on issues including global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease, and food safety. and our misty tour showing sights and sounds from america's historic places. -- our mystery tour. find the schedule one week in advance it c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at -- or e-mail us. join the conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> next, white house cyber security advisor eric greenwald

discusses efforts to educate the public on ways to secure their systems and share information. he talks about the breach at target stores and says that most threats originate from unknown vulnerability or out of date system. the american bar association >> thank you, joe. yes, this may be the only time i will actually admit to knowing john rizzo. hopefully the next time will not be at a deposition. thank you for structuring your introduction that way. i like to get one round of applause in before i begin speaking to make sure that that happens at least once. me askhose lines, let everyone for around applause for the conference organizers. he has done an amazing job. thanks for all the work on this. able to attend any

of the program but i've looked at the various panels with jealousy thomas seeing some of my colleagues and other folks who i do not get to hear very often speak. i think you guys have the opportunity to hear from some really important folks who have some good ideas about what is going on. let's, we can also get another round of applause for cle credit. now, those of you attending this hopes ofin getting credit now are seven mistaken. hopefully you get credit for some of the stuff you have seen during the rest of the program. as any good speaker and a law conference, i will start with a disclaimer that the remarks arm about to give represent only my personal views and not the views of the administration. as joe said, i am happy to take questions and give some answers. i may in those answers deflect

because i want to avoid getting fired. to try too my best provide as much insight as i can to whatever questions you do have. so, i want to talk -- the billing for today's speech was about the national security cyber strategy. and i'm going to deviate from that a little bit and talk a little bit more about information sharing. because i think that is an absolutely critical topics for purposes of cyber security. i'd like to start out with a general principle, an important principle, almost a rule of cyber. and that is in cyber you do not have to be smart in order to be really annoying. i think there are a lot of companies that have come to realize this, that one poorly crafted exploit can nevertheless compromise a system from,

penetrative system and once you are on the inside, it is possible to compromise massive volumes of information in one recent incident we will talk there wasmy remarks, a very basic compromise of a company that led them to actually steal more than 10 million customer records. not require a high level of sophistication for them to carry out that exploit. this is the community health services. most of you do not track very closely the various and sundry that pop up.ts we have actually had a few of them, and just the last couple weeks that are pretty serious. breach was particularly serious and it was accomplished with an exploit that did not require nationstate technical capabilities but nevertheless was a a very serious breach and has led to chs to a place

where every day this week they are sending out 250 thousand notices to customers of the hospitals that provide services for to let them know that some of their personal information was compromised. so it is a very serious matter carried out by somebody who did not have to do very much work to get it. know, what i think is important to understand in light of that is that better network defense really requires, as a general matter, better overall hygiene. some people: improving our cyber immune system. the analogy to public health is actually quite apt. if you think about it, we talk about computer viruses, malware, and the ways that we need to protect ourselves. the companies could, both companies and government and private individuals need to protect themselves is not dissimilar to some of the ways emphasize and to i will give a statistic but it

is not atistic and it really a truthful statistic it estimation but it is probably well over 80% of the companies and individuals and government experience in the cyber realm unsophisticated threats where it is a simple of an existing, a known vulnerability, maybe a perhaps years e old or a system that is no onger receiving technical support or where the technical support department within a particular company is not doing job of patching leaves holes that can be a wide array of ctors, some of whom are just making mischief, others of whom re trying to steal information in ways that can be harmful to the business from a competitive or in terms of

mitigation they need to undertake as with community services and very costly notification and credit check services they are going to have provide to all the customers, plus customers whose information was compromised. goodness honest to national security threat both to owned byinfrastructure the private sector or government systems that are trying to information.tive there are all sorts of things we to do to protect ourselves from sophisticated threats but threats we ority of face and even ones that can threaten critical infrastructure systems include he garden variety basic simple exploits that could be prevented basic measures are taken. one of the that

primary problems is a lack of accountabili accountability. one of the positions i had that oe didn't mention i was deputy director of operations in cyber command and i got an opportunity see how the military deals with cybersecurity and the structure for governing the information infrastructure .mil space than t .gov it has authority to to every enclave in the department of defense and to beare orders that have follow followed. orders are issuing constantly to patch even the that exist f flaws in systems arnold the department of defense information network. an enormous amount of

work for the different omponents to try to keep up with that and requires resources and expertise and prioritizati n prioritization. what the military doesn't have s a clear system of accountability -- i should say the system is clear but the is not as pattern consistent as it needs to be for able of commanders to be to understand what the consequences are going to be for breach. the example i will give is if you had a base commander who was he had a truck size ole in the chain link fence surrounding the perimeter of the base and was informed about this and told it represents a risk then didn't do anything about it and a few days later several trucks went missing from pool, that commander would be relieved of command and ossibly dismissed from the military. but there isn't quite the same culture with respect to what when data is lost or

computer systems on that same base are penetrated. stronger develop a culture of accountability not just in the military or across the board in the private sector space as well. and it is with that sense of you can ility that actually start to ensure that these basic ake hygiene measures that will much t or at least make more difficult the exploits of a of unsophisticated actors that represent a broad portion of cyber threats away face. what i will say is i do see some signs of change, some reason for belief we ast some are moving in the right direction. ne of the single biggest elements supporting that view is

target.ppened with the target intrusion was sophisticated in terms of the number of steps they had to take, their ability undetected as they penetrated point of sale sale al after point of terminal in store after store around target's franchises. but what to me is relevant is to settle ust began and people began to realize how significant a loss target was of all the result damage that was done the c.e.o. was fired. i think that is probably the first time that has ever c.e.o. was at a fired because of harm to the attom line that resulted from computer breach. the breach in the target context was a pretty big deal. i don't think it represents a dramatic shift.

point.k it is a starting but i think it was a wake-up call for a lot. country around this certainly and around the world to understand they bear some responsibility for the security of their networks both in the way they are constructed the way they are maintained. think that is a critically important step in establishing for the most asic hygiene and protective measures in cybersecurity. it is not going to protect you but, verything, truthfully, it is almost impossible to protect a the ny's networks or government's networks or your own personal network from 100% threat. but it is nevertheless possible a wide ct yourself from array of threats. that it ts to a point is not really part of my planned

about inut we can talk q&a if people are spwapbd that due e notion of a lack of diligence standard with respect to what a company or government is oyee is supposed to be, required to do with respect to efending their networks and protecting against known and unknown threats. isis a big block spot and it part of what contributes, i think, significantly to what is insufficient culture of accountability with respect to cybersecurity. i think that beyond that key ntability another .lement is information sharing governments, , private individuals have access to information about these basic unsophisticated cyber threats and they are empowered with the bility to do something about th them. we have begun to make real

the arena of information sharing. this is not only sharing between the government and private but sharing within the rivate sector and also broadly internationally. are a couple here of recent examples of cyber that show how this can make a difference. recently, just on monday, announced they had had a point sale attack that hit a bunch of stores. for those of you who don't know point of sale attack when you swipe the credit card at a store or any other store you are doing it on a point of target minal and the breach, as an example, the attackers were able to collect from credit cards that were being swiped through those it across a did huge number of target stores for

very transaction that was conducted on the individual point of sale terminals. with a point of malware related to what happened had the target breach. when y they found out is the target breach was happening or some time thereafter as we were learning about the variance point of sale malware secret service issued a bulletin disseminated not unlike similar bulletins that d.h.s. and f.b.i. hfph. issued that says we have this malware, this particular point of sale it around and when the network defenders got it systems and their found that malware and managed found it on 51 of 144 stores root it out. to now, it did impact, they said it

compromised approximately 1 100,000 transactions during the ix months it was resident on the point of sale terminals in u.p.s. stores. ut it could have been much worse. it could have been more on the scale of what happened at target. the way they rooted it out was by virtue of the information hared with them in this case from the government. but in are all sorts of mechanisms sharing that happen again in collectives the e private sector and private sector to the government. the because so much of threat comes from these basic, cases unsophisticated attack vectors, having that mechanism sharing sexual absolutely critical to being able to protect systems across the board. i referenced earlier the examine of community health systems who 10 million customer records compromised.

learned about the breach from a tip that came from organization and began to try to do work to figure out what was going on and stop it. what i want to highlight from here is what is a speculative report. one commentator has suggested compromise c.h.s. began was as a result of what is hartley e vulnerability. you probably have heard this but passwords forange various websites that you have accounts on. harply vulnerability once discovered people across ed it existed countless systems across the internet in private sector, elsewhere, with a user could it the see traffic going to a network nencrypted and by doing that over and over again eventually ou can get user name password

credentials unencrypted. once you have that, you can log on that system as though you valid user. it is not clear this is how the exploit on community health began, but it is at east a matter of speculation right now and, if true, would that ent a simple exploit was once advertised -- once it was ere aware of it, also information on how to patch it and fix the vulnerability was and so there are a lot of companies that, as soon knew about the vulnerability, were getting pinged by people trying to use do exploits. by virtue of getting that public atn out to the large and getting people to be responsive to it, getting to look at nders their systems, figure out whether they are using the open in a way that is

vulnerable to the harply vulnerability and getting them take steps to patch it and the remediation was simple, that they then secured themselves from that particular threat. didn't, or took a long time to do it feels vulnerable for that period of something like what appened with the community health service breach could appen again, not clear if it was the harply vulnerability but user by have been the name and password credential you can get access to a system and get in and doing exploits and gather master that even information if not incredibly sensitive the be costly for organization. c.h.s. is in the process of remediation, sending out notifications to all 10 million records omers whose were compromise d and having to

credit check reporting for all of those customers. costly up being very potentially for having failed to on a basicemediation vulnerability. i want to emphasize it is not lear the harply vulnerability is how c.h.s. was originally ampromised but it is at least subject of speculation at this point. what i want to do is wrap up my remarks by emphasizing again that so much of the threat we face private sector, government, comes from these basic vulnerabilities, ones that can basic essed through measures of hygiene. and once the information is out vulnerabilities and n the way to fix them, it is not just incumbent and important but critical that network take the actually action to patch the

vulnerabilities, address the threat. and i believe the only way we re going to get there is by increasing the culture -- impraofrpbg the culture of where, whether to you are an individual computer a er or a business or government employee, that you have a sense of responsibility actually defending your network against these basic vulnerabilities. that is not the end of the story because there are more that ticated threats require more complicate and in any cases costly remediation and litigation. but so much of what we face in terms of ity in c.e.o., o the target his employment and for many their the livelihood of business and fellow employees on nds upon taking action information that is available

sure the remediation is done in a timely manner so these tect yourself from basic and honestly very plausible threats to your business. that is all i wanted to say in remarks.prepared i'm happy to take questions either on the four corners of discussing or broadly. when you ask the question i will restate it so everybody can hear it. your second question i'm not by changeso you mean o you mean by changes learances.

to national security clearances to national security clearancto. national security clearances. he context of t insider threats? doing to hat are we better defend against insider threats lake wickileaks and snowden and specifically the security clearance process that.hanged to address there is -- the executive branch undertaken a comprehensive review of both of those incidents. there have been directives issued to try to address some of the specific insider threat ssues and a review of security clearance process, not just because of those two incidents you referenced but the navy yard shooting and i know that a lot of that work is in progress so not comfortable trying to outline exactly what measures are being dopted or endorsed through that process.

has i can tell you is that been the subject of careful and close review involving the white convening a large number of departments an agencies together to try to figure out of the the nature threat, what can we do about it. but i will offer one other data point. there are a lot of ways to improve the process that are costly in terms of resources. and there are some hard uestions we have to ask and answer about what improvements increaseduy us enough security to be worth the expenditure in resources. it is a difficult calculus, truly. that i'm an area working in specifically, but i have had some exposure to the of ing done and it is a lot hard choices that have to be made. yes, sir.

the question is about the analogy i offered to public cybersecurity and noting that you see posters in is how to aying here wash your hands to try to control the spread of diseases if there are ways to conduct public information campaigns to improve cybersecurity. short answer is there are uch campaigns, and i don't honestly know how much of an impact they have. we do them and we will continue them. but it is really difficult to take evenet people to what you would think are the most basic measures to defend own networks. this is true in the corporate world as well. here is another shot for me to

et statistics wrong, but i was talking with folks from microsoft a couple of years ago about their adoption rate for they issue and they issue them regularly. they have patch tuesdays where patches for all icrosoft software and they discover there are lots of patches to issue and they get the order of about 15% to 20% adoption rate for the they send out. and this is where all you have to do is click on a button and update your software four. occasionally they will send out nes where they have the blinking red exclamation point explaining in is an important there they say they 33% to 35% adoption rate and it is extraordinary it real easy they are not always very good about a lot of re are organizations that are way better than others but this is

what i'm talking about when i about culture of accountability. he to be fair, a lot of t users of microsoft software are rather than ers companies and it is hard for be individual, a private citizen, be accountable on to themselves. it is now a lot of business systems where there should be a greater sense of patching none for vulnerabilities especially when the company makes it easy for you. feel like we are up against a pretty big challenge. wae d to think that when ould hear about segui breaches that that would lead to an ncrease in cybersecurity a reness and there is such thing as cybersecurity month and this may be it or next month. ut when the breaches that i

mentioned today how many of you heard about those breaches before? pretty good. u.p.s. one re -- the is significant for mostly the easons i crated, not for the scale. the community health service breach is significant mostly for the scale. when there was an intrusion into nasdaq from a few years ago it d seen information about before it became public and i was reading about that and myself oh my gosh people are going to lose their minds when they hear about this, to change ng anything, and it didn't. it had a pretty significant the story died down. then several months later r.s.a. it had been t reached and scads, hordes of its tokens of its key pods were i heard ed and there about that before it became public and i thought people are

lose their minds and they didn't. it was a few months after that that there was a stronger cybersecurity incident and it was sony but it was because people couldn't play video games. me it is instructive that is ifficult to get and maintain people's attention to cybersecurity in a way that will and shape ly change their behavior. that is a fairly long-winded question but we have cybersecurity information, information and awareness campaigns campaigns. on ve not seen statistics how effective they are but based on the lack of a sustained to profoundreaction cybersecurity breaches, i'm not how much awareness campaigns on their own can actually do.

we will still do them because i they are important but i think it is also important not to put too much faith and on those awareness campaigns. you had a question now. was reference to suzanne spaulding's remarks from esterday about the notion of adding in mergers some due iligence elements before actually bringing networks

togeth together. say this not just because i see some of her employees in audience but i think that is a wonderful idea. how ollow-up to that is would you go about doing that. so i will avoid giving any legal from the podium here. and truthfully i would have to more.about that i will use that as an pportunity to deflect and answer a different question, which i referenced earlier on of that is about the idea establishing due diligence standards as a general matter is. how important that right now we don't have a clear mechanism for doing that. from my perspective what suzanne is sucking is a really to adopt for people voluntarily, but there isn't any that.nism to require one way it might be required is through shareholder lawsuits. f they establish through litigation resulting from the failure to exercise certain care

i will raceway tpraeup from the use of standards of care, reasonable it take are in merge being networks having led to some significant loss of shareholder value you of such he imposition standards through that and you could see it through insurance compani companies. there is enormous resistance to the government diligence due standard externally on the private sector. iat is part of the reason why want to deflect the question. but let me reinforce what describing with be something very useful and it ets to the utility of the cybersecurity framework that was offshoot of 13636 and a der basic voluntary framework try to s can use to impose some discipline on

themselves and structure in how shape their own due iligence for themselves, set their own standards. an interesting note, one of the ost significant ways in which that framework is being applied is by companies who have vendors vendors' networks are not being merged with their networks but at least have to communicate with the company network. so, a lot of companies are the framework and saying to their vend doctors you are touch ing to be able to our network if you are in compliance with this framework. -- i think that is a good beginning of the diligence of due standard and it is a shadow of describing, is which is a more significant reflecting a d phmore significant merging of networks. something that i think we at have the beginnings of hat that could look like by

looking at that framework. one more question. that is a great question. the question is we are speaking specifically in the context -- you are talking about government contracting specifically or just contracting as a general matter? can dea is whether you impose from the government perspective on government ontractors certain basic cybersecurity measures they must take as part of the contract but

the same thing for a private sector-to-private sector contract. that is a great question. much perspective on what is happening in the private sector as far as that.rements like i think as a reference, the way which the nist framework is incorporateduld be into contracts, it could be more informal but can be incorporated contracts. in the government we are looking in the very question and d.o.d., in the dfar there is a that requires defense contractors to report breaches certain -- provides general guidance on remediation to a breach. there are serious consideration need to to do we expand whether looking at the requirements or applying them to the far.

there are any number of ways in or private vernment sector entities can impose th e whether basic hygiene or something more involved, in contract requirements. that is absolutely a vehicle through which you could impose standards like that. definitely. i think that is all the time we have but thank you very much. appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the american bar association annual conference a panel examining the power of the branch of government. they discuss the politics of immigration and concept of discretion.l they looked at possible future ction by the bills to defer deportations. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon. to be here this afternoon and to help bring you

really wonderful and timely in l about executive power immigration law. there is a very important topic, ripped from sort of the headlines kind of panel. congress, through the and nationality act as delegated authority over immigration law to the executbr and t has consistently historically exercised much, much discretion when it comes to of immigration law. this discretion is exercised complex web of federal agencies. we have the department of playing a big ty role. the department of homeland houses ice which is immigration incumbency enforcement and within d.h.s. is c. c.b.p. customs and border patrol uscif and united states

citizen citizenship and immigration services. the department of justice plays a role. houses the immigration court syst system. a document of labor plays role in some types of immigration, benefit department of d state plays a role in issuing visas outside the united states permission for individuals to travel to the united states. when we think of the executive branch in terms of immigration are the main players in terms of the federal agencies. nature and scope of executive power over immigration aw has been in the news recently and i will give you two quick examples. fairly recent program called deferred action for arrivals which the government issues a promise not fyoung nationals who

meet that. so it doesn't grant legal status defor the se not to for a certain period of time. he second big example is going on now. we've heard messages from president obama's administration considering possible urther action in exercising discretion over the enforcement of immigration law in the states 13 plus years, give or take, legislative o reform in congress that have not bill passed and signed into law. with that little bit of background i want to briefly you to our three speakers this afternoon. i'm so happy that they are all to join us. these are three individuals who sort of a dream team wish list of speakers on this so excited that they are here. eur first speaker is going to b

filling in for esther oliveria. of s the director immigration policy at the center for american progress. e's a key legislative strategist for immigration reform and has been so for many, many years. he frequently appears on national and regional television stations talking about immigration reform. he has held several positions in his career where he has been a pushing for immigration reform in the united states. so we are very happy to have here with us today. the samuel have clinical lty scholar professor of law and director of for immigrant rights at dickinson.

one of the leading experts on prosecutor discretion unitedgration law in the states, so we're happy to have her with us. professor adhia and resumes are r full in the packet. margaret stock, you might win the award for furthest this ler to attend conference. margaret is an expert not only immigration law generally but immigration law as t intersects with issues involving the military and also onstitutional law issues and immigration law. perhaps the most important piece f information that i can tell you about margaret is she's a mcarthur of a foundation genius grant so i

a genius t say she's and sit down and we will listen to whatever you have to say. speakerset these three talk and then at the end we will have about 10 minutes or so for questions. so, just when you have questions you will come up to the mic to ask the question, that would be great. marshall, ifwn and you would lead us off that would be great. thanks so much, jill. weak substitute for esther so bear with me. kind of a last-minute piv pinch-hitting effort. this is an extremely timely iscussion, one the conference organizers probably couldn't have planned better had they tried. the president has announced that

issue more to executive actions on immigration coming weeks literally. before we get to what those might look like i'm going to try to kick things off by quickly reviewing how we got this point. in june of last year, as jill passed an the senate historic immigration reform bill revamp the system and massively expanded border security infrastructure and and it would have established a process for the unauthorized immigrants living in the united forward and earn legal status and eventually citizenship. it passed and we are here at month 14 house republican leaders have talked about the for reform but have refused to bring any legislation to the floor. in january speaker bane are issued a set of standards that

on to guide the conference evaluating immigration legislation. week though, after internal objections from some party, he thin his put the standards on ice and declared that his party's president was too great and it made it too difficult to move forward with time.ration at that behind the scenes the speaker repeatedly asked the president provide him some additional time before he took any actions prepare the conference for moving forward on legislation. it was widely understood by many i think it was kind of of widely assumed in the press republicans much making a political calculation that they didn't want to engage issue, immigration reform, until they had made it through primaries of including a big round in june. with the senate bill waiting in wings, and having worked so

hard to get that across the finish line, the president and didn't want to eclare the legislative process dead prematurely. you don't just snap your fingers piece of serious bipartisan legislation like 744 was accomplished. like the president's skepticismalized our about whether the republicans would move forward and bent over backwards to give them that space to find a sweet spot bring that conference to legislation forward. but frustration in communities mounting country was because the record immigration as rcement was continuing aggressively as ever while the legislation remained at this impasse. president obama asked secretary johnson to conduct a review of depart atiation --

deportation policies. is something johnson will promised to many of us prior to his confirmation but now he was direct order to determine what steps the agency refine ke to further their policies and bring them into line with the priorities.ion's at the same time the president asked immigration reform pressure to keep the on the house of representatives to try to break the gridlock and he basically asked us to give the house republicans kind of a window in which to move legislation. if they romised that refused to do so, that he was going to do what he could within his legal authority to start fixing the system. ow, it is hard for us to know and maybe time will tell at some juncture how serious the house about movinger was legislation. it seems clear that the speaker has committed to the issue and understand it is is

critically important to the his term viability of party. but it also seems clear there were deep divisions within the rank and file members were asking why are we oing to move forward on an issue that is potentially so divisive to our concerns when success in theor mid terms look so good. the urse, we were making exact opposite argument which is when conditions are so favorable wind at your he tpwhabgs is the perfect time to tackle an issue that may be tricky.ly but when majority leader cantor to a tea party candidate boehner and the rest the leadership team viewed that as a decisive factor in refusing to bring legislation to floor. cantor was never a supporter of was ration reform so this not a real litmus test on the issue.al import of the but the threat to the

establishment incumbent by tea insurgents that was represented in cantor's defeat was deemed sufficiently great it the prospects of compromise on a rank of issues like this that has -- that generates such heat vocal opposition among certain elements of the party. the speaker -- we that happened the speaker reached out to the president and not going to be advancing any legislation there ye year. so the president's pretty much immediate response was to call holder and eral secretary johnson and ask them to provide recommendations by of the summer for what could be done within the authoritytion's legal to fix the system. and margaret are going to, authority refetch that but before i turn it over i think it might be helpful to

backdrop against which any executive actions addressing the undocumented populationment an array of executive actions that could be taken and a minute knew of options we will be under consideration at this next decisional point. but vis-a-vis the undocumented kind of n i want to just sketch kind of what the context is for that. get to this n't point overnight. the problems in the system scale lly with the large undocumented immigration have mushroomed the last 20 years. this is not the first congress that tried and failed to reform the system. cusp offen he erhaul in 2001 when the 911 attacks hid of hit. then 2005 and 2006 they came and house and senate passed competing versions of what like. should look then a 2007 bill died on the

we were oor when extremely hopeful about kind of in reached the point where we were going to get something over the initial line off the launch pad in the obama term stration's first although it received a lot of attention and we had a vote on act and the issue never really left the front -- we never ver started the process of cooking it. congress over this period has failed to actually overhaulthe system and the laws themselves, it has ucceeded in appropriating astronomical sums to enforce the system. broken just during the president's tenure i think there's been $100 billion spent on immigration and border enforcement. the united states now spends $3.5 billion more on

mmigration border enforcement than all other federal law enforcement combined. between $17 of billion and $18 billion. that is higher than the annual g.d.p. of 85 countries. king's re spending a ransom each year to enforce our way to a solution and here we with the system as broken as ever. an impact of that on american families, businesses and reached a has breaking point. some 85% of the current population has lived in there country over a decade. here.are deeply rooted they have american families. they may own businesses. workers. very valuable they are long settled and well integrated into our communities. they are also being deported in record numbers.

million 1 some four people have been deported. just since the president, the president took office some two million people have been deported. just to put that in context, a 5 1/2 year n period kaoeupg out the boston, miami, seattle and st. louis. in s a breath-taking hole communities around this country. has argued ama because he's been pressed on by , pressed aggressively particularly those of us on the hrelef rein in these deportation policies. battle idn't build the ship that he's commander of , and he has claimed nd asserted on numerous occasions that he doesn't have the authority to simply start

deportations. in one critical sense of course he is right. can provide a n permanent solution that includes status and gal citizenship for the unauthorized here.ants living any administrative relief via -- or ve authority executive action -- will be temporary. t could be subject to revision or reversal by a subsequent administration. nd it is likely not going to cover the entire undocumented population. in other words it is by to be ion going inadequate and incomplete. but the president can do a lot make dministratively to immigration enforcement more rational and humane while to be s continues suffering from this paralysis. that is because the has wide tion administrative latitude in deciding how to enforce the laws nd how to spend the resources

congress appropriates and whether pursuing enforcement significant in individuals and has the discretion to identify individuals with certain how long someone has lived in the country, what their family ties are, what experience is t like and authorize them to ffirm teufrpl request -- avoidance ly request of deportation. going to be scrutinized for its legal authority. toh that i will turn it over some experts to talk about the legal authority. >> thank you, marshall. professor wadhia. tell us about that. >> thank you for inviting me to for rt of this panel and featuring immigration in this institute.curity

arshall has provided a great backdrop for how we got here and the by some for administration to exercise discretion wisely and widely. what i'm going to do here is technically re about the role of prosecutor discretion in immigration law. is certainly not a recent phenomenon but it is critical to as we look ahead to what the obama administration do.ht what is prosecutorial discretion in immigration? refers to the agency's ecision or choice about the extent to which the immigration laws should be enforced against a group if at all. say part of the system for decades as long as the operated. you may think of prosecutor

discretion to be one formulaic criminal context a prosecutor choosing not to file which or choosing charges to file. p.d. nly that type of applies in immigration law but there are more than two dozen forms of prosecutorial discretion. here are the so-called nonenforcement actions, a decision to refrain from taking like not serving a charging document or notice to non citizcitizen or not filing that document with the court, which is the trigger for removal proceedings. as marshall well alluded to affirmative acts that take to grant a person reprieve to or group of persons. ome of the historical types of prosecutorial discretion that have been carried out in this

removal, e stays of parole, and deferred action. daca program that was entioned is one form of deferred action. here does this prosecutor discretion come from? is it legal? where is the authority? grounded in the .s. constitution, in the statutes in case laws, in are binding on the agency as well as policy or scholars trative law say subregulatory guidance. if we look at some of the law, even the u.s. supreme court has acknowledged discretion torial exists and that the administration and executive has to decide how enforcement dollars should be if at all. y the way, equities matter,

too. in addition, there are several to atl court cases dating least back in the 1970's looking action and extent to which denials of deferred action reviewable. again, another example of that prosecutorial discretion is recognized in the legal system. similarly, as alluded to by family, congress has to the d much authority agencies. so, right there smack in the eginning of the immigration co code, formally called the immigration and nationality act, second in ompared complication to the u.s. tax statutory broad provision giving the secretary authority security to administer and enforce the

united ion laws of the states. perhaps that is the most mportant statutory provision driving the authority to exercise discretion. sections in other the statute that also speak to prosecutor discretion. direction, 242 g of the nationality act talks about the nonreviewability certain forms of prosecutorial discretion like he commencement of removal proceedings and execution of remarvel orders. why would congress have judicial barred review on certain acts of discretion if it didn't exist. similarly another section of the and nationality act 237 and 204 talk about the use action for certain victims of crime, trafficking abuse. again, this is a preferred tool

congress and by has been exercised by the around this years concept of prosecutorial discretion. continue on our journey from the statute to the regulations. agencies are guided by binding regulation regulations, and for immigration xperts it is many times the eight c.f.r. and within the regulations there is is a authorizeses hat work thorbgs for individuals who granted deferred action if they can show economic necessity. there is an independent ground for work authorization in the based on having been granted deferred action. there is another regulation that the same thing for another forum of prosecutorial orders of called supervision.

finally, the bid of guidance may be the most familiar with are the policy memoranda. daca memorandum from 2012. popularly named morton memos from 2010 and 2011. but even prior to that and in i.n.s. dministrations which is the old agency abolished before the department was createdsecurity issued a string of memoranda the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. some bernson in then 76 issued a memorandum. doris meisner issued memoranda. so we have a string of policy the nce that talks about authority and practice and p.d.'s.of so, we have this electrical authority.

hat are the limits and who qualifi qualifies. there are certainly limits to citizen who is granted one of these forms of discretion.l p.d. does not create a formal legal status. does not allow for an independent path to permanent citizenship ors. benefits ivative either. imilarly, the agency cannot affirmatively grant citizenship, do example, to somebody who naturalization or can't affirmatively give a green card to somebody who is ineligible under the law. those are some of the limits prosecutorial discretion. there's been quite a bit talk about the take care clause in and extent to n which that is being violated.

my view is those architects really lack a functi a legal at least as matter. in fact, i would go as far as to say sound prosecutorial iscretion is in lane with faithful execution and enforcement of the immigration supreme court has said so. isis when the administration using resources wisely and laws are ously that being faithful ly executed. beyond that, we are not in a where the administration has failed to laws.e the i think we heard some of the numbers through marshall this pastier alone roughly 400,000 people have been removed. beyond even physical removals types of all enforcement actions that the

agency can and has taken, arrests, interrogation, detention, et cetera. finally, and just to end on a appealing note, let's talk a bit about the heory of prosecutorial discretion. irst, there are limited economic resources. that maybe a little bit of law and theory. more e second theory is humanitarian. that there are people here that some as down roots, marshall mentioned have been here 10 years or longer but they don't have a formal legal way to be here. what should the agency do? in a world where resources are limited and there are scores of who present compelling equities like a condition, ical long-term residence, a relative holder or een card daca beneficiary or u.s.

citizen. what kind of affirmative relief can we provide or the provide ation, rather, within the bounds of the law? his humanitarian theme in prosecutor discretion is not a new phenomenon. these same types of equities -- residen h, long-term residence, the presence of family members -- those are the kinds of equities that .n.s. used to exercise prosecutorial discretion in the 1970's. leave it tohere and professor stock to talk more categorical grants of prosecutorial discretion and behind. thank you. thank you. i'm excited to be talking to you executive authority in immigration law. one reason i ended up with the mcarthur grant is work under the bush

is to use ion existing legal authority by sing immigration laws and capitalizing on that to benefit the department of defense. . i will talk about that a little bit because i think it's a good example of one of the deep mysteries. everyone agrees the system is broken but no one wants to fix it. there are some people out there benefiting from the dysfunction of the system which is rather interesting. other speakers today mentioned the problemsbehind with reforming our immigration system today and if you're interested in this issue, the underlying issues are well laid out in the current issue of foreign affairs magazine which has the picture of a very broken american capital on the front cover and a statement from my former harvard teaching colleague gideon rose. "american politics marked by discontent and ideological turns on both side of the aisle."

then there's another article by david frum. they are increasing dependence on the old and the rich and the misfortunes will have to wait for a truly multiethnic socially tolerant conservativism. the legal framework is fuller -- further confident by immigration law itself is a technical mess. the best quote on this topic comes from a spokesperson who is speaking for the old immigration and naturalization service speaking on the record. she said quote immigration law is a mystery and a mastery of obfuscation. see also went on to say that they are worth their weight in gold. this points out a central fact

that the immigration and nationality act is a mess. it is contradictory. it has this enforcement stuff but then it has benefits granted to people who are here unlawfully. as a technical matter, the code is a maze. what immigration practitioners are experiencing today because of this perfect storm of bad politics, congress not being able to solve the problem is chaos, confusion, gaps in the law and the inability for people to gain any legal status anymore. even though 100 years ago the easily would have been able to get green cards. even people who are married to american citizens and our otherwise perfectly law-abiding except for immigration are not able to get status. our legal system is broken. we have backlogs, quotas, rules that don't make any sense in me

have a lot of anger in the code undermining our national security. you have the headlines today with the crisis of the unaccompanied minors on the southern border and i will talk about that a little bit. what is absolutely true is something contrary to a lot of the headlines. the code is chock-full of legal authorities given to the executive branch. inre are piles of provisions the code that mention the president having authority the secretary of homeland security having authority. those of you in the audience who are national security lawyers -- you will be familiar with the famous test that applies in situations like this. 's opinione jackson takes a flexible approach to the issue of presidential power rejecting any fixed boundary between congress and the president. i think it would be helpful in today's news media when people

talk about presidential power to remind them because jackson divided presidential authority into three categories in descending order of legitimacy. first, the most legitimate cases in which the president is acting with "express or implied authority from congress." side note, there is tons of that express or implied authority in the code. the second category, cases in which congress has been silent. the third, cases in which the president is defying congressional orders. just to mention a few specific authorities the president has to deal with immigration. the immigration and nationality act has section 207. "if the president determined after appropriate consultation that an unforeseen emergency refugee situation exists, the response is justified by grace humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national

interest. admission to the u.s. of these refugees cannot be accomplished he mayubsection eight, fix a number of refugees to be admitted during this is seating. secedingceed -- in the period not to exceed 12 months." this puts them in tier one of the youngstown test to do certain things on his own to deal with this kind of crisis. there are further authorities, (d)5 gives the president the option to parole, humanitarian parole, to give because i legal status. it's an authority that has been used for decades are the president to use people and who otherwise cannot qualify for a visa. 242 permitting no judicial review. 274(a), any when they

decide they want to give a work tomit to, they just get publish that and they are given authority.atutory i'm only mentioning a few but the code is chock-full of it. it's unfortunate that they are making statements that there is no authority to do different things. in fact, if you look in the code you can find it quite easily. evil often say there is no authority for categorical grants the relief. it's one of the most open secrets among immigration lawyers today that it is simply not true. there is plenty of categorical authority. beenis one that has long exercised, the parole authority. many presidents have repeatedly affirmed the executive branch's

authority to give categorical relief and the example i give are the cubans. cubans who are found to have entered the united states unlawfully are immediately given parole and work permits for free by the u.s. government. this has been going on for decades. the has not been a big outcry about it. the reason they are given this parole is so they can qualify to adjust status and get green cards under the cuban adjustment act. if they were not given parole, they would be ineligible to adjust their status under the cuban adjustment act. this has literally been going on for decades and there are numerous memos discussing this authority that is purely categorical. that is one bald example but there are others. there has again been no outcry. another relevant recent example is during the bush administration under secretary of homeland security michael chertoff. it came to the attention that

there was a problem with certain military family members who could not get legal status in the situation came to his attention because there was an army soldier who went missing in action in iraq. the government of the unit night it states was trying to deport his wife. he could not appear at the deportation hearing because he was missing in action so he ordered the parole of the wife and that allowed her to get a green card under regular legal authorities that exist similar to the cuban adjustment act. secretary chertoff did this and it started a formal program that tonow solidified in a memo allow military family members to be treated like cubans so that for several years now. military family members who were the immediate relatives have been granted parole that that allows them to adjust status under existing congressional statutes and they can therefore get rain cards. they do not have to leave in

order to get green cards. they are treated like cubans. another example and the one i will more or less finish up on his military actions vital to the interest. i was recognized by the macarthur foundation. there is a statute that allows the president through the circuit area of the services. you listed all the agencies that have something to do with immigration and you did not mention the department of defense. among the many agencies with immigration authority is actually the department of defense because they can enlist people into the military or existing title x authority and authority,le viii they can turn the enlisted into citizens. in world war i, 20% of the soldiers in the army were immigrants, many of them right off the boat. they were drafted and turned into american citizens.

in world warpened ii, the korean war, the vietnam war. it was required by some international law. the very difficult to claim that germans living in the united states that you want to draft should be serving in our armed forces unless you turn them into yo citizens. we have a long history in america of recruiting immigrants. interestingly, after 9/11 immigrant participation had dropped to its lowest level ever historically and that is still the case today. why? because our immigration system is broken and the department of defense imposed a requirement that you have to have a green card to join the military. going to get a green card anymore. we have millions living illegally with h-1b visas, j

visas, but the quotas and the backlog was crazy. you could have a young man at m.i.t. getting a masters degree to some great relevance to national security but once he graduates he has to get h-1b, o.p.t., and by the time he gets a green card he's 35 or even 40 if these chinese are indian. that's how long it's taking to get people green cards. to join the military with the green card and you are too old, that ends up being a problem. under the osha administration we started a program using existing statutory authority -- under the bush administration. 504(b), we can enlist people vital to the national interest. we started enlisting only people who were legal although they had

the authority to enlist undocumented immigrants. to administration wanted enlist people legally present because they had a record with homeland security and could have their security status verified and so forth. we allowed them to join the u.s. military and it turned out to be an incredibly successful program because the legal immigration system is broken. doc hers, highly educated people with phd's, master's degrees, they flooded army recruiting stations trying to enlist in the military. i gave you the example of the m.i.t. person and that's a real case. an individual from a country that would be backlogged but he realized he would not get a green card or citizenship until he was about 40 years old. he dropped out of his m.i.t. phd program and joined the army as a

specialist. that's dropping down the education level if you are familiar with the ranking system. he would get citizenship and could use his degree to get commission as an officer later on. the program was widely successful and gave us the soldier of the year 2012, the winner of the ring core marathon, a kenyan attending alabama as an ncaa athlete, lots of people like that. -- the winner of the marine core marathon. it is rather ironic. we have a system today that does not serve our national security. we hear people say we must enforce the law to help our national security. a littlective is it backward. it's so broken now that we cannot get the resources and that we need to sustain. if you look at it from a broad

perspective, you look at economic security and you look at the needs of the military. back to being generous with green cards, it would enhance national security and give them a much larger pool of talented recruits to draw on. we don't have that right now. there has been bipartisan support. we mentioned dysfunction but one thing house republicans have been strong on is using the immigration system to help the military with recruiting. a e-house tea party member has decided to make that permanent. on the border with the children, there has been a lot of bad information in the news. they know it has been building for a really long time and it is a crisis partially caused by the heavy enforcement of the past 10 years. i only mention a foreign affairs article if you are interested in how the gangs took central america from 2005.

it talks about how the u.s. mass deportation had destabilized central america and created a national security problem where the new commander of southcomm acknowledged has been partially caused by our deportation policy. the legal authority exists to deal with this in a humanitarian fashion. so far that has not quite happened. the administration's response has not been in line with traditional notions of due process. this has resulted in some unfortunate headlines. today, i got this article, five children murdered after being deported back to honduras. this is pretty typical with what people thought was going to happen with short-circuiting due process and not being able to apply for asylum. i hope the crisis on the southern border will be looked at holistically and not just as a problem of children who need to be sent out as fast as

possible. that congress and the president will look at the underlying socioeconomic factors because of begin on solve them, we do not help our national security. one of the underlying factors is a legal system that does not meet our needs. there are ways the executive might act lawfully in line with youngstown and the president would be in tier one. i hope to see that happening in the next few weeks. thank you. >> thank you so much, margaret, marshall, and shoba. we do have some time for questions if there are any. i have a question. really, i think any one of the three of you could answer this. if we do see some additional executive action coming from the obama administration, just to be clear, what will it be?

you think it will be a benefit that individuals could apply for? might the benefit be? i just want to make sure we're clear on what exactly we are talking about in terms of the actual end product or result of further executive action. >> one clarifying point that most forms or all forms of prosecutorial discretion are not deemed to be a benefit in the eyes of the agency though they are certainly a de facto benefit to the individual especially if, or example, they have the ability to apply for a work permit if they have deferred action or a supervision order or the ability to apply for a driver's license. one form that we could see is deferred action. that would be something like daca aimed at a particular group

of individuals. in terms of what it should look like and maybe marshall can share more insight on what he thinks it will look like. have the opportunity for really good administrative law form, a fee, a process. these procedural ingredients were part of the daca program and that's part of what made it a success but there were also some costs to that transparency including a lawsuit and legislation to freeze authority. i would like any program that does come out to include these basic ingredients to ensure consistency and the outcome of cases so that people with similarly relevant facts and up with the saint down --

>> i am not going to speculate as to what it might be. deferred action for childhood arrivals provides a template for the administration, they are trying to privatize -- prioritize their enforcement resources. debateure of the public is sadly misinformed, often. this is viewed as a benefit for the individuals. margaret can speak to this and i have learned this over the years. , peoplewere to decide have been here 10 years and are eligible to come forward and request the exercise of discretion. they are going to have to identify themselves.

the process of identifying someone who has lived here for 10 years and is unknown to the government provides an important and powerful national security benefit. 5% of the workforce is unknown to the current government officials. that is a security risk. just the process of getting people to come forward and register is a benefit to all of us for our collective national security. there are significant economic benefits to the tax revenue base. we will be coming out with a report in a couple of weeks. in line with this national security point, i think it is important to know this is not -- in the process of fixing the system through executive action is that about providing a benefit to an individual as it is about trying to rationalize and make more functional what is

sadly a grossly dysfunctional system. with theno idea administration is planning to do. i have heard the rumors everyone else has. one of the things is i hope they will look at the currently artificial barriers that prevent people from getting regal status -- legal status. we have built up a collocated --tem that allows complicated system that allows laws on the books. congress passed the cuban adjustment act. to adjuster status under this act, you have to be paroled. the executive gave them parole so they could use the existing law and would not have to go back to cuba to get their status.

congress said that they could get. the executive has the authority to fix a lot of arbitrary very years preventing the spouses of american citizens. the parolexpand or authority to people who were ed to cubans.uati we don't want us in the back to liberia. why don't we just parole them? they can then adjust their status. i don't think too many people would argue if we you -- if you explain them. it is difficult to explain to the public that the legal immigration system does not let people get status today. that is why we have this 8-20,000,000 population of people running around without

papers. >> looks like we have a question from the audience. >> my name is sheila. i used to be a now i work for dod. prosecutor. be a now i work for dod. i asked about the effects of deporting felons. what that has had on fragile countries. creation of prime -- crime problems. and children fleeing the country in order to flee -- avoid gang involvement. the panel didn't want to comment but did say they had been creating programs to try and mitigate the effects. you comment on that?

do you know whether there has been developments? >> there have been developments. the problem is creating programs like this takes resources and effort. i will play out the scenario. you are a central american gang. ms 13. to be a game, you need to have your human resource department. recruits. were finding a viable source of the ports were -- recruits were the rotation flights. eportation flights. the new america well but did not know also the door -- el salvador. they would get dropped there with no money or and nobody to

meet them at the airport. ms 13 figured out a great way to get recruits would be to meet the deportation flights. you can imagine the scenario. to offer a place to live and food. a social support network. by the way, you get to run drugs to the u.s. you want to be there anyway, that is your home. you will not work for us. the u.s. was slow to recognize we were actually fostering the development of ms 13 with policies. they are trying to come up with programs in the receiving countries so the people that get to thed are not left depredations of the gangs. we have had problems with the jamaican government complaining we are deporting u.s. educated criminals to jamaica. these folks were not criminals when they get to the u.s. originally. they learned a lot of their criminality by interfacing in

our cities or with our gangs. the stuff got learned in america. the techniques of criminality were honed in america. these folks are deported back to a place like jamaica or honduras. guatemala. with networks already built. the receiving country does not have a capacity to deal with it. they're are starting to develop them but i don't -- wouldn't say they're full-fledged. the government was assuring people that when they got deported back, they would be safe. we have seen kids getting m urdered. i wouldn't say they were fully operational or effective. guatemala, they are -- there is a limited program in effect.

very limited. and on doors, there is nothing. they are greeted with nothing, no opportunity. now, there is absolutely no infrastructure to receive these folks and make them more productive. again, is not only be people who have been returned but one of the problems it in those countries. there is so little infrastructure to protect them and provide them with the opportunity. it is a vicious cycle. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> i am a private attorney. my question is for margaret stock. , and alsogranted daca the subset of those granted daca

who have outstanding removal orders, would they be eligible for this program that allows for enlistment into the military and obtaining citizenship? if they are not currently eligible, are there plans to broaden the category all those thesee so they could -- young dreamers could into the military and gain citizenship? >> is a question i get asked a lot. the administration policy is not to allow the dacas to enroll. this could be changed with a one-page memo. .huck hagel could sign a memo so far, secretary hagel has not exercised that authority even though he hasn't. it.as there is a bill pending in congress that was introduced by a house republican that would aca's the dock is -- the d

to enroll in the military. there are two bills. one is colby and list act. -- one is called the and list act -- one is called the enlist act. it would allow people with no papers to enroll. i don't support it. the bill that is a good one is the military enlistment opportunity act of 2013. introduced by a tea party republican of colorado. that allows people to enlist in the military if they have a daca document which means they have cleared terrorism checks. themand security has run through the gang member database. they have no serious criminal record. that population is a very safe operation to allow to enlist in the military.

they have been here at least five years. they have a high school diploma. they have a file with dhs and the social security number. it is a little-known fact that the military has a huge demographic time bomb happening. it is difficult to find qualified american citizen recruits for a number of reasons. of five of -- one out americans can qualify for the military due to factors like obesity, drug use. all kind of disqualifying issues. the pentagon numbers are scary right now for the future of the all volunteer force because of a lack of qualified recruits. a rapidly aging population. increasing disqualification. if you open up