next on kqed newsroom. >> you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. >> president obama goes it alone on immigration reform. how will the executive order affect california's undocumented immigrants? janet napolitano has tax hikes, amid objections from governor brown and students. >> this is the premier university in the world, and you can only cut research, factuality, et cetera and keep the reputation. the first republican to win a legislative seat in three years, catharine baker lays out her priorities.

good evening. i'm thuy vu. welcome to kqed newsroom. hundreds of students stage protests this week at the university of california as they consider tuition increases. [ chanting ] >> president janet napolitano says it's necessary to raise tuition by 5% a year over the next five years. the move pits her against students and against governor jerry brown who argued against the plan. the governor also expressed outrage over recent salary increases for three chancellors making more than $300,000 a year. passed the tuition hike on

thursday. napolitano sat down with scott shafer to get her reaction. >> thank you for coming in. >> thank you. >> big vote on tuition this week, 14-7 vote. you and the governor are sort of at logger heads. the governor saying the university needs to look for new ways to cut, even though you've already cut. looking for creativity. you're saying no, this is important for the long-term stability and viability of the university. where is the governor getting it wrong? >> i think the issue is that the university went through huge cuts, and there's been a large disinvestment both in the university of california and the cal state university systems over the last years. the end result is, we've done lots of cutting, lots of savings, lots of efficiencies. $660 million. we have hard pencil numbers on, much less everything else that's

happening. we have frozen tuition for the last three years. we've done all these things. yet, we are still $460 million below where we would have been in 2007/2008, and we've enrolled thousands more students. what that means is that on a per capita basis, the state is putting in a less amount for the students than they did 30 years ago. >> the governor said one of the reasons they increased state funding is to keep tuition flat. this deal now, raising tuition, breaks the promise. what's your response to that? >> there was no agreement. i don't think anyone believes there really was an agreement. his plan, it's a plan but not a two-way agreement. his plan is that for the state portion of our budget, he'd increase that 4% a year. >> people hear it and go, that's

a lot. what's the problem? our core budget is comprised by what we do by savings and efficiencies and what the state puts in and tuition. he's only talking about this part. you know, there's inflation, there are mandatory costs and then there's investment and academic quality. this is the premier research university in the world, and you can only cut faculty and research so far and keep the reputati reputation. >> one of the things the governor says is it shouldn't be competing with yale and harvard and star fonford. we should be trying to be the best public universities. we shouldn't be raising tuitions to the point where we're luring that level of chancellor or whatever it may be. what is your response? >> i disagree. this university was designed under the master plan to give students in california the opportunity to get that quality education and not have to go

3,000 miles away. when you look at what's happened in california with the university of california, and we have some small elite colleges, small in terms of size, cal-tech, and stanford compared to uc is small, and the synergy now with the backbone of the university of california and a few smaller colleges, that's a different model than you have on the east coast. the whole idea behind creating the university of california was to say, you know what, we should have a public university that is as good or better. it should have public-level tuition and costs, and it should give california the ability to compete. >> but as you know, some of the critics, including some of the regents who are elected officials, are saying what you're doing here is essentially holding the students hostage. you're saying, well, we won't raise the tuition if you give us more money. somebody described it as a ransom note. give us the money or we'll hurt

the kids. >> look, higher education in california, this doesn't start with this plan. it started a long time ago. as difficult budget decisions were made and things were prioritized, somehow, at the end of every session, at the end of every budget, the easiest thing to cut was higher education. i think what the rhegents were saying in this vote, and it was unanimous among the non-elected officials who have been appointed by the governor and confirmed, prior to the two just appointed, but everybody else said, you know what, no more. we think higher education deserves a priority in california. >> one of the things that the governor has said is that the university needs to be more creative. i'm wondering, you must have talked to the governor before you took this job. you've been a governor. you were the governor of arizona.

when you met with the governor or talked with him before you took this job, did he assure you of anything in terms of the atmosphere and the support you'd have from the state that you now feel he's not delivered on? >> we didn't have a one-on-one conversation. he was in the selection committee when i was interviewed. it was a long interview. everybody's focus was on the tax increase of prop 30. i think the assumption was there would be enough revenue taken from prop 30 and provided to higher education that we could leave tuition alone for a long period of time. the result has been, no, not much of prop 30 has gone to the universities. you have to ask this question. what are we trying to do with this university? it's the premier public research university in the world. all of the campuses are ranked in top ten in national and world

rankings. we're a huge economic generator for california. we're one of the best investments you can make for your dollar. we admit more low income and first generation students than any other public research university in the country. what exactly is it that we're trying to change just because for change's sake? you change for the better. if there are good ideas out there, we'll take them. >> is it fair to say you'd rather just have more state funding and roll back the tuition increase? >> i think the board's vote was very clear that the 5% tuition increase is a ceiling. we would prefer not to have to use it. but we have to provide some certainty moving forward in the budget process as to what it really takes to educate a university of california student. >> all right. president napolitano, thank you for coming in. >> thank you. >> during her tenure at homeland

security secretary, she deferred the childhood arrival policy. now, as president obama takes executive action to expand that policy up to 5 million undocumented immigrants could qualify for protection from deportation. it could have impacts in california, home to nearly one-fourth of the nation's undocumented immigrants. 22% have been living in this country at least two decades. most have been here more than five years. joining me now for analysis are ric oberlink, spokesperson for californians for population stabilization. manuel mart tetinezmartinez, a deferred status. and bill ong hing, a professor of law. how big a change is this for the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living long term in california? >> it's a huge change because it provides them with an

opportunity to come out of the shadows and work. it's something to be celebrated. they've lived and worked here for years. they're hard working people trying to feed their families. in my opinion, it's too bad that the president didn't go broader. it's a step, and i think it's a step in the right direction. >> ric oberlink, i assume your reaction is probably going to be quite different. >> it's wrong on policy, wrong on procedure. we don't think obama had the legal authority to do this. it's a breech of what should be going to the congressional branch of the legislative branch. beyond that, it's just wrong even if the congress had passed the amnesty act, the senate bill. the first way you want to deal with a problem is not to make it worse. we know that previous amnesties have made the problem of illegal immigration worse. it happened in 1986. congress passed a law, gave amnesty the 3 million and now we

have 12 million in the country illegally. he should prepare us for when we have 50 million. >> what will your group do about this? already, there's talk about legal challenges. what do you think your group or the republicans should do about it? >> our group won't be making legal challenges, but it appears the republicans might do this. i wish them luck in trying to stop it. it's a complicated thing, but this is different from what previous presidents have done, contrary to what has been said. the 1986 amnesty was passed by congress and later, reagan made adjustments around the edges of it. same thing with george h.w. bush, made small changes. >> he allowed 1.5 million undocumented spouses to be legal. >> right. 5 million work permits, it's a huge number. we're talking about the entire working age population of ireland and costa rica together getting work permits.

interestingly enough, obama didn't mention the words, work permits or work authorization in his speech. you can watch the speech and not realize we're talking about green cards and work permits for lots and lots of people. that affects american workers. >> bill, you're shaking your head. >> we're not talking about green cards. >> i got that wrong. work permits. >> the thing is, these numbers are not as staggering as they sound, relative to the entire population, the work force. it's a small group. and the fact is that, probably, i'm guessing that probably less than half of the 5 million that are estimated to be covered will come forward. there's going to be fear, documentation problems, et cetera. in fact, presidents have been acting in this manner for the last 50 years. i was around when i think it worked for the 3 million people. the problem wasn't so much that we weren't prepared for the future. the problem was that we had too

strict of a cutoff. if it had been a more generous legalization program, we wouldn't be in this situation. >> speaking of stepping forward, hang on to your thoughts because i want to bring manuel into this conversation. you are in this country under the program that grants temporary deportation reprieve for children brought here by their parents. you came here at one and a half years old. when this came into place, how did it change your life? >> just from docca coming into place, my mom, she was very, very happy that something finally had been done. something had happened. going through the whole phase, there was this overlying sense of fear that, you know, do i actually want to get fingerprinted? do i want to give the government that considers me an illegal alien, do i want to give them my documentation and everything on me? what if the bill -- sorry -- what if this action is taken

away? now they have everything on me and can deport me any day. that was something i was scared of. not just me. there were millions of kids in my situation that were also going through the exact same thing that i was. i remember, specifically going to the, i believe, building in oakland, near the airport, just knowing that something -- i'm sorry -- it was not knowing what the future could hold or not knowing what exactly -- where this was going to lead. >> but you did it, and now you're a student. you've gotten financial aid. you were able to get a job. you work at home depot. >> yeah. >> when president obama took this executive action and announced it last night, what was your reaction and the reaction from your parents, who are here illegally? >> yes. so when it happened last night,

i was actually still at school. i was in a completely empty classroom. i was studying. i took a break. i completely forgot about it. i pulled it up on my phone. i watched the highlights of it. earlier that day, i was talking with someone and they asked me what i wanted from this. it told them, number one, was something for my parents. i recently got my driver's license. having my license, having a legal job and having protection from deportation made me feel american. >> will your parents qualify? will they aplply to stay in the country under this executive action? >> yes, they will. when i heard president obama say my parents and millions of other parents would have protection under this, it felt like someone had taken off the lead vest they put on you when you get x-rays at the dentist. >> if i may, i'm happy for manuel and his parents who are going to be eligible, but my understanding is they're

eligible because you have a u.s. citizen sibling. >> yes. >> there are other parents who don't have that or are not in the situation, who are not covered. that's a disappointment. there is going to be a resulting family situation of separation for many of the families. >> remember, the 1986 amnesty was supposed to be a grand compromise. we'll have a one-time only amnesty throughout the congressional record and there will be enforcement so we won't need it again. look what happened. we're in a worse situation than before. again, 5 million work permits. there are 18 million unemployed or underemployed american workers looking for jobs. it's a huge number to talk about those work permits. >> this won't change anything, right? the reality is in terms of the numbers you're talking about, these are people already in this country already holding jobs, in construction, hospitality, manufacturing. >> some are working and some are not. with work permits, they'll be

able to get better jobs. this will increase the wage depression, the stagnation we've seen for years. >> how can it cause a wage depression if they'll get better jobs and the wages will increase? in fact, it'll make jobs more attractive to all people in the united states. >> for those unemployed. >> that are working class workers in the united states. not just working class immigrants. >> for the unemployed and underemployed, you're creating a larger labor pool and depression on wages. it's one of the reasons we've seen stagnation over the last several years. >> the problem with an economic view of that nature is it ignores how jobs are created. jobs are created by spending. when there are more people working who have more money in their pockets, they spend more. that creates jobs. in terms of the grand compromise of 1986, the problem was that there was not adequate visa reform as well. it would have accommodated future immigration to the united states. frankly, that's something that needs to be addressed, and i hope that congress comes

together to address this issue as well as visa reform. >> in the short time we have left, ric, i want to ask you this, do you think comprehensive immigration reform is needed, and is that even possible at this point, with the republican-led congress coming in in january? is that even possible in the near future, or is the well too poisoned now? >> i think it is too poisoned. i think beyond that, we don't need another comprehensive package that includes amnesty. we need to enforce the laws we have now. border apprehensions are up again the last three years in a r row. illegal immigration is increasing. once we take care of that problem, we can deal with people who have been here for a long time, the dreamers, so long. not until then. >> ric, we will have to give you the last word. we're out of time. thank you all for joining us. bill hing, ric oberlink and manuel martinez, a student at

san francisco state university. thank you all. she'll touted as a fresh new face for california's gop. newly elected catharine baker is considered a moderate. she narrowly beat her democratic opponent, becoming the first republican to within a bay area congressional or legislative seat in eight years. catharine baker spoke with scott shafer earlier about breaking the political mold and building relationships with democrats. >> catharine baker, welcome. >> great to be here, scott. thanks for having me. >> you got elected in a swing district, where democrats outnumber republicans. why do you think voters chose you over the democrat? what kind of message were they sending? >> i think they were sending a message that a lot of voters throughout california can relate to. they don't want someone who is party line. didn't want any more of the same powers to be, that already have a strong voice in sacramento. they wanted balance and independence.

that's something that ifo k foc on in my race from the beginning. they want someone focused on the issues that are important to the district, like education and transportation and jobs in california. stay focused on them. i think that's why. >> what's your top priority going to be? >> the one or two top priorities are what the voighteters talkede about. education and a job employment in california. >> i know you were a supporter of the teacher tenure. do you plan to do something for that? >> i think there is support for reforming the teacher tenure system, particularly on how to award and provide development for good teachers. there's a lot of them. also make it easier to have teachers have life-long professional development, which the tenure system suppresses. makes it spotty. >> democrats are in charge.

in sacramento, there are a lot of democrats in both houses. the governor is a democrat. how -- to get anything done, you're going to have to work with democrats. >> yeah. >> where do you see that common ground? >> well, it starts with the way i ran my race, to get bipartisan support. i think that's an indication of how i would intend to work with others in the capital. it starts with building relationships as well with those across the aisle who have the same priorities ander sb einter improvement in education. there is opportunity across the aisle. >> who is the first democrat you called? >> there were local leaders i called. i haeard from one of my primary opponents. i had an opportunity to meet my colleagues across the aisle. my in-laws are in evan's district. >> you're described as the fresh

face. you're the first republican to get elected in the bay area in eight years. what does that mean to you? what does it mean to be a break the mold republican? >> well, it starts with what you believe in. i'm a catharine baker republican, as i say. that's one that matches my district well. it's a fiscally conservative district. they like to see smart decisions made in sacramento. it means focusing on what voters in my community expect. not necessarily just talking points from the party establishment or leadership. working cooperatively with them but making sure i'm putting the voters first. >> you're liberal on society issues? >> that's how i'm described. it's a good match with my district. >> one of the things that is in the news is immigration reform. the national republican party says the president, what he sdi, was unconstitutional. >> i have a great respect for the separation of powers and the role that congress makes in writing laws and the president makes in the collaborative process. i think the process is wrong. i don't think this is setting

the right tone for what we need to do. i think some of the policies the president is looking at are exactly the ones that need to be looked at and reviewed. i don't think the process is right. it's not a good tone for bipartisan ship. >> do you think it was unconstitutional? >> i think the president's ability to make law is a path, and he said, i don't have the authority to do this before. i hope that in washington, we really need to see a better tone and cooperation and immigration reform is where it's needed the most. >> in california, we're going in the opposite direction as some of the country, especially with undocumented immigrants. we made life more normal. in january, they'll be able to get driver's licenses. do you support that kind of legislation? for example, expanding health care to include undocumented ingrai immigrants in california? >> my overall approach is as long as the state is not talking out of both sides of its mouth and saying some things are legal and some things are not.

trying to get ahead of the federal government. that's usually where we end up paying for it in the courts, through costly legislation and costly litigation. that's where i would look for the state of california not to be focusing. it is a federal issue, and we have the largest california delegation. california delegation is the largest one in sacramento and in washington. that's what we need to focus on lobbying. >> quickly, are you for or against high speed rail? >> i'm an opponent of the project the governor has been pushing. it's one where we need to change and give voters a chance to reconsider. >> catharine baker, thanks for coming in and congratulations. >> thanks for having me. good to be here. >> joining me now for a look at other news is scott shafer. a final bit of election news. we got some closure on election results outstanding this week. first, the democrats had a super

majority in both houses of the state legislature. where do they stand now? >> they lost it. they're short one in the senate and two in the state assembly. we saw catharine baker a moment ago, part of the reason. i think jerry brown is fine with that, having democrats able to override any vetoes he might make. i'm sure he's good being able to work with the republicans to get things done. >> speaking of republicans, we heard a lot about how well the republicans did nationally in the election. here in california, there were some very close races for congress. here in the state, it turned out to be good news for democrats. >> total anomaly from the rest of the country. the democrat in sacramento won. democrats picked up a seat with the mayor. the democrats added one to the congressional delegation. they did well. >> something else doing well, new employment data out shows california is a bright spot for job growth. >> 41,000 jobs created according to the release on friday.

the unemployment rate is the same, 7.3%. california is generating a lot of jobs, more than 319,000 in the past year. it's great news, especially in the bay area where things are going gang busters. it raises questions about the haves and have notes as things get more expensive. >> and affordability. it's causing a shift if you will. now we're seeing oakland surp s surpassing san francisco at the rates rents are increasing. >> oakland has the fastest raising in the country now. there are start-ups moving to the east bay. oakland is called the brooklyn of the west coast, which we're not wild about. hipsters, artists, start-ups moving to oakland, which is great news. for people who live there and try to make a living and have a family and want to afford a house or rent, it's tough and probably not going to get easier in the coming months and years. >> there is a bit of uneasiness brewing about who can stay and

who can't. >> absolutely. >> scott, thank you. >> you bet. for all of kqed news coverage, go to kqednews.org. >> i'm scott shafer, thanks for joining us. >> we will be off next week for the thanksgiving holiday. have a great holiday. i'm thuy vu. have a good night.

>> sreenivasan: on this edition for sunday november, 23rd. the deadline looms for a nuclear deal between iran and the west. we'll have a report from vienna where negotiations continue. in our signature segment, new york tries out a new plan to eliminate traffic fatalities. it's worked in sweden. can it work here? and, st. louis on edge as it awaits a grand jury decision whether to indict the police officer who killed michael brown. next on pbs newshour weekend