tv Bipartisan Policy Center Discussion on Migration Challenges CSPAN July 26, 2019 9:32am-11:08am EDT
>> good morning, everybody. welcome to the bipartisan policy center and to our event this morning about positive solutions to the central american crisis. first and foremost, you know, we've heard about the bipartisan policy center and the immigration project. the bipartisan policy center exists to bring in ideas from both sides of the political aisle to be able to address countries challenges. the immigration process seeks to do this in a whole host of different ways and i think this event is very much in line with the work we've been doing on convening individuals, ideas, and different actors to the immigration challenges that this country faces. the genesis of this event was in a report that was just put out that has policy solutions to addressing the crisis. you know, what we were thinking was how can we come up with a
very proactive, pragmatic and comprehensive solution to what's happening at the southern border, but not only the southern border, but throughout the rest of the region? and so in order to do this, we actually brought together several round tables with the stake holders. first of all, if you're watching this, thank you for your help that you contributed, but we brought in individuals to be able to have discussions what's happening in the region, how can we address them. how can we address them both in short-term, medium term ang long-term dealing with this crisis and the factors that have brought and generated them. so that was the whole idea is really bringing in together that. we also helped develop these things through research and having our own internal conversations and basically what is the most pragmatic way of developing this. bringing together the whole host of experts and dealing with the problems we're facing at the border and not just
simply at the border, but also in mexico and also honduras and guatemala. with that i want to introduce our moderator for the morning, mr. o'toole. with the los angeles times, remiss to say i'm actually from l.a., nice to see somebody from my hometown paper and nice to have you here. so, molly. >> okay. good morning, everybody. thanks for coming out on a friday in the summer in washington. it's start to go look like a ghost town here with the weather, so i appreciate it. obviously, we have a very esteemed panel here, their bios are lengthy, abbreviated versus. >> she has a long career of writing and thinking about the issues. and human rights first, she was an associate handling federal
litigation. she's also coordinated mentoring programs at a variety of places and international human rights committee, immigration committee for the association of the bar of new york, and the board of advisors to the program, international human rights at fordham university of law. and we have theresa cardinal brown here at the bipartisan policy center. she came to bpc from their own consulting firm and in immigration and border policy, and gives the perspective of immigration as well. associate director of business immigration advocacy at american immigration lawyers association. and then a variety of positions either advising or within the department of homeland security with the customs and border protection, and michael chertoff's review, and the policy in dhs, and so on.
and then we have, excuse me, ambassador gutierrez fernandez who is-- presented his credentials april 24th, 2017, interesting time to serve as ambassador to mexico to the united states. he'll have a lot of insight for us today and very extensive career, 15-year career in the mexican federal government from trade, finance, diplomacy, national security under four different presidents. lastly, but not leastly, we've got ashley the director of policy the united states conference of catholic bishops. she's also taught at fordham university school of law and columbus school of law and catholic university of america, and she previously clerked for the honorable evan j wallace at international-- excuse me u.s. court of international trade in new york. so very much looking forward to this discussion today. my plan was to start with some
of the recent news that we've had, obviously, it never stops, really, when we are talking about migration and particularly this sort of new migration that we're seeing to the united states over the last several years. last single adult, mexican males, and now we have near record totals central american families and unaccompanied minors. so, let me start with the newsier items and then dig into some of the policy solutions at that bpc has recommended. so i'll start with you here. but, please, anyone, feel free to weigh in. we'll have more of a free-flowing discussion. obviously this week, i'm sure that everyone is familiar with president trump's threats specifically against guatemala, suggesting that they had backed away from a deal or a safe third country agreement so in response, that the administration is considering steps ranking from a travel ban on guatemala to tariffs, sort
of akin to the threats recently against mexico to prompt their action. so the question is, when you have an administration who's taking this approach, from the president, you see very much the stick approach, from other sides of the government, you see more of a carrot approach. how are policy makers and members of the various administrations within central america, how do they navigate this environment to a way that actually brings you to some kind of solution? >> well, i think the trump administration's approach is really counterproductive here, i mean, to start with, safe third country agreement with guatemala would be a total violation of u.s. law. guatemala does not meet the safe third country requirements of u.s. laws, not safe for refugees and they're going to be at risk returned back to their country for persecution. so the president is in essence
issuing threats because guatemala is failing to enter into an agreement that's illegal under u.s. law. plus, it's counterproductive. one of the chief reasons that people are fleeing from guatemala is because of the crippling corruption and the lack of rule of law and we're sending a message that it's a problem to be complying with an order issued by a court in guatemala, that directed the president not to enter into the agreement. >> so there's very clear issues potentially with the safe third country agreement being signed by guatemala when it comes to perspective and working on issues. theresa, i wanted to ask you from the diplomatic side of things and interesting to see the department of homeland security sort of take on this role that may have been more traditionally part of the state department, really the department of homeland security negotiating u.s. foreign policy and broader western hemispheric policy. so, what's the role of dhs here
and how do they sort of navigate? >> certainly for the whole u.s. government, the state government is a-- that every government has negotiations in their area of agreement. when i was at dhs i was actually an attach in canada and they had attaches around the world on the immigration side and with countries along the way. secretary nielsen was in the process of security cooperation with the triangle countries before she departed. and that level what they're trying to do is see what level of cooperation, primarily on border security, particularly with mexico and guatemala and securing your own borders and offer them technical assistance and support in understanding how best to secure the borders and also how to improve their immigration institutions.
that's another thing that dhs has expertise that they offer to other countries and was working on and last but not least, going off criminal and smuggling elements that are facilitating the migration. so that's sort of the realm they're working on and it does seem sort of contrary to sort of the way the president is conducting diplomacy via tweet, but a lot of this is ongoing series of meetings. so just yesterday the security ministers, interior ministers of all triangle countries were meeting with secretary mcleanen to talk about these things and apparently had a fairly productive meeting. those are ongoing, but longer term negotiations, it's not that the president is to shut off the migrant flow, if you will. what he's trying to do, i don't think a safe third, i don't think he cares if it's safe. he's looking for a country of first entry agreement.
and from what we understand of the negotiations with the jimmy morales, the president of guatemala. it was about guatemala accepting back anybody who had travelled through guatemala to get to the united states. it doesn't require guatemala to take applications from asylum from them or process them 0 are require them to be safe, we're going to send them back to you and it's one way. >> well-- >> it's more akin to possibly what the eu is trying to do with turkey. right? like you keep everybody there and don't let them into our territory, and similar i think that's what they were talking about in mexico. that's different from the safe third country agreement we have with canada, which is reciprocal and we think each other's systems are relatively similar, coming from one country to the other and asking for asylum we're going to send you back and say go apply there. it works both ways although the
majority of the travel is going north so canada sends more people back to the united states than the other way around. theoretically it's reciprocal. that doesn't seem to be what we're talking about. >> it's a perfect transition to the ambassador not to just sort of go down the line here, but you know, you're someone who has been in the room for these negotiations and relatively recently. i mean, at the beginning of the trump administration and so i would ask you, what advice do you have for guatemala and other countries within central america right now. obviously, mexico is in a very different position than guatemala. what advice do you have for them right now sort of in the midst of the negotiations with the u.s. about potentially taking on what could be a very large burden and may not, maybe not having the systems to accommodate it? >> yeah, well, precisely given that those negotiations are still very fresh, i won't go into too much detail, but i'll say whatever i can.
mexico has always, you know, tried to convince the united states that we should approach immigration in general as a shared responsibility, from a shared responsibility to perspective. and that beyond the narrative implies, i think, two or three things that are important. and i'm not anybody to recommend any government anything, but i do believe from our own experience, that shared responsibility, trying to push to that concept is important. and that implies basically, number one, you know, that first, it's impossible to solve anything unless the sites really work together. and to be perfectly honest, i think that some people worldwide see migration as simply as a-- you know, a human right and some others see it as a problem and as a challenge and we're never going to have the same vision. i think we have to recognize that. so every solution is going to
be imperfect and not going to leave all sides happy. i think that needs to be recognized and i think that's precisely about, you know, approaching as a shared responsibility. it implies, i think, that the countries from which the immigration is coming should do its utmost to make sure that people are not forcing to live in their countries. and that is simply not happening or at least not to the level necessary in the northern triangle countries and i think that's something that is broadly recognized that these countries do have socioeconomic challenges that are not being met and therefore, a lot of people are being forced to leave. and that's not on the united states. that should be whether it's on mexico or in central america. and those countries, our own countries should do its utmost to make sure the migration is not a forced decision and that's not happening to the extent that it should.
>> right. >> and at the same time, that's the second part of the equation is the united states in my view, and respectfully, should recognize that there is a growing demand of people to come to the united states. now, how is that done, it's simply up -- it's something that the united states should decide by itself according to its own legal system, democratic process and the like, but until that is also recognized here which is not always fully recognized, we have a problem. in central america we see what people are talking about, around 80% of the people that are coming to the southern border, would meet or actually meet the credible fear interview requirements, but that the vast majority of these people that meet those requirements then don't really meet the requirements for being offered asylum fully and i'm quoting figures.
i'm not saying i'm validating. and that, you know, it's also important to recognize that a big chunk of the people that are coming here from central america are coming here because of socioeconomic conditions, which it's not evident that would have them meet the asylum requirement. so, we need to open avenues. we, the region needs to open avenues. i think there's two things and i'll stop there, two things, one is to find some sort of solution, regional solution, whether it's a third safe country or whatever you want to name it, but a reasonable solution in which the countries that are involved agree that they're going to have a common approach to dealing with people that are truly seeking asylum because they are fleeing for their life or whatever. that is not there. and we need to work on it. and i think it's crucial that that happens. i cannot believe that the united states government, or the united states does not want
to, you know, continue with its tradition of offering people that are fleeing from violence, persecution, attempts in their country. i'm not sure, but i hope not. but the point is, but i also believe that there are people that don't want to have their own asylum system abuse, quote, unquote. there needs to be a solution and that solution needs to be regional. on the other side, i think it's in the benefit of central america and mexico and the united states and everybody to sit down calmly and say, okay, what is, you know, what is the level of movement of people we want between our countries. are the legal avenues to do so sufficient and efficient enough so people can actually choose a legal avenue? i think we need to have a serious discussion about that and since the last 50 years, i've heard, you know, let's get
border security first. >> right. >> well, we've been working on border security for the past 15 years and at least since 9/11 from what i can remember very seriously at least with respect to mexico. when people talk about border security here, what exactly do we mean so we can get to that point? >> i think you took one of my questions coming up, but thank you for that. less work for me, but so there's a lot to dig into there with what everyone is talking about. but one of the things he said, i'd actually like to say to you, actually ambassador. you say some people see migration as a human right and other people see migration as a problem. there's clearly differing views between united states, mexico and the northern triangle countries and attitudes towards migration as a human right versus as being a problem. you seem to suggest, ambassador, that those two sides were never really going to meet. >> i don't think they'll ever meet fully, no. >> right, so actually i want to
ask you, how can you take steps to address this migration crisis, whatever you want to call it, this migration surge, this changed migration? how can you take practical steps to address that when if you're starting with the premise that those two sides are never going to meet, migration as a human right versus migration as a problem? >> so, i think it's a really good question and i think that a lot of people here in washington and then also obviously in central america, are grappling with that right now. how do we make kind of policy solutions that can help immediately, but also give a long-term system? obviously, everybody here acknowledges that there's a regional situation, it's not a u.s.-only for a mexico-only situation so that involves cooperation with other governments. but i do want to just kind of note this idea that a majority of people are coming because they're economic migrants, i think it's a lot more
complicated than that. i think it's a lot more about issue of violence as an overwhelming factor that's intermingled with other things. we see that, you know, there's some evidence of internal displacement in all three northern triangle countries where people will move several times before they do move north and i think it's really important to understand that the statistics, even, about who qualifies for credible fear can move on to an asylum claim are themselves being contested. you know, it's our belief, i think, that some of the people who may be qualified for a credible fear and then move on into the interior, if they're given the correct information about what they need to do to comply will actually end up complying for asylum. and that has to do with, you know, talking about solutions, that has to do with looking at, you know, alternatives to detention, looking at better conditions here at the border and looking at infrastructure in mexico, you know, to address
people who maybe want to stay in mexico through that journey improving the asylum system there. i think there are a number of different solutions on the u.s. side, i think we do have to look at what's occurring at the border, both within what is in dhs's daily capacity to improve the border processing centers. to improve the processing of families and children increasingly coming, but also to elinore's point, to work within the existing legal framework that we have both in the u.s. legal system, but also in some of the countries here when their governments say they're not going to engage in agreements. you know, i think another thing that's really important to some of my fellow panelists have noted, kind of the inconsistency of the trump administration policy, you know, we went from hearing there could be a possible safe third country agreement or you know, return agreement as theresa pointed out to hearing
there could be tariffs or a ban, to the point of even ending remittances back to their country. guatemala, realize we're about 12% of their national economy is remittances and what kind of consistent policy are we saying if we want people to stay in guatemala if we're cutting off aid and remittances, there needs to be a little bit of lifting up and seeing how things work together. aid, negotiations and relative that they can implement. >> feel free to jump in with each other. >> let me just dove tail on that. one of the problems is i agree completely it's a very complex phenomena, what's going on and there's not a single-- i don't think there is one route, one concept of what's going on and i think it's a mistake. i was recently reading an article on immigration and the author said lets be careful
about single solutions to problems. i think he's right. and because there are different reasons behind it, is multi-prong aproefrp -- approach, that we do better job of coordinating our asylum policies. when i say we, a whole group of country. actually fighting human smuggling and trafficking, i think that's absolutely necessary and we know by fact that trafficking organizations are tricking people into taking these routes and using the asylum system, whether that's, you know, it's -- they're saying that that's going on and there's going -- there's a need to have, you know, humane border, security and enforcement. i think that's part of what we need to do in a way that's careful. and so, my only point is, yes,
we need to work on different fronts, to actually get a solution. and you think about one single point solution, let me use the word, you know, if we think it's only going to be a wall, probably be -- i don't think that that will work. we need to work on different fronts, if we-- we need to work on the development of those countries and i think the united states is, you know, has done a lot already and we need to do even a little bit more so it's a bunch of things that need to be put together. >> i mean, what's the saying, for every complex problem there's a simple solution that's wrong? and i think that's -- i agree precisely and that's one of the reasons why we address it, and put it in terms of time frame. development in the northern triangle countries, and dealing with impunity and pile of
things that are driving migration in addition to economic issues and violence and those things is a long-term process. like that's not going to be solved very quickly. it requires long-term investments and long-term cooperation and certainly the efforts of the countries themselves. they have to take responsibility there. but at the end of the day, those are the things that keep people home. but we also have to address sort of the most immediate situations at the border right now, that's what's driving sort of the energy around us right now is we have an immediate issue of, you know, record numbers of families and children at a border, through a system that was never designed to deal with this at this volume. and when i say the system was never designed to deal with this, our asylum system was designed to do exactly what everyone is saying, which is recognize the human rights of people and give them the process to go through and discern whether they qualify under the asylum law, front them protection if they do and
we have the process dealing with unaccompanied children and people and what we don't have is sufficient capacity to address the volume that we have right now. and we did not -- and i'm going back to when we first started seeing unaccompanied kids coming in 2013, 2014, invest in the system to address that volume. we invested in the border and trying to stop that problem and i think that that's something we need to think seriously about and that is, you know, if the issue is, you know, how we deal with asylum and whether we make those decisions we have the process in place and we're not letting them work the way they were intended because the capacity issues aren't there. >> we're covering a lot of ground here and obviously, this is a complex issue that requires complex solutions, i also feel like you come to an event at a think tank in washington and you always hear, we need a comprehensive approach, right? >> you do. >> we need a comprehensive
approach, this is a complex project, we need a whole of government and need to use all the tools in the toolbox. we've heard these phrases. so let's drill into some of these-- >> conversation does not mean solving everything at the same time. >> right you have to have priorities. >> make sure you're looking at everything that needs to be addressed and then precisely the timeline. >> right, i want to get to the solution at the border when we're talking about timeline and priorities and most people would see as the most immediate, but let's take a step back from the border and stay in central america for just a moment. obviously, there are complex factors contributing to this dramatic shift in migration that is part of the capacity challenge at the border. we also have a situation in which the trump administration has threatened aid to central america and is even redirecting some of that money towards venezuela, for example. and what i want to ask you, and
each of you, and whoever feels to weigh in on this, what are the aid solutions the support from the united states that's working in central america? what are some examples you can pull out of a successful aid program that has had an impact on migration since especially that's how the trump administration seems to be measuring the success of foreign policy and foreign assistance? ... in addition i don't know if you saw the series of articles written by jonathan blitzer for the new yorker about programs that were helping farmers who
are no longer able to grow the same crops because of climate change. these programs are helping them learn how to grow different types of products. these programs were cut in 2017 because of the trump administration policies. there are things that do work and can work overtime, requires sustained effort. when not talking massive amounts of money. it's more targeting programs that will address the problems that are pushing people and reinforcing that as well with targeted diplomacy, with diplomacy that is pressuring and urging these countries to combat corruption to uphold the rule of law and address the rights. >> what you said about targeted programming is interesting because the administrations argument has been we need to make a more efficient. we need to reduce the potential corruption or inefficiencies in foreign assistance in the tree. so targeted programming seems to
be what the administration is going for when they're talking about looking at programming and cutting back if they don't believe it's been effective. >> targeted in different ways. >> also in the mindset of the administration that these for assistance potentially as negative thing and wants to see what they can exact from that assistant. >> a lot of this money was going to community groups, going to organizations working on the front lines trying to address the problems that are leading people to flee. >> just to follow-up, the type of aid matters. a large age package primary for enforcement or for cooperation is that going to be able to achieve what we're hoping for when we think of aid in terms of directly going to community organizations. two examples and eleanor did a great job catholic relief
services, then program called youth builders they were in came controlled communities to help build entrepreneurial skills for young people aged about 15-25. it's the program that has seen success in terms of has engagement and chose educational and employment opportunity. think thing with the farming come do with climate change for farmers is an important reality. another program that we need to be thinking about is run by kind, , kids in need of defense. they are doing kind of a repatriation for unaccompanied children who are returned back to guatemala, honduras or el salvador, what people to understand is when a child or family member is returned back, many times they owe a lot of money. there's a lot of disunity and family and sometimes the family itself has to travel a days worth of travel on a bus to come and pick up the child at an
airport. that starts the reunification of october. some of these programs look to do safe and integrated repatriation that helps the child, , get back together and hopefully prevent re-migration. i think it's important to tie this into if that is the goal as the trump administration to prevent people from migrating, then these are the type of programs they to be implemented to get people livelihoods, opportunity and, frankly, the ability to live in society without violence so we can see them not come back after they have come back several times faced internal displacement. >> ambassador, i know you wanted to way but if i could direct us a little bit. we were talking earlier about how we started referring to the northern triangle as this unit come as if there are not key differences within el salvador, guatemala, honduras. el salvador seen some success if we are measuring success by
repeated migration, el salvador seen some success in the reduction of those numbers at the same time as we've we seen dramatic increase from honduras and guatemala. in your went in and what we've been talking about, what's the difference with el salvador? what might be potential of working there? we had the comments from the new president and el salvador after meetings with the secretary of state mike pompeo recently what you said we want to be friends,, partners we do want to be an aid country anymore. i thought that was an interesting remark. >> i would say first of all i think we must recognize that neither the united states, mexico, germany, europe or anybody is going to be able to do more for these countries that they're willing to do for themselves. i think that needs to be a principle which we operate. at all put the example of mexico. in mexico in the year 2000, there were 1.7 million
apprehensions in the united states seven border, events. those were not necessarily people. the same people, but it was the events. 98% of the more mexican nationals. we are now to maybe 150,000 mexicans. there's been a clear reduction. mexico's gdp went, probably right now around $12,000, maybe $11,000. there are people that actually point to the fact that when we reach gdp opera $9000, actually when migration began to curve down. there's come to a large extent that's true. i like to think we did our homework to the best of our ability, and that helped. so no money is going to be
enough. if any country is not serious about tackling its own challenges. the second thing that i would point out is that success implies necessarily that they countries take ownership of whatever aid and cooperation. just let me point, let me point to the fact we don't have here this morning anybody from central america. they need to be owners of the programs that we are working. they need to feel that these are their programs, and we, we mean the united states, mexico, however, needs to console them thoroughly about what they seek and how did they see. i'm sure they will take the aid, and we took the aid and i would be even when to take more aid. but they need to be involved very heavily involved in whatever is done. i think that's a mistake. the third thing is that focus in
place two things. over diagnosing, it's over diagnosing. i think there's plenty of studies here like every think tank has its own study on the matter there are plenty of studies by mexican agencies, use agencies. and there's a good framework. focus means i think that either my opinion, either you focus heavily on one specific out our region and everything there, or you are very specific and approach one thing, like health. mitchell to make a dent on health or education. because if not, nation, i don't like use mr. budd and going to use it anyway, nationbuilding is a difficult thing. and within a big framework not everybody can do -- nothing the united states, you cannot do everything. we cannot do everything.
we need to focus on some things -- something space with the united states on but these countries -- one more thing. you talked about security. sometimes the united states is blamed, you know, it's only secured. and actually of the money that goes out into these countries, a very important portion actually goes to security. not necessarily to be economic development fund. >> more than a very important point. >> okay. and most people say oh, it's only -- i happen to differ from the approach of mexican administration is taking now. oh, we should only be money for development. the united states does that. in my view because of the coaches had to make cooperation for security, and that's it's needed. >> let's talk about that. >> and people often compare to
what? i mean, yes, we need to be accountable. it was my money i would like to know that it is being spent wisely. but you're always comparing to what? if this helpless after, things would be much worse. >> right, if the assistance wasn't there and i think that's what a lot of people .2 when you have threats to cut off the country entirely from assistance or to cut off travel entirely the potential could be exasperating these problems. let's so to bring herself to the board anything away we can do that is your talk about economic assistance versus security assistance. the focus and i think we can say the objectively of the u.s. approach to migration for decades, not just the trump administration but predating the trump administration is enforcement first, border security first. in many ways you can sum up the
democratic and republican approach since really the '90s as deterrence. it's fair to say that hasn't worked and i think that was one of the interesting things that you talked about in the bipartisan policy center come in their solutions to this is their enforcement only approach hasn't worked. but you still emphasize that border security is necessary. a question to the ambassador -- that the ambassador asked one of which want to ask now, what does border security look like? if it's not define how can you possibly achieve it? what is border security? >> i think this is one of the conundrums of the immigration debate writ large visibility has sort of terminologies or catchphrases or short things that are meant to describe again a complicated thing. but border security at its core should be about securing the territory of a country from threats that come from outside
the country. in this case threats can be criminal gangs, , smuggling, terrorism, any sort of, contraband, think that should not come into the united states that we don't want to have here. migration has been seen as a more security issue predominately migration actually not about border security. i would argue that the with migration of the border should be about border management. i'd rather use that term than security. in part because what we need to do is manage the arrivals, whether that's at the port of entry or in between port of entry. how do we manage that? a portion of that management is ensuring the migrants who, are not a threat but that's one portion of it. the broader portion of managing migration at the border is what is the process to determine, are you eligible to stay or not and what do we do with that? that's about migration. it's not about more security and when we conflate the two, and you're right we've we done thin physically since 9/11, but it's important to understand they
have different functions. i think we do need to think about this more in terms of a migration management solution and that's why deterrence of migration in and of itself and the idea we can keep people out or push people back or turn off a spigot somewhere and people will stop coming is just, it's not realistic. i think we need to examine the processes that we put in place for different arrow when the majority were mexicans that were able to be returned very quickly. our numbers of asylum applications of u.s.-mexico border were very small as a percentage of the overall volume. and our asylum system is not meant for that. even the migration process for central americans who would not ask for asylum, if that's the bulk of people waiting with who can be made return to mexico, that requires an additional set of processes. our infrastructure was not built for this. obviously we see that.
where families and children being held in facilities that should never hold families in facilities at all. so we need to rethink the entire way we manage the border. particularly because i think this shift is not a blip. i think this is a longer-term -- we've been dealing with this now really since 2010 you started seeing numbers coming up. it's now been a majority of central america at the board since at least 2015 i believe. and so i think this is a longer-term trend that we need to recognize and we need to rethink how we do a lot of -- >> briefly went to pick on the ambassador because it seems in some ways mexico is now adopting a similar model of enforcement first. we have the deployment, the creation of and the rapid deployment of the national guard. these images of mexican military or mexican national guard at the border stopping women and children have gotten a lot of attention within mexico.
is mexico repeating the mistakes of the united states in enforcement first and deterrence approach and with that being outsourced to mexico at the moment? >> it's a very good question. people are surprised in mexico and in the united states because of what the sort of things mexico right now is doing in enforcement. we got to this point in my view because we did not, being auto critical. previous administration including the ones i served, we did not do a good job in strengthening our own immigration systems and institutions. if we have national guard now doing or co-working with immigration authorities in mexico, it's simply because we did not really i think, and
again we are to blame about, we were not serious enough about improving and modernizing our own immigration institutions, like nami at her own refugee agency. that's why we are here because suddenly the numbers became, the -- [inaudible] by which we manage immigration regionally has simply changed. it changed i think in -- the changed a bit in 2001 after 9/11 and then again i think in 2013-14 13-14 because of the unaccompanied minors situation. we need to find something else and we did not i think did a good job in looking at those
things. so people are rightly never a concern that the mexican national guard is enforcing immigration and unconcern, too, but we have no other option. >> no other option? >> i'm serious incense that simply the number of agents that we have, our own migration stations, with our own immigration agency, immigration agency has $1 million. that's a joke. if we don't want this situation, and we don't, then we need a systematic effort to get, to whatever needs to be done, do with the appropriate authorities and do in way that is humane and absolute respect for human rights. the fact of the national guard is currently doing that does not imply competition not imply in
any way and acceptance to any violation of human rights. that's number one. but we got to the situation because our agents are simply not enough. >> you seem like you wanted to weigh in. >> both for the mexico and united states it's a moment of decision to both your point the status quo has changed. this idea deterrence and enforcement only, it's networking. not only that but it's not representative for the population, and both through mexico and to be as border women, children, families. and i think we as a government, i can speak to use government, need to import and more multidisciplinary approach. i mean, so the images and the stories of what we heard in clint, the cdc processing facility ready to unaccompanied children. as a service provider for unaccompanied children i guess the question is why are not hhs and dh is working better
together truly that pressures of board patrol can comply with our existing laws which children for unaccompanied cannot be within a part of a toll longer than 72 hours? mexico needs to take the lesson of the united states and the fact we frankly children are dying. we need to be doing better from humanitarian plans, you know, i can still do enforcement to kind of, since your any moment to reform your system, to include these and others because we're in a system where that's a big concern. we have law enforcement for what is in some ways a humanitarian response that is needed, at least to up move along into the larger kind of asylum system and also into the larger goals of either removal ultimately integration and citizenship. >> great first response. >> 1. is we did not see, mexico
transitioned from being very quickly from being a country in the of immigrants into the united states, largely a transit and we did not adjust our immigration system. so we were focusing our immigration authority, nami is larger centered on send me a passport and getting in the people that were returned from the programs from mexican national returning. we cannot be satisfied with what is going on. i'm sure all of you saw the picture of the father and the daughter facedown in -- nobody in the trent and mexico can be satisfied with what is going on based upon that. but i think the only point i'm going to say is what is going on hopefully us is a wake-up call and say we need to put much more money into our immigration system. we do a far better.
one of the points i think i've made before even when i was ambassador, when you get police sort of, any sort of police authorities involved in immigration, people are very scared and rightfully so. but my point was always the fact that what is going on right now puts a lot of light into it. because previously we just had a lot of people going through mexico with nobody, not much attention because nobody was involved and in my view that's a worse situation. if were going to have, if we have national guard involved and we have -- let's get side-by-side ngos that are looking on what's going on, that helping make it humane, , but i think the situation, the positive side, but somewhat into what is going on. >> i want to get to eleanor, sort of stuck on the sidelines can for a minute. >> on the u.s. side, it's
similar tension in mexico obviously, 30 different situation but i thought what you brought up is he basically got law enforcement responding to what is largely a humanitarian situation at the border. but my question is since this phenomenon this shift will start in 2010 among the trump administration really trumpeted in 2017 2017 the 50 year lows n apprehensions, i think we can see that largely as a blip in this increase in central american migration, families and children primarily. so should you, , should the u.s. have seen this coming? we have law enforcement addressing humanitarian situation but is this a question of capacity or is it a question of political will to respond to the situation there really origins almost a decade ago no? >> i think it's a question of the will but also question of you got the wrong actors upfront respond to what is essentially a
refugee and humidity and situation. you got the department of homeland security using tools that are mentioned for immigration enforcement. you've got the wrong actors on the front line here. there needs to be a major overhaul of our response to a he mentioned situation at the border. >> specific what does it look like? what steps need to be taken to ship the approach? >> right at the front and we need to have not only cbp, there has to be physicians, pediatricians. there has to be lawyers working with people at the very front end. there are shelters waiting along the border, many faith-based groups helping but they are only coming in after the process has gotten started. is a lot more the can happen plus a lot of these logjams were seen at the border of because of trump administration policy. you see these pictures in el paso of all these people waiting to be moved supposedly to immigration detention centers.
a part in not being moved to immigration detention centers because the president said we're not going to release people who are eligible for release under existing bond in perl standards. el paso is one of the areas that notoriously had the lowest release rate. you need a total overhaul of your policies to be responding to people are seeking refuge in seeking asylum. the other point theresa race earlier was -- raised early was the adjudication immigration system. we work with lawyers around the country representing people who seek asylum before our asylum offices and also in immigration court. we've been pushing since i don't know 2013 or so both with the obama administration as well is currently and with congress for increases in asylum officers and increases and immigration judges. we need many more adjudicators. the adjudication system has been
woefully underfunded in comparison to immigration enforcement systems which have received massive infusions of my overtime. it's not just our system does not have the capacity to adjudicate the cases for it, but it's not just we need more immigration judges. interpreters, giving people recordings of information is not the way to actually have a fair system. and as of the compensation entire adjudication system has been compromised. we have agency leaders, political appointees who are saying they in and day out to the agencies that they oversee, to the people who are adjudicating these cases, the cases pending before the unlike inmate. we are seeing change in the immigration court that has added to the immigration court backlog. the martial project did an extensive study showing a lot of the changes the trump administration has made have actually made the backlog worse and linked in the amount of time it's going to take people to get to the system. we also need real case
management. >> clearly a lot and needs but with just a few minutes left up with the question, if we can get 32nd response if anybody about whether this is a question of -- 30-second responses. what. what steps can be taken now within the system that is law enforcement first. what steps can be taken to address the humectant situation at the border? >> we try to address the real quick. for small read the report. eleanor and others have their own recommendations. you will find this an overlap but i think what we try to get at is exactly let's get to solutions. first and foremost i think the most immediate thing i can be done and this is something ashley mentioned is we haven't had the type of intergovernmental coordination among the agencies to address this. you have cbp point i.c.e. and i.c.e. dancing with capacity or hhs think we have that and bp
says you don't have beds. if this were a hurricane or a flood or an earthquake we would have a major massive whole of government response with a single battle coordinator who can coordinate with all of the federal agency, you doing this and you are doing this and you are responsible for this. i was state and local entities because we are seeing and hearing from the localities where this is happening that they're being inundated, the ngos, the government is not accepting assistance for medical care or anything else like that. in part a question whether you have the authority to do so. we've been talked about the of an immigration fema. why are we not doing that? that's anything we could speed is i'm going to pause so we gave everyone the last thought. immigration fema. ambassador, a few examples that invention in which the trumpet message approach is making things worse when it comes to think a drink situation with metering, the remain in mexico program.
what should mexico be doing, what is mexico's role in these unilateral policies that are being implement it at a potentially making the situation worse both for mexico and the u.s.? >> first of all i'm against unilateral actions because as a said a complex issue that needs everybody to work together. many different countries. i think mexico should, a, strengthen its own asylum and refugee system so it's in a far better condition to offer refugee status to the people that go to mexico and are requesting the refugee status. whether the initial plan is to go to the united states on mexico but but i think we needo improve far better our capacity, which is absolutely has been absolutely serviced. the second thing we did do is establish some shared criteria
and hopefully share the challenge with the united states and other countries. that people that are going to the region that are seeking refugee, there is a regional response to often the best conditions. mind you, that might imply that going to end up where they wish they end up. and that's a very important thing. but i think it's necessary. i think that would be to make specific speedy ashley, what steps can be taken immediately? >> very quickly and gone to focus on the family arriving because that's the population we serve at the border. the department of homeland security had committed during the last administration and alternative for families called the family case management program. it worked in five different cities, a small pilot program. it was canceled in june 2017. we don't have the type of
statistics, good or bad we would like as a taxpayer. people should be upset we were not able to see this moving forward. the department of homeland security has the ability of myth this program in need of it. they have implement more alternatives to detention. there's a backgrounder to talk about in more detail because i i know we are tight on time but this is something that could help with families. it could ensure that they are complying with the immigration proceedings. it wouldn't add to the cost to the taxpayer immigrant detention, and it is a humane system in terms of definitely preferential to putting children into detention. this could be done today. that's my quick fix. >> so going to open it up to questions, and i will be as aggressive with you as a was with our panel here about please try and stick to a specific question and we will open it up. do we have mic runners? this is the first and i saw her
here. >> as the discussion went through, one of the things i found lacking in the comments was the reality of life foreign policy that use has in the region, right? we speak about as if the countries are completely sovereign and they come equal to that and people are just sick of the violence. ambassador, you said countries have talked together about how much people should absorb. so how much of it absorb like the bad convulsive puts 50% of the guns in mexico come legally from the u.s.? how much should use absorb from central america because of the policies of the red scare of the '80s which created a massive flow speeders what's the question? >> the question is how do we really change the dialogue and include u.s. foreign policy and its interests so that as we are
talking about how had we fix ie understand that u.s. has responsibility to that? we should absorb and we should give them more a because we actually are causing some of these things. >> so how do you incorporate u.s. foreign policy as a cause or one of the factors contributing to some of these problems, historically, as well as incorporate it in some of the solutions? is that right? >> very briefly, , there's a bok called the evolution of cooperation by optical david axelrod which explains how people in the cooperative with one another country. basically explains its tit for tat. if you have a repetitive case and you do tit for tat, you get to the point that two was complicit attorney for mexico are the united states and south meck that don't miss his own incentives aligned it up to operating. tit for tat.
i think shared cooperation, tit for tat, and that way you will involve mexican and central and u.s., meaning we need to sit together and say this is what the united states once, is the central america wants, okay, let's take a step, build confidence, take another step, build. sick it of what you are working together far better than we are doing. i think that's the only way. because the interests, and i don't want to be, you know, negative about it but the interest don't necessary align always and, therefore, you need to work on cooperation. >> when it comes to foreign policy i tend to be a realist similarly, and this is especially relevant wins big at what happened with guatemala. whenever you talk about interest between countries and
negotiations there has to be an understanding of the political rally within that country, and the political reality in that country that allows only to engage in that form of diplomacy to every catches limitations of what they can do in foreign policy based on his domestic palooka limitation wada mulliken the united states was negotiating with a president who is probably outgoing in the middle of an election did not have the support of madrid a country majority of the legislature. what did they do? they went to the cause of june court to suit to keep them from finding the next president to an agreement that guatemala didn't want. that is a domestic political situation in guatemala but a significant impact on the go to the united states to actually get an agreement that they kind of ignored. when you have countries coming together it would be really nice if we could think about foreign policy as as a matter of shared responsibility or obligation that is wonderful, but i tend to believe in the limited foreign policy i been engaged in, attends to come come down to exactly what is each country
national interest when you can exchange interest, you can get agreement. whereas one-sided -- and both countries had to come to the table with the demand as well as an offer, i think. >> certain principles that should, just make it clear what i said earlier, basic human rights are not subject to negotiation. beyond that you need to try to get cooperation because recognizing the interest of the countries speedy but the other thing i would say is that the history between the countries definitely impacts the interactions. >> that -- will get to my question but that is the fun and a part of the question we have addressed yet, is on the current negotiations and current debate around migration and approached the central american migration in particular is part of the reason that we can't make it to the heart of the issue because we are ignoring the role the
u.s. has played in el salvador, for example, or in the civil wars of the '90s of the interference of the northern triangle of removing gang members, representing some training that did not exist in el salvador and 92 because of the deportation policy. are we ignoring those things at our own detriment? >> it's been transactional and if we don't take a longer view and if we don't look to uphold human rights through our diplomacy, through our foreign policy, then we will contingency same can problems we have. things are getting worse and worse. we talk about a blip, we also nicaragua and venezuela. there are people, more people who are fleeing great need of protection and if he is doesn't suck said in a better its own policies and doesn't start promoting protection of human rights of refugees and the human rights of people living in their own country, it's in her own
self-interest to be upholding human rights franklin. >> venezuela being the far and away for the top national issues -- >> but at the same time we saw the announcement this week it's unlikely they will be issuing designation for venezuela. we do see that as we begin the panel and inconsistency and policy towards this country as well. it's receiving a that was directed towards other northern truncal countries, but at the same time while it's so dangerous you not come to be considering the designation are interesting enough the bill promoting tps in the house passed yesterday. we will see that. i know senator rubio has been involved on the senate side. it will be interesting to see how certain foreign policymakers in the senate balance the call for increased protection for venezuelans here with the foreign policy demands i think
of the trump administration. >> are whether that bill even gets a vote. i think you are next. i'll be faster about this. >> thank you. i'm affiliated with a number of human rights advocacy organizations. quality conversation, thank you. one quick suggestion. i suggest when you have a panel on central america, probably good to have an member of the panel from central america. my question is mostly for you, mostly with the catholic bishops organizations. in the face of what's happening at the border and the current policies leading a lot of horrible consequences, kids in cages and kids are dying, the treatment and also concentration camps.
that's probably taken to the extreme, but it reflects the frustration people have so i'm wondering why isn't the religious community played a more vigorous leading role in advocating for fairness or better implementation let's begin you can probably speak for catholic bishops but why is the evangelical committee and other christian organizations looking the other way? >> first off, i think your point is well taken. i think it's really important to understand what religious communities are doing right now. there were some over 70 people were arrested in civil disobedience last week for catholic action. several bishops were in support of that. a number of entities at the border our shelter providers in el paso and rio grande valley are catholic entities. they work with border patrol also kind to say this is our key matching work. i think it's a really difficult
time to move forward on some of this. there is i think increasing difficulty when we hear things we will do some processing for central americans wince at the same time they're going to slash refugee resettlement. a lot of voices are trying to engage the administration on this commentator when you think about some of the humanitarian issues that you've talked about. there's a difference of opinion. i can't speak for the evangelical faced under the bishops are united on this issue and issued another statement and actions an actual last summer we were to reunite the families in partnership with the trump administration. not an agreement on a policy of family separation because it's the right thing to do. that being said, i think a lot of more voices need to come to the table in coordination. i agree with your point about that. not to speak just about the fairness and humanity and the human dignity elements but also
some of the other larger policy and historical implications. it's an ongoing struggle but i appreciate and that'll double k the we need to do more. >> the question is interesting particularly given the rise of evangelism in the northern triangle, and the ties and promise of evangelicalism within the administration so it's really interesting question. >> the salvadoran bishop seven particularly forceful. they came last year to advocate for tps for el salvador and he went to congress. more portly they held three massive and committed committet sessions. then last week archbishop of el salvador in response to the salvadoran father and his daughter who were found in the horrific accident wrote a letter that he read at the church, every church in el salvador talking about the tragedy and
encouraging salvadorans here and in their migration to move forward. but it is an ongoing i think struggle to keep the human dignity center on the station. >> why don't we take one from this side. more hands over there. >> this is a very interesting discussion, but to me it didn't focus on a very central center. i love your idea of fema for immigration and it would network, because cruelty is the point at this point. and also there's a lot of money to be made in taking these children, et cetera. and so you can have all the conversations you want between these agencies when cruelty is the point. it's not going to help. my question is how do you address this? >> which aspect? >> that cruelty is the point of profit-making is the point.
>> i, i try not, it's very challenging for me sometimes to try to ascribe particular motives to the administration i know a lot of people like to do that. i'm trying to look at it from a pragmatic and practical standpoint. i agree that are differences of opinion within the administration about the effectiveness of policies in trying to deal with it. i do not believe some who works at dhs under both democratic and republican administration that that is what they believe their mission to be overall. i think also that, you mention the moneymaking has to do with whose only the detention centers. i just want to clarify, cbp facilities are all government owned facilities. there is no private ownership of
cbp facilities, whether this border patrol ports of entry. most ports of entry on five gsa and operate by cbp. border patrol stations are cbp own so there's no private money in those stations. i.c.e. does contract with private detention centers. hhs contracts most with nonprofits to run most of the shelters. there are some for-profit entities in parts of it. most of the images have been shown on tv recently, particularly clint, particularly ursula and mcallen, those are cbp facilities. those are not privately own detention centers. those are cbp processing facilities at the border. just in terms of money, i wanted to emphasize that particular piece of it. >> i'm just going to say whether you can ascribe motives are not, it's clear that this
administration knows for how dangerous many of the areas on the mexican side of the border are, that they are turning people back to. people from el salvador, from guatemala, from under us in venezuela, from cuba are being dumped back, delivered back to dangerous areas you are now forced to remain for many, many, many months. people have been raped. people have been assaulted. people have been kidnapped. people been put into sexual slavery. the reports that are coming out of the things that are happening to people, which are entirely predictable, entirely predictable, , the administrati, department of homeland secure to know full well what the conditions are in these areas. so you can say may be cooled is not the point but cruelty is certainly acknowledged and predictable consequence of what's happening. in terms of the private detention center i will say dhs oig has identified many, many
problems immigration detention centers, and it's been such a massive expansion of immigration detention precisely comes private contractors can just open the systems and rights are easily. >> i think we should give impassioned a chance to weigh in on, are these cities, mexican border cities that asylum asylum-seekers primarily are being pushed back into under and remain in mexico, are they safe enough? are they consider safe enough to not come for the administration cannot be violating the principle and the law of non--- by pushing migrants back into those cities? >> it's a tough question, because we obviously have -- i'm just trying to be objective about a difficult subject. it would be absurd not to recognize that there are areas in mexico which very specific in which we have security problems.
a, to some extent that is true. the problem i think is that we, two more things i say is, what's the solution, see from mexican perspective, okay? in mexico people are very concerned about what is going on, and actually blaming the amlo administration for what's going on because the mexican government appears at least to be contradicting itself from what, , you know, during the campaign was said. that's what is really going on. and i see a lot of people, analysts, public opinion, concern about what the mexican government is doing. there's ground to be concerned. but what is the solution and who is -- on the mexican side offering a solution? i don't see too many people saying in mexico oh, this is terrible, let's just allow these
people to go through and it's the fault of, it's the use problem. i don't see too many people advocating for that openly. and if they do they would make, in my view, to accept whatever consequences come out of that to mexico. i i don't see either too many people saying let's catch, let's offer humanely and appropriately status of refugees to all this people. we can't handle 100,000 people. so it's very simply, it's easy to point to this is terrible. what's the solution? should be go to the united states and tell them there they go, i'm letting them through. i'm just giving notice. what's the solution, right next certainly it -- [laughing] what is going on in the united states. what i'm saying is, a, we
certainly need to better conditions to offer appropriate refugee, and we need to come up with some sort social of the united states and the central americans. now, one more point which i think it is important. on that discussion there has been people would say some ngos would rightly say mexico is not a safe country. i think there's a clear cut about what said -- does not apply your credit where safer than detroit, right? what i'm just saying is if you look at very specific statistics including some border cities in mexico the percentage, the number of violent homicides per 100,000 is lower than several sued in the u.s. so what does that exactly imply? and then if we feel uncomfortable about the fact
that people are just going, that they're they are being dumped a return to mexico at the border, but it was okay when nobody notices and then they would just go through. it was worse because nobody was paying attention, and at the time there were still rates and still problems and people were being -- lets the objective about. i probably one of the few people that if set in mexico openly, let's think carefully about what those mean and are the benefits? part of the benefits are the right of people are being, remain in mexico, are only in a few border cities rather than let's make sure that they are distributed to the country in safer place. i don't think there's been a serious enough debate about what that implies. united states, what would they be willing to help mexico with? you see there is an airy area e
have right now. i'm not sure, i'm not sure the debate has been as careful and thorough because a highly politicized and sensitive environment. when you see the pictures, and i agree -- >> if i can jump in, one of the, i mean, as a separate i don't want to describe my motivations to the policy but i would say whether or not it was the point. and i think, to remain in mexico is an interesting case because it was done unilaterally and forth mexico to respond in the unilateral response was okay, we didn't agree to this but we will agree to let it happen,, basically, which is kind of an odd way to deal with it. but absent an actual bilateral agreement mexico has no demand of the trinity is going to send people back, then send us assistance to help with them, to give them safety, to help our
governmental institution deal with this here one of the benefits of having an agreement, whether it's a safe agreement or another would be mexico could come with that demand to say okay, if we agree we're going to take people back whether they're crossing the united states, one of the demand is that you will assist us in that process and you will give us support in doing that. and the way this came about -- it didn't happen. [talking over each other] >> yuan ch are not calling it openly -- 300,000 people a leading central america figure. that's a big number. should we have a look at more involvement and say that you can package i together and do something? >> i thought you would talk about the input become the migration protection particle, so the site is one whose franca at this time bearing the brunt on the mexico side.
-- frankly -- way the more developed and catholic other societal protection u.s. but as this policy, it was implemented here on the 18th of july we are seeing the numbers go down on your site but what's happening in mexico is a small infrastructure, the less number of children, the lack of legal capacity is starting to grate a real problem. if there is any sort of agreement, not that i nestled agree, this point about aid and looking at how to handle it needs to be addressed because on the mexican side civil society is increasingly being passed. they do have the infrastructure that we have and the u.s. side and there are due process concerns and is not going to go away. >> let's try to take to make more questions if you can't which means we have to talk less among ourselves. i'm going to take one in the back. sir, can i grab you? >> i want to ask why can we just
increase the number of embassies and mexico? there are nine consular offices. why can't they conduct interviews? and also i looked at location wise, sicko ambassadors are dense have prevented some who wants to come from -- has to go to south first. >> u.s. consulates and embassies in mexico? >> yes, , it's down south. it's like look at el salvador and honduras, el salvador is right next to honduras. honduras is down south. el salvador -- why do i to migrate because the location is just messed up. >> were taught but increasing processing of people who want to come to the united states within mexico come increasing the capacity to do that? is that your question? [inaudible] >> right. so in the country processing.
>> one think is worth putting out there on a factual basis, you cannot apply for asylum and use the embassy or consulate anywhere in the world. that's up that's not the way ths works. if you processing happens to international agreements and interagency cooperation with unhcr if you want asylum get to physically get to the united states. our embassies and consulates process these applications for legal immigration system but they do not process asylum application. is this something we should consider? possibly, but i think the way our system is set up it allows for more management. it does raise an interesting question, and this came up in the recent guatemala conversation, which is if there were more legal visas, work visas, again ever talk about a population that is next motivations in coming, some of them crossfire and a lot of them are looking for economic prosperity and security, with
more legal visas be another avenue? that's a much bigger picture that requires immigration reform in the united states and congress to address that. but that is something think that an interestingly in the guatemalan negotiations, dhs two days ago said, they talked about some sort of preferential treatment for h2a visa guatemalans. that's before the present will ban all the systems. that's a worthwhile thing to think about in the longer term. >> it's an important distinction that asylum can only be claimed arriving at the border. applying for refugee status what happened outside the country. there's also context in which their discussions that are zeroing out the refugee program entirely. i want to get a chance respond to the briefly and then we'll take one more. >> many ngos have recommended that the be a resettlement initiative from mexico. limited in country processing given the dangers there and given that physical it's been to do any kind of in country
processing for people were facing real risk from some of these countries. there deftly could be a much more significant refugee resettlement initiative, particularly for children but also for families and others -- definitely. mexican assignment office needs many more offices around the country as well as more staff and that means the mexican government funding it as well as the u.s. increasing in support to unhcr to do more. >> i want to quickly, we are a refugee resettlement. want to point out the inconsistency when the president launched its immigration plan in january, he talked about in country processing and at the same time we're hearing we're going to sue out resettlement. again, we talked about the inconsistency in a and there's an inconsistency of protection systems that really does need to be resolved. if you're not interested into refugee resettlement, which would be a shame and loss and abdication of your slave ship
and the devastation i think for families around the world at a time of amazing displacement, then how exactly what he processing system work if you're not interested in refugee resettlement? >> you have had your hand up for a long time. you are the last question saw a lot of pressure on you. [inaudible] >> good morning. one of the speakers are the groups that are missing are not the central americans but some points of the actual parties or policymakers. and they know the two of you that clearly must be involved in some lobby at least on the document inside, one of the reasons all this is happening is because without legislation, it with a lot of room for the administration to make decisions. quickly do think there's a space in our current party situation where from one site it seems -- on oregonian, one side doesn't let anyone in any of the side, there will be no returns, tell people what they can say so they can stay regards of the status
and no one ever has to leave the united states. that's what it seems to me. is there a space in your view working with the parties that recommendations or changes to asylum can actually happen? >> within the u.s. congress, is there a space for legislation -- >> this is our reason for being is to try to create the space. one of the recent want to put at this report is that what we've seen from both sides is an awful lot of outrage about what is happening and less conversation about what to do about it. so we wanted to try to turn the conversation from outrage of the existing situation to offering some ideas and concepts are solutions that we believe could bring some of the parties together. there are obviously, very strong difference of opinion about the causes of this and why people come. i agree with the ambassador on that. you may never get people to agree on that but if the outrage can turn to solutions, that's what we set up our report the
way we did short, medium and long-term. some could be done by administration with a congressional push but we are starting to see some efforts, bipartisan efforts in congress members of both artist and figure out are the places we can agree to do something on this. the debate over the border supplemental was one of those places are starting to figure out that just battle each other and yelling at each other and if nothing changes, nothing changes so maybe we should try to change something. it wasn't perfect and there were people didn't like it from one side or the other but it did get past and a bipartisan way. .. people can try to come together, we want to facilitate that the best we can. i will not lay odds on congress
at any point in time but the optimism is nobody thinks what is happening now is fine. that is it. the level of outrage about what is going on on both sides, feeling -- congress is going home. they are going to hear about this, i guarantee you from all sides and if they don't come back with an impetus to try to fix it i don't know. >> this is your close. is it possible to come up with reforming the us system the can have a real impact given the divisiveness of the debate at the moment? >> there are republican and democrat lawmakers having conversations about trying to reach a consensus. it is a difficult environment
for that. every day there is a new policy change or suggestion or tweet. it is hard for lawmakers to continue that consensus building which is fragile in this environment. as they try to reach consensus they will need impetus to move that forward at a gainful moment. everybody acknowledges there is a humanitarian issue, something needs to be done but it is coming up with something that if unveiled can gain consensus and get approval. that is the issue. lawmakers are working together but getting it over the finish line is exceedingly difficult. >> do you want to weigh in? you >> mexico, from our side, we should think carefully about what our immigration should look like and that is pending
on the mexican side, something of this particular administration. temporary worker program, in the foreseeable future. that discussion needs to take place. whether we can be helpful in the debate here on immigration i credit both sides, don't get close because you are radioactive or are you willing to play along and do things that would signal political players here that mexico is willing to be serious about. i may be wrong, we should be engaged, recognize this is something for the us to decide but to the extent that we can be helpful in the region, it helps. >> in terms of the proposal to
[inaudible conversations] >> this discussion will be available to view online in its entirety shortly on our website, c-span.org. type bipartisan policy center in the video search box which you will find at the top of our home page. on friday morning a live look at the us capitol where neither the house nor senate are in session today. not every member has left the district. in an hours house judiciary committee chair jerry nadler will brief reporters. we expect lots of questions on the robert mueller hearing. c-span will carry it live starting at noon eastern.