Skip to main content

tv   Tonight From Washington  CSPAN  May 14, 2010 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT

8:00 pm
>> the head of the federal communications commission said thursday that the government and broadband providers should you go to avoid heavy regulation of the internet to all parties operate in good faith. julius genachowski's comments can be for a national of cable and telecommunications in los angeles. this is just over half an hour. >> good morning. i hope everyone is having a great show. l.a. has been a great venue in today's our last day. i've heard a lot of great buzz about the floor in the session. at the end of the day it's not the floor or the session what makes a showy successes all of you. the thank you are being here. this morning were going to be creepy and a few moments.
8:01 pm
the first on is my honor to introduce someone in a few moments, the fcc chairman, julius genachowski. it's my pleasure, please join me in welcoming mr. chairman. [applause] >> good morning. how are you doing? >> i'm doing fine. >> another show. how many of these have you done? >> just a couple. i just heard on my way in american idol clacks >> there to the finalists or something like that appeared in the grammys, although something that happens. i don't know that much about it. but i your important. last night so let's get into it and i think you've said the most important priority for you is national broadband plan and you have assembled a team that really were enslaved probably more accurately for six to seven
8:02 pm
months to produce a report to congress a couple of ago. one of those goals that you've outlined is broadband adoption, which is something near and dear to our heart. and i thought it would be worth explaining why that's so important. we know why it's important for business, but white so important for america. >> sure come the first thing i'll say is we wouldn't be here talking about broadband, talking about adoption is not for the pioneers of the cable industry, the investors and innovators who took something that when we were kids didn't exist and turned it into a ubiquitous service now available to coming to know, over 92% of the american people. it's an amazing american success story and import that it was followed by another great
8:03 pm
success and innovation and deployment, the cable modem. and i don't think we'd be here now talking about these issues. look at to them in a minute without history and recognizing that what got us to this point needs to take us beyond as we tackle these issues in the future. because there is no question that broadband communication is becoming more vital, more essential in the lives of every american every day, that if our platform for economic activities , job creation in the 21st century, for innovation. it's as essential to our global competitiveness as anything else. and also essential to tackling some of the major challenges we face as a country from education to health care, to energy, to public safety. so enormously important and the
8:04 pm
bad news is that the u.s. is lagging. different studies say different things. we both know the numbers, but whether 16 or 17, were not on the olympic podium when it comes to broadband. one study that concerns me a lot is one that looks at a number of metrics relating to the competitiveness and innovative capacity of the leading industrial countries and it ranks the u.s. 40th out of 40 in rate of change of innovative capacity and that should give us some real concern aired on the adoption by, the u.s. average is about 65%, well below a 90% that singapore has, other asian countries. we need to close that gap for global competitiveness, for opportunity in the 21st century. and here's what i think the good news is. one, the fact that we have the
8:05 pm
cable plan that we do in the united states, with its capacity for high-speed service and as ubiquitous in addition to the telephone plan gives the u.s. a potential competitive advantage as we move forward in the decades ahead. that's a big deal. the second thing is the adoption challenge, getting more people to adopt broadband is as natural of a win-win for a government industry situation as i've ever seen. or more subscribers that you and other broadband providers add, the more we take our adoption numbers up in the country. that's a good thing. the more that we can do to accelerate and support adoption, the better it is for broadband providers and that's a good name. so that's an area of great importance and it's one of the cable industry has been productive and working with us. i remember one of the early meetings we had was that that edgar who commit in invading the
8:06 pm
being done in santa barbara to drive adoption. i think one thing led to another and cable industry took a similar approach by one thing -- >> by one thing leading to another you mean hey i need you guys to step up and offer initiatives. >> you know, it and they did. and you did your it's one of those things that's been interesting about my job is that your people come in from different parts of the country on the today good idea over here, the idea over there. one thing that's missing is a clearinghouse for good ideas so they can be copied so we don't have to reinvent it. i know you're playing some of apple, which is great. we're focused on results, so we're going to keep working together and pushing to see if the a+ program and other programs can really increase the adoption rate, but it's a big, big country. >> and you should keep pushing us to dive a little deeper. you and i have talked about this before. there is several options, one is
8:07 pm
demography and huge role of expenses we have. we at 25% of households with no computers. part of it is a price point on affordability issue. i think you guys have tied together very well in the broadband plan to fight that there are different strains to this. there really is no silver bullet and i know on behalf of the industry and you just said it, i think we understand and are willing to do what we can to engage in that kind of public-private partnership to get the job done. another aspect of the broadband plan produced a recommendation called the ultimate or postal. i want to step back or a second and ask you a more generic question, which is we're in a time of incredible dynamism in the video part 1. and as you know, and cta consists not just of cable operators, programs were here next to hollywood. with close relationship relationship with the studios
8:08 pm
and there's a lot of synergy. we're all trying to figure out these emerging models, how to monetize these models, how to integrate television and the internet. you fixed on an aspect of a think most people haven't really thought of, which is that synergy of all the emerging models on what today are relatively distinct platforms actually is an important component of broadband adoption. and so i thought maybe i'd give you an opportunity to explain how that is. >> you that. and i think this is where you're going. computers are about 70 something% of people's homes. tvs are in well over 90% of people's homes. and when you think about what are the ways we as a country we can enable in broadband adoption, one of the things that a broadband team identified as a potential solution, looking at tvs and to think about the way that tv can be helpful for
8:09 pm
broadband access. there are others there, too. as you know, there's been a long history with trained to promote competition, we've tried cable card, it hasn't worked. i think increasingly consumers in the industry recognize that it would be desirable for consumers to have an easy integrated way to navigate their pay-tv, the video over the internet, other video that they bought. you know, i think of this as sort of the classic triangle of consumers innovation and competition. and that's what we've been trying to do in this area, take a fresh look at this area and ask, what can we do to unleash competition, to have this
8:10 pm
platform be as innovative as other platforms that we've seen to better serve consumers and the cable industry is a very constructive and miss. you know, you and me and cta submitted consumer principles as part of the broadband work, started thinking about it playing a very positive role and are thinking about it so far will continue to play a role in the future. this is one where i'm also hopeful that if we can solve the rubik's cube, it can be a win-win, provide real services to consumers that can enter in the two more adoption, more subscribers, strengthening of its infrastructure for her company. >> when you think about innovation, yesterday on this stage, ryan roberts displayed an ipod where they basically created an out and he showed a video that showed how you could
8:11 pm
already, with today's technology, leveraging innovation that surrounds us with other devices like the ipaq, essentially turning it into a rainbow. and i you you haven't gone to a scorpio you see a lot of stuff on the floor. i mean, there's a lot going on and what's your reaction when you see these kinds of sordid innovations in fact the people are now thinking differently about how to leverage the innovation going on around us and get out as a really traditional distribution platform that we frankly had for 20, 30 years. >> it's exciting to see this innovation. these kinds of examples are at the core of our opportunity of the country for the 21st century. you know, we've led the world in innovation and economic activity and the 20th century. we patched it is in the 21st century. while the 20th century western electric and the structure is not just as anything else, led to the appliances from tvs and
8:12 pm
radios and refrigerators, ultimately the computer that really drove american innovation that we can export to the rest of the world. in the 21st century comets going to be not our lecture could come about information great and it's going to be not appliances, but applications and that's an exciting thing. until it's great to see these industries seize the opportunities. i see jobs created in the united states. i also see a solution to problems that we all want to solve you know, you think about it today, how important it is that kids have broadband access at home wherever they are to get the best learning they can get, to develop the tools they need to participate in our economy and our democracy and we have huge problems. 65% adoption overall lower and low-income communities, lower and minority community, lower in rural community. and so with a typical public schools and the united states, a number of kids a broadband home
8:13 pm
as well less than half. you know, think about that feature, what am i supposed to do. i want to give my kids assignment that access to great knowledge that some internet, to teach them the skills that they need, if they give them the assignment, the kids who don't have broadband at home can get it all. if i don't give them assignments, and the theme behind the kids a job access. we have to tackle it and the reason i think this is related to the ipad app is you see that and see how hard it is to go from there from textbooks, electronic textbooks for every student. how can we figure out how to make that happen? couldn't ipod or a candle or some other device revolutionize education in this country? this seems to me within our grasp if we take it on as a challenge. >> you know, one of the things behind all of this is it's easy
8:14 pm
to say put it up on an ipod. we're talking about broadband, but at the end of the day, it's what's coming through the pipe that matters. so we have an incredible industry that produces, just spectacular contents, intellectual property is the foundation for this entire ecosystem. i want to compliment you for something and this'll really roll off the tongue, but those selected well to control labor. the decision you've all made to allow studios to work with not just cable operators, but other multichannel providers to allow the opportunity to get first run movies in a window much closer to date and date, to really drive video-on-demand and video on demand platform. and i know it was not without controversy, but i think that was an important statement and you might share with us a little bit about how you balance the openness of the desire to get
8:15 pm
everything on every device all the time at the consumers choice, with the need to protect intellectual property. >> well, i think what the selectable output control way for -- [inaudible] >> i think someone was sleeping when the renaming it. but what it illustrates at one level is that we mean what we say. i've been very clear about how important it is for us to preserve freedom and openness of the internet. i do think it so vital to sustaining and accelerating innovation and competition over the next decade. i've also said that we need to do it anyway that in courage is experimentation with is this model. you know, if we can't find a way to make sure that investors and infrastructure investors and content, investors and other services that ride on top of the
8:16 pm
infrastructure have a way to get a healthy return on their investment, but not going to work. that also said we need to do this in a way that applies to lawful content and that protects intellectual property in a meaningful way. none of these things are easy, they're legitimate concerns on all sides. this particular order is an example in a concrete way of balancing goals that i think are quite compatible and we have to serve simultaneously. the need for an open internet and one that states and trust and allow speakers to speak, entre nous is to reach their audience and allows business models it to be protected. >> so we probably should talk about the elephant in the room. [laughter]
8:17 pm
i promise no more slides. title ii, there it is. so, you said this earlier and in fact you can just say there's many, many times by recognizing this industry has invested over 100 xt billion dollars out of a two way plan. when the industry made this decision, there were a lot of naysayers, if a lot of doubts, not least wall street. and it was about a decade before people really started to see the return on investment. and now we accept as given the ubiquity you were talking about the plan of broadband with species exploding year after year, the regulatory impact of a change from a system that was relatively lightly regulated, to one where lisa was a conversation where there was an
8:18 pm
unknown about the future, i think it's one that's had a huge impact over the last couple weeks. and i know that you have said anyone to give you an opportunity to explain this. you said you've got a limited set of objectives, things you are trying to to accomplish and the things you're trying not to meddle with. i think would be worth taking a little time to actually explore this because at the out that i mean, do understand why there is a concern when people have to make very long cycle investment decisions for the benefit of their consumers? >> you know, we let the elephant out of the cage. and let me make a couple of points about this. it's an important topic. the thing is that nothing that's happened in the past few weeks since the decision came down changes one iota the policy, goals and outcomes that the commission and i have and
8:19 pm
clearly, transparently articulating for many months now in the national broadband plan and elsewhere. the second thing is that court decision in the compact case that came down a month ago damaged the legal foundation underneath the policies. the policies of promoting broadband deployment and adoption, transforming universal service fund, lowering the cost of rent basic protections for consumers, promoting small business opportunities on broad and public safety issues, promoting investment as i've been saying. none of that has changed. the court decision actually didn't question any of those goals for any of those desired policy outcomes. again, it damaged the legal
8:20 pm
foundation underneath the house, underneath what the fcc needs to do given that as a commission promoting deployment and adoption of broadband is a central mission for 21st century. so we created a problem, not one that i desired. we argued against it, as you know. we would've been happy to see a different decision. we would have been happy to have been allowed to continue operating under the same legal foundation that we've operated under, but the court raised some very serious questions about whether we can do that in the future as we move forward on tackling the major global competitive issues and other issues around broadband. so we have a problem to solve. and as we worked on this at the fcc and of course we are at the beginning with this. we are at the pre-beginning of launching a proceeding to figure
8:21 pm
out the best way to respond to this. we obviously have to tackle it. but the design concept that i give the staff at the fcc as we were thinking about how to respond was how do we get back to a solid legal foundation that lets the agency to what it needs to do around broadband that we previously articulated and not more? i said, we're going to reject both extremes. we're going to reject the do-nothing extreme, the point of view that says there was no change here, the fcc doesn't need to do anything at all to help accelerate a broadband future. >> i think that was me, but go ahead. >> and will reject the other extreme and people made this argument, too. the extreme that we should take all of the coming you know, and title ii of what you did then,
8:22 pm
apply them to the full broadband universe and move on. we rejected that, too. and what our staff has developed is a narrow and tailored approach, an alternative legal foundation that has barriers against regulatory creep, regulatory overreach, which is vital to guard against and that has as its goal six in the legal that existed, but enough back in terms of foundations to where we were before the comcast decision and letting us move forward with all these policies that i think are vital to the country. does it involve a massive restructuring the way broadband does? know. >> so rate regulation, wholesale unbundling and reseller off the table? >> off the table. we're going to rely on competitive market. >> so uni previously discussed
8:23 pm
there is actually more in common when you get right down to the net neutrality which is sort of the eight he hind the jurisdictional thing. you want to pursue your openness principles. you obviously want to reform universal service fund that we've been very supportive of what the plant has about that and also disabilities and their a few other items that sort of capture, but if rate regulation and sort of create that horrible elephant, title ii or off the table, i think the concern, which i'm sure you've heard from investors, from ceos achieve concerted web, the concern is we get it. there's a limited targeted set of objectives and probably on this is more in common that the people widely understand, how do we make sure that a future turn, and no one doubts or good faith. we had some issues from time to time for the fcc. how do we know that you might forbear from all these other
8:24 pm
more onerous regulations that somebody else doesn't come along? is there an opportunity? maybe there's a legal theory that really locks it down? is there an opportunity to work together with congress openly to help lock down or is there another path? you for the concern. how do we address that question? >> well, a few thoughts. first thing is a couple of somewhat technical answers in the 17 years that forbearance has been in place where both the government has forewarned for many, many things. there's never been an on for baron, it just hasn't happened and there's a reason for that embedded in the way for baron toppings. the second thing is the approach that we put out for discussion, third way approach is modeled on an approach that has worked for a number of years, mobile voice
8:25 pm
which has been regulated, which has had this treatment is very similar treatment for a long time with forbearance, same provisions applying and there's been a great innovation and confidence there. but the third thing i'd say is this to me, you described a problem for which i'm sure there is a solution and that if all the stakeholders who are concerned about this operate in good faith, focus constructively on solution, tackle this the way that the people who are here doing business at the shows tackle business issues, it's a problem that understand it, let's solve it. we can do that here, too. >> so to be fair, you mentioned you're at the beginning or the pre-beginning and watching and
8:26 pm
ask a bunch of questions. so you've laid out a concept. but it's also true that you haven't taken off the table and you've invited the exploration of a title i solution and i guess this really is a question, do you think there's room for exploring a safe regulatory model, as you know, many people in your staff and our industry and other industries have been talking for months about whether or not you can hand up for an issue that is actually very technical when you get right down to it, a lot of engineering calls. but are not you can set up a self regulatory instance where they're sort of dealt with with engineers, dealing with engineering with some sort of act stop, is that still something you think is well worth exploring as part of this proceeding? >> i do. and i think a lot of progress has been made. in fact, there are really three
8:27 pm
sets of issues when it comes to the open internet area. there are areas where everyone agrees conduct fully bad, shouldn't happen and there's some gray areas in the middle and increasingly disagreement that we need to come up with a process to deal with those. i'm open to prophecies of the sort you describe that involve engineers and outside parties as long as, as you said, there's an fcc backs up a nice ability to bring a complaint and have it addressed. i think that if her able, if and when we move forward on the transparency piece, that i suggested adding to the open internet principles and rules, that will open the minimize the need for government involvement. if consumers have a clear idea of front of what's going on, habitability to complain to the
8:28 pm
companies, if engineers are working on start up no management are designed to at work and have a conversation first. if you can talk about other mechanisms we can get to a place where you think a lot of problems overwhelmingly can be resolved before a government has to get involved. at the end of the day, i do think there's an important responsibility to update back that this has paid this goes too far, let's move on. >> so stepping back, still related to this debate and a set of issues, the sort of big picture and i'm not a canoe to endorse this view, but there is a view i hold it in most of the people might. before you arrived and you've been very clear that you're focused on the consumer, before you're right, i probably testified more than any person in d.c. on net neutrality. going back five years. very clear that just take one company, google, okay which is a company i admired enormously.
8:29 pm
google has had a few that we are in some ways, even though we collaborate with them in many ways and there's a lot of synergy, they were in some ways competitive to them. they've been probably the biggest advocate of net neutrality and some type of regulation on the isp industry and they funded a lot of third parties that advocate the same view. the point here is not to suggest that you should go off and regulate them, but do you worry at all but we are sort of conversion in the same case to collaborate sometimes good we can be sometimes that at the end of the day that the government and that regulated one part of the ecosystem and if people make arguments about market dominance, make about discrimination. all of the things that people
8:30 pm
clearly could be done by implication providers and do you worry at the end of the day there could be an imbalance in the u.k. are in the same way that we care about isps consumers about the consumers of those products and services on the edge of the platform? >> welcome in the first thing i would say, kyl, is that this issue isn't about google, you know, this issue is about the next google, the next ebay, the next amazon. it's about speakers who don't want to be censored on the internet, who were speaking lawfully, but want to have a chance to reach their audience. and it's about making sure that consumers at home who connect to the internet can connect to whatever is on the internet and the people who want to put lawful content services, applications on the internet can do so. so our focus has been
8:31 pm
consistently on that. it is now obviously the door is open to any concerns that people have way approach everything with an open mind. but our focus is where it said it's been for a long time, but more than happy to keep on discussing these issues and, you know, we've tried to run a commission that operates differently in many respects from how it did before. i think we run the most open and transparent commission that's ever existed. we've had over 60 public workshops now, you know, to the point and this is what you hope for word staff does workshops and it's not news they're doing a workshop. but with happiness that is there, people are coming and coming streamed live online on the internet. people can ask questions, can participate and i think step-by-step were powering the staff. to produce better outcomes, we're going to continue to do
8:32 pm
that and it's our job to look at any legitimate issues that people look at. gimmick well, you do have a hard job and we admire you enormously for what she'd done already to date and we enjoy the relationship and i want to just thank you for taking the time to be here. please join me in thanking the chairman. [applause] >> coming up several u.s. mayors discuss arizona's immigration law.
8:33 pm
>> and now local leaders from around the country discussed the potential impact of arizona's new immigration law on their communities. speakers include the mayors of phoenix arizona and new haven, connecticut and a member of the arlington, virginia county board. this 94 minette forum is discussed by the arizona immigration center for american progress. >> welcome everyone.
8:34 pm
all right, great. good morning, everyone in thank you so much for joining us. i'll come to the center for american progress at today's event is entitled arizona and beyond, when federal government will your beats to local people. my name is angela kelley and i'm good advocacy for center for american progress and it is my honor to be here with these three very handsome gentleman on a rainy friday morning to have a very important discussion on the great topical issue and that is not only the arizona mutt, but how we got to the arizona mother recently passed them what it means for a nation going forward. particularly as immigration reform is bubbling up here in washington as a possible legislative battle over the summer and into the fall. so what we're going to do is i'm going to introduce our panelists. we're going to have a very informal conversation, sort of oprah winfrey style, although i'm not as rich or well dressed as she is. and will have a series of russians and back-and-forth in dialog and then we'll open it up
8:35 pm
to the audience for their questions. so mike immediate right is phil gordon. and mayor gordon is the chairman, the mayor of course of phoenix and he's the chair of the u.s. conference of mayors task force on immigration reform. mayor gordon was elected in 2003 with 73% support of phoenix voters. your popularity went up in a seven-year reelected with 77% support. in 2000-acre voted the best mayor in america by an international think tank in london and you have made the news, mayor. we've seen a lot of you recently and were very grateful for it. next to mayor gordon is mayor destefano deep mayor of new haven, connecticut. you're serving your tent turned out i believe. under your leadership, new haven was the first city with international attention because of the large others giving identification cards to all residents of new haven, connecticut and we'll be talking about this later this morning.
8:36 pm
and while you have been mayor, new haven has been perceived the highly related regard of all american city times as reasoned many as 2008. and since you been mayor, i messed up to new haven and and you've attacked it high-tech and biotech firms which i think it's got a immigration which we have a lot to talk about this morning. to my left is an old friend, walter tejada. he serves on the board in arlington, virginia critters elected in 2003 and reelected repeatedly. he was the chairman in 2008. as i mark taskforces and commissions that could possibly put on my little note card, perhaps one of the more interesting ones on although they're all important is that for the national association of counties task force on immigration reform, you are the chair. arlington is described as a diverse and inclusive world of community and in march of this year, by associated press, it was rated one of the counties that is the least economically stressed, which is a designation that i think.
8:37 pm
thank you for being here. mayor gordon, i have to start with here. within hours of the arizona law being signed into law, you publish an op-ed in the "washington post." and it make you sad that our state was frustrated. we've become ground zero for illegal immigration. and this week, that frustration exploded. so give the audience a birds eye view of what happened in arizona. it's still very much in the early stages in the aftermath of the law being passed. kind of tell us what's happening on the ground. >> well first of all, thank everybody for being here. thanks for inviting me and allowing me to continue to tell the story and michael, just so you know, is to get this law revoked as soon as possible, certainly to get it and joined. the law was signed three weeks
8:38 pm
ago today and in those three weeks the nation in the world has focused on arizona and phoenix, who said that not everyone is like those that you read about in here about and see on television in places such as ohio or j.d. hayworth, that many of you may remember. but a lot of people in arizona that aren't a aware of what's on the lot and as people are becoming more aware, support for that law has been dropping those still overwhelmingly supportive. but two, having been in phoenix for so many years, letting everyone know really that we have another funds are of the debate as a result of a number of circumstances, one i think that goes back to the reagan era, when the fairness doctrine was dropped and instead of requiring both sides of the debate to be aired, only one side was given the chance come
8:39 pm
in depending on who was providing that, but more importantly, language that was never acceptable became mainstream and those that were being in disagreement with those on television or radio were big traders and extremist and hateful and language that we've never heard or seen, so it became acceptable in the mainstream media. it became acceptable in the debate. and as a result, the wedge issue that came about as a result of the economy over the last four years of immigration became front and center. as texas and california in the federal government were able to the more agents and closed borders that were easier to close because those cities that were right on the border, arizona was less abandoned and has hundreds of miles of wide-open deserts and mountains and valleys. and as a result, on a false belief that immigration wouldn't
8:40 pm
occur because of those desert, smugglers historically from difficult times knew that they could and we have become the final point for all of america on smuggling. that created a lot of issues within the urban population, particularly phoenix dropouts is reading about tortures and murders, primarily just to those that were being smuggled in. but it became a very visible issue with the airwaves only one-sided people got frustrated, continue to get frustrated and arizona. for years, even myself and go in the congress asking for them or agents on the border on one hand and an eight to immigration policy that would actually fix the immigration issue, allow people in arizona in the u.s. to work here legally, probably 12 million people that are here now instead of being driven underground and fearful that they'll be arrested by a pile in
8:41 pm
these individuals. number two is a new system and immigration laws have been changed since the twenties and all it does is encourage undocumented to pay smugglers that torture will kill or individuals to bring them across an some type of legalization practices that are there. we need to do that as we secure the borders and we need to do it now. i think there is so many people in arizona that they just grab this and said even though it will secure the border, even though it won't see phoenix safe, even though it doesn't do anything for immigration, because congress isn't not dean. [inaudible] >> gets expressed in different ways. right in arizona is one extreme. i'm going to turn to you mayor destefano to talk to you because nearly three years ago
8:42 pm
you can start contrasting debate that's happening in arizona in new haven, was passed with a policy that offered i.d. cards to all its residents, whether they were undocumented or not. and in navigating for the law, you said they can't lease a community of people who won't talk to our cops. so what did she mean by that? what was the thinking behind the policy? into the working? >> sure, great to be with you all and i want to thank the center for hosting this event. i found myself four years ago in a public library. a book library because it's usually considered a safe space as opposed to city hall. we had a catholic peace priest present. a catholic priest present basically because i was there with my police chief and the message of the catholic priest was there was going to be cool and engage in a part of the community that when women were
8:43 pm
being beaten up by their boyfriends, when they were witnessing crime or when employers were cashing checks for them. we're not talking to us. and it was a concern to our police department into the community at large. it's not good to have neighbors who are only engaged in keeping the neighborhood safe. out of that came a couple things, one where some policy on how we communicate with people who live in our community, about language availability other than english. the second thing was a least general order that had to do with the fact that unless you were at a subject to criminal investigation, we were not concerned with immigration status. and third with the idea of a resident card. a lot of these folks, on level were singing to us, look, we don't have any meaningful proof that could be accepted at who we are. we want to be acknowledged as we are. it started out as a concept of an immigrant card. we realized quickly that was not the kind of community.
8:44 pm
we wanted a resident card. in greenwich, connecticut because the beach path. in new haven, we called the own city resident card and it demonstrates that you can show who you are, bursting to forget, something or if you could and you could show you that you new haven and in exactly the same criteria that another federal agency uses to acknowledge people in the united states, the internal revenue service is less concerned about immigration. if you could demonstrate who you are if you live in new haven, we provide you an identification card. it also is used as a substitute for seniors instead of purchasing connecticut drivers. it did something interesting. one is two days after a legislative body past that we had her first i sprayed that we have ever had an dayside assuming assuming the federal government could not move that quickly even if they wanted to.
8:45 pm
frankly, we would hold deliberation process, radar screen and somehow they were angry about this, which is clear from documents it came out afterward that they released about the event. in 17 years as mayor, i've never seen hate mail like we had on this. i actually think it ended up being an incredibly proactively unintentional consequence construct a discussion about immigration in our community. and instead of having a negative reason like someone got killed by an undocumented, it was more of a positive way to engage the issue and it brought up this larger issue, the role of immigration in our community of readers particularly of economic beam. we did not become dramatically different in any way, except the one saying there was a powerful surge of document resonated for the card. it was interesting to me and i think that had as much to do with the i sprayed.
8:46 pm
>> for documenting people that have legal status and are the card because of a fear? >> now, think what happened was a state of solidarity with the community. what happened in the i.c.e. raid was they had 21 is to serve. they ended up arresting 32 people, five of them who were being served, the other 27 basically won the lottery that day. they were in the right place at the right time to get arrested. and it sort of illustrated just the schizophrenia of the federal government. and you know, we've done companion pieces such as we encourage all undocumented residents to get tax ids, to pay taxes appropriately in the context of rights and responsibility system. >> so, arizona and connecticut are really far apart geographically. but varying outcomes in terms of
8:47 pm
how the debate is playing out. but in northern virginia, counties that are really close to one another are engaging in the issue quite differently or at least they have. and so three years ago, while new haven was having a debate about the card, prince william county was also having a vigorous anti-immigrant debate and arlington county responded in its own way. how did it respond and where do things stand today quite >> thank you here first on it's great to be here. i can't believe it's been three years now since they had their opening reception. it's good to be here with you again, eng, and thank you for inviting me. this is an example of how there's a patchwork of an approach around the country in the unity really needs to come from the federal government to resolve the differences in the way this issue is addressed. yes, and the height of the anti-immigrant fervor and 2007, a number and because of the failure of the federal government at that time, it began acting on their own
8:48 pm
thinking that they could legislate immigration. we now know that their group has guided approaches that also are unconstitutional and it was driven so by a number of ordinance is that were thrown out of court in other places. for us, in virginia, my state has not taken a backseat to be proposing anti-immigrant laws, unfortunately. and when the spike and lost to race in 2007, there were 130 immigrant maid in the general assembly working with their friends in the government mansions you were able to defeat just about with them. arlington, throughout the history of diversity was one of the first school systems who allowed immigration when people excluded african-americans. we've had a long history of immigrant in the 70's nation vietnam, cambodia, 80's and 90's from the latino population,
8:49 pm
south america and south believe for example. people who look new or different are no strangers to us. i had the privilege to have been born and raised in el salvador and central america and now i served as a member of the board in arlington. so our approach has been different. with the increasing diversity we we have had, today we have the lowest crime index since 1960. we are one of the most financially stable communities in the country. we have the lowest foreclosures and the reason and one of the lowest in the nation. our community is very diverse in about 16% latino, 8% african-american, 9% haitian. so we have a range of including people in our way of life and for us it has been about a countertop to legislate immigration. instead can we focus on integrating and teaching residents how to integrate in
8:50 pm
our country which somethings most immigrants do want to learn from the best majority want to learn english if they have a little more time after their second or third job when they get out, they may have time to learn can or something like that so people can accommodate. it's a myth that people do want to learn english. in 2007, archived to pass a resolution for an ordinance that sought to question immigrants and also authorize the police department to do so. we did respond one of my proudest members on september 18, 2007 when my colleagues accepted a resolution of support for the positive resolution they could bring not only to our accounting for regions eight in the nation. and it was kind of a turning point and i'm happy to also join in and finally what this does and says we can't let this hatred and his approach is that
8:51 pm
to raise our level of racial profiling and this is very important, incite others who don't have the full knowledge to then target and increase the cranes. that's a very dangerous and when there's government action, or there is a, city, county, town we have to be careful that it has consequences. and arlington we felt that instead of taking this approach is, we have to embrace their immigrant population. we have the workcenter and ours is the only one in virginia we feel workers out looking for employment and employment are looking for workers. in order to have a secure safe community. that's our approach. we don't shyly speak up on the issue. in fact, they said it was the first resolution to support immigrant in 2009. as another factor with a second resolution to try to add to the
8:52 pm
voices to push our president and the current congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform and other other jurisdictions around the country. so we continue to do that and our approach is to integrate in to assimilate and to knock it away from our history of immigrants with tolerance and inclusion and reject those issues with respect to the mayor because your approach is the right approach to have a heat state driven by passing legislation of one of them approved in arizona is not the way to go. >> for both of you have talked about the law enforcement and community safety perspective as really being, you know, at the heart of the matter a shared concern for everybody, frankly. so mayor gordon, talk a little bit about what has been the reaction of the law-enforcement community. i mean, they have been given a whole new set of response
8:53 pm
ability. and on the one hand, they can be sued for racial profiling, on the other hand they can be sued for not going after people or having reasonable suspicion they shouldn't be here illegally. where is the community finding it out? >> unfortunate, divided like america. first, just for background, the city of phoenix is roughly 50% of the entire population of the state of arizona. it really does fifth-largest city in the united states. most of the land in arizona is government either native american or federal. so the city of phoenix is also one of the largest cities physically with about 500 or a square miles. the valley, which encompasses another three and half million people is within that proximity. so you have multiple lease agencies all within basically 100 square miles. and then the shares have
8:54 pm
concurrent jurisdiction within the city originally it was designed for the areas from the state was western. as a result, particularly the immigrants and a lot of time citizens knowing who's who is very difficult, particularly immigrants where they come from other countries, where police aren't honest. our police department has had a long history of opposing these laws for almost 20, 25 years and believe in the motto of all police agencies are there to protect and serve, they're not immigration police. unfortunately, over the last few years, not unlike the political system, the police management side, the resisting the human side was hijacked and so you have the card and now over our police and other police agencies saying this is how we keep officers safe here at
8:55 pm
>> and can you just tell everybody who shares arpaio is. >> joe arpaio claims to be the toughest. he is known as somebody who has never missed the opportunity for a camera in for a publicity stunt. so many of you have probably seen the pink underwear,, but it resulted in a lot of tragedies destined in being arrested and delivering babies. families being split up on the citizens being arrested. the police ours but on the issue that they're frustrated to because officers have never wanted to sign up to be police officers. they want to arrest the young guys and for years that split our officers have done. now they're being mandated as of
8:56 pm
july 292 basically become -- get off the street after bad criminals a legal or illegally here and go after people because the status. the problem we're going to happen that's where the police are very concerned is number one, like every city, not enough officers. while a kind of been on for five years in every category, we still have crime to take officers off the street, to go arrest individuals to what will be a misdemeanor as opposed to going after felons, makes us less safe. more importantly and may be the underlying issue among persons historically the role written or unwritten has always been the police community government needs individuals to point out criminals and then testify that terms. and if a third of our community can be arrested for coming
8:57 pm
forward by pointing out drug dealers and murderers and by the way none of whom respect ethnicity or because that is, they don't ask for one passport, they are not testifying for fear that they or their family or loved ones will be arrested. then, these murders go away safely and the ability to go after criminals have been affect it. in effect, the rhetoric of war sanctuary city, which is not the case. we go after criminals by what arizona is making itself a sanctuary state. the criminals, the entire police department is being pulled out and terrorizing over a third of the community. >> mayor destefano, what's your view now that you are at the city card has been in place for three years? critics charge he was going to
8:58 pm
be a minor for illegal immigration, that people would flip new haven, that crime would go up, that property values would go down. have any of those dire predictions come to pass? and similarly, what a good in your community particularly in wake of the arizona law? >> or one crime report to the fbi was down 10% last year. it's our lowest that we've seen. it's interesting and police enforcement in new haven has been in support of these policies. it's interesting to me how we talk about public safety, though. i mean, it truly is. i think it misses some points which is that immigration, healthy robust immigration has always powered our economy. it has always been part of growing markets and growing wealth and in the united states is a great book out by a guy named joe cocker and aimed the next 100 million. it takes about the change in population over the next two
8:59 pm
years and it resonated me some of the same things he said. appointed at 31990 and 2005 a quarter of the venture-capital businesses started started in the united states were started by immigrants. it pointed out half of the skilled immigrants in the world come to the united -- come to the united states. .. and other kinds of immigration. so we do make distinctions and
9:00 pm
it does gets characterized in a certain way right now. so -- i mean, to me in a period of economic recovery we ought to embrace this. just as immigration has always been powerful to our growth, opposition to immigration has existed from the start of this country. i mean, i am struck as an italian-american, 1924, johnson-reed act established racial quotas that was discriminated against southern mediterraneans. bombings on wall street, sacco and venzetti in my group's case. communism was starting out. and people were scared. and they were afraid and we put these dramatic quotas on immigration. and i think virtually every ethnic group could identify with this. so you sort of get back to, you know, why is this happening? and what's ratcheting some of the dialog about this?
9:01 pm
and i think, you know -- you know, it's inescapable to note that if you look at the population growth of the united states over the last decade, 83% of it has been ethnic or racial minorities. and i think to not at some level see that playing a factor in how people are reacting to this. if you look at crime, it is not driving crime. if you look at economics, immigration has done nothing throughout the nation's history other than power our economy and in order to embraced. china does not encourage or assimilate immigrants. europe does not encourage or assimilate immigrants. a distinction of our nation has been this wonderful ability to do that. and so i guess ending this diatribe. >> it's a good one. go for it. there's two ways to drive immigration policy. one is faisal shahzad, right,
9:02 pm
the guy -- time square bomber from three weeks. or i went to get a cup of coffee. i was at connecticut and rhode island and i saw across the way edible arrangements. have you ever seen edible arrangements. edible arrangements started in greater new haven. two brothers, 1999, started the business. and they've now got 953 franchises, two pakistani immigrant brothers. so what's our vision for america? one of growth, optimism or positive? or one of fear that's got a strong sense of prejudice and ignorance running through it? and when america has always stood on its values of growth and assimilation and connectedness to one another, we've always -- we've always lived up to our potential. and you know what? every generation has got to grapple with this apparently. [applause] >> let's give a round of applause to the diatribe.
9:03 pm
it's a good one. mayor gordon, you want to jump in? >> if i could jump in. >> sure. >> what the mayor said i don't think a lot of people want to talk about or talk about is our nation is changing and historically we've had exactly what the mayor said, the waves of immigration. and then the waves have stopped. the irish, italian, the jews, the asians. and what's happened since at least the late '30s, because of our need for labor particularly in the unskilled areas, agriculture, hotels, et cetera, the wave of brown, dominican, haitian, el salvador has continued. what's happened at least in arizona, the majority is going to be the minority in the next decade. the current -- the minority is going to be the majority. >> right, right. >> and there are people that are afraid of change. particularly when it's
9:04 pm
different-looking, different-speaking and different-thinking than you. and people then have been able to capitalize, whether it was the kkk in the '50s era. in our case it's extremists like j.d. hayworth and joe apairo. and that's where the system has been highjacked and the governor signs a bill clearly knows it's wrong, it's immoral and racist and it's illegal but she wants to be elected. and being silent we've all seen that. so you've seen that. this excuse that it's our economy and taking away american jobs, i can assure you coming from arizona, in probably going back to 110-degree heat tomorrow, okay, there aren't a lot of americans willing to stand in the fields and pick the food that you and i are eating, vegetables and fruit in 110-degrees. or cleaning the hotels you and i
9:05 pm
have stood -- slept in or the restaurants, washing the dishes. and they are second and third jobs, working hard to better themselves for their kids just like my parents did. one important point -- >> sure. >> and i said in the beginning -- our system of immigration is so broken. it allows the extremists to control the debate. there's not any way that somebody legally can get to this country as a practical manner and especially if you're coming from south of the border. my grandparents came from lithuania in the late '30s, and had they been told to come back in five years, not only my parent wouldn't be here but my sons and daughters and myself because at least our system allowed enough people to come into this country over the years that some of the persecution that's happened was avoided.
9:06 pm
today, the system is 15 to 20 years -- if it's working. that's not a system. and we've got to get that change. and then we can stop the sphere of hispanics controlling the world. which, you know, we're all going to end up the same hue anyway at some point. >> i hope it's one way we can tan. >> i don't have that problem. >> i think we're okay. walter let me give you a little bit talking about the need for reform, right? because, look, you've appeared prominently as a supporter for the president when he was running to be president. for both virginia senators, for webb and warner. you are probably one of the recognizable leaders arguably in the country. and so -- so you have leaned into the democrats who are now in office. and locked arms with them. and i know this issue is just core to you as a personal matter and as a member of arlington. and as a u.s. citizen. so are they going to lead to us
9:07 pm
immigration reform? and what do you think it's going to take? >> we're going to have to continue to push them to make sure to move in that direction, angie. and, yes, typically what happens in a political arena you try to support those who make closer to your political philosophy and overwhelmingly my opinion the democrats have reflected that. i am a democrat myself. and so, yes, i did support the chance to make history by electing a minority president and not that happened to be an african-american. the fact of his background continues to be a subject who are on the far right that will never accept the browning of america. that have a problem with someone that doesn't look like them being in the leadership role. and let's just call it for what it is. there is a lot of that going. it's subtle. but it's part of it.
9:08 pm
>> arizona is not so subtle. and sometimes laws are passed to authorize that type of fear such as the law in arizona. but separate but equal is also the law of the land at one time and that law was not right and it needed to be changed and thank goodness it was. now, with our president, remember, the u.s. president signs bills. he is the one that eagerly awaits bills to sign or veto depending on the view that it might be. it is the congress that has got to get on the ball and get a bill to the president in which all of us collectively need to respect our representatives from congress. i can tell you former governor and now u.s. senator from virginia, mark warner has issued a letter in support of comprehensive immigration reform as one of the direct links to
9:09 pm
support for office in other ways. and that the president often said that he would like to have a bipartisan bill, a bipartisan bill. that means his party, democrats, and republicans. now, frankly i'm not being partisan here. but by far, you know, the republican party has been very reluctant to come forward with a proposal that we can actually begin to have a conversation about in the debate and have a healthy conversation. to his credit, senator lindsey graham from south carolina has made some proposal. he's been a little bit on the silent end of that conversation. i believe it was march 20th editorial in the "washington post" appeared with senator schumer protecting a framework. they are not perfect. we know as we debate the issue there's some things we're not going to like. and i got to tell you angie, as an active member of national ocean of counties which
9:10 pm
representative 2400 counties in the nation and privileged to serve on the task force, i've had to debate a resolution in support of comprehensive immigration reform by in this organization. i have to tell you it was one of my toughest political debates i have ever had because there were strong feelings against supporting anything that says comprehensive immigration reform. very strong views but we hammered out and we sat down eye-to-eye shoulder to shoulder. we looked at one another and hammered out a resolution which is now public on the website that does call for comprehensive immigration reform with all the things border security and employment sanctions and all this other stuff and a path to earned legalization, whether we like it or not, we just simply aren't going to deport whatever number of undocumented immigrants that might be here. they are helping our community. they're helping our economy. in large part when we seek to exclude people, there's a direct economic impact prince william county that was mentioned
9:11 pm
earlier in northern virginia has the largest foreclosures in the region as a result of the 2007 resolution. they had an exodus of their community and with that immigrants who not only held businesses but employed people went out and so the economy went down. so there are consequences of the failure of enacting proposals. really when -- what we did is by having this resolution that called for comprehensive immigration reform puts 2,400 counties in the united states. that's a pretty sizeable number of people in support of comprehensive immigration reform. that's something that can be used with each legislator whether we supported them or not to encourage them to get on the ball and propose a bill that we can debate that can come to -- i have to also say. in fairness in the conversation, sure, i'm a proud democrat.
9:12 pm
it's important that democrats take a stronger leadership role in the last i counted 51 was higher than 49. and the 100 senators and there comes a point in time we just got to move things forward and if the republicans aren't going to come to the table so be it, we have to move forward. the debate on health care reform is an example. what was it, some folks were saying, let's start over again after we've been debating this for a year and decades essentially. so it is important that we tip to pressure our leaders in not being partisan in any way, shape or form but we all acknowledge whether we're on the far left, far right or the middle that the immigration system is broken. we can't be scrunching our arms and waiting for things to come from the sky. we have to stop waiting for people to act. i went through tough budget, the toughest budget since i was in elected office, we made difference decisions and we balanced our budgets.
9:13 pm
we can't afford to punt. and there's an issue that's lingers and a problem we need to address it. i can go on about that. in short, i would just say we have to collectively pressure our elected leaders whether we supported them or not that we have a problem. our system of immigration is broken and we all to have make sure and make of a concerted effort to fix it by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. >> phoenix and arizona is exhibit a of a broken immigration system. what happens when you knock on lawmakers doors. do you knock on it to talk about a solution or do they suddenly don't make the appointment? >> well, the doors for the most part have been opened. i certainly don't disagree with anything that was said. but the problem is even the democrats, the senate -- not all the democrats are on board at least until after the election
9:14 pm
and what if, whether they stay on board so the debate -- the leadership of the democratic party doesn't -- isn't going to have it until, unfortunately, after the elections in november. in my opinion there's not enough democratic votes in the senate, unfortunately. there are in the house. and they showed that it could push something through that was important on the health care. but i think d.c. is that bubble in terms of what's going on in terms of this country. you have the duplicate bills that are coming. every city and every state is going to have different laws. and the one thing i would say -- maybe add a finer point on, while the president doesn't pass the laws, the president has executive power. and the best thing and the most important thing right now till congress does act, whether it's hopefully tomorrow but realistically probably and not until next year is get the justice department to intercede.
9:15 pm
get an injunction on the law that's in arizona. and then the other copycat laws. let it start working its way through the court and use that. because we have rising tension for violence. we have people suffering. we have parents that are being deported working to get their children through school that can't go to college. can't afford to go to college 'cause there's not a dream act. the engine, the fuel for economic wtechnologies, highly skilled mexicans, the dominica dominicans and the labor is going to run out and we've got to address this issue today. we don't have time to wait. and i agree in the conference of mayor passed a resolution 3 1/2 years ago which was tough. even then. we had tancreti and others who
9:16 pm
passed it. there's support across the nation. we had 100,000 people conservely protesting arizona's law on may 1st. at the same time when those protesting for it numbered 2 to 3,000 total. >> uh-huh, uh-huh. >> congress has got the message. they just have to get the will to do it. and i think the president by getting justice department in tomorrow would be the best thing that we can do to move this country forward. >> all right. i'm mindful of the time but i want to get a few more questions in and then we'll open it up to the audience. you boarded a because before dawn on the day the health care vote was happening in washington. but it wasn't to express an opinion on health care. it was to express an opinion with 250,000 other people on immigration reform. this was on march 21st. i'm sure you remember. >> uh-huh. >> why did you do that?
9:17 pm
and what's the mental that you want to send to lawmakers? >> you know, it's too early in the morning to be poetic. >> you're doing a great job. >> but, you know -- walt whitman had this phrase about america and immigration and race and races. it's not the argument. to me the argument is when we go to bed tonight, there will be kids waking up on the other side of the world who are going to trying to figure out how to steal our jobs and our future. i mean, that's how i view the world. we're in an economic competition. my largest employer is a world class research university. h1b visas, high skilled visas were exhausted last year in one day. why we wouldn't be trying to steal the talent of the world and import them is a world will be demanding the products and the things and the ideas that we
9:18 pm
make. why we wouldn't be seeking to advantage ourselves in this fashion by promoting immigration to the nation seems to me this self-defeating purpose. the other observation i have -- and i think it's why, you know, we did board the bus and sort of the frustration and, you know, really between a rock and a hard place that phoenix, the mayor finds himself and his community finds himself in, is if we're continuing to wait for the federal government to save us, that may be a real long bus trip to have happen. and frankly if we're waiting for the courts to save us, the courts to my point of view become increasingly politicized. and reach for cases to make law that they want to make. you know, a real cynical view of things -- and i don't know arizona well enough to make a broad generalization. but having said that, let me make one. is that a real cynical attitude was that some people supported this law hoping the courts would
9:19 pm
invalidate it. so they wouldn't -- so they could make their political statement and at the same time then just have the courts take care of the problem. i think change happens because people demand it. people insist on it. you know, there's that great winston churchill quote about american during world war ii. did you ever hear this one. churchill said americans could always be counted on to do the right thing after they exhausted every other possibility. and i think that's the case. this is a hard issue. and again, it's not a new issue. and so why do you go to washington? why 100,000 people come out in phoenix? because they're insisting on the right thing and that's how change -- and that's how change happens and that is how doors -- and that's how doors open. >> all right. last question and then we'll open it up. polling, right? everybody follows the polls. the polls show support for the arizona law. now some of that support might
9:20 pm
be dropping a bit but consistent high support by the average american. polls are also showing that there's widespread opposition to the arizona law by latinos. and univision is doing a town hall this evening in phoenix, i belie believe, this is like the lead story every single night. so how -- how are you left feeling as local leaders of diverse communities where you're seeing a split, if you will, between where one would say middle america is on this issue of an arizona law? and where the latino community is and other minority communities that are growing communities as you indicated, mayor gordon. what are your thoughts and reflections on that and then we'll open it up to the audience. >> well, one, i remind my colleagues and the residents in phoenix and arizona, that this country and this state as i
9:21 pm
think all states weren't founded on the rights of the majority. but to protect everyone. minority and majority. in fact, it was the minority that came to this country. to establish america. in that if we were doing everything by polls, you know, we wouldn't need us at least to serve in office, though, a lot my constituents probably believe that now. but secondly, you know, the difficulty in the polling -- those of us in the polling industry is how you ask the question. >> sure. >> i think it's fair to say that people are frustrated. and want immigration fixed. what that means, we've all discussed that. but that takes leadership and that takes courage. and that takes frankly -- and i was part of it, as some of the extreme rhetoric and sensationalism to put aside and now that there is a big problem and there's a silver lining in
9:22 pm
arizona or the arizona law, it's got the nation focused. that we have to do something. so now it's time for parties to come do what americans and arizona and communities have done in the past which is to fix and move forward. and it won't be perfect. but inaction is worse. i think the polling is clearly showing that people don't and haven't wanted to step on civil rights. number two, they want something that works. and the more this frustration goes on, the more i think people are going to understand -- you know, the poll is not the tool. now, having said that, you know, i think i'm the only anglo -- or noncolored-elected official, person of color that has stood up against this law in arizona. so it gets lonely in that sense. those standing up against it at the city council, the jew, the
9:23 pm
black, the gay and the hispanic. it's kind of ironic. i'm within one of those categories or maybe all of them, i guess. so polls do influence elected leaders. it influences the media. but again, i think something this fundamental have got to rely on the courts now because, you know, in the '50s it was the law of the land to have segregation. and sheriffs had laws that allowed them to send dogs on people. you know, and it was legal. but it wasn't right and the courts said it wasn't right. it took too long. we've got to get the courts involved. we've got to get congress involved. and we got to keep the pressure up on cities and states like phoenix and in arizona. >> you know, i would add, of course, polls are taken by a small number of people. >> it's how you ask the people.
9:24 pm
>> if you ask people on the far right and that's the only segment of people you have, of course, you're going to get a certain hateful answer and promoting that type of view. you ask people on the far left, you know, you get the opposite on those kind of views. you always kind of wondering -- how are they done? now, i think there's some genuine concerns and issues that we have to acknowledge. and while many of the numbers -- many of the studies show he that 1 out of 4 persons in the united states will be of latino background of 2050, maybe earlier. that's whether people like it or not. it's happening. so the browning of america is taking place. and that makes indeed people nervous. there's also another element the graying of america. and we have folks who are able to live a little longer. and they're in need of care in other important elements. and that we need to have the pool of workers and trained people that would be able to respond to all those things. now, we can take the decisive
9:25 pm
approach and reject that we want to have the best and the brightest in our community by educating them and then we'll be at a disadvantage in the world market. we're not competing -- in my state, for example, part of the urban policy task force -- the governor appointed. and our aim is put virginia as a unit and compete with shanghai. and other places around the world. and not vero beach with northern virginia. that isn't it. so we need to be able to have our act together. in arlington, we feel that we're doing our part. our public school system is the top 1% in the nation. and we've had valedictorians that have come out of our high school who are undocumented immigrants enable to go to the best colleges because of their immigration status. do we want to continue that? the best and the brightest, isn't that what we ask our kids to go through the public schools and do their homework and pass the tests and they become val
9:26 pm
value -- honored. they reject the hate approaches. such as the bill in the state of arizona. and others that have been proposed. having said that, we also need to recognize that as a country that is a model in the world for democracy and of tolerance -- and remember, there's some things that almost don't need to be said, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. all of those things, have we reached a point in time in the history of our country where we are just simply going to ignore those or trample those? we have genuine national security concerns absolutely. no question about it. no one is denying that we have to make sure. at one point it has to be made very, very clear, no one has defended the murderers, the kidnappers, the rapists and the drug dealers.
9:27 pm
if they commit a crime, they are just going to have to do the time. that's just how it is. no one is defending the element. and the folks are taking the hateful approach and think that's part of what our agenda is. it's wrong and we reject that view. at the same time, we have to to be very careful sometimes the initiatives are sneaked upon us by the security communities approach in which supposedly -- >> a dhs program aimed at -- purportedly aimed at illegal aliens. >> are we also have the mom who takes her kid to school and get stopped and get deported. is that the kind of laws we want? no. we want to make sure we stay vigilant and go where the wind blows because of what one poll says. the accumulation of a variety of polls, latinos overwhelmingly
9:28 pm
reject the views that are espoused by the bill as h.b.1070. >> uh-huh. >> it's also important to note that immigration isn't the only subject that the latino community cares about. about whether you're undocumented or just become a u.s. citizen or been here for generations, such as in new mexico and other places, latinos overwhelmingly reject this type of approach. it's united the community. i'm not being partisan here but i believe it against the republican party. time and time again we see the republican governor signed a bill. in arizona from the republican lawmaker and that is consistent with what's happening all around the country. someone may want to take a toll. we have to look at numbers with an open mind and how did this information come about? but i personally reject we're going to be driven by where the
9:29 pm
wind is blowing and instead we need to be firm and hold to our convictions. and i'll just end this part by saying a long time ago in the washington metro region to construct a metro system was proposed. many people said no wait a minute. no, no. that's going to destroy our streets. it isn't going to happen. it's the worst thing that will ever happen. today is the background of our transportation network in the washington metro region. this is a subject that we don't talk about at some point someone rejected that idea and it's one of the things that happened. they have to make some adjustments and improve, sure. and we'll move in that direction but i want to open it up to the point of sometimes you have to take a stand and you have to find a solution to a problem. the immigration system in this country is broken. we need to fix it. we need to keep pressuring our lawmakers and the president. >> interestingly enough where the polls are consistent across all ethnic groups in both parties is of on finding a solution. to immigration reform. so if you give -- >> hello. >> that's where they'll go to. any last comments and then we'll open up the floor to questions. >> you know, i don't try to
9:30 pm
rationalize the polls. they say what they say and they mean what they say. it says americans are paying attention to these issue. they're engaged on this issue. they're going through the worst recession in economic times of their lifetime for the most part which i guess is a rationalization of what their position may be. but i mean, i just sort of step back and say even in a way, although it may or may not feel this way, the arizona laws is going to contribute to the solution. because -- and it's not just a southwest thing. we saw the thing that happened in my neighboring state of new york in english-only in a village that clearly does not have a lot of non-english speaking people. these are all the steps towards solution. and again, if you just look at the curve of citizenship in the united states, it's been an ever broadening curve from when we started as a nation in 1776 to redefinition in 1863, to re -- was it the 20th amendment in
9:31 pm
1919 or the 19th amendment in 1920? women's right to vote in 1919 or 1920, right? civil rights legislation in '64/65. we've had this broadening definition of civil rights. we do get it right. these are painful steps in the process of getting it right. and this nation always gets it right. >> on that note of optimism, we'll open it up to questions. and the young lady in the back with the nice string of pearls. >> thanks so much for this panel. it was really interesting to find out how your localities are deal with this issue. when we alluded to it at the end. could the panelists talk about the secured communities because, of course, the arizona law
9:32 pm
addresses enforcement efforts. and it's kind of a splashy news issue but secured communities designed instead of doing workplace raids on illegal immigrants under the bush administration now we're ostensibly going after immigration criminals. it seems, you know, this has been a program that's been expanding steadily, surely. and we've had a debate recently in the washington area about this program. it would possibly expand into d.c. and in the washington and hispanic newspaper, a free spanish language paper had an extensive article about this expansion. and it enumerated all the offenses for which people would not be -- not be brought into the, you know -- have their background checked against national databases under security communities so it included things like minor traffic violations and traffic violations. it seems it's actually picking up a lot of people who are brought in for broken taillights
9:33 pm
and speeding tickets and things like that. and, you know, the national immigration law center is preparing a lawsuit against ice for these -- you know, for these violations of the policy that seem to have the best of intention bus in the end in practice it's actually having some negative consequences in terms of law enforcement and their relationship with the immigrant communities so i was hoping that you could speak a little bit about how you feel in your localities, your cities, about this -- about this program. and how it's affecting the immigrant community but also how it's affecting the administration of law enforcement. thanks. >> terrific question. gentlemen, who would like to take that first. >> you know, to me security communities -- if you look at shootings and homicides in new haven, of which we have too many and it's a continual challenge of them, 80% are committed and the victims are reentry population, prison reentry population. you want to talk about secured communities, to me talk about what we're doing with reentry population. everybody comes back.
9:34 pm
talk about secured communities. 70% of them all involve narcotics. all involve narcotics. trafficking of one kind or another. you want to talk secured communities, domestic violence is a powerful issue, violence against children. none of these are driven by a failure to adopt an immigration policy or what we're seeing with a significant undocumented population. so i'm sort of dodging your question. but when i go out and stand up in front of hundreds of enthused and animated citizens, and you look at what i see happening in their neighborhoods and in their homes and on the ways to their schools, it tends to deal with narcotics, reentry population and abusive partners or abusive adults. >> mayor gordon? >> i have to say that when you
9:35 pm
first hear it, secured communities and going after the hardcore criminals, elements that no one has any just about any sympathy for, it sounds like a good thing. it sounds like i ought to be -- it's been a justice who supposedly be more focused and target that particular element. the reality as the young lady mentioned, the policy and discussion we have whether at the elected official level or the chief of police level or the sheriff is one thing. the real life in the streets is another reality. and then the example i gave you about the undocumented mom who's driving her u.s.-born child to school and get stopped by a broken taillight and then ends up being deported with no prior record or no conviction or anything like that, is that what we want? it's a real thing. i did ask that question of an ice person in one of the conferences. they did not want to answer that question. they talk about the different categories of hardened criminals and so on.
9:36 pm
now, in my state is what we call a deal and rule state. and that essentially is that localities cannot do that which the state doesn't authorize. so in other words, the state gives authority to the locality to do certain things. apparently most recently they entered into an agreement with ice. the immigration and citizenship enforcement to then impose secured communities in certain localities without having the due process, the public process that ought to happen whenever there's going to be a new assignment or a new task into the locality. i have to tell you if they had come through the county board this board member would have rejected this position because it's just not conducive just as we went through this budget one time around. one of the proposals in my locality was to cut community policing substantially. community policing. now i mentioned earlier that today we have one of the lowest crime indexes in the nation, the lowest since 1960 for our community in large part it's
9:37 pm
because we have invested in officers being out on the streets mixing in the community as members of the community. in all kinds of meetings gaining the trust of all the residents that they serve and they have been sworn to protect. now, i'm not saying only protecting people of certain race or ethnicity or color but all the residents of the community having gained that trust and we prevent crimes. and when you have punitive approaches where it causes fear in our community, it is the wrong way to go about it. the many adjustment and more review of that secured -- so-called secured communities needs to take place. i'm glad to hear about a challenge in court. it may not be the other one but possible others if it's supposed to be doing what it's intended to be done. if justice needs to be made, it needs to be done. >> any comments? >> well, just briefly. you know, arizona's law if it
9:38 pm
goes into effect at the end of july would mandate the opposite. while i tried to give it a line that we became a sanctuary state using the far right language because now officers will have to be arresting people that they have, quote, reasonable suspicion to believe their status is not legal. that then again prevents people from coming forward testifying. it becomes a haven for the criminals. i do believe that what phoenix had and most major cities had used to be known as operational order x in our case 1.4, officers don't ask about immigration status. they go and they don't arrest people based on civil violations, traffic stops. criminal stops, duis. or crimes, felonies, yes.
9:39 pm
but they also make a decision on the street as to whether that person -- not because of their race or their language is going to appear in court. we call it sight and release in arizona and phoenix. if the person is likely not to come to court, they don't have papers, they don't have a license. they don't have a paycheck on them. then people are going to be taken to jail because that's the obligation. no matter what their legal status is. if they have a driver's license, if they have work stubs, if they have a telephone number, if the officer can call that they live somewhere, then why would you put somebody in jail for jaywalking or for that matter, petty thefts? that system isn't perfect. no system is perfect. but that kept our city safe and secure for the fifth largest city in the united states for five years, even in this economy, even with the proximity of the border, part 1 and part 2
9:40 pm
which is property and personal violent crimes. every category has gone down for five years. 15% last year alone in homicides. 25% a year before. despite all that. that's what keeps a community safe. so if there is -- by the way, an aggression on the part of an officer -- and no department is safe, our laws require until a state is going to prevent us from documenting all these arrests and stops and then turnovers to ice. does that make it perfect? no. but if officer gordon has 52 stops in turnover to immigration because of criminal arrests and officer jones in the same squad has one every six months, that's what we're tracking whether it was gay, black, brown, white or whatever. i think that's what keeps our community safe.
9:41 pm
90%, if you take a national average of all crimes, violent crimes, felonies are committed by repeat offenders. so, you know, somebody that's committing a crime, that's where we should focus. >> all right. thank you. let's take a few more questions. >> thank you. charlie ericson with hispanic link news service here in washington. question primarily for mayor gordon. what you've reflected on here is the same rhetoric that everybody has been talking about wanting to have things changed. but all seem to let the president off the hook on this. and i think you've done it here with this group here. here's the guy who can really make change, who made a promise to the people, to the 12 million people who are really suffering
9:42 pm
because we don't have any law at this point or any amnesty if you'll permit the dirty word. when you came to washington, did you ask for a meeting with the president? do you feel you could have any impact if you talked to the president about this? do you feel that he is being let off the hook by the -- by the people who are saying they're for immigration? >> i can answer that directly. number one i've been to washington, d.c. three weeks in a row. 198,000 in the last two years. every trip is to work with the white house and congress and justice and homeland security. i met with the vice president 2 1/2 weeks ago. i talked to, many of you know, the governor.
9:43 pm
and david agnew who's in the white house, the deputy. as well as homeland security. and i want to acknowledge, first of all, i don't think we've let the president off the hook. that's why you're hearing what you heard today including my call that he has the ability on the executive order to put justice in the department. i know for a facts that he is intimately involved. i will leave it at that. and that i have talked to him. and that i -- the words i can use is i am very optimistic that the justice department will be filing a lawsuit shortly. can i guarantee that? no. but i'm very optimistic. and it's because the president has directly interceded on this. >> could you answer my question. >> i thought i did, charlie. >> did you ask for a meeting with the president? do you think you would have any impact? do you think that would be helpful?
9:44 pm
>> i've asked for a meeting with the president. i've met with the president. >> i think it's important -- we are not letting the president off the hook. on this or any other subject we need to take him with the press. with a stroke of a pen the president can do his part to get us on the road by putting it in. that's something that innocent people who may become u.s. citizens later may be victims of being deported at this time. remember, the president committed publicly in private and publicly and via video during the march 21st rally at the mall, he came on video to address hundreds of thousands that have gathered there to say he is committed to enacting comprehensive immigration reform. the president does sign a bill to come to his desk. that is a goal that we have to continue to push. he can influence.
9:45 pm
he can push people along. and we need to influence him so he knows he has the backing of the vast majority of americans to move this forward. remember, the civil rights fight was not won overnight. it took determined concerted effort throughout the history, throughout the '60s and earlier to make sure that we move to the era of equality. we still have some challenges to go. but this is an issue that we will continue to work hard. and we can't just throw up our arms or also feel that, you know, this isn't going to go anywhere. now is the time to rise up. be optimistic. and keep taking on the fight and encourage the president and others to move forward on immigration reform. >> great, maria in the back. >> yes. thank you. just a follow-up to charlie's question. yesterday on the hill religious leaders met with senator mccain
9:46 pm
and he repeated his talking point about border security first. although later he also said that he would be willing to participate in a white house summit on immigration. so i was wondering, mayor gordon, if you would press for such a summit, number one. and the second question, if you could tell us what's going on with the investigation on the rancher's murder because groups on the right are using that as, you know, yet another talking point for border security. and i don't know if there's a question on whether or not this was possibly linked to drug trafficking because apparently his ranched some marijuana storage areas there. i was wondering if you could address that part of the equation as well. thank you. >> well, number one, i definitely have asked and pushed for a white house summit. and there have been meetings behind the scenes.
9:47 pm
and there is a lot of discussion on this with senators. with several republican senators that are publicly not supportive. but have been working on it. i know that firsthand. number two with respect to border security maybe i should lay first of all in my view on what i've testified for and what i continue to ask for and what i think makes the most sense. is, number one, people should understand the border of arizona is, i think, 800 miles long. in most cases between the border of mexico and populated areas of arizona, you have several hundred miles. maybe 120 miles as a minimum. so you have thousands of square miles of desert. that include canyons that are thousands of feet high,
9:48 pm
mountains and rivers and topography. it's almost impossible physically to secure but having more agents and more helicopters, which is what i've asked for, and more intelligence and more cooperation with the federal mexican police which has been going on for -- these operations that you read about taking out the syndicates, which have been very successful, which have kept the crime down and lowered it not only in arizona but across the nation -- some of you may remember there was a big operation that phoenix police and the state police and the feds broke up three weeks ago. >> uh-huh, uh-huh. >> the largest in the history of the u.s. and it was u.s.-wide. so it's those operations that are the target where we need the resources to secure the border. but even with that, unless we get immigration reform, it's not going to happen.
9:49 pm
with respect to the ramblers, you know there was a lot of allegations made. it was drug runners. it was immigrants. i don't think at this point based on at least last week there's nothing been released publicly. again, to picture what our border looks like, you can't tell the border. it's not defined. there's thousands of them. and whether it was immigrants or nationals, one doesn't know. but it's being use as a catalyst. i would say clearly the arizona law would have no effect had it been in place in terms of protect this rancher. it dealt with only urban cities. it had nothing to do with securing the border. it's really -- it's a tragedy.
9:50 pm
and by the way, tragedies are happening all along the border. land is being destroyed. people are smuggling drugs and guns both ways. but it's being used to keep the immigration reform policy from occurring. >> the gentleman there. if you could identify yourself. >> thank you. my name is josh. i'm with the jewish council for public affairs. on a personal note i'm an arizonan native who recently moved. the faith community has been mentioned. who's been actively working on comprehensive immigration law. my question is what can folks who's concerned what's happening in arizona who don't live in arizona do about this? and i guess by extension, what can we do to support communities that have done positive proactive things?
9:51 pm
there's been discussion about boycotts. i know there's controversy about that. >> you know, i'm going to be direct here. pressure your republican representative. both house representatives and the u.s. senate. they have been reluctant and basically have not want to engage in meaningful conversation of putting together a bill -- some kind of a frame that can have some debate on the floor of the senate and move forward. there's a bill -- there's some versions in the house representative through the leadership of congressman lee gutierrez. but i think by and large that's the ultimate solution that we have got to pressure republican lawmakers representing u.s. centers to get on the ball and then start having meaningful conversations to debate a meaningful bill. now, at the local level, you know, it's widely known that
9:52 pm
legislating whether it's a town, city, county, state -- anything -- anything related to immigration is unconstitutional. it's been proven by several proposals in the country. it's been thrown out of court. i have to be more watchful today and always have been where we use our money and where do we spend it. i don't want to spend money on protracted lawsuits that go on forever that will divide our community. and we need to encourage those to put your resources and issues generate economic development by encouraging immigrants to open businesses, start developing more educational perspectives that people can engage in their community, civic engagement, citizenship classes to challenge the community. to be part of the community. this is something funny in a way to say. it's a play on words. it's not what the county can do for you. it's what you can do for the county. it's a chuckle because it's a
9:53 pm
play on words. but when i hear what does it mean? it means the government doesn't have all the answers. they will in the participation of the people in your community makes it a better community and understand they are wanted. they are part of the fiber of society, that's the kind of thing that makes us is better community. we lower employment, we lower unemployment. those are the kind of approaches that, you know, in our local official world where through the natural association of counties and hispanic council around the country we focus on and not on the divisive rhetoric that we don't have the authority to len late. -- legislate. >> in politics i think there are times when issues become and they're going to be dealt with. this is what you would call a right issue. and i think, in fact, a good place -- particularly for
9:54 pm
faith-based organizations, which are membership organizations, is whether republican or democrat is to create opportunities for citizens to engage this issue. and i know it's sometimes hard to imagine how little meetings out of the way places where there are -- well, i don't want to -- they're supportive federal politicians in place, i think any way to introduce this in a positive fashion into a public dialog is a good thing. and i think that's where we should all be focused. where could we create positive dialog about what kind of nation do we want to be? how did we get to be where we want to be? and we should take nothing for granted. when we were doing the card -- i'll never forget one sunday afternoon. and i sort of saw my job as preaching on this and i worked it on my remarks and they started booing me. which was not in itself unusual, right?
9:55 pm
[laughter] >> the group i had spoken had been found as an immigrant aid society in new haven. i was like, guys, i don't think you could take it for granted. i think there are a lot of great organizations for faith based organizations. >> and i would say having followed this issue for years. it's republicans and democrats, there are some democrats that have been heroes and champions but a lot of them are hiding under their desks and hoping this issue doesn't come up. so as an equal opportunity advocate i'd say go for both. >> a lot of republicans have been good on the issue. >> it's a bipartisan issue, right? it's a weird one. and john mccain seems to have lost his bearings but maybe the faith event that happened yesterday will get him pointed in the right direction again. suzanne, i see you leaning there. emma, if you could just -- right there. >> hi, i'm suzanne from the associated press. i have two questions. you sort of touched on this, mayor gordon, when a lot of the
9:56 pm
outrage are mentioned the tortures and kidnappings are mentioned. but we don't hear about any kind of federal, state, local effort to really focus in on that. and i think if something like that was going on in washington, d.c. -- in fact, when slayings happened in a little neighborhood in trinidad there was a big change in the police way of doing things there. so what i'm wondering is, enough being done not border security wise but within the state at those different levels to really focus down on it? i mean, if 300 kidnappings are happening, what -- is that still happening that that many kidnappings are happening? and the second question i have, you have a law about an antismuggling law, and when that was passed there was criticism that it would affect law enforcement relationship. has that affected the law enforcement relationship with the community? can you tell me if you've seen any consequences? thank you. >> turn. -- certainly.
9:57 pm
one with respect to with talking and promoting the violence that does occur in arizona in this city of phoenix. we do talk about it. unfortunately, because it is primarily immigrants, undocumented, locally probably every other night you'll see some 15, 30-second coverage on the local television. but it became so common place it's not even in the local paper most of the time. it's just not getting covered nationally. a lot of these individuals by the way are police who have to come at the last minute because they're getting calls from seattle or new york or tampa saying their loved one is going to be killed or raped if they don't get more money and they ran out of money. so you understand the coyotes are bringing them across the border, stashing in all types of neighborhoods, upper class, lower class, locking them in, in
9:58 pm
very unsafe conditions after they paid money to come across somewhere probably in the $5,000 range and then a new crew then extorts by call their family members for more. and in some cases more. so we are talking about that. and i hate to say this, because unless you're involved in the smuggling business, or you're an illegal immigrant, undocumented, you know there aren't very many citizens that are affected despite the fact of the potential for gunfire and other things that are going on. number two, with respect to the antismuggling law, any time arizona has been passing more and more laws and the sheriff does his sweeps which are just as bad, unconstitutional. where he just goes into targeted hispanic areas and sends his deputies in and makes up reasons
9:59 pm
for stops, broken taillight, jaywalking, you name it, it chills individuals legal and not legal to come forward and identify where drug dealers are, where smugglers are, where these drop houses are. why because they'll be arrested and deported. yes, it has -- phoenix police have worked decades for a campaign called trust. and very successful. i'd like to say that, you know, we got 3,000 police officers in 540 square miles. that's about a police officer per square mile because of three shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. one officer per square mile. but for all the residents that are there, i then say there are 3 million eyes helping our officers. ...
10:00 pm
the smugglers are going across orders. they're going across states. their very violent and now with the federal mexican police taking out a lot of the organized leaders, it's even more violent in the potential for real violence in any cd is great. and if not for the moral reason, if not for the legal reason, if not for the economic reason of solving deliberation reform, it certainly for the public safety reason that we've got to stop this idiotic rhetoric and get a
10:01 pm
bill passed. >> on that note, i'm stopping idiotic rhetoric and getting it bill passed, i declare this done. but the issue is far from done. i'm hoping the panels can stay for a few minutes afterwards of people by choice questions. thank you very, very much for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up next a preview of mexican president today's visit to washington
10:02 pm
10:03 pm
>> next week, mexican president felipe calderon arrives in washington for a state visit with president obama and to address a joint meeting of congress. some of the key issues expected to be discussed by the two leaders including immigration border security, drug trafficking in the state of mexico's economy. the former woodrow wilson center, this is an hour and a half. the mac is good to have you with us today. will be very exciting and interesting discussion we hope. it is a real pleasure to have some in which panelists whoever mentioned in introduced briefly in a moment. thank you offer mobility moving to this room. we have originally been in the fifth floor. we're fortunate to have with the c-span and voice of america with us today in this room works much better for the filming of an event like this and i want to welcome you to the media as well. next week president calderon will be here with a state visit with obama and his administration. this is the culmination of a number of other high-level
10:04 pm
visits obama has been twice to mexico in the past year and half of his administration. we've seen secretary clinton, secretary napolitano, attorney general holder and others go to mexico on a number of occasions as well as officials here. this has been an intense. primarily in security issues, but clearly a number of issues like migration, which are hot issues in both countries, issues of competitiveness that tie the issues together, trade, development concerns, questions of even energy and renewable energy, a great deal that could be on track in his view, lots of things that could be on the u.s.-mexico agenda and they hold a focus on how to manage the border with which we may hear something about next week as well. above all, state visits are an opportunity to focus, they focus the administration on the relationship, but also a chance to focus all of us who are interested in mexico and u.s.-mexico relationships and that's going on in this relationship. this is actually i should say
10:05 pm
denyse dresser's idea to do this meeting and were pleased you could join us to sort of take stock both were mexico with which is what we'll start talking about and where the u.s.-mexico relationship is good record to do both within the context of an hour and a half. before that and before introduced our panelists, leading to a quick infomercial, which is we have been working very hard with a number of colleagues on a serious of objects, some of which hussein and some of which you will see shortly. on monday, i want to highlight something that dave olson and derek shirk of blending together. the writers of this, one of our board members have been one of the people who advise on this as well as lost in a congress who is will appear there should be very interesting for anyone following this issue. there is an issue by duncan with that came out and in paper format will come out of the bulletin. rob donnelly has just come with a couple colleagues, just
10:06 pm
publish something on immigrant civic and political participation that came on on monday. and katie putnam, organize today's meeting was back there in chris wilson and me have something called for the neighbors which is the effect book on mexico in u.s.-mexico relations that should be out next week. mercer will be flooding your e-mail boxes, but nonetheless a lot of things that may be useful for those of you who follow mexico and u.s.-mexico relations and a book which is out there that we just got copies of called mexico's democratic challenges is on amazon were told here at and it is a number of colleagues. josé wattenberg wrote the prologue and a number of very distinguished mexican and u.s. scholars have contributed to this. without further ado, limits reduce our panelists and will to assassinate discussion here. denise dresser has written her last book actually which i'm going to forget the title i, denise, as i said with a history
10:07 pm
of sunlight -- >> satirical. >> one of the most creative things that i've seen in any country in a fit to nice once i think he took this from the mexican cartooning heritage, they're sort of cartoons and no jon stewart. it's really an annotation be sort of a traditional cartooning, but really the irony and cartoonist of the creative analyst. she yesterday won a national journalism prize in mexico, so congratulate her on that. and as a person who is prolific as a public intellectual, a scholar and someone who really moves. want pardinas is on the mexican council. he is also in performa and i said to some people the new voices in mexico though he has been around for a while. i think it's one of those voices that she would hear more and more from overtime lisbon area did in transparency and municipal finances as well as in other finances in general and has been doing a lot of work to
10:08 pm
make public finances more accessible and more transparent to average citizens. shannon o'neill is with the federal latin relations. she is an article that was out in foreign affairs about a year and a half ago and u.s.-mexico security issues that is frequently consulted, but more importantly she is a book will be coming out. can i announce this? >> you can. >> in a while. don't look for it yet. soon it will be sort of a look at where mexico is today and were mexico and the united states are and you'll find she's done a great deal of work on these issues. david shirk is also at the border at san diego. he has been a prolific author and collar on mexico has been doing, you know, some of the best work out there on u.s.-mexico security operations, but also the fantastic book on contemporary mexican politics and is written probably in a number of other issues involved
10:09 pm
in mexico and u.s.-mexico relationship and were very proud to hear both of the wilson center this year and as a colleague in our project on u.s.-mexico security cooperation spirits alleged up into the substance of this. to nice, if i can turn to you first and then we'll go to one. tell us about mexico today. what is the mexico that is the partner of the united states, the mexico that president calderon it becomes a pure, what are the key debates? what happened to competitiveness reform? what happened to the society? >> well, i think that too frequently attention in the united states has focused exclusively on the war on drugs, on organized crime and the violence that has accompanied it to the detriment of a sustained analysis of mexico's domestic politics and domestic political economy. and i'd like to focus on the trend that will be key to understanding mexico's future, that go beyond the drugs and the
10:10 pm
organized crime agenda. for the next three years, mexico will be a country where everything is determined by the forthcoming presidential election. that will be key. the second half of the calderon term, because he faces presidential elections in 2012, the last three years of his term will be focused on retaining the presidency in the context of declining -- the declining political fortunes of his party. if you look at the polls today, the former party, the pra is positioned to gain control of the political system. the current governor of the state of mexico, is a front runner and most of the polls and the pri's position to win out of the 12 governorships that are for grabs in july.
10:11 pm
why is this the case after only nine years, nine years since we celebrated mexico's transition to electoral democracy and were out in the clamoring and celebrating the victory. why are we facing what could be a potential political regression i frequently explain this in terms of up utilization of mexico. in the climate, and the context of increasing insecurity and drug trafficking and violence and a perception that the mexican state is failing to address those issues successfully, i think there's a nostalgia for rule and order for areas for the people who really know how to do things and the pri is marketing itself as
10:12 pm
successfully as that sort of party. in the pri is building, as i speak here, a coalition, i think a very successful political coalition that includes the oligarchs, union leaders, the corporate structure, what remains of it that is still very strong and a vested interest, firmly entrenched in the country's economic structure, that would like nothing more than to perpetuate the status cool, where rent seeking is the norm and where the politics of extraction has become a characteristic sign of mexico's political economy. and this populist, nationalist distributive coalition that continues in mexico is still fueled by oil. so we're witnessing the reemergence of the pri and i
10:13 pm
view this as a potential political reduction that can also be explained to a large extent by the collapse of the mexican left. i think the prd bears enormous responsibility for this outcome because if you look at the polls, many of those who have last, whoever left the prd has joined the ranks of the pri and there's been no effect as counterweight and the possibility of creating a coalition, a coalition between the prd has not been possible because of the prd is a recalcitrance of internal divisions, questions about the legitimacy of felipe calderon's government in the collapse of the left is also key to explaining why it is that the pri is returning without having modernized itself. so how does this leave felipe calderon was coming here next week in terms of the rest of his
10:14 pm
government? well, popular opinion supports the president as someone who looks at the polls, people appreciate the fact that he is at least waging this war, even though it is not affect does, but his party, time and again, is being punished at the polls. i think for widespread perception of what we call mexico [speaking in native tongue] the administration of inertia, despite the fact that some reforms have been passed, energy reform, fiscal reform, pension reform, these minimalist reforms that we could argue were -- our rate steps in the right direction have proven to be too small in terms of creating a dynamic market economy, creating jobs and raising the tide that
10:15 pm
could lift all boats. this has not been the case. and i think to a large extent it hasn't been a case because the national action party has failed to take on the old regime. the national action party, both under michoacan and felipe calderon has accommodated to the institutional framework and particularly at the local level where the bond has severed its greatest defeats, you see a great deal of [speaking in spanish] , of questions posed to the funds were basically acting as the pri did once it came into power, for react team in the same corporatist client list, patronage deborah white at the pri did for so many years. there's disappointment with the democratic process. there's disappointment with the national action party and felipe calderon's war on drugs is not
10:16 pm
popular enough to translate into electoral gains, electoral gains for his party. and he has not been -- he was not forceful enough in his first three years to push reforms that would have made the political system more representative, more accountable or that would have made the economic system much more competitive. so what is he trying to do now? i think eb at the midterms, in the past midterms as a wake-up call. and now you see him trying to push forward a series of reforms that he didn't advocate during his first three years. he's trying to position himself as a reformist i.t. wasn't in his first three years. in order to present a reformist face to the elect to, while at the same time trying to smoke out the pri or put the pri into a corner where it has to adopt a
10:17 pm
public position on reforms that the president is advocating such as reelection citizen candidacies and anti-monopoly agenda. i say that these reforms necessary, important and many reforms i celebrate because they have been on the agenda of, you know, many democracy and citizen led groups for many years. i mean, mexico has an electoral democracy that basically amounts to the rotation of the lease. it still has to become more representative and more representative and more accountable. calderon has finally made this agenda is. the problem is that these reforms, in the context of divided government and a lame-duck presidency because of the divided congress have less than zero chance of being in a good. so, while the president is to be commended for the reformist face that he is adopting, at the same
10:18 pm
time it's pretty clear that these reforms will not be passed in the remainder of his administration. why? because they would need the support of the pri. today the pri has a majority in congress that the green party. if it wanted to, he could enact these reforms on its own without even the support of the last of the national action party. and i would argue that that will not be the case because of the interest that the pri coalition is defending him because the pri believes it doesn't have your modernized itself or to enact these reforms in order to come back into power. it's enough to position itself as the party of experience, of security, of continuity and continue to advocate or to prop up what he called [speaking in spanish] the patronage dividend machine that is leading to is electoral
10:19 pm
at the state and local level. so what does this mean for mexico in the next three years? it means an electorally driven agenda. it means mexico continues to muddle through politically and economically -- you're not going to see dramatic aggressive reforms passed and you are probably -- we're probably going to witness unless something dramatic happens to reemergence, the resurrection of the pri is a party of a tour that is at those being held in mexico transition to electoral democracy. >> thank you, denise. juan, would you coincide them or do differ? >> i've mostly coincide and i'd like to have a different approach. we now have like several of mexico's like the experience of someone that lives in mexico
10:20 pm
city, the everyday experience with how it's very different that people are having. it's how we experience against organized crime. it's totally different. and in this regard, mexico is becoming a real federal country that each region is having very, very distinct problems as a whole. so these contrasts gives me like an optimistic view of the future of the country. it is based on the news we have had in the last months and years around the wars on drugs. there are things happening that would be unbelievable just a few years back, a city like monterey, for example, things that have happened in the last month like this city block by the gangs, the social support in
10:21 pm
some areas of monterey for their organized crime. that was something unimaginable in mexico just a few years ago. and how the different levels of government are coping with the right, it's also like a source of pessimism, which would be my source of optimism. i see as a very strong movement of civil society in mexico but i haven't seen before in federal regard. for example, in mexico, we didn't have collective action as a legal system. we didn't have the possibility of consumers organizing to protect the rights. in true organizations that were born in civil society by the leadership of some citizens, they are starting to push the
10:22 pm
idea of having collective action passes a law and it actually happened last year. then we thought in the last midterm election, in 2009, a huge movement promoting a blank vote, saying that no party or no kennedy was good enough for the expectations of the people, so they were telling you should go to the polls, but can't flickr cancel your vote. this was highly criticized by then mexico city occurred 10% of the vote. it was the fourth largest political force in mexico city area and i think it was part for the initiative of political reform that was put forward by president calderon. so in some regards i see our society much more organized and much more convinced of how the country could change in the future and that gives me a sense
10:23 pm
of optimism. also, regarding the war on drugs, and the contrast between the different regions of the country, i think what we are seeing is the collapse of the federal system in mexico. our federal system of security is not working. we have municipal police facing -- becoming like the first line in the war against organized crime. and they want you for a few seconds just to work in the shoes of a municipal policeman in mexico. the mafia and the drug dealers knows where your family lives come away your children go to school, the daily route to take from your home to your job. and then one day they come and say that you don't work with us and if you don't receive this
10:24 pm
amount of money we're going to give you, you're going to pay a very high price. so i think way our institutions for security are organized are not aligned with human incentives. they don't respond to human nature. a lot of people in the broom -- i'm sure i would be starting with the druglords if my family threats and. so if we have institutions that do not work with human nature, we have a problem there. so we are putting these people and risk. we are giving them very small salaries and asking them to become heroes or martyrs in this war against organized crime. for the whole structure of the system is not working and i'm a bit worried how the lack of urgency of the mexican political parties, the mexican congressmen
10:25 pm
are addressing these issues. nobody wants to see like the elephant in the room. it took three years for the mexican government to address the municipal policeman are becoming corrupt and penetrating by the mafia gangs and actually working with them. so in a way, as a mexican taxpayer, i'm financing the kind of bodyguards of the druglords and chihuahua because through our taxes we are paying these policemen that are being forced to work with them or threaten and the system keeps on going and few governors have addressed the issue in the current way and the current distribution of the federal responsibilities regarding national security, these things cannot go on.
10:26 pm
one of the biggest criticisms we could make to president calderon regarding the war on organized crime is not that it's tragedy. maybe when it began in 2006, he didn't have any other alternative. but these initiatives have not gone with press criticism are distributed and in the long term to create a new and stable system of security and mexico. so there has not been an institutional response on which would be the long-term, how we would see the municipal police, the state police, the federal replace in 10 or 20 years to come. that's lack of institutional change. it's also a source of worry. regarding the fact that the priests coming back. well, if we see the post today,
10:27 pm
it's very feasible that they will come back. but did we see the last presidential elections in mexico. in 1994 due to tragedy and another fascination with another was the man to be president. he couldn't read the presidency. in 2000, the free will when the presidency house of it have been one for the last 70 years. but then the folks came and we managed to be president and we even reach the presidency. in 2006 lopez foot arrest that 40 months bosch in the top of the walls and the next man to become president. and now we see pinion nato and the same position he was six years ago, so he might become
10:28 pm
president. that would be the most feasible thing to happen. but what the cost and a mexican presidential politics for the last 20 years has been that unexpected things happen. so, it's not necessarily a fact that he will win the election and the imageon and the image they want to portray of efficiency and they know how to govern a think it could be very highly questioned if we see the states with the highest level of violence, which are basically chihuahua, michoacan, these are all governed by governors. i think the fact that the new party comes will be the first step toward solutions. i think it will be very questionable. and they give this image that they know how to govern and i
10:29 pm
think that this perception does not address the fact that the whole country has changed a lot in the last 20 years. the country, the mexico that was governed either free during the 20th century is not there anymore. maybe it still exists in some regions, and some state, but as a whole, as a nation our institutions are different. our society is different in would be a huge challenge to try to adapt to these new circumstances if they really start a government in 2012. so my source of optimism is in society. my source of pessimism is in political institutions. thank you. >> well, we'll turn to shannon. mr. optimism and pessimism for next week and with unexpected things happen, do we expect anything between the summit between president calderon and
10:30 pm
president obama. >> sure, if you think that historically in the last 20 years and mexican president vicente the united states, often are characterized by ambitious agendas. think about silliness coming in the early 1990's on the agenda with nafta. when fox came here in 2001, on the agenda was reform right before september 11th. this agenda for this next week will not be as ambitious as those, in part for optimistic reasons, in part for pessimistic reasons. but the biggest issue today between the u.s. and mexico has been security issues. one reason why this is not an ambitious agenda on this visit is because the united states and mexico have been working quite well for not almost three years together on this agenda. this will be more of a touching base in pushing forward on mall concrete forms, and agenda, security china, u.s.-mexico bilateral agenda that has been quite developed. it started with the merida
10:31 pm
initiative and we've seen a real transformation of the merida initiative and going for it from a much more military focus to one that includes institution building in what they're calling with the communities, getting the socioeconomic factors underlying much of the ballots and problems at the border. and we saw just a lender under two months ago a whole host of high-level u.s. officials led by hillary clinton go to mexico city to try to hash of the new agenda. so some of the sincerity than done. rather than in washington in the senate mexico city couple ago and what we'll see in this meaning of the security side is really ratification by the two presidents and from stressing out a few details on particular programs that have happened in the last two months. an issue that could be on the agenda and probably should be on the agenda that would be quite ambitious but will not be talked about most likely next week is north american competitiveness and where that goes.
10:32 pm
you know, obama said the union put forth that he wanted to double export over the next five years, which is quite ambitious. but in order to do that, mexico and willie north america would have to be part of the equation. i mean you talk to many private sector companies, you know, big ones in mexico and other places, and the way that they are able to produce competitively in the united states has much to do with the ties they have in canada and the ties they have in the united states. if they do not put part of their plans and mexico or canada, then they put them in china or they put them in brazil or they put them other places. when they're in mexico, variable to see him toces. when they're in mexico, variable to see him towards to the united states or inputs and take them to mexico. whether brazil and china they don't use inputs to the united states. in this equation, while putting a plant in mexico may take 200 jobs out of the united states,
10:33 pm
it also often saves thousands of jobs because some inputs are coming from the united states to mexico. this integration that doesn't happen in other parts of the world. so for the benefit of mexico in its economic growth, but also for the benefit of the u.s. and its export growth, this issue should have been on the agenda and i don't think were going to hear people talk about those big issues. we had about smaller trade issues, perhaps the tracking issue, but were where we were back on its other border issues, but not a big ambitious agenda thinking about the medium to long-term for the united states and from mexico. we will see on the agenda most likely immigration. as we know this is a quite difficult issue. it's also a difficult issue in mexico, but particularly because of the law that was recently passed in arizona, president calderon almost must mention it and really put forth on the
10:34 pm
agenda to play to his own home audience. if he goes back to mexico without mentioning what is happening in arizona and how the mexicans feel about it would be incredibly difficult to them to come back home. that said, it's very difficult on the u.s. side and particularly in his speech to congress to touch too deeply on this and to push too hard and mexican point of view on how unjust they think this law is because as we all know immigration politics in the united states is quite polarized. calderon and obama on all accounts agree on this rot in arizona but neither of them are in favor of it, but how it works its way to the u.s. system is something that is not seen as much as a policy issue as much as a domestic policy issue. so with the immigration talked about but there's not going to be any resolution really coming out of this. in the final issue that will be on the agenda that is perhaps the most positive on her new one to be put on the agenda is the issue of climate change.
10:35 pm
we have right now two presidents in both calderon and obama who are quite interested personally in issues of climate change, alternative energies, green technologies. we also have a situation where mexico is one to the next host of the un's conference of parties process. mexico and particularly cancun will be the next copenhagen coming up in the summer of the following year. so for calderon, it's very important that cancun be seen as a success. it's very important that if something comes out of that meeting with global leaders coming together on this u.n. process and to do that the united states has to be on board in some way, shape or form. in part because mexico and the united states are so close and in part because of the united states is not the table many of these agreements is receiving a pass from the kyoto and others begin to fall apart. there can be and the premiere preached. so where cancun goes from copenhagen on what the united
10:36 pm
states can put on that table will be part of the discussion. most likely will we'll see out of this is again a focus on small concrete programs. i don't think anyone in the international system things were going to see a treaty with legally binding initiative targets, but in six months in cancun, but there are some areas where mexico in the united states and other countries could work together to flesh out what we saw the copenhagen accord, we saw happen there. and particularly in the financing mechanism for mitigation adaptation of developed countries and even emerging companies like brazil in the u.s., how they're going to work with the least developed countries to mitigate some of the effects of climate change and transfers of money that were promised to copenhagen, how that's going to work and graphs will see the two presidents and their staff talk through. but overall, this will be a meeting every affirming the status quo are reaffirming some of the progress being made on
10:37 pm
lots of different issues, but not one with a big ambitious agenda. >> before turning to david, to be provocative i should mention mention -- david, tell us what's on the agenda that should be there. are they getting it right on the security strategy, will there be anything new or different? should we be looking for what has been a large number of homicides to be going down and in your future? we look at a development of a modern police and judiciary force in mexico, some efforts of arms flows and money coming from the u.s. that this new strategy from oltp and the white house on track consumption in the united states? without their votes on the security side and be on security that might be new and different and are they on the right path? >> well, first of all, i thank you, andrew into the wilson
10:38 pm
center for hosting this event. it's been a great pleasure to be here as a fellow for the last several months and especially enjoyed working with andrew on the projects. i may take that one step back and we've heard different estimates about sort of whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about where mexico is and where the u.s.-mexico relationship is heading into just sort of talk about the context a little bit. pessimism looms large in the discussion. certainly some of the things we have mentioned, u.s. public perception of mexico are at an all-time low since nafta began in the public image -- the images the public sees of mexico, the assessments of mexico, the security partner, trade hardware are actually
10:39 pm
does, lilo. we've also got very difficult and track double issues on the bilateral agenda, like immigration. one of the things we happened to mention also was trucking. mexico would like to see an active move to a different level where we can have free flows of natalie connors, but also tracks and labor going across the border. and in terms of mexico, specifically there are a number of very difficult unresolved issues that my colleagues have pointed to. i think while security has loomed largest in the u.s. mind about mexico's situation, for ordinary mexicans, since calderon was elected in 2006, the issue has been consistently the problem of the economy and
10:40 pm
specifically the fact that still today, approximately 40% of mexicans live in poverty. and by poverty i need burning typically less than $5 a day. also, the issue was inequality, the fact that although so many mexicans live in dire circus ensues, mexico is also home to one of the world which is dash, the richest man carlos slim. and the reason he is so rich is because mexico has an extremely uncompetitive domestic economy. add on top of this as the chariot the idea that in 2012 we are going to see a prefect prefect three. and for people that championed mexican democracy and to have
10:41 pm
concerns about whether or not they have changed their ways and there are significant signs that is still very much the same party it was 10 years ago in before, all of this adds up to a pretty for three quarters empty glass? we also need to take into consideration the other side. first of all, aiming, while the u.s. public may not perceive it, u.s.-mexico relations are at an all-time high on several different indicators, in terms of levels of security cooperation, the simple extent or attentiveness of engagement by the u.s. is between the u.s.-mexico is a significant high. and fortunately for mexico and the united states unproblematic issues, issues like the
10:42 pm
situation in arizona, the obama administration and the calderon administration strongly agree about that particular issue. also, thinking about mexico's problems, thinking about its economic situation, it is very easy to be dissatisfied. but the reality is, mexico is in a very different place 10 years than it was 10 years ago or especially where was 15 or 20 years ago. mexico is seemingly the valuation proof. and a sense, not that they're free from the valuation and that the very significant devaluation in the cases be sought in the last year really wasn't even a major blip on most people's radar screen and not ordinary mexicans pocketbooks. and that suggests urban fundamental changes in mexico's macroeconomic mixture, which are
10:43 pm
ultimately quite positive. add to that the fact that in the last decade we've seen mexico's gdp per capita in terms of purchasing power actually increased to what economists like to see it as a critical watershed, which is the $10,000 a year mark. some of that could be because carlos slim had a couple good days on the stock market. it's not a perfect measure, but it does suggest that they are not entirely bad. and it's easy as the gringo to have that gringos are your view when you're not actually immersed in these problems on a daily basis, when you're not the one earning less than $5 a day to be seen these issues. i think there is no going back to 1988, almost a quarter
10:44 pm
century ago. for some people it's hard to realize that. but it's hard to go back. there's no going back to 1988 when we some mexico's last great fraudulent election, when we saw mexico suffering triple digit inflation, when we saw many people very dissatisfied. mexico is now in a very different situation and her relationship with mexico is different as a result. shannon mentioned that we have moved to this new framework for u.s.-mexico relations, this new security framework, which focuses on dismantling, on these four pillars wright, the idea of dismantling drug traffic networks. and actually put some significant success over the last decade. we've taken out the top leaders of at least four of over three of the four major drug trafficking organizations in mexico. we've taken out high-ranking
10:45 pm
members of the afl, the iron felix organization. we've taken out arsenal courtney is a resident of the united states and we've taken out -- not to his liking necessarily. and will soon be well after welcoming a new resident who is soon to be extradited and we have the mexican government has very recently taken out but you are probably the important collaborator of previous collaborative of the locker tell an increasing collaborator of the juarez cartel a3 the juarez cartel and not to mention significant operations against the law familia, one of the new organization and some of the other regional folks. and so that lends to the administration, the calderon administration. there is rumors that he may have been arrested in the past day or two.
10:46 pm
>> that's correct and who knows -- >> who knows what he wanted or not. but the administration's goal, the administration's measure of, calderon administration measure success and the u.s. measure of success is banned on the point of dismantling drug trafficking networks in medicine seemed as a measure of success. i'll get back to that. but the other two issues are building effective judicial sector institutions in here again mexico has made significant progress. it may not look like it, but the fact were identifying corruption in one person in mexico, the fact they were actually talking about trying to really strengthen municipal policing, the fact these issues are on the agenda and their significant reforms in place that will move mexico to a more effective judicial system they think are
10:47 pm
important. the third pillar is this idea of building a 21st century border. and i thought the 21st century was supposed to be the borderless century, but evidently i was reading the wrong things in the 1990's. but the idea is to facilitate trade, prevent illegal or illicit flows, steps out on flows with u.s. weapons and arms into mexico. i think that this is obviously something that the united defense mexico have to work on together, but ultimately misses the real point which is when were talking about cross-border or transborder problems, we need transborder and splutter solutions. we need to focus on the point of sale to the point of origin, whether we're talking about the hiring of undocumented workers or were talking about the selling of weapons, we need to be focused on where those transactions take safe. if they get to the border, it's already too late to address those problems effectively.
10:48 pm
but the last point is this idea of building strong and resilient immunities and this is a true innovation in u.s.-mexico security administrations. the doctor put on the agenda ideas including civil society and some measure of job creation or creating economic opportunities so that the young people today who are involved in illicit activities don't really have any other options because maybe in some places like sinaloa and juarez, people ages 18 to 30 either work or study in school, so they're idle hands and the idea of thinking with mexico about how we can promote a greater idea prosperity and community, a greater degree of competitiveness as an economic region i think it's exciting, it's important, but a far or i should say we are far from early event in that agenda
10:49 pm
significantly and needs to be much more stronger on the table. and i do have some ideas about the measures of success and i'll end with this. it's great to make against organized crime and that's what the administrations have been advocating. the problem with making significant against organized crime consistently and historically over the last century, to unpredictable results and that is more violence and more deaths as the cartel's fate among and within the organizations to reestablish order. this year alone, we've seen almost 3800 drug trafficking related killings in mexico and the fun part to well exceed the 6500 killings that we had at least 6500 killings that we had in 2009. so another words, we could be looking at maybe a thousand
10:50 pm
which is a significant increase by the end of 2010. so for the mexican public, you can arrest all the bad guys you want, but as long as evil or dying by the hour in this war on drugs, it is not going to be popular. and lastly for me, ultimately -- i mean, why are we doing this? were doing this because theoretically we want to reduce the availability, the flow of availability and consumption or drugs in the united states. how is that working out aurea? to quote therapy land. [laughter] it doesn't appear to we have made a great deal of success and if you look at the data, we're approaching a majority of american voters that his people at age 18 or over who have experimented at least at some point in their lives for the use of drugs. that is abominable. that is unacceptable and it's an insult to mexico that we are not able to control consumption.
10:51 pm
this week the obama administration said were going to get a handle on that over the next five years. not many people would say that it is a game changing allocation of resources. and so, in the meantime, as we look around the country and see states like california going in completely the opposite direction, possibly voting to legalize the consumption of certain drugs, it really makes you scratch your head and say what is all this for? >> thank you, david. we want to open this up to the audience, but let me go back to reach for one minute responses to reach of you on made or elsewhere. denise, what is called around need out of this visit? what does he want to take back? the >> he wants american delegation for the war on drugs. he wants a big pat on the back. he wants recognition for his boldness, his recovery, his
10:52 pm
willingness to take on organized crime at a time in which the war on drugs is increasingly unpopular in his own country. we're midway through his term, his main policy initiative is being questioned by many mexicans as opposed to reveal. at a time in which it is not clear that the war on drugs is actually reducing the violence or rather fooling feeling it at a time when his party faces political competition and has not fared well. i think felipe calderon is coming here with the hope that once president obama embraces hendon says all the right things in terms of applauding what he has done over the past three years, he can carry that to mexico. and bolster his political
10:53 pm
legitimacy in a context in which he is in many ways a lame duck, a weak president who has very little to offer to the mexican republic and what remains of his term. so i think he comes here on a quest for validation and for political capital. >> shannon, what does president obama and the administration be done in next week's visit? >> the obama administration? the obama administration first and foremost needed to go well and to not mess up the domestic agenda too much. they need to not get too deep into the weeds on immigration they can agree that the law is a terrible line hurtful to the united states and mexico which they vardy done, but they need to make sure that felipe caldern
10:54 pm
visiting does not hurt them and trying to think about and put forth on the agenda weather before the elections are probably after midterm elections are more comprehensive immigration reform. they need furniture into his shoes of climate change, they need resident called around to at least recognize that there's a bill now on th3 need resident called around to at least recognize that there's a bill now on the table, the kerry lieberman bill that came out this week and potentially their state chance for that passing and it looks very unlikely that will pass, just given the polarization and again the lead up to the midterm elections. they need mexico to play along on that site. but in general, in some ways they need to pat calderon on the back week as they have invested in security. they've taken on the bush merida initiative. they need to validate that this is the way forward in mexico. and in general by being seen together and talking about things in a quite positive light, that it is for disinvestment in security and
10:55 pm
security very broadly defined with these economic yours and with the 21st century border. they need to get out of it that this is a good investment for the united states and should continue to go on because many people in the obama administration what to do this but they are trying to convince a time some members of congress that are the sure about whether this is a good investment of u.s. money and resources. >> david, i mean, you hinted at this at the end. you raise questions about the strategy. tell us what would we this is sort of a preliminary review of the report that new york has been reporting on security operation. we're likely what they do in the next two years will be locked into policy over time in some ways how do you get this right? was the right way to go? what needs to be tweaked? >> well, if this is the idea of getting drug trafficking under control and ultimately preventing access to drugs for
10:56 pm
u.s. consumers, well, you've got four possibilities. therefore strategies in dealing with in north america and worldwide really one is complicity or what mexico might call [speaking in spanish] the idea of working hand in glove with the traffickers, expecting their existence and taking the occasional bribe. and that's the way toward trafficking in the u.s.-mexico context works for many years with very high ranking officials on the mexican side. and no small number recently of love of what u.s. officials border patrol agencies and others getting stared up in this kind of thing. the second approach is to do a head-on fight against the cartel is not a strategy we've taken him for almost the last decade, with the idea dismantling
10:57 pm
organized crime syndicates. some people call that the hikers strategy because like the mythological beast of ancient times have you cut the head off of one organization and a new one groesbeck. and so, there are serious questions about how effective it could be. lastly -- i'm sorry, thirdly, you can try to reduce consumption. and unless you're willing to a very serious resources into that of her, it is dubious how much you can decrease the availability of drugs and therefore decrease the profits that drug trafficking organizations have and 15% reduction in use consumption of drugs as the obama administration recently proposed will not take a lot of money at it the pockets of the richest drug trafficker in mexico. so the last option, which no one has wanted to talk about for 40 or 100 years or so is the idea
10:58 pm
of trying to regulate consumption and some kind of legalized scenario. and i think that whether the administrations like it or not or whether it is in tune with the majority of the american public, which opposes the idea of drug legalization right now, i think were on a path to legalization in a sense that states and localities are beginning to explore the cooperations whether its a dozen or so states that allow for legal consumption of marijuana for medical regions for states like california that are flat broke and just had some extra tax revenue from a little bit of pot sales. whatever the reason is, i think that we are seeing a shift. and when the united states can elect a person who is an open admitted drug user, not only did he inhale, but he also started.
10:59 pm
i think that is a change in the redeemer in public views, but it will be interesting to sort out over the decade. >> what does calderon given the last two and half years of his legacy talk, what can he do in the last two, two and half years that would leave a legacy and is he willing to do those? >> well, i joked once in an article that so far the biggest legacy that president calderon has is that he's the president that teaches us how to sneeze with the inside part of our elbow. >> during the swine flu episode. >> he went on national television to give a lesson on how to sneeze. i think he has a huge problem with his legacy. the most important


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on