How do we get this message into the community? And, how do we build those relationships long term?

I think we can double our impact on the border if we continue to advance the work that this Administration has started with the Canadian Government.

If we are going to have a logical discussion about issues regarding immigration, we need to take a new look at border security.

Many of the communities that I visit with tell me that they feel under siege.

I think you saw there the dramatic increase in the amount of drug crime, in particular, but also sexual assaults.

I could see doing something where you say, well, you might consider this, you might consider that; here are some things that we would consider appropriate.

I have long maintained that I think guidance can be extraordinarily helpful.

Yes, we settled those cases, but it is still guidance documents.

I want to bring you back into this discussion, Mr. Shelanski.

Yes, and this is a problem because we give deference--and I do not mean to give the Chairman any more ammunition than what he already has on deference--but we give deference to longstanding interpretations of agencies.

I think you did less than what was required.

I think that guidance is extraordinarily valuable.

Is that really the kind of relationship we want with the public as it relates to an interpretive change?

I think that the overtime as it relates to on-call is very problematic.

When we change how we interpret either rules or statutes, and the change has a dramatic impact on the livelihood of business people, we get a little suspicious that that does not look much like a guidance and it is not a legitimate new…

And, it just keeps getting to that point where had you started with a rulemaking process, you would have a firmer foundation for this whole structure that you have created.

There has to be some flexibility that they have because they have to make those determinations.

It looks and reads to me like guidance is being used as 'rulemaking light.'