as compared to wrestling with a hurricane. after this debate, are you impressed with how anyone is handling him so far? tim: i don't think he is being handled. i think the only one handling him is him. he is a force of political nature in the sense that he is like a tornado. it seems that the normal expectations and rules don't apply to him. he can say anything and it does not seem to significantly damage his polling numbers. i think anybody who tries to change or alter the will not succeed. we will see, like a tornado, if it burns itself out or runs its course. it may be more subtle than that or more nuanced than that. it may not just be that he is a tornado and comes and goes. it may be that there is a fundamental message and shift in the political culture of the country where they are saying i know it is a little off, i know it is offensive, but i am so sick of the way the politicians , the way they talk and look. they all sound alike and don't say anything. even with all of his warts, we like his rawness.

the real question will be whether they want to date him or marry him as a president? that fork in the road is coming. >> that is the big question here too. the party wrestles with his -- this every four years and ends up coming back to the establishment candidate. it may not be the case this year. tim: it is only august and a lot can happen in 60 days, much less six months. this could look very different by thanksgiving. there will be 15 other developments in this race that we currently don't know that would change the dynamics. it could favor trump, a good -- it could disfavor trump. what is true now won't be true here. host: that is all the time we have. thank you for being a guest this week. tim: happy to do it. host: newsmakers is back after our conversation with governor tim pawlenty, the ceo of the financial services roundtable and himself a presidential

hopeful in the 2012 race. michael, i want to start with politics. you talked with the governor about the influence of his industry on the campaign this year, not just on the presidential election but on some of the congressional seats. what did you learn and what is the history of this sector in politics? michael: his group is a small player, but the financial services industries is a major player in politics. in presidential cycles, we have seen a shift from supporting largely democratic candidates in 2008 at the federal level. since then, it has slowly moved toward the republican side. the interesting thing there where the governor and his group are involved is how they will handle these congressional races. particularly guys like scott garrett who say things not politically correct, not supported by large swaths of

voters, their clients, their customers. they have been talking for a while about trying to find more moderate republicans to replace these guys. we have not seen it happen yet. the one race where they try to play that was in michigan. we will see if that expands at all in 2016. host: from a presidential politics standpoint, with senator sanders pulling hillary clinton to the left concerning this industry, do they have a real concern about the outcome of the presidential race this year? could it really impact of their industry who is elected? ryan: absolutely. i think it is especially true because the approach we have seen from the regulators from

the obama administration has appointed has been aggressive. dodd frank gave them a mandate to adopt lots of new rules for the financial sector. in a lot of ways, they have taken that and run with it. so whoever is the next president, whether or not they appoint people with that same mindset and of that same disposition to those posts to continue that agenda, or whether they appoint someone who thinks it is time to take a break from those rules, roll some of them back. someone who is sympathetic to the argument that governor pawlenty and members of his trade group make about new regulation hurting economic growth and constraining their ability to lend, that is a hard issue. not everyone feels the same way about it. so i think it absolutely matters. what will be interesting in the campaign is whether or not you see candidates like governor

perry, senator sanders, or others, take positions the box -- that box them in for when and if they become president. governor perry with the policy proposal he put out, he hedged his bets. he did not go out and endorse a new glass-steagall where he wants to break up the big bang. he says we should consider that a look at other things. i think that where the financial service industry will get concerned as if they see candidates taking explicit positions like sanders has. if one of them becomes president, having to commit to that promise. for commitments would be the take away. host: quickly as we wrap up, you spent time with him on the cyber security bill. what is it that is at stake? >> like i said, it doesn't seem to me to be a controversial bill that if it were put up to a vote would fail. the question is, will it be put up for a vote on its own?

i think it probably passes. i think both parties want to be seen doing something about this issue given the hack attacks we keep reading about. i suspect they will pass by the end of the year. host: if you had time to look at the legislation, so many americans have had notice after notice that their personal information has been hacked the -- through retailers, banks, etc. will this legislation help with that? >> i don't know that it has a national -- i have studied the information sharing part of it more. i am not sure what it says on national data breach notification. if anything, it would standardize the notices that people receive. i don't know that it would necessarily lessen them. to the extent that it helps the government and the financial service industry protect people and institutions against being hacked, maybe they will receive less notices because it is

happening less. i think that people want to know when it happens. my sense is that lawmakers want to move this to a place where people receive clear notifications of when their information has been breached and quickly so that they can deal with it. host: a wide-ranging conversation with the governor, we appreciate your questions. >> thanks. >> thank you. tonight on q&a, u.s. foreign-policy since 9/11, the recent negotiations with iran, and the war on terrorism. are they, what are their origins, why are they so violent? is whatmore important is the u.s. policy regarding isis? can we go to war against

terrorism? , orwe doing the war wrong is it wrong to say that there should be a war against terrorism at all? those are the questions that are the most important and will be the most useful. >> tonight on c-span's q&a. >> with the senate in its august break, book tv programming weeknights in primetime on c-span2 starting at eight ago p.m. eastern. for the weekends, here are some special programs. saturday, august 22, jackson, mississippi for the mississippi book festival with discussions rights, ande, civil the civil war. saturday, september 5, live from the nation's capital for the 15th annual national book festival. ourow the on sunday with live in-depth program with former second lady and senior

fellow at the american enterprise institute, lynne cheney. book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. the bipartisan policy center hosted a discussion on immigration policy in the 2016 presidential race. border security, immigration, enforcement, and president obama's executive actions were included. from the bipartisan policy center, this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> i will begin by introducing a wonderful set of panelists. they are nationally known and highly respected in their field. laurasc

she helps city residents with their immigration applications, not an easy task. congressional hispanic caucus institute fellow. mexican an expert on migration to be united states and the role of nonprofits and advocating for -- in advocating for latino immigrants. holds a ba in political science and spanish from kenyon college. mexico born in pueblo, and grew up in ohio. welcome. next-door, the executive director of the center for immigration studies.

he has led it for 20 years. nonpartisans a research organization here in washington that examines the impact of immigration on the united states. it conducts fact-based research and -- in support of its pro-immigrant immigration vision. he frequently testifies before congress and has published articles in the national media, appeared on various television radio shows, and was a contributor at national review online. author,also a book including this provocative title, the new case against immigration, both legal and illegal. inholds a masters degree diplomacy and a bachelors from georgetown university. there is something that everyone can say. at aent two years

university in soviet armenia. maria, thek, we have executive director of the national immigration law center. it haser leadership, grown to become the main organization dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low income immigrants in the united states. she emigrated as a child from medellin, colombia to rhode island. ,ully bilingual and bicultural she is often interviewed by national media outlets, including telemundo. she lectures frequently at national and international conferences. whether litigating cases, testifying before congress, meeting with president obama, or with low income immigrant

families, she is recognized as a passionate advocate an authentic leader. is the recipient of several awards for her commitment to the latino community. a practitionery in residence at the school for social justice at uc berkeley's law school. she served as a visiting fellow at northeastern university's school of law, where she received her law degree. johnson, ae randall senior vice president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, the world's largest business organization. he has been with the chamber for nearly 20 years and is primarily responsible for labor, immigration, and employee benefits issues pending before congress and the federal agencies. in consultation with members of the chamber and his staff, randall determines the chamber's policy position and strategy on

a broad array of issues, including comprehensive immigration reform and these and border policy. he is also a board member of the national immigration forum and that lutheran immigration refugee services agency. he knows congress well. before joining the chamber, he was the republican labor council and coordinator for the house committee on education and the workforce. randy is a graduate of denison university and the university of maryland, school of law, and earned his master's in labor relations from georgetown university law center. that is the biographical portion of our program. now we will get to the questions. start with you, even though you're not immediately to my left. one thing i was noticing when i watch the gop debate last week

was the junior varsity version and the varsity version. there seem to be complete agreement among the candidates that what we should have is a strength in border first policy. i wonder why there is unanimous agreement on that, and is it actually possible to build the donald trump wall, or do the kind of law scale -- large-scale enforcement that the republicans are talking about? all of the candidates do not necessarily agree. jeb bush has also called for legalization of the same time as border enforcement. -- it's the me time not that they are all for enforcement first. why? if the enforcement does not come first, it's not going to happen. was the a key failure

deal at that time was amnesty now upfront in exchange for promises of enforcement in the future. those promises weren't cap. trick is not something that people are going to fall for a second time. in fact, it's not just .peculation shortly after the bill was -- remember, this is a -- onceamnesty everybody had gotten legalized a few years after the bill passed, the national council published a report saying that the enforcement part should be repealed. they were washing on the deal. -- they were well touching on the deal. the idea that we should take their word for it that five or

10 or 13 years from now veriest enforcement elements will be implemented if the legalization happens first is a fools bargain. the saying goes, only once, shame on you. for me twice, shame on me. that is why. e-verify, the online system so that when you hire somebody you check as to whether there give you real information or lying to you. exit tracking for these a holders. illegal words, most immigration, 60%, is people coming in as tourists and students and not leaving. important is not as as it should be. we don't know when people leave.

that is number two. number three, systematic, routine integration with federal immigration authorities. when those three things happen and are actually implemented, the court room jihad that the aclu has launched, once they are actually working, then we can have a debate about what to do. i'm not a politician, so i can say what i think we should do after all of that happens, and that would be amnesty for most of the illegals here in exchange cuts in, permanent future legal immigration. that seems to be the only way we are going to be able to get to a more stable immigration position politically. it is never going away. teresa mentioned foreign policy, jobs, and the rest -- immigration is always going to be part of the campaign, every campaign, forever.

we can get to a more stable, sustainable situation, but only by having an implementing and putting into place the enforcement systems we need to prevent this situation from occurring 10-15 years down the road. the united states has spent increasingly more money on enforcement. what are they actually talking about in terms of doing more work on the border? where we arece going to get the bigger bank for the buck is not at the border. have more fencing than we used to. some of it really works. ,'ve gone to most of the border

from the gulf of mexico to the pacific, and a lot of the fencing just keeps trucks from driving over. i can jump over it. it is not that big of a deal. some of it is real. we have twice as many border patrols. again, we have future border patrol agents then the nypd has police officers. that is for the whole border, everywhere, not just the mexican border. on the border.d there is probably still room for improvement. the place i would want to be the workon is more side, visa tracking, that sort of thing, because that is where the next dollar is going to get the most benefit. >> i neglected to mention at the beginning that at about 11:30 a.m. we will open up to questions from the audience, so began during your questions.

i am sure you are thinking of some already. i noticed in the debates that jeb bush was the only one who spoke extensively about his policies and plans for immigration reform, and one of the things he talked about was an earned path to legal status for those undocumented here in the united states. no one join him on that. in fact, no one mentioned earned status or earned path to citizenship, which is what hillary clinton and the democratic candidates are supporting. in fact, one of the moderators heed scott walker why rescinded his support for a path to citizenship. it is quite clear that republicans are not interested in a path to citizenship for

undocumented workers, and not too many are that keen on a path to earn legal status. of thatyou make division within the republican party and with the democrats? theresa: there is a division there. some candidates do still support citizenship. lindsey graham has consistently said that he supports a path to citizenship. the countrythink would support a subclass group of people being here. that is a position that he has held for a long time. it is part of the support that he gave to the senate bill that passed in 2013. it is also consistent with the position that americans have. pollve seen poll after consistently demonstrate that across the political spectrum democrats and republicans support a path to citizenship or legal status.

now we are seeing more and more break that down into two or more things. when it is explained, earned citizenship means meeting requirements, having to go through a background check, demonstrating that you pay taxes, learning less. the support amongst republican voters goes up in that case. once we are able to have that debate about what a path to earn citizenship looks like, we would see increased support within the republican party. we know that that is something -- it is in the interests of the country. i think americans support it because they are pragmatic, because they understand that -- not inimmigrants some sort of less than citizenship class. they also understand the history of our country, that we are a

country of immigrants because we have always encouraged immigrants to fully participate in american life. >> do you think there would be any give on this issue since republicans seem so staunchly behind it, not actually all behind the legal status in it came down to a choice, with there be some give on that particular question? when people understand that it is not an automatic citizenship that people would be granted, not an amnesty. it would be something that people would have to -- as we saw in the senate bills, very strict requirements that people would have to meet. something that people understand that now when they hear it. and we would see that support

with the candidates as well. >> thanks so much for the input. i am coming down to you now. , ien your legal background wondered if you could explain to us what the status is of the court case against president obama, or against the administration. if you recall, in november, the president issued an executive order that was highly controversial extending deferred deportation to millions more undocumented immigrants. the state of texas sued against about and it is now wrapped up in the courts. program has been stopped, so it has not been implemented. i'm wondering if you could bring us up-to-date on the status of that court situation and let us know your views on how an outcome, whichever way it might go, might affect the immigration debate.

sure, thank you for organizing this great panel. let me talk about the importance of this policy. in november, the president announced a 10 point executive action. dapa and dafca have gotten the most attention. the importance of this is really critical. on the jerseyas shore with my niece and nephew, twins, and we were talking about school. they are concerned about how much harder their science and math classes will be and whether they will be owed to balance their soccer games with her harder classes. today, there is also an eighth

grader out there who is .oncerned not about classes she is concerned about whether her mother is going to be deported before the first day of school, whether her father will be there when she graduates next spring. fear, oft trauma, that losing your parents, being separated from your parents, family, being ripped apart, that lack of instability that immigrant families are facing today is really what is at stake. u.s. citizenn children are the direct beneficiaries, their parents would be eligible for these two programs, and it is that stability of family that this executive action is really about. unfortunately, the state of texas, republican governor abbott and other attorney generals and governors have sued the obama administration. they brought the lawsuit in brownsville, texas, and one

judge has blocked the implementation nationwide. we are currently waiting for a decision from the fifth circuit court of appeals. now.pect that any day frankly, this is a case that will go before the supreme court because of the national significance of these issues. if you take the politics out of this, this is a constitutional issue that legal scholars across the board, conservatives and liberals scholars, agree presidents since eisenhower have exercised this power and have the authority to do with the president did. we expect that at this time next year, the supreme court will have ruled on this, the obama administration can start implementation and it will be front and center affecting the presidential elections. >> you are expecting a ruling in the presidential election year. >> yes. >> if it goes against the president, how would that affect the debate? >> the debate will continue

because this is just one piece of the broader immigration debate. we will continue to hear supporters among the gop candidates, and also other things that can be done administratively, the future of 11 main -- million undocumented immigrants. i think the immigration issue will continue to be front and center during the presidential race. >> ok. randy, way down there -- george extensivelyt pretty his stepson immigration reform. one of the things that he said use oforted was required the e-verify electronic system by companies in order to determine whether or not they are hiring undocumented workers or not