policy center is hosting a discussion this morning on immigration and the 2016 presidential campaign. it is moderated by francine kiefer of the christian science monitor. we will have live coverage and about half and hour at 10:30 eastern. we will be live again at 1:00 eastern as the senior bishop of the african methodist episcopal church talks about race in america. the reverend john richard bryant is a speaking at the national press club. and this afternoon, a look at heroine addiction in the u.s.. we are going to show you a house subcommittee judiciary hearing on how heroin abuse is trending. acting deputy administrator will testify. that hearing begins at 4:00 eastern. republican presidential candidate jeb says the u.s. may

need to send more ground troops into iraq to defeat islamic state militants. he made the speech laying out his foreign-policy yesterday at the ronald reagan presidential library in california. his comments are about 40 minutes. we will set you as much as we can until our live coverage on the immigration issue begins. [applause] thank you. thank you all. thank you very much. thank you so much. we are honored to be here. it is great seeing you. i have such fond memories campaigning -- not so much fun memories of hitting against the reagan family. campaigning with the reagan

family was an incredible joy. and as such an honor for me to be here. i want to thank everybody who has opened up this incredible place. i appreciate the incredible hospitality of the ronald reagan presidential library. from thereetings wonderful guy who is very proud to have been ronald reagan fight president. -- vice president. [applause] that competition turned into friendship, and the better my dad got to know ronald reagan the more he admired and loved him. on the way here this afternoon i made a call to mrs. reagan to thank her for this offer -- honor and to let her know that very many americans love her very much. [applause] amazing. that's an election caps on disaffected/on the ballot or if yet in many ways that they is

the editor. the editor. commandresident reagan of events, rebuild america's strength, and world towards peace. strategically and morally he conceded nothing to america's enemies. he believed that the cold war won, not just-- endlessly managed. he put an end to an age of conflict. they don't always give out peace prizes for that, but peace is what he left behind. that is the legacy of a good and great man. [applause] in our time as well, it is will, and clarity of purpose that will make all the difference. good things happen when america is engaged with friends and

allies. we resolved to deal with threats before they become catastrophe. we have seen how, in recent years, how critical each one of those result is to our security. when it counted most, they were missing. to really grasp what the next president will face, we have to look candidly at a few policies that have gone very wrong. above all, at what we used to call the war on terror. despite a efforts by the administration to avoid even calling it by name, one of the greatest threats we face today comes from global islamic terrorism. [applause] terrorists are possessed by the same violent ideology that gave us 9/11, and a are on the offensive and gaining round. is wishfulrue and it

thinking by the administration to claim that the tide of war is a seating. the reality is that it -- radical islam has in spreading like a pandemic. even in the nations of the west, finding recruits in europe and the united states. here is another stark reality. seven years ago, the long awaited jihadist caliphate existed only in the feed -- feverish imagination of the terrorist. today the radical caliphate exists as an actual place, occupying a stretch of land larger than indiana. isis, a genocidal terrorist army, controlled large parts of two countries and is gaining influence in others. yet well into this nightmare, president obama's administration, by his own admission, has no strategy to stop it. in place of one, they are pursuing a minimalist approach of incremental escalation.

the results have been a creeping u.s. involvement without any strategic results. the worst of both worlds. year of limited strikes and other half measures have made little discernible difference in the sum total of the isis dangerous. halting, ineffective effort against them has only emboldened the terrorist. most all. falluja. ramadi. other cities that american troops died to liberate are now under the black flag of isis. inside the caliphate, nonbelievers are forced to convert, and those that do not can expect a horrible fate. a special hatred is reserved for christians and other religious minorities. in the middle east today, we are witnessing the mass persecution and exodus of the followers of jesus christ. all across the region.

isis has filled the mass graves with innocent followers. potential recruits of isis, ready for their own taste of violence, can even follow it all on social media. it is a time when mass murderers , facebook,r handles and instagram and pages. using be the to add the near of glamour to their act -- exploits. worldwide isis is hailed as the strong horse, the glory of -- glorious cleanser and restorer of islam. that word is getting out on western social media. this helps explain the thousands recruited from europe and more than 100 recruited from america, and giving isis terrorists with

western passports. the islamic state and its followers need just one big strike to inflict devastation. we are facing an isis and its ideology. what it is is to borrow a phrase, the focus of evil in the modern world. civilizations everywhere, especially those with power, had a duty to oppose and to beat this enemy. no leader or policymaker involved will claim to have gotten everything right in the region, iraq especially. a long experience that includes failure of intelligence, and military setbacks. one moment stand out in memory as the turning point we had all been waiting for. that was the surge of military and diplomatic operations that turned events for the cure -- towards victory. it was a success. brilliant, heroic. this nation will never forget the current and sacrifice that made it all possible. [applause]

so why was the success of the surge followed by a withdrawal even the, leaving not residual force commanders knew was necessary? that premature withdrawal was a failure leaving a void that i moved into fell. while the united states disengaged from middle east. of where was secretary state? she had opposed the surge. they stood by as that hard-won victory was thrown away. in all of her record-setting travel, she stopped by iraq exactly once. who can argue that america and

our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the president and secretary clinton, the storied team of rivals, took office. so eager to be the history makers they failed to be the peacemakers. [applause] it was a case of blind haste to get out and to call the tragic consequences somebody else's problem. can be away from danger every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the cost have been great us. costs hast -- the been grievous. another terrible miscalculation unfolding now is another story. that would be the obama clinton of treating the mullahs in iran as a stabilizing force in the region when they are in fact to see full nothing but instability. [applause]

whenever bad things happen in the middle east, from israel's borders to the shores of yemen, the influence of the malaise is rarely far from the scene. here is a regime that supports terrorism. threatens to destroy israel. has for years been trying to develop nuclear weapons. routinely commits human rights violations. was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans of -- american troops in iraq, and even now is unlawfully detaining american citizens. it ran, it's ally aside, it's hadorist proxy hezbollah, fueled the conflict in syria and iraq that had to helps give rise to isis. iranresidents deal with confronts that of these problems , and least of all today prevent iran from acquiring superior nuclear weapons capability.

in fact, the deal prepare the way for that capability with the lifting of sanctions. it also frees up more than $100 million for iran to use as they wish. in effect the primary investors in a violent, radical middle east has just received a new round of funding courtesy of the united states of america and the united nations. this is president obama's idea of a diplomatic triumph. wow. it is a deal unwise in the extreme, with a regime that is untrustworthy in the extreme. it should be rejected by the congress of the united states of america. [applause] if the congress does not reject this deal, then the damage must

be undone by the next president. it will be my intention to begin that process immediately. knowing what has gone wrong however, is not the same as knowing how to set it right. the threat of global jihad, and of the islamic state in particular, requires all the strength, unity, and confidence that only american leadership can provide. radical islam is a threat we are entirely capable of overcoming, and i will be unyielding in that cause should i be elected president of the united states of america. [applause] we should pursue the clear and unequivocal objective of throwing back the barbarians of isis and helping the millions in the region who wants to live in peace. instead of simply reacting to

each new move the terrorist just to make, we will use every advantage we have to take the offensive, to keep it, and to prevail. in all of this the united states much -- must engage with friends and allies and lead again in this vital region. [applause] egypt and saudi arabia, the most populous and wealthiest countries in the middle east are important partners of the united states. those relationships have been badly mishandled by this administration. ath countries are key to better coordinated regional effort against terrorism. we needed to restore trust and work more closely with them against common threats. partners,y capable likewise, in the united arab emirate who are able to take the fight to the extreme. we have an ally in the new democratic government in tunisia, and a fragile democracy in lebanon, nations that are

both under assault by radical and terrorism. across the region, responsible government needed no persuading what the moment requires. it requires action, coordination, and american leadership. my strategy meets the unique circumstances in each of these two countries, iraq and syria, in which isis now has territory. let's start with iraq and the actions i would take as president to help remove the threat from that country. first, we must support the iraqi forces which right now have the will to win but not the means. as matters stand, the united states has been helping to securityute iraqis service and to aid the kurdish peshmerga. them rebuildlp their security sector, not only to win against isis, but to break free of iranian influence. involveort should also

even greater engagement with the sunni tribes whose fighting units serve side-by-side with americans to defeat al qaeda in iraq, and were then disbanded by the maliki government after the u.s. abandoned iraq. must give these forces the consistent advantage of american air power to cover their operations and to strike with fearless precision. the strategy has to include former air controllers whose skill and accuracy with severely hinder the enemy's freedom of movement. this would greatly improve the ability of fighter aircraft and apache helicopters to provide close air support to local ground fighters. fighters went into the landscape. our spotters on the ground will enable us to have a hard and really miss. thirdly, we must make a better forces we limited house by giving them a greater

range of action. may well be needed. we do not need, and our friends don't ask for, a major commitment of american combat forces. what we do need is to convey that we are serious. that we are determined to help local forces take back our country. unrivaled -- fighters know that it simply not enough to dispense training and then set them on their way and hope for the best. canadian troops are already embedded in a rack to very good effect. our soldiers and marines need to go ahead to do that as well, to help our partners outmaneuver the enemy. fourth, we should provide more support to the kurds giving them a decisive military power against isis. [applause] in iraq's kurdish region we have friends and brave and skilled fighters. if i am commander-in-chief, the

united states will make certain that the kurds have everything they need to win. [applause] and finally, our strategy and a to restart theas serious to dramatic efforts i can help that country move in the right direction. only iraq's shiites, sunnis, and kurds can decide if they will live together and share power and resources in a way that will serve -- ensure the survival of their country. they have to know that while the united states is there in measure, we are also there in earnest and for the long haul. that has been a problem of the obama administration. no one believes we are serious because we have not made the kind of commitment that friends make with friends. [applause] they will come through for their country, but they have got to know that we have their back. the situation in syria is quite different than the one in iraq.

in some ways it is even more complex and has we have no large cohesive force to work with. we have seen what ruin and suffering can follow what america does not lead. , about 11 syrians million of those have been displaced or fled the country altogether. more than 200,000 people have so far been killed in the mayhem. al-assad isf bashar deploying every ruthless means to stay in power. syrian moderates lost the fight against both enemies, and they view the regime as the greater evil. it is a sorrowful picture when you think back on how it could have been avoided. we heardour years ago words that still hang in the air of the middle east when president obama declared, the time has come for president assad to step aside. then three years ago came

another pronouncement. any use of chemical weapons by assad would be a redline, inviting cut for the regime -- tough consequences for the regime. if the choice is between silence and these idle, grandiose words, it would have been better to say nothing at all [applause] . what followed is that assad used those weapons again and again and there were no serious confidences whatsoever. having lost our credibility on such an epic scale it is hard to get it back. we had better try. nothing thee do more dangerous the situation becomes and the more directly our friends and our interest are threatened. to ultimate goal in syria is defeat isis and to achieve long-term political stability in the country.

defeating isis requires defeating assad, but we have to make sure that his regime is not replaced by something as bad or worse. the last thing we need in syria is a repeat of libya, with -- where the end of a dictatorship only thet -- beginning of more terrorist violence, including the death of four americans in benghazi. [applause] syria will need a stable government and a transition free of more sectarian bloodletting will depend on credible moderate forces we help to unite and build up today. strategy would be to bring american influence to bear in for important areas. first, a coordinated international effort is essential to give their forces the upper hand. , the is, the qataris turks, the saudi's, and the supporting been

forces in the area. and if there's one thing syria cannot afford right now, it is confusion and disunity. theaim would be to bring moderates together and back them up as one force. we should back them up all the way through. not just in taking the fight to the enemy but in helping them form a moderate government wants isis is defeated and assad is gone. it is a tough complicated diplomatic and military mission, even more than the current situation in iraq. but he can be done. we saw -- but it can be done. we saw in iraq how islamic extremists can be pulled away from extremist forces. global to support forces. we must stay true to our word. second, we have to expand and recruitmentve the and training of syrian forces fighting isis. our recruiting

and training have basically come to nothing. we have spent half $1 billion on a program that has gotten us 54 recruits. when that happens, you know that the problem is not working out really well. -- the plan is not working out really well. [applause] i intended to be reminded of .ealth care.gov it costs a little bit more and got about the same. the website. just saying. [applause] recruitmentis our efforts have been failing because we are not respected as a reliable actor in the region. we have to change that with a reliablensistent, action that everyone expects from the united states of america. third, we must over time establish multiple facebook in syria. it is a measure of progress that we joined with the turks to create a small isis free zone in

the northern part of the country. that is good news. but we need to go well beyond that by establishing safe zones to protect syria not only for my sister also from assad. we and our partners should declare a note -- no-fly zone in syria. enforce the no-fly zone and we will stop the regime's bombing raidws. we can also stop them from supplying hezbollah and other bad actors. a no-fly zone is essential to keep the pressure on and prevent more needless death that -- in a country that has seen so much of it. when we talk about no-fly zones in syria, precision airstrikes in iraq, or any projection of military power, all of this assumes that such power is there when we need it. yet here as well the shortsightedness of the first

administration will leave a cost. we are in the seventh year of a significant dismantling of our own military. almost in inverse proportion to the threats that are multiplying. i assure you, the day that i am elected president of the united states will be the day that we turn this around and begin rebuilding the armed forces of the united states of america. [applause] a winning strategy against the islamic state, or against any threat to ourselves and our friends, depends ultimately on the military strength that underwrite american influence. let that slip away and what would america be in world affairs except one more well-intentioned voice of the united nations. we don't want that. , any effort of

hours to overcome violence and secure peace, a winning strategy depends on maintaining unequaled strength. we can never take it for granted. i might add that this includes strength among our intelligence services. military and civilian. [applause] no group of men and women received so little credit for doing so much to track danger and to keep us safe. americansled, brave can be sure of this. if i become commander-in-chief they will receive the tools they need and the gratitude and respect that they deserve. a good many people who serve in our military and intelligence i venture to guess that for quite a few of them

they're calling has something to do with their coming-of-age in the reagan years. yet any nostalgia for that time customer call not only a falling wall and collapsing evil empire, but also the fear and tension and the challenges that could have all played out so very differently. ,rom the distance of decades even the greatest successes in security and foreign policy can look almost inevitable. of course nothing had to happen as it did. weariness with conflict ran pretty deep back then, along with despair of ever getting past it. but then along came one formidable figure who would not accept that way of thinking. he was the one who mattered the most. it is that way for us to and having to deal with long conflict. in living up to our responsibilities we can always use a little bit more of the reagan spirit, rejecting with contempt the idea that conflict ort be unless -- endless

that the threat of danger and violence is inevitable. it is not. [applause] four generations -- for generations, american alliances, credibility, and diplomacy deterred aggression and set forth peace. well, ifur future as we are led by a president who is resolute, as i will be, in the face of islamic terrorism wherever it appears. [applause] we can protect our people, put adversaries back in retreat, get things moving our way again, and win back the momentum for freedom. in all of this, let us never forget that in fighting evil we are doing good. in stopping the merciless, we are delivering justice.

in destroying violent we are defending the innocent. -- violence we are defending the innocent. this is the work that america is in the world to do. less meat that duty with confidence, faith, and resolve. duty with meet that confidence, faith, and resolve. they keep all very much and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] thank you all. >> a few questions, if i may. >> i want you are sure you i am

no megan kelly. >> [laughter] >> i noticed. i can tell. >> [laughter] >> my keen sense of observation. >> smart guy. you mentioned the plight of christians in the middle east. in some countries, christians have been around for more than a thousand years are virtually extinct. does the united states have a moral responsibility to intervene to stop this kind of genocide? mr. jeb bush: if not us, who? who will stand up for the persecuted? >> [cheering] [applause] top, i have: look, a personal connection to this. my views on this have existed before, but because my daughter in law is a canadian born beautiful, spectacular woman, brilliant beyond the belief in giving me two of the most precious granddaughters i could

i have beene, -- sensitized to the plight of christians in iraq. four 1600 years, mass was given. and today it is not because isis controls mosul. and they will persecute and kill christians. and they are fleeing. they are fleeing not just iraq, ere are challenges in lebanon, which used to be a peaceful, christian at nation. think about the isis inspired terrorists on the shores of the mediterranean, executing 18 christian cops. think about the christians that are being slaughtered all around the world. think of the precious christian girls in northern nigeria. because if challenge not us, who? we have the skills to do this. these are not the most awesome

forces in the world. the united states has bought wars against forces that were evil, just as evil as this, with greater military might. we can take these guys on. we have special forces that are the best in the world. we have military capabilities that far exceed everybody else. i reject the idea that this isn't important. this would send a signal to the rest of the world that the united states is supportive of people that through no fault of their own believing in their faith are being killed and tortured and persecuted. we need to stand up against this. >> [applause] >> different subject. you are critical of the president's deal with iran. what would you do -- what would you do to -- up against this threat? if jeb bush: first of all,

you are going to negotiate a deal with iran, then i think you should have kept what the objective was from the very beginning, which was never to obtain theto -- to capabilities to build a nuclear bomb. that was the beginning of the effort. >> [applause] mr. jeb bush: and we have gone from that to having trust but verify inspections, to now anytime, anywhere. do not wear it is a, like, secret agreements where our members of congress cannot even read them. this is the wrong approach, clearly. so i hope that congress votes in this down. i hope it is with a two thirds majority. and if it is, then let the president go back if you want and negotiate a deal that is within our interests. if that does not happen and i'm elected president, and on day one, we'll have a strategy to deal with the multitude of threats that iran brings.

they do not just bring the threat of being a nuclear threshold country that will provide the possibilities -- >> thank you very much for coming out on a lovely -- >> we are live at the bipartisan center for a discussion on immigration and how the issue is impacting the 2016 presidential campaign. this is live coverage on c-span. >> the bipartisan policy center was founded in 2007 by four former senate leaders. thethe mission of bipartisan policy center is to bring together what we call constructive partisanship, which means bringing together people from both sides of the aisle to come together and work towards practical and politically viable solutions to some of our biggest problems, one of which is immigration. vpc started the immigration task force.

to work on issues related to immigration reform. folks will remember that immigration reform was a big issue at the last presidential campaign and a lot of people thought it had huge momentum and was going to happen, we were going to have legislation, it was all going to get an acted. in 2010, there was a big senate bill. and then it didn't happen in the house. here we are again facing another presidential election, which is well underway. interestinglyee -- enough, we have more candidates in the selection that i think we have ever had in history and the candidates are dealing with all the usual issues. .oreign policy immigration is still a topic of conversation. it has been a consistent feature throughout the presidential campaign. has been asked about their position on immigration reform or has affirmatively put one forward. it has come up in the last presidential debate that

happened last week in cleveland. it has been addressed by the democratic candidates. so we thought this would be a good opportunity to talk a little bit about where things are come have some experts here to talk about what the candidates have said about immigration, what they have said on policy, what they intend to do about it. a little bit about how it impacts the politics of the situation and what it might mean for the actual chances of reform. to lead us in this discussion, we have francine kiefer. francine is with the christian science monitor. she is a congressional correspondent and has been there since 1980. she has been in washington for a long time, including -- she knows the politics of d.c. in and out. she has written extensively on immigration, including the congressional activities last congress.

she has also worked for nearly five years as a national editor at the san jose mercury news in silicon valley and is joining us to moderate the panel. i will let francine introduce our panelists. thank you so much for coming. >> thank you so much, to raise up. take you so much for setting the scene on immigration. i am going to him to do -- going to begin by introducing our wonderful panelists here. i will begin immediately to my left, laura vasquez. she is the senior immigration legislative analyst at the national council, which is the largest natural latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the united states. she describes her work as advancing just and humane reform to the current information system. before joining, she worked as a constituent caseworker for

eleanor holmes norton, helping city residents with their immigration applications. not an easy task. she was also a congressional hispanic caucus institute fellow. laura is an expert on mexican migration to the united states and the role of nonprofits and advocating for latino immigrants. in latinan m.a. american studies from the university of california san diego and a b.a. from kenyon college. mexico and grew up in ohio. welcome, laura. mike next-door is the executive director of the center for immigration studies. which he has led for 20 years. the center is a nonpartisan research organization here in washington that examines the impact of immigration on the united states. it conducts fact-based research

in support of its pro-immigrant low immigration vision. mark frequently testifies before congress. he has published articles in the national media, appeared on various television and radio shows, and is a contributor to the national review online. author,also a book including this provocative title, "the new case against immigration: both legal and illegal." he holds a masters degree and a bachelors from georgetown university. and here is something that everyone can say. -- andt two years at then soviet armenia. and next to mark, we have maria. the executive director of

the national immigration law center. leadership, they have grown to become the main organization dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low income immigrants in the u.s.. child fromrated as a columbia to central falls, rhode island. fully bilingual and bicultural, she has often -- is often interviewed by national media outlets, including telemundo. she lectures frequently at national and international conferences. whether litigating cases, testifying before congress, meeting with president obama, or with low income immigrant families, she is recognized as a passionate advocate and authentic leader. maria is the recipient of several awards or her commitment to the latino community. she was recently a practitioner

in residence at the school for social justice at uc berkeley's law school. and served as a visiting fellow at northeastern university's school of law, where she received her law degree. and we also have randall johnson, who is senior vice president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, the world's largest business organization. he has been with the chamber or nearly 20 years and does -- is primarily responsible for labor, immigration issues. in consultation with members of the chamber and his staff, randy determines the chamber passed policy decision -- chamber's policy decisions and an array of issues including comprehensive immigration reform. he is also a board member of the national immigration forum and the lutheran immigration and

refugee services agency. randy knows congress well. before joining the chamber, he was the republican labor council and coordinator for the house committee on education and the workforce. randy is a graduate of denison university and university of maryland school of law and earned his master of law in labor relations from georgetown university's law center. so that is the biographical portion of our program. now we are going to get to the questions. with i think i will start you, even though you are not immediately to my left. but one thing i was noticing when i watched the gop debate last week, both the junior varsity version and the varsity version, was that there seemed to be complete agreement among the candidates that what we should have is a strength in border first policy. i wondered why that unanimous

agreement and is it actually possible to build the donald trump wall or do the kind of large-scale enforcement on the border that republicans are talking about? >> well, the first point i would make is that all of the candidates are not necessarily agree. jeb bush has called for legalization at the same time as enforcement measures, so it is not necessarily the case that everybody on the republican side is for enforcement first. what you are right, generally speaking, that is the approach. why? the answer is that if the enforcement doesn't come first, it is not going to happen because in 1986 -- this was the key failure -- was that the deal at that time was amnesty now upfront in exchange for promises of enforcement in the future. those promises weren't kept. and that trick is not something

that people are going to fall for a second time. in fact, it is not just speculation that that is the way it would turn out, the -- shortly after the bill was side, less than three years after the bill was signed -- again, makeser, this was a deal -- in exchange for the ban on hiring illegals. billa few years after the passed, they published a report saying that the enforcement part should be repealed. elshingre welch in -- w on the deal. so the idea that we should just take their word for it that to five or 10 or 13 years from now, the various enforcement elements will be implemented if the legalization happens first is, you know, is a fool's bargain.

the saying goes, fully once, shame on me. is to have -- the way it could actually work is to have several enforcement elements. i would pick three. verify. this is the online system, so when you hire someone, you verify. exit tracking for visa holders. in other words, most new -- today's illegal immigration, 60% of it is people coming in as tourists and students and just not leaving. it is not really the border. but we don't know when people believe, so we don't know who stays. and number three, systematic routine integration of state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. when those three things happen, and i don't mean on paper, they

are actually implemented, the acluroom jihad's that the and others will launch against them, once they are actually working, then we can have a debate. of awould be a kind bargain. amnesty for most of the illegals who are here. in exchange for deep permanent cuts in future illegal immigration. that seems to be the only way we are going to be able to get to a sort of more stable immigration position politically. it is never going away. teresa mentioned foreign policy and jobs and the rest in the campaigns. immigration is always going to be a part of a campaign for ever as it is a part of being in the business. but we can get to a more sustainable situation, but only by having an implementing and putting in place the enforcement systems we need to prevent this

situation from recurring 10 or 15 years down the road. >> just a follow-up question about the borders specifically. united states has spent increasingly more money on enforcement. want evenublicans more spent. what are the actually talking about in terms of doing work on the border? mr krikorian: i have to say, the place we are going to get the bigger bank for the buck in enforcement is not at the border. we have spent a lot of money at the border, and it shows. it has not all been wasted. some of it has, it is the government's. some of it really works. i have been -- i have gone to most of the border. from the gulf of mexico to the pacific. and a lot of the fencing is sort of to keep trucks from driving over. it is only this high. your grandma can jump over it.

but some of it is real fence. we have twice as many border patrol agents as we had a decade ago. we have fewer border patrol agents than the nypd has police officers. so we have improved on the border. there is still room for improvement, but if i had my that, the place i would want to be focusing on is more on the worksite, on visa tracking, that sort of thing because that is where the next dollar is going to get the most benefit, as far as enforcement. >> and i neglected to mention at the beginning that at about 11:30, we will open up to questions from the audience. laura, i would like to turn to you next. i notice in the debate that jeb bush, if i recall, was the only one who spoke pretty extensively

about his policies and plans for immigration reform. and one of the things he talked earned path to legal status for the 11 million undocumented that are already here in the united states. -- asked scott walker, one of the candidates, why did you step back and rescind your support for a path to citizenship? it is quite clear republicans are not interested in a path to citizenship for undocumented workers and not too many are that keen on a pass to even earn legal status. what do you make of that division within the republican party and with the democrats? >> thank you.

i think you are right, there is a division there because we do see that there are some supportes that do still a path to citizenship lindsey graham has consistently said that he supports the path to citizenship. he doesn't think the country would support a subclass group of people being here. so that is the position he has held for a long time. it is part of the support that he gave to the senate bill that passed in 2013. i think it is also consistent with the position that americans have. so, we have seen poll after poll consistently demonstrate that across the political spectrum, democrats and republicans support a path to citizenship or legal status. now we are seeing more and more polls break that down into two things. and one of the things that is interesting is that when it is explained, earned to citizenship

means to meeting requirements, having to go through a background check, demonstrating that you pay taxes, demonstrating that you would learn english. the support amongst republican voters goes up. so i think that once we are able to have that debate about what a path to earned citizenship looks like, we would see increased support within the republican party. we know that that is something that it is in the interest of the country. i think americans supported because they are pragmatic because they understand that they want immigrants all in. they don't want them in some sort of less than citizenship area. they want everybody in the same boat with the same requirements. and they also understand the history of our country, that we are a country of immigrants because we have always encouraged immigrants to fully participate in american life. think theredo you

would be any give on this issue since republicans seem both staunchly behind and not even actually all behind the legal status if it came down to a choice? do you think they would begin in that particular question? ms. vazquez: i do think so. i think it is because of when. when people understand that it is not an automatic citizenship that people would be granted, it is not an amnesty, it would be something that -- as we saw in the senate bill, they were very strict requirements that people would have to meet. and that i think is something that, you know, people understand that now when they hear it and i think we would see that support with the candidates. ms. kiefer: thanks so much for that input. mary, i'm coming down to you now. given your legal background, i wondered if you could explain to

us what the status is of the various -- the court case against president obama at the moment or against the administration? if you recall in november, the president issued an executive order that was highly controversial, extending the third deportation to millions more undocumented immigrants. and then the state of texas sued for that, sued against that, and it is now wrapped up in the courts. and that program has been stopped. so i wonder if you could bring us up-to-date on the status of that court situation and let us know your views on how in outcome, whichever way -- an outcome, whichever way it might go, might affect the debate? >> yes, thank you for organizing this great panel. first, tummy tuck about the importance of this policy.

in november, the president announced a 10 point executive action. dapa is the deferred action for parents of u.s. american citizens and it green card holders. and then the expansion, as we often think of as dreamers. and the importance of this is really critical. last week, i was at the jersey shore with my niece and nephew, who are 13 years old. at the are about to start school. and they are really concerned about how much harder their science and math classes are going to be. and they are worried about whether they will be able to balance their soccer games with their harder classes. but today, there is also an eighth grader of their who is concerned not about classes, but she is concerned about whether her mother is going to be deported before the first day of school. she is worried about whether her father will be there when she

graduates from eighth grade next spring. and it is that trauma, that fear of losing your parents, of being separated from their parents, from your families, being ripped apart, that lack of instability that immigrant families are facing today is really what is at stake. over 5 million u.s. citizen children at the direct beneficiaries. their parents would be alabama -- eligible for dapa. stability that this executive decision is really about. unfortunately, the state of texas, the governor and other attorney generals, have sued the obama administration. one judge in brownsville, texas has blocked the implementation of dapa nationwide. we are currently waiting for a decision from the fifth circuit court of appeals. we expect that any day now.

frankly, this is a case that is going to go up before the supreme court. if you take the politics out of this, this is actually a constitutional issue that legal scholars across the board, conservatives and liberal scholars, agree that presidents since eisenhower have exercised this power and have the authority to do what the president did. we expect that at this time next are, the outcome will probably be that the supreme court has ruled on this, the obama administration can start implementation. ms. kiefer: so you are expecting the ruling in the presidential election year? ms. hincapie: probably, yes. ms. kiefer: if it goes against the president, how that affect the debate? ms. hincapie: i think the debate will continue because this is just one piece of the broader immigration debate. part of what we will continue hearing is the sort of wall supporters among the gop candidates, and then also other

things that can be done administratively. there is the future of what happens with the 11 million undocumented immigrants. what kind of immigration will receive during the next administration? ms. kiefer: ok. randy, way down there. [laughter] on the far left, i like that. jeb bush, as i mentioned earlier, last week in the debates laid out pretty extensively his steps and immigration reform. and one of the things he said he supported was required use of the e-verify electronic system in order to determine whether they are hiring undocumented workers or not in their companies. and it has been voluntary, as far as i know, so far. so my question for you is, how would american businesses feel about being required to use the

e-verify system? and also, how reasonable is it to expect that the system can be implemented nationwide and that it can function the way it is supposed to? mr. johnson: yeah, we don't engage in presidential politics at the chamber, so you are right, bush did take it up, but we are not taking a view on anybody's proposals per se. -- [indiscernible] e-verify,d toe- -- to we have testified that. four times we opposed it and five times we supported it. but it is not a flip-flop, it is a reevaluation. >> [laughter] mr. johnson: let me give you a little history. the chamber does support a mandatory employment verification procedures. you are right, it is a pilot program and it is voluntary. and that comes to a shock to a

lot of -- comes as a shock to a lot of people, but we did put together a task force on this. we negotiated a deal with lamar smith and the judiciary committee on a bill we could support, but the history to that, and quickly, is we did sue the state of arizona back in 2010 over its mandatory employment verification procedures and it went up to the supreme court. we lost. and at that point and given what we shouldning -- negotiate a deal. and part of that was a trade-off and giving our loss, we obtained preemption of state and local laws and a safe harbor for our members if they complied and good face and relied erroneously on information from the electronic verification system. no real verification of existing report is -- of existing

employees. in other words, it applies to new hires. a sort of slow rollout so it could be tested along the way. so there is a series of things which we laid out in testimony. i think one of the big issues is -- what certainly came up last what would it do to the agricultural industry? they acknowledge half of their workforce is undocumented. that does not mean they know it but it's true. e-verify, mandatory what would that do to the agriculture industry? would it shut it down? there is e-verify but there's this ag issue that the

republicans even acknowledge had to be taken care of. we support mandatory employment verification. legislationtiated with certain house republicans on the issue. job so we did my up a good job on it, i think. there is a new mandate on our members. >> randy, i want to ask you a different question, a little bit about the path forward now. broke fore the senate recess, mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, gave a press conference and i asked him if there was any hope for even a small portion of immigration reform to get done in this congress before the presidential election and the next congress and he said absolutely no. he mentioned the trust issue that the president had so poisoned the well through his

executive order that there was no hope anything would be done this congress. i wonder if you might address looking ahead to after 2016 -- how might a new president, republican or democrat, proceed on this issue? you have two fronts to concern yourself, one is trust and the other is policy with other panelists have talked about. how do you see that might work with a new president? >> they asked this congress but not this session. >> he said this congress. is not going to deal with it. if he says no, that's very much it. >> we are little bit hopeful. we are working on a high scale bill in the house. ruled infth circuit favor of the texas governor that

that might have an opening for this year -- next session, not this year. looking beyond that, i think the days of talking about poisoning the well, it's not just that the went forward with these executive orders but the that with the affordable care act combined not just with partisanship but that there were mandates under the aca which the president unilaterally postponed even though the statute clearly said here is the deadline. there was this backdrop of not trusting the president and immigration was part of it. the aca was part of that whole debate. year, look, we

will not have a big bill. we will never have the senate will again. combination of a an e-verify, border security and an ag fix -- it will be some mix like that. you've got a train with little caboose is. the train is moving along but it is split up into different parts. what will go on that versus one big bill -- bordert's high scale security and e farah by -- you and some other mix of that. i don't think border security first will fly in the senate because the democrats will want more out of of order security bill. there is the fear that once congress does border security -- it's another 10 years before

they will come back to revisit it. it is substance and policy but also politics. is ted cruz going to be the next president or will hillary? unable to get a bill through but we worked hard on it. it depends not just on the presidency. we are not going to see anything until after the presidential election. i don't think there is any way around that. what should congress be doing? how should be approaching this issue? that the idea of a 2000 page monstrosity bill that gives every interest group something to be happy about doesn't work.

it had failed in 2005 and 2006 and 2013 and it's just bad lawmaking. whatever you think about how health care should be done, a gigantic aca is not the way to have done it and likewise with immigration. it seems people on all sides of the debate need to lower their gazes and look at more smaller digestible things to do. suggested thate would give everybody something would be, for instance, mandatory e-verify but package it into a small package with, say, giving green cards to the beneficiaries. upgrade their amnesty to a green card premium from the green card life they have now. that way both sides would get something and maybe -- there has been versions of this -- maybe wherein sometech stuff

foreign students who get phd's in stem fields would get green cards or something like that. that is a smaller, digestible constituencyarious groups would get something out of it and i think it would move the issue forward rather than the idea of always trying to hit home runs. i don't want to give advice to the other panelists but you're not oh is going to get home runs. try for singles. both sides can get something out of an attempt at hitting singles instead of trying to get everything you want all at once and rolling over the opposition. they failed over and over again. >> i had a conversation with gutierrez as things look bad for the democrats last year on immigration reform.

he seemed pretty open and pretty flexible to the separate pieces idea depending on what the pieces were. -- he expressed a degree of flexibility and pointed to the vision within republicans as a problem. maybe you would like to address that. whether it is a comprehensive bill or a separate bill that amounts to a comprehensive solution, i think that is a tactical question. that's probably what he was referring to. i want to go back to something else -- one of the things that amazes me about washington dc is facts don't matter. what the president has announced whether it was 2012 or the recent executive action are not amnesty. all they are is a deferral of deportation. it's a temporary reprieve from

and if they voluntarily come forward and go through a national security background check and they pay for hundred 55 dollars, after an individual determination, if they are awarded deferred action, they are eligible for work authorization. that is based on the regulations from the 1980's. that's not anything the canident did new and that be revoked at any moment. we have seen individual daca folks get that revoked and it does not give them additional amnesty benefits. there is no path to citizenship or permanent say. think facts i matter a lot. they make a huge difference. as far as the way forward, one of the big challenges we have that a lot of the presidential candidates are talking about border security first. for the last couple of decades in the united states, we have had enforcement first as the

only approach but we have not had legalization or the 11 million considered. candidates address the issue at to what will happen with the 11 million, will they try to do for all of them? -- try to deport all of them? said selfy deportation and that did not get him far. any candidate who wants to fund their path to the white house has to address the issue of the 11 million. it will not happen. let me give laura a chance to jump in here. >> i would echo some of that -- the idea that enforcement only has benefits to the status quo and asked -- and that's not the solution american support. one of the reasons why people talk about these things having to be either sequenced or

together is because the parts are interlocking. what would ao know future president do with the 11 million people that are here. they also want to know how would people coming to the country prospectively and how we address this so we are not in the future looking at another large people without a visa and how do we fix that in the future? they want to know that the borders are being and forced but that is something we have been seeing for the last 20 years. border enforcement and enforcement only policies are the status quote from they are not the solution that americans support. i would say that one of the isngs i think we need to ask why deny the benefits we would have if we would get all of these pieces fixed?

the moral imperative is clear but there is real economic benefits that would be spread throughout the economy. if we were able to get these pieces addressed. enforcement is going to be what continues but we would be denying the country significant economic benefits. don't like to play word games about amnesty but i will say my piece -- is, giving legal status of any kind to an illegal immigrant is what we call amnesty. groups for bush which was torpedoed by 9/11 and was that people

hated the word amnesty. their memo was not to use the word and come up with euphemisms. legalization, normalization -- every week there was a new euphemism. i lost track of them but the fact is, the 600,000 people that obama has given amnesty has work permits,- have work social security numbers, driver's licenses, eligible for the earnings tax credit which is welfare through the irs -- that is amnesty and they will not have it taken away. the only people who have lost their amnesty are the ones who mistakenly got the three-year renewal instead of the two-year renewal. it's a technical thing but those people are permanentl amnestied in the real world. the idea that we have had enforcement first is not true. we have had some enforcement but mostly at the border. the elements that are essential

-- and that broken control people have been advocating for decades are not in place. mandatory e-verify -- these are control -- congress eight times in the past 20 years is mandated the development of an exit tracking to check out systems for foreign visitors per it eight times of has been mandated and it still does not exist. amity people who are here or undertake germanic increased -- and -- amnesty people who are here undertake programs without having a system in place already to make sure we don't have more illegal aliens in the future is surreal. this contention that we have done everything that can reasonably be expected with regard to enforcement and that anything else is special pleading or rationalization -- president obama made that point

that his speech in el paso a few years ago. he was saying we built a wall, do they want moats? it was his jokey way of saying that continuing to insist on enforcement is an excuse for postponing amnesty. the elements in place that we have been demanding for decades. until those things are in place and fully operational and proven and overcome the legal challenges, we should not even be talking about what to do about the illegal immigrants who are here. that is not even a legitimate topic for discussion until we fix the problem. it's like bailing out the boat before you fill the hole. you plug the hole first and then you talk about bailing out the boat. >> randy, yes? the chamber has been accused of supporting the hated senate amnesty bill which it wasn't.

we don't have to belabor it but amnesty in our view is forgiveness. it's forgiveness of a wrong and no one is offered forgiveness. there is a stiff fine for that wrong coming in. it's not for giving the wrong. it's what is the appropriate penalty in many think people think deportation is appropriate. i would argue that's a penalty does -- that does not fit the crime. it's not realistic because we will not deport them so let's come up with a fix instead of doing nothing. it seems a substantial civil fine and going through other a series of you get probationary steps before you get a status to work and then a

green card is appropriate. people will disagree with that. but i don't think most people call that amnesty. at least from the chamber positive point, it's not amnesty. with regard to border security, it is more complicated than assets of the border and many those and more of them. had lots ofill money in there. there is disagreement on how that money would be spent. it was a lot of money. all past homeland security secretaries have said physical border security is not enough. it should be combined for national security purposes. forget the humanistic argument here -- they need to control temporary worker programs,

whichate the job magnet draws the illegal immigrants here and control temporary worker programs and health national security and it helps border security. to tome from napolitano ridge to chertoff has said the same thing. you cannot ignore the economic realities. it would help the nations border security. on legalization, it is more difficult area. i don't talk about this at the thanksgiving table anymore. that is the part of shrinking the haystack. providingome logic to the legalization process to those people who are here and finding out who they are and those we find out our criminals -- it's unfortunate but coming back to aca with the website, it fed into the argument that the administration cannot create a

process to check on 11 million people.they can't even put up a website on health care. that was another perfect storm that hurt as last year -- hurt us last year. argument about why we need other parts of immigration reform other than more stuff of the border is not it reallyployers but helps national security and health border security. not big defenders of the employers can say that. i have appreciated the unpacking of the amnesty word in this discussion. i learned a few things. to the wayome back forward again. when you bring immigration reform and all its complexities and boil it down, it strikes me that there are two pieces -- the enforcement aspect and what to

do about the undocumented aspect. there has been agreement in the senate bipartisan bill that did house.anywhere in the there has been agreement on how to handle the so congress is capable of doing this. it sort of broke down. one question i would like to ask what needs you is -- to change in the dynamic in order for this to come back again and be dealt with in a bipartisan way? if you were to identify one thing you feel needs to change to get back on this road that we seem to be on in 2013 when the senate passed this bill, what would that be? one way to think about the path forward is to look at california as a blueprint. in 1994, governor wilson at the time had strong anti-immigrant

rhetoric and was a supporter of prop 187, and anti-immigrant bill that became law and was struck down for being unconstitutional. is passingfornia some of the most progressive and inclusive state policies because it understands the demographics require us to really take an approach to not try to exclude people who are part of the community but how do we improve conditions for everyone? in california, the republican party is not been able to gain back any positions of power because of that anti-immigrant rhetoric. we are seeing the exact same thing at the federal level. if donald trump were to become president or if he were the , if the republican party continues to have an agenda that is anti-immigrant and anti-black and anti-women and anti-worker,

they have no path to the white house. 2016 which given the rate they are going now, they are picking every community to fight against and to offend. they will lose and they will lose so badly that i think the extreme right wing of the republican party will finally the establishment. they will say we need to come up with solutions and immigration reform will be one of those. what is the one thing that needs to change? >> if there is a big loss in the part of the democrats, i will come back in 1.5 years and we will see what that needs -- means. the one thing i think that needs thatange is the sense having a republican and democrat supporter of amnesty together make something bipartisan. problem you see across the

board in the politics in this issue is that this is not really a right/left issue entirely. issue, thean up/down lead versus the public. that the dynamic here. you see it in congress where you've got guys who are almost like fish that don't understand they are wet. they think that john mccain and ted kennedy got together on something so that must cover all the ideological basis. the fact is, they are the same guys. there is a very broad diversity of opinion among the public different from the elite consensus. a key part of that consensus, the elite consensus is the third element. you are talking about enforcement and amnesty

basically. of thes a third part senate bill on a third part of the issue which is the level of legal immigration. the senate bill would have doubled legal immigration from the one million per year to 2 million per year. it would have almost doubled so-called temporary worker admissions which ends up being long-term anyway. thing, it's the issue of the legal numbers being sort of taken for granted as a kind of gimme to various constituent groups. we will get rid of this category but we will give you extra here. the way they deal with the issue is everybody gets more. that and thinking about it in a different way -- larasa kamasaki is with

and he talked about the issue and said maybe his side of the issue needs to rethink this and consider trading legal status for illegals in exchange for cutting future legal immigration. i think that is the kind of thing back completely reshuffle the deck on this and maybe yield political results. >> laura, what's your thought about what could break this logjam in a new presidency and congress? we will continue to see latino voters are paying attention to this issue and are hearing about it in the mainstream news as the debate is being covered. they hear about it on spanish-language news every night. issue fora personal latino voters. who has goneeone

through the immigrant experience and i know someone who was on documented. -- is undocumented. that's what they want to see addressed. number of voters increase in the trap of latino voters continues to grow, i think that's what will make the difference. >> you and maria elena say the election outcome will be a game changer. >> they will determine the changes. elected officials will have to realize that the country has changed and is changing. >> randy, any thoughts about one thing that might need to change in your view to bring this issue home? i have seen enough internal republican and analysis on the latino vote, republicans could whether a storm and take the white house this time around even if their message was perceived as anti-latino. election, notext

unlikely -- not likely. there is the argument. the house still has to pass a bill and the senate has to pass a bill. you still have to deal with the house. as long as the speaker sticks to thehasher rule, it's a majority of the republicans. given my visits on the hill, what i get back my staff, it's not the amnesty issue compelling opposition to doing things so view thatis pervasive immigrants are taking jobs away from americans that they here in town halls. we can give these guys economic studies that say the opposite

and arguments but economists are like lawyers, no one believes them it's hard to explain. i think we've got to do a better job of getting data out there and doing a better job of spreading the word that immigration is good for america and that is the message. of data behind that that state and local cities acknowledge. they are reaching out to immigrants to come to cities because they seek them as keys to urban revitalization. against people who say immigrants are on welfare rolls. we have to do a better message of getting the word out. i told the staff that we are going on the right wing talk radio shows to get the message out.

when you talk about half the republican caucus, that's what i hear. i don't care who's in the white house, you still have to get the speaker behind it. you got to overcome that and i think that's what got to change. have room for one more question among ourselves before we go to the q&a and i want to ask you about legal the uses andb high-tech workers in the kind of thing -- you said the price is not being talked about very much. can you elaborate on that? >> i'm talking about overall numbers. the visas are a part of it and they are a stone sibley temporary visas for technical workers. there almost all from industry and almost all work in the

computer industry and are almost all white color. it's a contract worker program. they are indentured servants but there are all kinds of other things like legal immigration which is permanent which is running at one million per year. an increasing be consensus that our legal immigration flow is skewed toward relatives and needs to be skewed more to the individual skills of the immigrants. marco rubio talks about that and bush talks about that but they are talking about it in the context of increasing immigration as opposed to what i think is clearly decreased immigration. the public approval for increases in immigration is mutual. practices of planned parenthood are as popular as increasing immigration but every thatthat comes forward

both party pushes calls for increased immigration. that seems to be one of the key questions, not just enforcement, not just legalization for the illegal immigrants but what about tomorrow possibly legals. clear and you were reflecting this view is that the way you deal with illegal immigration and pressures in the future is by letting in everybody wants to come here legally and that way there is no illegal immigration. if you let everybody calm, then who will sneak in? maybe just a handful of bad guys. that's an approach you can take which is plausible.

is that good for american workers? is it good for american taxpayers? randy said cities are trying to entice more immigrants. it debunks the idea that they're all on welfare. welfare and work out together. almost everybody whether they is onmigrant or whoever welfare has a job. what drives welfare rates is the level of education of the people who are coming in and therefore their incomes. we have an immigration system the low skilled workers and cannot earn a lot of money. if you're a high school dropout, you can work three jobs and still cannot support your family without the taxpayers giving you stuff. question.e it's not how do we keep foreigners off of welfare.

why are we importing more people? inevitably, they will end up using taxpayer-funded government services. that's something nobody wants to engage. i disagree with the characterization of the h1b program but with regard to low skilled workers, very few green cards go to workers at all, it's only 6%. it's based on employment. but they all have jobs. to move into the audience participation part. on you and if you can state your name and organization and wait for someone to bring you a microphone -- we will begin right here with the laptop. >> thanks very much, last

summer, congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the workforce innovation and opportunity act. one in six workers in the u.s. is an immigrant and most of them are not undocumented. how do we bring immigration into the conversation about what the skills of the american workforce needs to look like and what employers need? my question is first to randy and others on the panel. whole center at the chamber for workforce preparation. improve theto influence on the local school system. that's driven by states. there are department of labor and education programs. we support core standards. we've got to do more to improve the job training and skills of

american workers. anytime i have testified, we have always had that slice of the pie. as fillingigration some of the gaps in which american workers are not feeling those gaps. -- are not filling those gaps in those areas. it depends geographically where the american workers are meme not line up all the time with that particular job. anytime you talk about immigration, you've got to talk about the other slice of the pie. some people argue that to thoseon can lead american workers who are at the bottom being ignored because immigrants have told the gap. mean there could be a complementary activity of both angles. lyrically speaking, they will be ignored if they don't have to be addressed. we have workforce human capital problems in many of our society.

there is no question about that. immigrationvels of does is eliminate the incentive for american business, the most important and powerful lobbying element in our society, to exert the pressure on our institutions whether it's schools are others to do something about these single capital deficits. shortcut -- toa put it crudely -- let's take these american kids are don't know how to work and don't drop on time and are chewing gum while they try to check out people of the store -- let's push them aside. they can get welfare and we can import better people from outside. morally, it's an abomination. secondly, it it does not work in the long run. the children of immigrants are americans and they've got all the same social problems that the rest of us do. .

in anshunt them aside important another group? it's not sustainable. conditionsating the where we fix our own problems are we ever going to overcome some of these hurdles that really exists that employers have. crotchtion is a kind of that enables us to avoid grappling with these larger social problems. >> thank you for the question. frankly, we have major problems in the united states with unemployment and underemployment. been a disinvestment in poor communities especially ones of color. there is a need for investment in the school system and our public schools and make sure

today's children are in stem classes. what are we doing to make sure we have a next generation that is prepared to take those classes? they are being fulfilled primarily with temper guest workers. the incentive that employers have now to recruit and hire undocumented workers often -- this is a small set of them -- it's to exploit a lot of those workers because they can get away with that because there are not strong labor law enforcement laws -- policies. if you're looking at enforcement as a solution, there's a way to get at that would labor law enforcement but not necessarily more border or interior enforcement. >> you were next. on the aisle. you have mentioned the

ethical concerns of family separation. you are aware if of what percentage of people who legally withountry an american citizen and child have legal barriers from their home country, bringing their rathern back with them than separating? do you think it's appropriate for a person who has been imported maybe because they have been -- they have finished a just sentence and have been supported and wouldn't be eligible for an amnesty because they usually are not saying that amnesty people with felony convictions -- would you say it's upon them to bring back the child with them? should they be leaving them? >> i don't know a percentage.

today immigrant families are what we call mixed out of families which means there is a u.s. citizen and one on documented immigrant in the family unit. we are talking about large percentages of people. many people who are deported take their children back to their home country. i don't know of their other legal barriers and other countries to do that for the impact is that we have u.s. citizen children who sometimes the father or mother might say they will stay of the united states with me because i want them to have a quality education . an entire family get separated, that's not the solution either. there seems to be a static

member of 11 million undocumented immigrants. when you look at the statistics and bringing it back to border security, according to customs and border protection, fiscal 2015 from october 1 two june 30, more than 99,000 other , many of them from central america, have been apprehended in that time. that is a huge number and i wonder if you would comment on how that reflects on the border security issue. >> we have done some research on this. skepticale on the side don't believe the $12 million number. it's between 11 million and 12

million. 13 butmost certainly it's not 20 or 30. if it is, you would see it in the birth and death records. it is something like 11 or 12 or maybe 13. there has been ongoing illegal immigration to the united states. one estimate is since the obama inauguration, 2.5 million of today's illegal aliens arrived when he took office. is there hasened been outflow from the illegal population. some people go home because of the bad economy. some people have gotten amnesty basically so they are out of the of the illegal population. the illegal population is always churning. if obama is not enforcing the law, there would be 2000 less than there were.

we are releasing a report tomorrow that looks at the recent numbers literally from this year and last year and it looks like the trend is reversing in the number of illegal immigrants which is going back up. i don't really care what the numbers are because of 11 million is a big in a population of illegal aliens. it's a plausible number and not something people pulled out of the air. it's an educated guess but it's a well educated guess. playing around with 20 is missing the point. what do we do to make sure we don't have another 11 million illegal aliens? that's the key issue. that, itaddress doesn't matter whether it's 11 or 12 or 13 million. what matters is how we stop the next 11 or 12 or 13 million?

the flow has shifted

>> central america is one of the unintended consequences of our 1996 immigration laws were we have deported a number of individuals convicted of gang activity. honduras in particular has the highest murder rate per capita. we are now seeing people fleeing the violence. of looking forward to solutions, we talk and the

united states about comprehensive immigration reform. there is comprehensive about the bills we have seen unless you are looking at u.s. foreign policy and you economic policy and economic investments. if we want to address future flows, we have to look at what being kind of aid that is invested in sending countries to try to diminish that. people don't want to migrate. people in other parts of the country and in latin america, there is a movement on the right country. in your home people are being forced out either because of violence or economic reasons. would be 4000 pages long instead of 2000 pages long. >> way in the back was a gentle man. i represented immigrant 1$ - 5$ who have earned

per hour and they are afraid to speak at for their rights because of the fear that that will lead to incarceration and deportation. it sounds from the panel that there is a consensus we're not going to legalize or double migration or anything like that and we are not going to take a big, bold federal action through an act of congress in the next 12 months. if the question is, what can be done now? it's clear that what can be done now is protecting the civil and labor rights of legal and undocumented immigrants so that their standards of the workplace go up and so that the standards of american workers who work alongside them. i would like to hear from the representative of the chamber and the intermittent time while you have a respite and not running up to congress to pass immigration reform were be couldt it, whichever, --

we see some action from you to to your high road employers come out in favor of basic worker protections for immigrant workers? that helps them and gets rid of the problem. i would love to hear specific now that cantives raise immigrant worker standards like the power act. mark, we talk to the hershey strikes and i am a clear view -- i have a clear view of what you are against but it's difficult to tell what you are for but you are for american workers. the one million guestworkers in about one million work alongside 24 million u.s.

workers. side1 million work along 150 million u.s. workers. what could you do to help immigrant worker standards rise so we are released from the race to the bottom? >> let's start with randy. there is the conflating of the undocumented workers and it sounds to me that part of your work is representing people who are legally here in guestworker programs. the legal guestworkers on visas very often are told by their employers or us assume that upon termination, they will be deported. we have rescued workers from bus stops for they are being put forcibly on buses back to mexico. to legalization, that's the issue because of

bayer undocumented, they will be in a position to be deported. employment laws apply to all these workers whether they are undocumented or not. i have had many arguments over this. there was a case that came down that said you had the protections but you could not get your back pay. we supported reversing hoffman plastics as part of senate negotiations. we have always put into negotiations making a crystal-clear what is already in existence that these people have counselghts get private , the same rights as american workers. if they are not being paid the minimum wage, go to the department of labor. erez who are going after my

employers for more frivolous ofngs where we have examples independent contractors not paying the minimum wage. go file a complaint. there are times when that's not easy to do. that's true about our american jurisprudence generally. how hard is it to exercise your rights? everybody who go through discrimination has to deal with that. if the laws apply, we have robust enforcement agencies. if you want to google certain companies under the j-visa program, they have had to pay huge fines because certain employees -- employers have had to pay. also, if you're found to be in theseion of the rules of guestworker programs, you can be disbarred. if you look on the department of labor website, there have companies that have been debarred.

there are bad actors in any kind are a big and we country, 185 million workers. people have to exercise their rights. as you know, there are mechanisms to help these people. as far as the undocumented, there is certain protections when you file a complaint from deportation while that is being processed. that was part of the senate negotiations as well. in this area, there is a lot that can be done administratively. it is fortunate that the administration is putting together a task force that parts of thet of administration that normally talk to each other. the department of labor folks and eeoc folks are talking in her things they could be doing

that don't require legislation. would be forthings workers to be able to come forward and apply for deferred when they are in terrible cases like the ones you see. there are ways we hope recommendations will help them make their way to the administration can be enacted before the end of this administration. this is probably something that would be good to work on together. i think that high road employers are supportive of these things. those employers that are violating the law are undermining employers that are playing by the rules. lines, one of the parts of the executive action of the president included this interagency working group. daca is blocked in the courts, we would urge the administration that they do

everything they can to use existing regulations for in aiduals for workers labor dispute or are being exploited to come forward and get deferred action and get work authorization and be able to pursue their legal claims. legislatively, that's not an option now. you referred to the power act which is part of the senate bill would give people a u-visa. i think we are out of time. i would suggest that maybe you and the questioner chat afterwards. >> let me say one thing -- guestworker programs are inherently exploited. they cannot be fixed and should be abolished altogether. you can do all the enforcement you want but it doesn't matter. some just workers, from a study a few years ago, looked forward to becoming illegal aliens because they would be able to earn more and have more rights basically in the workforce. and they did is guestworkers

the solution is get rid of guestworker programs. >> they have the same rights as american workers do under labor laws. >> we will wrap it up now. thanks to the bipartisan policy center for hosting this. thanks everyone for coming. [applause] you to you for the great questions. the live stream of this panel will be archived on her website. back and revisit anything anyone said and it will be available there. check out our website at bipartisan policy.org. thank you all for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> we will take you live to the national press club to hear from the reverend john richard bryant at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon. he will talk about race in american answer reporter questions. also this afternoon, a look at heroin addiction and the u.s. when we show you the house judiciary subcommittee hearing on how heroin abuse is trending and the possible solutions to problem. the white house director of national drug control policy and the dea acting deputy administrator will testify. the hearing begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern. this month while congress is on its summer recess, we are taking the opportunity to show you the tour. cities it is normally seen on weekends on c-span two. 6:00 p.m. eastern, we

take you to greensboro, north carolina for a look at the literary life of that city. next, former defense department officials on the role of special operations and intelligence in the 21st century warfare and in the battles against al qaeda and isis. this panel was part of the 2015 aspen security forum in aspen, colorado. [applause] thanknk you and i want to clark and the forum for having is here and sponsoring this discussion. i also want to thank admiral eric olsen for stepping into the breach when we asked him this morning. assistant secretary of defense michael lumpkin was stymied by the airlines and only got as far as denver last night. he could not join us today. dr. mikeave with us

vickers, former undersecretary of defense for intelligence. and also former head of special operations within the pentagon. and kathleen hicks who has held many senior roles inside the pentagon and is now at the center for strategic and international studies. i want to open with a question that has touched on all of your careers. you have all spent time fighting extremist militants in your different roles. experience, looking at the islamic state group and al isisisl the threat that the national community is making it out to be to the u.s. public? is al qaeda on the back foot for preparing for the next battle? you may begin. since you are in the private

sector now, feel free to share anything with us at all. [laughter] anything with us at all. [laughter] michael: i think i will take a pass on that one. the threat of a terrorist attack remains a national security threat, clear and present danger along with cyber attack. we have other longer-term strategic challenges, but they occupy policymakers' minds every day. isil is a bigger threat because of its ability to inspire so-called lone wolf or radicalization attacks across the world. but al qaeda is more sophisticated. so if an airliner blew up over the u.s., it would more likely be al qaeda today ban -- than isil. and that remains a sni