Good morning, everythibody. Thank you for coming. Please silence your phones if you havent already, or turn them off. One or the other. We welcome you to this Panel Discussion cosponsored by the American Enterprise institute where im from, you can tell because the name rolls off my tongue. And the Migration Policy Institute on u. S. Border crisis where we hope to generate more light than heat. A serious discussion by serious people about a complicated issue. Six weeks ago in his style, President Trump reacting to a flood of Central Americans trying to enter the United States illegally on our southern border threatened to impose sanctions on goods from mexico until our southern neighbor did more to interdict wouldbe migrants. Many complained that he was bullying an important economic partner and misusing tariff authorities. Others asked what leverage does he have to get mexico to do more to respond to a genuine migrant crisis . And they will point to mexicos accommodating response as evidence that trumps tactics worked. There was a recent poll, i noted, last night, that said, among respondents, they said 75 said we should deport Central Americans. 67 agreed with the idea of, quote, militarizing the border. Whats interesting is that was a poll in mexico of mexicans. With news that mexico has deployed a phalanx of Security Forces to stop Central Americans, it is fair to say that trump got his wall and mexico is paying for it. To be even more provocative, think its fair to ask if american politicians are able to address a fundamental security issue or whether they prefer to spend the coming Election Year using the border crisis to whip up their bases. These panelists will identify specific steps that could be taken to address the root causes of Central American exodus and remedy the fact that human smugglers are exploiting poor migra migrants, gaming our asylum laws and overwhelming our beleaguered border enforcement efforts. We will ask the question, can our government do one of its most fundamental tasks of preserving our territorial integrity and securing our homeland . Joining us today are hirono gutierrez who served as ambassadam ba ambassador of mexico to the United States under president enrique pena nieto. Hes served in various roles in the Mexican Foreign government focusing on policy and homeland security. Ambassador gutierrez is currently a managing partner at biel infrastructure partners. I was with him when probably at crawford yep. Where you came appropriately attired in cowboy boots and jeans and i had loafers and tried to stay out of president bushs line of sight. View. Precisely because i was not appropriately attired. But afterwards the president asked, who was that young guy who had all the answers . And what was interesting is that we all knew he was talking about you, hirono. Welcome this morning. Thank you. Andrew seely, the president of a nonpartisan institution that seeks to improve organization and integration policies. Before joining mbi, he spent 17 years at the Woodrow WilsonInternational Center for scholars where he founded the centers Mexico Institute and later served as Vice President for programs and executive for Vice President. Hes also the author of a book, very good book, vanishing frontiers. Yes. Vanishing frontiers. I welcome you here, today, andrew, is our cosponsor. Sarah pierce is a policy analyst for u. S. Immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute. Where her Research Expertise includes policy and enforcement. More joining npi, miss pierce practiced Immigration Law with chicagobased law firm before the Immigration Court board of immigration appeals. U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and u. S. Consulate offices abroad. Mark teeson is a resident fellow at aei where he studies and writes about american president ial leadership and counterterrorism. He writes a twice weekly column for the Washington Post on foreign and domestic policy and is a contributor to fox news. Mark also served as chief speakwriter to president george w. Bush and worked with me, well, it was a lot of fun, but it was work, too, when we worked for senator helms in the senator. Hes also the host of a podcast elegantly named what the hell is going on . You should check it out. You should check it out. They did the our first guest was roger noriega. I was the guinea pig. Then they broke it down and retooled after me. At any rate, ambassador gutierrez, welcome. Why dont you sort of lay the groundwork for the discussion . What were the elements of the migration accord the president found satisfactory . Just in june. And explain to us how mexico vee sponding to that. Sure. First of all, thank you for inviting me to be here this morning. Thank you, all, for coming. Its certainly a timely discussion. So i what would call the u. S. And mexico recently just had what i would label an understanding by which both sides are acting upon their own laws, coordinating in a series of factions and mainly three areas. The first one that i would emphasize is theres been an agreement that both countries need partner to work on development. In the end, i think everybody agrees that if people are forced to leave their countries, somethings wrong and i think most people do agree that it is important to work on the development, whether its on southern mexico or central america. And its a tough task to do that. It takes a lot of time. But i think that its positive that theres an agreement that we should all try to Work Together, including, obviously, because theyre the ones that are directly involved, the countries, our good friends from central america. The second area is what i would call that, you know, enforcement. And what mexico is doing, im personally very happy to see it, although theres a lot of political flak that has been taken by the administration on this one, is that were actually enforcing our own Immigration Law. Thats new, in a sense, thats new. That is why people are so surprised in mexico and, perhaps, here, and that is why, perhaps, you have President Trump talking about how, you know, mexicos doing great. Were simply doing what our own Immigration Law does, and i think thats important. I think that that should be done with absolute respect of human rights and im sure thats what were trying to do. And it should be done in a way that its humane and orderly, but so far, what mexico has done is just follow what is in its own Immigration Law. And the third area, i think, of the agreement, which is important, or the understanding, is that in some way or fashion, we need to Work Together to address a fact that a lot of people from the northern triangle countries of central america, mainly, not only from those countries, some from mexico and some from elsewhere, have increasing numbers arrive at the u. S. mexico border to seek asylum and theres a whole debate about what implies and what is causing it. The fact is that i think i think its appropriately described as a humanitarian crisis and also as an immigration crisis. Fine. We need to, you know, at least recognize the fact that theres both things. And in the end, i think the only way that that is going to be appropriately addressed is if all of the countries take a regional solution or try to work on a regional that were all going to have to chip in. And were all going to have to if theres a humanitarian crisis mexico, i think, needs to do a little bit more of its share and work with our Central American friends. Those are the three elements. So far, tht implies that there is a program called, as you know, mexico, by which certain people are waiting on the mexican side of the border while their asylum claim is being reviewed. We can talk about whether thats working or not later. We have deployed an increasing number of immigration agents to our southern border. And also, now, the National Guard of our federal police. And that is also happening in important numbers. And were also trying to strengthen our refugee agency, which quite clearly is not up to the task, and, therefore, we need to increase its institutional capacity. Thats the agreement. To be sure, theres a lot of, you know, criticism. You know, the labrador administration is being criticized by mexico. I do have to say to the extent were able to take the politics, whether its on mexico, the United States, and on both countries, as far away from this as possible and its tempting not to. I know. I understand. I think our governments work better on this one. Roger. Thank you very much for laying the groundwork forsarah, the Migration Policy Institute. Why dont we before we talk policy, how are there are there any indications, anecdotal information, whatever, that the initial enforcement efforts are having some kind of an impact in terms of dissuadinining Central Americans from coming into next kco in the first place . Okay. First of all, roger, thank you for proposing this partnership. Its great to be at aei and great to be able to do this together. We i would say theres some initial i mean, if our measurement is, you know, there is a surge in the number of people coming month over month, started in august, ramped up in february and march, up to may, yes, weve seen the numbers go down and we saw mexico apprehend and deport probably a third more people than they had the month before and weve seen a drop probably in the preliminary numbers that have been leaked. We havent seen final numbers, probably a third fewer apprehensions on the u. S. mexico border. Some of that can be seasonal. There tends to be a drop in the number of people coming but theres some reason to believe that Central American migration is less sensitive to seasonal cycles than mexican migration once was. Mexicans had a lot of knowledge of the migration cycle and tend to have places they were going. Central americans, its a little less tied to specific jobs that theyre headed to. But it does seem that theres some of this as enforcement. Right . Mexico was thrown a lot of enforcement resources into this. It is hard tore gse harder to g. I was just in el salvador. People who work with people from the three Central American countries from the majority come from. Guatemala, by the way. Honduras, second, very high. El salvador in distant third. Word that seems to be getting back on the ground is that, you know, this is not the thyme ime go. Its hard to get through mexico. Measured at a longer yardstick, i worried there isnt really no one is yet talking about longterm solutions. Mexico can throw you know, the people in mexico, and certainly the Mexican Government, and i know geronimo, you had to deal with this when you were ambassador. Mexico sees itself still as a kun of about migration, right . Theres never been an investment in the kinds of institutions you need to deal with migration. Right . So the comad, the asylum institute, has a budget of 1. 3 million. You know, for theyre going to get about 60,000 applications for asylum this year. They had a little over 30,000 this year. Theres no way they can deal with that. No one ever thought, yes, theres always been people requesting asylum in mexico, but historically, in no one thought as mexico as a country that had to spend a lot on migration. Not only is it underfunded, theres a lot of end dent out the there that agents collude with smugglers. You may be able to stop things for a while, what stops you from going back to old patterns of behavior . On the u. S. Side, sarah will talk more about this, i have a sense we havent had a real conversation on what our immigration policy is, either. Trump talks tough. I suspect much of what he does is a play to his base. In fact, its not very effective in terms of policy. So, you know, you can talk tough but if theres no implementation of a rational policy behind it, thats not actually very tough and its not very helpful. Democrats talk compassion, but my sense is that democrats quite often are endorsing things that will lead to more migration which is actually leading to more migration generating antibodies against immigration in the country and may not be fair to people drawn to the border. Thats not compassion it. We need a real conversation in the country. I worry what we are trying to do now is outsource or policy to maximum mexico because we dont want to fix it. And injury thats a dangerous place to be in. Mexico op the other hand is happy to sort of assauge pruch for a while but is waiting for the moment to pass and go back to things. I think both of those are wrong reactions. Mexico needs to be serious about migration for its own reasons. Its going to be a country of pass through more and more people staying in mexico. There are people staying in mexico if given asylum or come and go it if there was a Work Based Program in mexico. And there will be people coming arthro. Mexico needs a immigration policy for its own reasons. And United States needs a serious conversation where democrats and republicans sit down and say what is a fairminded but tough minded border strategy that mr. Dissuade people from coming to the country. Allow people to have legal avenues for people to come and work but dissawed people from making a journey as of an unauthorize the migrant to the u. S. Border. We havent had that conversation yet. I worry what we are doing as a result were just basically trying to throw a problem to the mexico and the Mexican Government is saying well deal with it for a while and hoping this passes. We could be having the same conversation a year from now. Yeah, the only thing ill add is we have seen the story during the obama administration. There was a huge crites of unaccompanied Child Migrants arriving at the southern borders. The numbers went down once mexico stepped up southern border enforcement and they have gone back up. Echoing what aund said we need to focus on longterm solutions. Its costly too and addressing the root causes is longer Term Investment and longer term results. Lets talk about the crisis thats really happening. I mean, as great grandson and grandson of mexican immigrants im very pro immigration and not, you know, taken in by the antiimmigrant rhetoric by any means. But there is a serious problem. Everyone unof 31 plus erik Central Americans wanting to come to the u. S. Cant just appear at the border. We have to respond to this. It seems that the smugglers are gaming our asylum system, overwhelming our enforcement efforts. Explain some of the elements and a half, will you please, sarah. Right now when you arrive at the southern border if you are apprehended you can be subject to expedited removal, deported from the country within a few days. The way to get out of expedited removal is to say that you have a credible fear of returning to your home country and apply for asylum. And that is what a lot of individuals are using to enter in system right now. But the problem with our asylum application process is the case is handed over to the Immigration Court system, extremely backlogged. It has nearly 900,000 cases. You frequent i dont go before a judge, three, four, five years down the line. Meanwhile, youre living in the United States. So this is a really bad system for legitimate Asylum Seekers because they live in the United States, doept know if they are betting to stay and their evidence is getting outstate o dated while they wit for this hearing where they can ultimately apply for asylum. Its also bad because like you implied it creates perverse incentives to the come to the United States and use the system at least as a way to temporarily get perms to enter and stay in the United States. And i think thats that did that outdated system is what were seeing being exploited today. Umhum. Mark, you at the time of in agreement wrote about and spoke about and harassed me about that President Trump was using the only leverage available to him. And by the way was having results. And but our colleagues Andreas Martinez and and ryan berg wrote a piece explaining the native relationship, the high confiscates in terms of, you know integrated economic relationship with mexico that were all influenced by the you know, the President Trump or frankly any u. S. President , the United Statesen kind of be strong argument the mexican authorities. Are you able to see the the longterm implications that have kind of cycle on the u. S. Bilateral relationship with mexico. Yeah, so begin with, like you im pro immigration because my mother was a stateless refugee and was welcomed into the refuge were a nation of immigrants and we ought to be. And President Trump is wrong when he said when he looked at the crisis when the kriez started and said sorry is america fl, no more room. In fact because of the economic boom that were having, because of his economic policies our biggest economic problem roubts is we have 1. 6 million unfilled job than we have citizens unemployed workers to fill them. We need immigrants. We need legal immigrants but we need immigrants coming into the country. But and so but what we need to get control of our borders. As you pointed out there was a genuine crisis. Mexico is a friend, ally and partner. And i love all the things that the ambassador laid out that alter doing, now enforcing their Immigration Laws. They werent enforcing them six weeks ago. This went happening. Everyone said a lot of the stuff in the agreement was stuff agreed to in december. Well, six months later it wasnt happening. Now all of a sudden its happening. So, you know, i wrote a column in the post saying it was it would be disaster to to have a trade war with mechanics me during a trade war with china. Because mexico and china sprouse the same goods. There is no where else to get them if you have tariffs on both countries. Bad economically for the United States to have the trade war. But trump didnt see it that way. He thinks tariffs are good. He is wrong. And mexico was serious it was ging to devastating for mexico more so the United States. And it worked all these things are happening finally. My worry is and see mexico is doing exactly what is suggested, which is its waiting trump out, that eventually once either he might lose reelection or you know Something Else might happen in this country and he wont be pressing them and then we can go back to the way things were. Which is why trump i think is right in insisting that there has to be at the end of the process a Safe Third Country Agreement with mexico. Because i dont understand why if mexico is incapable of enforcing it southern border the problem should be ours. If mexico cant enforce its southern southern border and prevent immigrants coming across the 400 mile mothered oh shouldnt be a problem on our 2,000 mile border. They should apply for asylum in mexico and stay theren a mexico deals with that. It would be an incentive to mexico to actually enforce its border and not leet the people in the first place because they would have paid the economic costs. And secondly end a lot of the activity of the coyotes and human smugglers because people arent paying tens of thousands to come to the mexico. They want to come to thes United States. It would have an impact. I worry i think trump had a victory in doing this. I worry that its temporary. Yes i think being loo im concerned mexico is not an adversary. But they werent doing their job. And so, you know, weve tried it through a partnership. And weve tried it through cooperation. And weve tried it through friendly friendly means. And nothing was happening. So the evidence is and see when trump threatened when he spoke when president s speak softly Nothing Happened and when trump picked up the big stick of tariffs something happened. Thats the lesson. Well, ambassador gutierrez said that we got to keep politics away from the problem in both countries. But lets talk about politics. Because were in washington. We need more we need more border enforcement efforts resources to treat people hue manley on the border. Personnel, money, precise willy to enforce our laws, protect our security and provide adjudication of legitimate claims for asylum. It looks as if were in sort of the the gears are locking up in washington, where even the idea of enforcement resources is controversial. And you had every democratic candidate lining up against these efforts criticizing u. S. Enforcement efforts in the worst possible terms, referring to concentration camps and all of this. Is either side prepared you guys watch in very closely. Is either seidling to spend any Political Capital to get to a solution in or do we have to muddle through for the next two years essentially with this crisis . Ill jump in. Yes, please. First first let me grant park the point that quote unquote lets just assume that we were not doing enough. I think that its ive said this publicly before. I think its in mexicos own interests to do a serious enforcement of its own Immigration Laws. Ive said it before, and ill say it again. And again emphasizing that that is not at odds per se of being of you kno