Clearly in the interests of law and order, clearly in the interest of Economic Growth your just had to get that off my chest. [laughter] there are many definitions. [applause] its very easy to see whats in the National Interest but whats in the National Interest is often in the eye of the beholder. So the real difficulty we are facing it seems just illustrated by this panel and by the comments that have been made is how do you even have the conversation . Obviously were not having a productive conversation in this Election Campaign. But the issue is right there squarely in the middle of it. It is not going to be done. It will be, it will carry over after the election because of the way that its been highlighted in the election. And i am very struck by whats been said along the way here, that what should our immigration policy before . Been whos interested be . What is the National Interest . You can set it up to be, as trump says, for american citizens and in the best interest of the country. Well, you look at immigrants and immigrant families in immigrant communities. They are totally fused. There is not a we and they were immigrants and american citizens are concerned. Its the nature and it is they can us. We have to be clear about who it is were talking about, but at the same time the idea that immigration policy has lost its witness and absolutely fair and valid critique, it seems to me. You listen to what the deputy secretary said earlier today, and gave some examples of the lack of cohesion and the lack of coherence in what our overall immigration system does and calls for today. And it is no question problematic. So before we open the mics, which i will do in just a moment, i would like to know whether anybody would have a final observation or would want to make an observation on how actually to have that conversation, structurally, mechanistically your do we just go past this electio election . If one does assume a Democratic Victory and go right back in to the partisanship that has characterized the congress in the past . Or is there a way to step back . Is there a way to more fundamental conversation. What do you think . I think its going to be worse. I think what will happen, lets go with the consensus view its probably a democratic president , possibly a democratic senate, probably not a democratic house. Im not so sure about the senate. Hillary clinton comes to office with a much stronger commitment toward the democratic platform on immigration than barack obama came within 2008, but more central to her reinvention of itself as a left center democrat. Just much less optimism. President obama thought he could work with people and persuade people. Hillary clinton much more, less ideological but more partisan than president obama and she would use the power of the president and try to drive things through administratively. And that would make that Vacant Supreme Court seat an absolute red hot button and she will lose a lot of republicans who might be inclined, probably most republican senators agree with their and with frank on the merits of Immigration Reform. Most republican member of the house, most surviving member of the house will not. But what will unite the Republican Party as it realizes were not the part of the presidency any more, there will be much more nervous about these kinds of highhanded executive actions and especially about that Vacant Supreme Court seat. There will be tremendous rancor over the. The Republican Party assumed they lose the president will be ripping itself to pieces with incrimination, over whose fault was this end over future identity. Should it be led by its traditional business elite, which is had a very scornful attitude towards the economic interest of rankandfile republicans. Immigration is like the thing were focused on your but another issues on health care and wages and jobs, the party of paul ryan has been a party that has been very focused on economic interest of the comparatively small number of republicans, nevermind the small number of americans. Of the republicans, there has been leadership and thats why this space was waiting for cynical personal donald trump to seize it. But there will be better contenders. Now that trump has identified this discontent of the Republican Party there will be more responsible contenders to take this space that he explored. So that there will be a par parf the great dealing with it so. Hillary clinton of the trust that president obama had. She will have to prove yourself harder and will be subject to more criticism and i think just because of the our nature to her view of colditz works, she will not be a dealmaker. Karen, final comments . I do agree the Supreme Court fight is going to be a big, big part of this, and also the internal battles of the Republican Party. Ted cruz his hand, dressed and ready. [laughter] it is really hard to look at next year and see not just on this issue but a number of other issues. One you might throw in is trade. It just looks grim. All right. On that very, very [laughter] hopeful note, lets go to the next, lets go to the younger generation. Question. Thanks very much. National skills coalition. My question really has to do with which aspects of immigration policy captures the public imagination. Over the past few years tens of millions of dollars have gone to Community Colleges to help train American Workers, and those grants come from fees paid by immigrants, typically for a 21 cases but also for others. And yet those kind of Training Programs and the fact that we are using immigration policy to help strengthen American Workers skills the something that is never discussed the its not part of enforcement discussion. Its a part of the hoosier but let him. Its not even par part of the pt system debate about australia and canada. Im just curious for any of the panelists if you have thoughts about why some of these issues capture the public imagination, why others have early remain in the realm of immigration policy wonks and have not gotten farther out . I think you are actually write. I think that we dont just need a policy on immigration that looks at enforcement and looks at modernization of the system in terms of these fighting who comes into the country. We need an immigrant integration policy, and have to be part and parcel. Inexplicably linked to whatever we do in terms of modernizing the immigration system. And if, indeed, we want communities to feel that immigrants are bringing their talents and skills to the table, which they are, then an investment of integration, whether its in job skills, whether its in english language instruction, whether its in workforce development, that has to be a critical component of modernizing our immigration policy. It isnt, it should just not be policy but immigrants but about immigrant integration. Immigrants are integrating. We are seeing that there are greater economic mobility, greater acquisition of english language, but we need to be doing more of that. Were hoping that this is something that everybody can agree upon, no matter what they may be thinking about enforcement issues or issues about modernization in terms of who comes to the country. People are so cynical. Anytime a Government Program getting anything right answer but workforce Training Programs are not exactly a model of the efficiency or success. What grabs the public imagination . The khan family grabs the public imagination. The idea of immigration as one factor within a National HumanCapital Development strategy, that is exactly the wavelength i am on. If you were doing that, however, that somebody would run your immigration policy. The american policy is quite different. Lets have immigrants basically selected themselves with that for very much regard to Human Capital. And then once theyve integrated, once they come to the country once we realized we would immigrant populations of substantial or in skills and the native population, and lets try to fix it up on the backend at enormous cost. If we are serious about Human Capital as the consideration in immigration policy, thats where youre screening should be, on funding. The question is not to go to Community College but he was bringing with you the most advanced skills. One reason, im from canada originally, one recent immigration so much less, candidate takes a higher proportion than the United States. Its so much was cut for so because w where you encounter immigrants most often in canada come at the hospital. At all levels. Not just that the levels of the clerical workers, the people cleaned the place but the doctors and especially the nurses. Especially if youre in like a smaller in candidate. You would not get to surgery but for the immigrant doctors who perform it and you wouldnt get the blanket and the meal but for the it more likely immigrant nurse whos bringing it. People get that. In the United States it is done in exactly the opposite way. Very much a pattern you see in American Life generally in this approach to immigration is education, which is the latest phase of the education system, the more globally superior it is. Greatest graduate Education Program on the planet by far. Universities pretty good, comparatively some others and then after that it just deteriorates compared to the rest of the world. That seems backwards. We just a few minutes lets im going to ask the people that are at the mics to very quickly, you, you interested to question if the applicant the panelists selected opportunity to answer. The question is directed primarily to david frum. I think mr. Sharry made the very good point that obama has deported more immigrants really as in number than any other president has really ever. I look at the numbers. I think is deported so far i think 23 more. You made the claim in thing in general the democrats have moved far to the left when it comes to immigration and enforcement of Immigration Laws. I would like you to clarify how you can reconcile same and you claiming that with the fact that obama has indeed deported more immigrants weight. Statistical artifact caused by counted rules out the border with deportation numbers that were never included before. It is a totally fake number. So my question is the rhetoric you might see for both parties. You saw donald trump had a huge [inaudible] to get more Media Coverage because the Media Coverage donald trump is able to get, and for the Democratic Party like Bernie Sanders being able to mobilize so many young voters, bringing up some issues that they feel have been ignored for them. Tensions of whats going to happen in the future with us and things that we may be more concerned about the maybe an older generation might not be as much. My question is about a wave were discussing immigration it sounds like its always something is happening particular to us as if the u. S. Has no interests outside of it. For example, frank mentioned the demographic shift happen. Someone mentioned about the cartels, as if the consumption of drugs in this country and thus misleading of the there are no guns made in those countries. For the Central America migration to assume that people are just coming because they woke up one day and not because of interventionist policies of the u. S. Has had over the years and continue to have. I think it takes away from immigration discussion because there is, you kind of break it, you have to buy it. The u. S. Of broken many things in many policies are not trying to excuse the government and what they need to do to fix their own policies, but to the extent the u. S. Has not played a role and does not share some of that responsibility. So id like to panel to discuss it in the context of not just in the rest nativist context. Thank you. [applause] these are all important points, and this is a good indication of how one, there are so many corrections want to take a conversation like this. We are not going to be able to take any further. I would invite those of you who might want to talk with panelists to come up to the front while we have a break. We will break until 11 00. Please be back at 11 00 for our next panel, but please join me in thanking this very, very lively panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] a short break in this conference on immigration posted by the migration policy institute. Coming up in about 15 minutes a panel on Immigration Enforcement, prosecutions and family detentions. And closing out the morning session will be the assistant democratic leader dick durbin of illinois. Live coverage of the conferences afternoon sessions moved over to cspan3 starting at 1 40 p. M. With discussions about immigration and the Republican Party, and Refugee Resettlement in the u. S. And teleconference resumes remarks of alejandro mayorkas, deputy Homeland Security secretary. Thank you very much for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. I should comment on, very briefly on my relationship with the doris meissner, and thank you very much for the two kind introduction. Doris is more than a mentor and an adviser to me. Its a little bit more unique than that. Shes actually my role model in terms of what it means to be a fair, a just and a dignified government servant. And so my friendship with doors is extraordinarily important, not only to my life but to my work. Im a political refugee. I was born in cuba, and my parents brought my sister and me to this country to fully the communist takeover of cuba. My parents did not want to raise their children in a communist regime. And my identity as a political refugee was extraordinary important to my upbringing, and my parents were very focused on instilling in me a deep sense of what it means and what it meant to be a refugee, to be an individual displays from ones home and the country in which ones parents dream of raising their children. In 2010 and 11, i had in the course of my work as a director just citizenship and Immigration Services the opportunity to learn a great deal about our administration of the refugee system, and to learn about refugees displaced all over the world. There was one experience in particular that quite frankly shook my identity as a political refugee. I went with colleagues to nairobi to view our refugee operation there. And from nairobi we took a small plane to the kenyansomali border and visited the refugee camp of dadaab. At the time just about six years ago, dadaab had originally been developed for the placement of about 90,000 Somali Refugees on their way to resettlement in third countries. In 2010 when i visited, there were just over 300,000 people. And i would describe them as poor, except for the fact that poverty suggests that individuals have something, but just not enough to make it through. And these individuals had absolutely nothing. I have never seen anything like it. They lived, they dwelled, they slept on the sand. And some of them had plastic bags wasted on sticks as the only cover. And the others who didnt have those plastic bags have nothing. And i remember sitting on sitting in on an interview of a refugee family conducted by one of our Refugee Affairs officers. And the family consisted of a husband and wife, a father and a mother, and their four children. And a very close knit family. And the oldest of the children was a young 17 year old woman. And our Refugee Affairs officer asked her where she been born. I thought shes going to say somalia. And by the way, around the camp for as far as the eye could see there is sand and there is heat. There is really nothing. It was inconceivable to me how these individuals could even arrive at dadaab safely. And, of course, many did not. The 17 year old woman in response to the question where she was born answered here. I was born here. And should live her entire life, 17 years, in this camp, where poverty would actually be an exaggeration. And i came back from that trip and i had a very difficult time identifying myself as a refugee, political or otherwise, understanding the depth of despair and loss that others who seek the benefits of our refugee system have suffered. And i wont, please, doris, i wont seek to draft the first iteration of it look back at the Obama Administration but i just want to share a thought on the notion of identity. Because it is identity that has to serve as the foundation of our approach to the difficult immigration issues we confront. We have to give thought to the fundamental and foundational question of who we are as a country, and who we should be. And how we answer that question on the subject of immigration should be our guide post in traveling through and managing their very difficult and sensitive and too often divisive challenges that we face. And so let me give an example or two. The syrian refugee crisis. There were and remain at least two different approaches or priorities that are in tension with one another and people come down on different sides of that tension. On the one hand, there are many who believe that it is one of our proudest traditions as a country to be a place of refuge for those in greatest need, and certainly the individuals fleeing the horrors that too often occurs in syria qualify in that category. And there is a strong sentiment among many that we need to open our arms mo