A conference we will discuss a little more that we discussed in other panels and hopefully a little policy as well. So the broad team with it for this panel which it think weve detected has been true for a lot of immigration stuff since at least this president took over is its a very important issues have been sort of getting shuttled among three branches of the government. In one way were saying you could say each branch of the government is sort of putting they cant any of the persons lapin hoping they can will stop there somewhere. Many of these cans have stopped. This is our job to see where they cans are and where they will finally land. So ill begin this by asking questions of our panelists, more in a conversational style so that we could get too many topics than sort of one issue only for a long time. So let me start with cecilia, because she represents the aclu which many people regard has been the president s thorne side more than any other organization. Organization. Last count is aclu has brought more than 100 cases against this administration. Theres a law school, im sure every single austin without i would talk about all those 100 cases but will stick only to two or three. So if you dont mind starting with daca. This is one id is what you dont have to say what daca stands for. So start with daca. They can has been shuttled by three branches of the government. The president into the program, lawsuit was brought almost the very next day to challenge injunction. President said its the job of congress to do this, and it is here he will defend his institution, congress ended up doing nothing. They could argue the courts were business why did it need to interview because finally, that can has a software and we believe we saw i just want to point that out. [laughing] nothing is inaccurate. That there will be alltel he would have been a closed but hasnt been resolved. There enough. On november 12 the Supreme Court is going to hear an argument on the daca case. Cecillia, just keep up for us what are the challenges thinking in that case . What is the government defense . Other points court squiggle and when . Thank you, muzaffar, and georgia for inviting all of us to this conference. Its always very illuminating. So muzaffar mentioned i work at the aclu and we have indeed filed over 100 immigration related cases against the Trump Administration. But the daca rescission cases are not one of them. I am not actually one of the litigators on that case, i should make that important disclaimer, but i have spoken to many of the attorneys who are doing that, including folks fm the National Immigration law center from the state of california, from other states and municipalities, new york, et cetera, et cetera. The take away that i would highlight, both from the daca rescission cases that are at the Supreme Court now as well as from every other major Immigration Initiative of the Trump Administration, that wod include the muslim ban, a whole cluster of assignment within policy changes, the public charge rule, rescission of daca and also sanctuary cities policies of this administration. The lesson from all of the many Court Battles over all of those issues are twofold. The first lesson is that litigation in support of immigrant communities has never been more important than it has been under the Trump Administration. So for all you georgetown under the Law School Students here, youre in the right place doing the right thing to get ready to be more of the right thing. Even when we have unfortunately lost, as with the muslim ban where we got injunctions from all of the lower federal courts but ultimately the state of hawaii lost in the Supreme Court, we bought time for people in the case of the muslim ban. Countless people were able to get to the deathbed of a loved one here in the United States, attend someones graduation, be there for the birth of a child, be at an important academic conference or business meeting, et cetera, et cetera. In the case of the rescission of daca, i actually quite optimistic about the daca case. Dont shake that, please. Im quite optimistic, but even if, even if the Supreme Court were to rule against all of the immigrant groups and states and municipalities who are harmed by the rescission of daca, that kind of litigation, even when unsuccessful, has so many consequences to protect people again to buy people a little more time, more time with documented status, daca status. And its been a really important vehicle i think to talk about how we think in this country about immigration. Its important to look at the ways that the asylum issue has been framed. Mistakes that people in our own Movement Come in immigrants Rights Movement have made. Mistakes that we made in talking about past the illegal status d citizenship in the past, and dreamers then sells have been in the lead, both as client in litigation, as litigants, and as advocates in their own right in pointing out some of those mistakes with respect to people who are already in the United States and lack lawful status. So thats lesson one. Lesson two, kind of the flipside. The big lesson of most of these cases, remember, most of these cases raised claims under the administrative procedure act. Most of these cases are about the abuse of executive authority, about the Trump Administration taken to an extreme and illegal extreme, loss, the application of laws that are already on the books. And so lesson two is that we cannot rely on the professed goodwill of the executive branch, even when we believe we have friends in the executive branch. We cannot rely on executive Branch Officials to comport with unwritten norms. Enforcement laws that are repeatedly subject to abusive, illegal, and immoral, immoral application must be struck from the books one way or another. And thats the second lesson from the Trump Administration. The way i see it is that with all of these policies ive mentioned, starting with the muslim ban and the president s exercise of his Statutory Authority under ina section 212f which again was the basis for his action with the assignment van proclamation. Hes been picking up loaded guns that are lying around in the immigration and nationality act and in the jurisprudence plenary power, and of the old Supreme Court precedents. And to be clear, i should be really clear about one thing as a litigator, all of the policies that are movement has challenge and litigation by the Top Administration are illegal under existing law. Okay, im not, im not taking the position that statues need to change or president s president s did need to be overe in order to challenge the legality of the Top Administration policies. But if we no longer want these loaded weapons to be lying around for the next donald trump, the next abusive White Nationalist, i dont see i dont say that lightly but lets face it. These are White Nationalist policies. [applause] then we need to exercise the will of the people to make sure that the loaded guns are disarmed. In addition to 212f we have seen this Administration Try to abuse expedited removal to the statutory maximum, which all previous administrations in both parties have put out the conventional wisdom exceeds the bounds of due process. The public charge ground for inadmissibility which we will talk about on this panel, mass detention including detention without any individualized hearing, exceptional, exceptional under u. S. Law and civil detention. Immigration detention is the only area in u. S. Law where civil detention can be imposed without an individual is here on flight risk and danger. Extraordinary and yet thats been approved by the Supreme Court, so far. And efforts to limit article iii court review of removal orders. That also has been something that the Trump Administration, like its predecessors, has raised in all of this systemic litigation to challenge these policy moves. So i think going forward, and i know david will talk more about this along with muzaffar, we really need to uproot the frame of lawbreaking that has infected immigration policymaking since 1996, most pertinently. Both from the law and from our framing of the policy debate. No more get right with the law, okay . No more securing the border so that we can legalize the status the people in the country already. We really need to look at the people as human beings and look at our system as one that should be imbued with due process and individualized scrutiny of people as individual human beings. Thats my take away. Okay, thank you. Just [applause] the case will be argued that youve argued before the Supreme Court but you are not arguing differently. There was a surprise choice to do this argument. Would you tell me who it is and have the choice was made. Is sure. Again im not one of the litigants but i was peripherally involved a discussion about the sleep of the all know that ted olson, noted conservative and member of the Supreme Court bar, will be arguing they case in support of daca and against the rescission of daca. It was an interesting, and hae to say somewhat painful, discussion. There were what is a, seven, seven separate lawsuits coming out of three different districts, Federal District courts, that are consolidated in the Supreme Court, and states and municipalities i should add, michael who is the solicitor general of california will be splitting the argument with ted olson, pending Supreme Court, contingent upon Supreme Court approval. Thats the proposal respondents have made. This is what happens when our issues get to the Supreme Court. Nancy moravec is someone who talked a lot about this dynamic where we have a very entrenched Supreme Court bar that is not very diverse, that doesnt necessarily represent movements when movement cases make it to the court. And so theres a pretty fraught discussion i think among its no secret among the various groups of counsel and parties. And ted olson, you know, to ge credit where credit is due, is someone who i think is choice calculated to appeal to as broad a group of justices as possible. Extraordinarily brilliant lawyers in our movement on this case and i have to express my opinion that i think ted olson is an interesting a brilliant choice in many ways but i also feel some regrets i guess, it wasnt my decision but a little sad that we dont have a movement that were up there you said youre optimistic aboutit. Could you tell me why youre optimistic that three or four years ago these same arguments that we now know for conservative judges that will never know about the world because it was atie decision. They probably want to say our power was unlawful, why would you think its going to be ruled as lawful and not being unlawful . Obviously Supreme Court affirmed circuit my 14 4 time. I guess two word answer, a legal realism i think that this case is a political one like many hot button cases in front of the Supreme Court and i have to believe that there are going to the five justices who have the stomach to agree with the Trump Administration on this one. I think we have seen this discord already rule in the census case the right way and i think this to, doctor would be a road too far but just as it legal reasons why this case is different, theres an argument that the ina already provided a statutory provision for adjustments of the parents of dreamers which isnt residence here. And theres also reliance interests here were talking about rescission of a program that was in effect 4 years already and that people have come to rely on that and finally, there is a dynamic here continuing a pattern of the solicitor general of the United States across several administrations providing incorrect lets say data to the Supreme Court. There was an element of the government, the Trump Administration saying that daca was in the texas case, and the texas case, the compensation took the position the alma Obama Administration had applied daca in a boilerplate way, that everyone who met the qualifications for daca under the johnson memo was getting released, getting the deferred action. They went into court and said that hainan i think relied on that, judge. The circuit i believe also relied on so the argument here is that evidence since then has demonstrated that in fact the Obama Administration was applying that the agency both under obama and the trumpet administration was applying discretion. It wasnt a rubberstamp. They were handing out daca to everybody so i think that correction or development of the record in the subsequent litigation will be important. So ill let you off soon. The public rule which a lot of people here are concerned about is going to affect the nine lawsuits brought to tell you about how there could be falloutfrom the Trump Administration , 14 attorney generals of the United States must it in public challenge. And theres actual litigation, i heard there was a lively argument of the Southern District of new york this morning so could you tell us what your view on the public chart challenge is and what is the timeline that people should be looking . Again, a disclaimer. We are not involved in the public charge litigation area none of the hundredth place plus cases is a charter case i did nico from milk this morning to get his readout from the california, Northern District of california hearing which took place last week. I think as the timeline, i think almost all litigants maybe with the exception of one of the cases just saw a preliminary injunction. The idea is to get role in joining the october 50 50. As you told me, since i was on the train this morning and was looking, i was preparing this not looking for news arena from new york was positive for the challengers. The readout was also positive on the Northern District of california case. I will stay in the Northern District of california the district judge did express some concern about the request for a nationwide injunction. She had requested additional briefing on the soul of injunction, had urged the parties to try to reach an agreement on the scope of injunction which i dont think is going to be happening based on no inside information but its interesting. Weve seen the night circuit in the return to mexico case which is an aclu case limit the preliminary injunction weve gotten from the District Court which was nationwide in scope , the ninth circuit and so i think what you may see if we can read the tea leaves from the argument in front of judge hamilton is that she may be preemptively trying to narrow the geographical still of the injunction. We talk about asylum a lot in the conference and i think many of us are surprised by the Supreme Court letting go ahead this rule of the transatlantic need to apply for asylum there. How do you read that affecting the decision of the courts on the merits. The Supreme Court didnt purport to rule on the merits at all. So i think we have to take them at theirword on that and continue to litigate it. The stay, theres no getting around the fact that the stay order was painful. And you know, weve got a situation where the previous panels went through in greater detail, we had the first asylum proclamation which funneled everyone through ports of entry and the administration was modeling asylum applications there, then they did return to mexico which has led to estimates of 20,000 people including kids stuck in mexico. Sleeping on the ground outdoors and then a third country resettlement proclamation. And you know, it hurts the cause we are desperate to get relief for people who deserve to have asylum in our country and who been turned away in every possible juncture by this administration. So you know, i think we Supreme Court edits were really going with the litigation, keep litigating it and show i record to show the harms to our clients and thats it. Okay david, now your turn. You represent the will of the people. You really by now have more interesting spaces of debate, you have more time in his administration. On the hill both as aminority and majority counsel. And so just start with the daca thing because the hope was congress would intervene. On the budget which as i tend to do because as the litigation was going people were protected and thats going and at some point but you did also manage to pursue legislation and have gotten no end so let me ask you two questions. If the Supreme Court rules that the end of daca was lawful, what do you think the congress is going to do . And even if the Supreme Court says it was it was unlawful, what you think the courts will do under pressure . If i can address first of all, thank you in the eye, i appreciate the invitation. So one i want to say that im not as positive, not as optimistic about the Supreme Court. This is how we are. I have a pessimist inthe room normally. But i actually think the Supreme Court doesnt even get to where daca is or is not lawful. What they do is they say that my assumption, my guess is they look at the memo that was originally issued. The memo itself says it can be rescinded at any time. Either an individual in its entirety. They say this is an act of prosecutorial discretion, you dont need to go through rulemaking to enjoy it and they say whether its lawful or not, the administration has the authority to end it and take it back to set a timeline area as my assumption as towhat happened. Its not what i want to happen. Anyway, but i think thatsthe way it goes. So if that were to happen, i hope that means there is some real thoughtful and some, just some discussions between both sides about what to do. I think there will be a lot of democrats want to course exit and there are lots of republicans who want to do it and the question is how do they do it and is their distaste, the political one . At one of the things we found different when we move this dream bill, the one that we just did at the beginning of this congress. There were some on our side who wanted to work on Bipartisan Legislation, others that wanted to do something that was more pure and democratic only and take a onesided approach and move back and there were republicans would vote against it. Thats kind of the path that we decided to take but it and you are going to need to have democrats and republicans in both houses vote for it in order for it to become law and the president decided and that may in our system require dealmaking and the question is whether that space is there and whether people are acting in good faith to try to find a good deal that we can maybe not love all feel okay about. And im not certain that space isthere on other side and that would be unfortunate. Even in the middle of the dealmaking would apply, what do you think the kind of things republicans would ask for afor a daca deal to happen . Its always been about the border and allows the either the asylum provisions or the unaccompanied childrens provisions or other provisions that affect the ability to provide a lawenforcement response to people comingacross the border. So usually its been in that area where the discussions have really been focused but now with the Supreme Court taking pressure off the board, im not sure what they comeforward with. They may want to perhaps knowing that thats in interim measure thats not likely going to be in place for longer than when the Supreme Court asked again, they might see what they can, whether theres a way of adjusting the laws of the border when it comes to detention or how to treat asylumseekers or remain in mexico or codify some pieces of it in some way. Theymight come forward with that. And then they seek certain revisions to the immigration system and eliminating familybased and moving into Employment Base or getting diver cities in the program but their hearts are in the border and whether, how to affect or deter, they want tools to deter people from comingacross. I think the decisions are going to come out in the middle. So just put your political hat on, how do you think its going to affect dynamics in congress . What if theres an impeachment on top of that aftermarket i mean, its going to be, i have no idea how to predict that to be honestwith you. Ive been arounda long time. I tend to have a decent sense as to what it is the republicans want and where the dealmaking space is and what a good dealmaking deal looks like an maybe gets republican interest in the senate. Were working on a different buildout which i know were going to talk about at the end where were trying to i guess read the tea leaves right and navigate the channels but here i really dont know. I think things are so different now area where the deals are in some of the areas, im not sure i fully understand. Im not sure theres anybody on the hill thatreally does. Some are normal partners we work with like senator Lindsey Graham are not in the same place at all policy wise or politically. I think its going to need people of good faith basically putting down the weapons and coming and speaking privately to each other and trying to figure out what is good policy that can survive politically but again, those conversations are nothappening now. The groundwork for that isnt in place and that makes me pretty sad right now. I think were trying to build some of that right now because we need these good relationships to get things across the finish line later. So were trying to build through other measures but theres a lot of work to be done. On the public charge issue. The congress is likely to act on this course. We acted in certain ways. We have filed comments which i thought were very powerful comments. Were we, i mean we clearly think and when i say we all say the members that i work for clearly think that the rule is illegal. It is far from the longstanding interpretation and congressional meaning behind the words public charge. Public charge is always people who are destitute and cant survive but for government housing. It was originally meant people that were so destitute they were relegated to houses that were called poorhouses. For insane asylum. Not people who can survive epically fine on their own, are working but can use a little extra healthcare or some nutritional assistance to improve the Health Outcomes of our communities. That is a bastardization of those words and we feel strongly about that so we can file pretty strong prominence that laid out that legal argument with congressional intent and were hoping that would help undergird and provide a foundation for the litigation. We have also drafted an amicus brief and were ready to file when the time is right at theappellate level. But this is that difficult issue. One, because and weve taken strong stands there are bills that are there to undo the rule, we can always do a Congressional Review Act you need both houses and at this point even if the house were to pass something, i dont see a path to this in the senate. So i just will say one last thing. It is an issue that for Many Democrats is not a typical issue to talk about but is not truefor all democrats. And the question is what do we do . And not every democrat is therefore every democrat is comfortable taking that issue on, sometimes just doing things for public appearance sake may not be the smartest move so there are a lot of dynamics at play. But there were a lot of people that care a lot about it. And we are very much looking forward and trying to support the litigation right now and i think we will have to, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Lets go to asylum, were talking here about asylum and luckily daca and the public charge of daca with litigation but on theasylum , theres real encouragement, the Supreme Court had this new rule on these transit countries and the administration is busy signing these socalled third country reports dont that dont meet any of the statute requirements of the country requirement so im representing specifically congress has been missing in action on the asylum issue. So what are you doing on this . Great suggestion. I mean, im going to start for alittle bit. But we have done some things. I say that i work for two bosses, mister nadler, the judiciary chair and subcommittee chair, Immigration Committee chair. Ms. Locklin introduced a bill that sought to reform our entire refugee and asylum system in the hemisphere, create an entirely new framework or how to deal with refugees in our hemisphere, provides both assistance to countries but assistance to other countries so theres a regional approach, works with International Partners and provides real refugee numbers for our hemisphere and more humane ways of dealing with people crossing the border. So we have tried to be leaders in that space and weve held hearings on detention and on the treatment of families and children. Weve had three hearings on department of children and families in our committee and there are many other committees have come forward and have taken it on. Ive never seen any other committee in my history on the hill ever want to take on the immigration issue. Other committees are like we dont want to deal with it but now youve seen other committees, government oversight and Foreign Affairs , tackle these issues. We had the Armed Services tackle immigration issues in the hearings. So we have lambasted, you cant just lambaste the Supreme Court decision. We express our strong disappointment and we do think that decision is wrong as a legal matter. I agree with you that there are two ways in which you can deny final or someone who crosses to another country and those are spelled out by statute and those statutory requirements have not been met in these cases so i just dont really understand why the Supreme Court did what it did, but here we are and were not going to get a decision on the merits for quite some time. We can move a bill and we are thinking about having hearings on this issue and maybe moving that bill or other bills in this space but again, youll get a bill maybe that comes out of the house and it will die there so thats the best we can do right now when you have control of one house. So tim, less rest for a little while. I think really is a reflection of how much the state would consider a aspect of immigration policy debate a number of years and i say 1480s block the public charge. So in someways, the issue. You represent the larger states of the country and run its social Service Programs so can you describe from your perch on how the elements and immigration whether its enforcement of the public charge, what kind of impact it had on social services in a state like california . Thank you for the invitation as well. Ill start with a little bit of context around california just to have a sense of maybe why you see such passionate response and investment in a number of ways here that ill talk about. 11 million of californias million residents are foreignborn. One in two children in california at least one immigrant parents. 35 percent of californias civilian workforce is comprised of immigrants and immigrants are considering 750 billion dollars to californias economy. So in terms of californias commitments and response to immigration is a big part of what we do. You may have heard our governor , governor nuisance essential trademark which is california for all. Its a whole to many newcomers and we certainly offer services that help immigrants become part of the social economicand social fabric of our state. And so in that, it has been a busy couple of years and certainly, with this context and with knowing our population across the state, there is significant and real fear in communities. Youve been hearing about impacts on individuals and populations across the country and certainly in california we have seen. In the number numerous policies that have come from the federal government. Specifically just want to talk a little bit about response to public charge and kind of what were seeing as proposed impact or were actually seeing as impact from the ground. I want to know that certainly it is our belief and heres where we are in agreement with the department of Homeland Security in the actual rule for public charge. Theres a recognition and an acknowledgment that the public charge rule may cause worse Health Outcomes, increased use of emergency, increased prevalence of Communicable Diseases across the country. Increased rates of poverty instability, lack of productivity and educational attainment. The analysis that we conducted in california is similar that we see that and are seeing the direct impact on health and wellbeing of individuals and families object to it i would also say to you that its not just those impacted and called out in the rule but also in individuals not subject to public charge and is not just the Public Benefit programs have been added with which programs would be considered its also those participating in programs that wont be considered. So the broad cast of impacts and the complexities and interpretation that Human Service agencies across the country are needing to understand in terms of who it impacts and who it doesnt is significant. We certainly have not spent time Capacity Building Human Service providers, what weve done is weve invested in things like Immigration Legal Services and remedies, a 6 Million Investment this year plus additional Case Management services focused on supporting populations to happen immigration relief wherever they might be eligible for it and that is a way in which they can offer a resource. But i think that, i appreciate the comments david as well. The public charge rule as it stands today certainly recognize the health and wellbeing benefits and who was targeted different though this is going above and beyond the intent and certainly from a Human Services social services perspective, the impact of our safety net on what its actually supporting in terms ofdisrupting poverty is huge. Just a Nutrition Assistance Program or Snack Program is one of the largest antipoverty programs in the country area its included here is not just about nutrition assistance, its also about the improved math and reading skills that will be in effect the longer term outcomes, low birth rates, increased Graduation Rates and so forth that we see as an outcome of having things like a Snack Program. I also want to say that theres a mix in terms of who is accessing these programs across the country 87 percent of the recipients are house hold that have a child, senior or personal disability, that 74 percent california so was being targeted answer truly are the most honorable and heinous connection. So in terms of public charge and in terms of what were seeing across the other proposals, certainly we are anticipating and seeing this enrollment from programs and therefore the Ripple Effect that means for Health Outcomes not only for those who are specifically targeted in any of these given policies but also those who are and adjust the Broader Health impacts to these policies across the state. So its significant. We have been very mindful and thoughtful about looking at enrollment and what we do about it. And certainly. There is a complexity to even describing who it does and doesnt apply to and like i said, which programs it applies to you but also were just trying to make sure we have trusted messengers and communities that are partners with government and the messenger and having programs like you generation approaches of Home Visiting to have connections with families to talk through some of these complexities and sometimes enroll families that are individuals that might be eligible to service, so different strategies of kind of going into the weeds and detail of being proposed versus actually making sure were doing our Due Diligence and connecting to the services that we only difference people. Let me ask you a question about the daca and tps. Obviously the impact is going to be felt at the state level. What do you predict the impact is going to be on the state and the residents and is there a plan the state of california has to respond . Daca for california has been tremendous just in the last 18 months 574,000 individuals have renewed their application and again, i just mentioned what we had Legal Immigration to assist with those renewals. We supported renewal fees as well so we had a robust investment in helping people get engaged. The significant financial instability of households, i didnt mention, most of our households across the state are next households or having a different address of various populations. Thats 74 percent of our noncitizen populations in household so we just know the impact of the financial hardship. This prediction and estimates in california is that california businesses would lose over 1 billion. Just in the turnover, and daca was renewed so huge Economic Impact and also just studies that are showing the Health Impacts and the mental Health Impacts of the populations within certain programs are real. So thats also a concern of ours. Should that occur. Let me ask you an obvious question. The distrust of the government in general, especially among immigrant communities , especially given this decision, how it is that affecting people trusting the government of the state of california . As i mentioned that partnership is key. We have seen that. We look at a number of strategies to try to mitigate the disenrollment of benefits that we know are huge in making an impact onpeoples lives. And that in doing so what weve also recognized is that the individual families that walk into the social Service Office to disenrollment benefits that were trying to connect that Legal Service provider to determine whether or not applicable for their circumstance is a hard connection to make. Individual or family is made up their mind when they walk into the office or make a phone call this enroll so again, from our perspective about getting in front of. About the connection where we have a number of works across california with the telluride campaign and how do we ensure that the information about applicability of public charge and how these actions are having with those messengers and communities as a Public Private partnership in our perspective and we are in fact even investing in some of our immigration funding in that kind outreach to connect with individuals and families so that they understand what that is because its true that its a real, this trust is real, the fear is real and communities about how to approach this. On the distrust andalso the about sentences. We got the bullet, the Supreme Court said the Citizenship Question will no longer will here but just the narrative, is that affecting the level of integration that you expect in the census mark. I think so. We have a number of investments in this space you on how weconduct outreach , recognizing what it means to have a undercount of populations here so its a similar strategy and really engaging withtrusted messengers , different models that are connecting with community but it is absolutely a real thing. When i talk through the year, we have those stories of individuals with families really are disengaging from any kind of Community Points at all. Going without. And that i think a huge impact. Were talking about going without basic necessities and services but also just not connecting at all with communities. So its similar strategy using the space with respect to looking at those committees organizations and trusted messengers. You another round with you folks for we really so cecilia first, there was obviously a lot for you after talking in, all the present discourse all over the country issuing injunctions and celebrating streets. But is set as now under the Supreme Court. A comedy you agree that the Supreme Court at the end of the day is not going back to the traditional governments of the executive party. And on another surprise given that theres a lot of them in immigration for a very long time. I think the answer is that the Supreme Court has a mixed record at this point on administration policies. As you already pointed out, we won the census case which was a aclu case. I should point out. And it was, the census case is an interesting counterpoint to versus ally in those cases, you had a record which showed level lower officials trying to make a rationale to justify the official action when the president was saying when he says on twitter and other public forums. So in the muslim band case, we saw really a single decision i think, cynical and that the majority opinion purported to overrule korematsu after 80 years, around 80 years but in reaching its decision on the muslim band, reassigned korematsu in so many ways. It was undeniable and i dont have a quote in front of me but its very telling you chief Justice Roberts opinion in trump versus hawaii, he refers to the states, the respondents pointing to all these statements by the president. Just expressing the most blatant antimuslim sentiments and said well, lets set that aside. Weve got to think about how this ruling will affect any president , not just this president. And so it was really disingenuous because the Supreme Court is putting forth the law. And the whole point is that they are confronted with this president doing and saying what hes doing and saying and yet they gave him a free pass. And so i think it was, they , one thing i will say about the versus hawaii to the court credit is a big project flat the administrations argument that the court did not adjudicate the issue. They purported to apply the mandel center, is there a bona fide and legitimate reason and the Fourth Circuit had done that as well and reached a different conclusion, mandel was key. Mandel not as an empty letter and the Supreme Court reported to apply mandel and said were looking at the justification but we find that the muslim band in it start walking down version does pass muster. In the census case i was very worried that you know, if you follow the reasoning of trump versus hawaii, we have this secretary ross in this case pretty blatantly up to no good i think. He clearly lied in his testimony before congress about the reasons for the Citizenship Question being added to the census. He lied about whether theidea originated with the Justice Department or whether his department. And you know, thank god or Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts he reached the opposite conclusion in the case. I think again, to go back to the legal realism lens, i think the census case is one where it was so political in a way that was so blatant, blatantly rigging the system for the next redistricting battle in favor of republican states, maybe that also gave the majority are, but yes. I think intellectual honesty, just make a note the Supreme Court did not say that the administration did not have the authority to add a question. They justsaid they did not do it the right way. Just as a matter of record. But can, let me turn to you before i turn to david forthe last question. This is obviously youre in the state of california but this is going on, is there any coordination going on amongst states to do this anymore cohesive way . In addition to the litigation and certainly our attorney general has been we call that partnering with other states in litigation efforts but i say more on that programmatic space and what were doing on the ground is really thinking about not only the legal effort that i mentioned that both new york and Washington State also have made investments in also in looking at a broader Integration Strategy so we are sharing and combining strategies, resources, materials not only related to how we are doing medication around some of the proposed rules and policies but also on the broader economic ability strategies, education , access to services and so forth. So theres certainly been some convenience and conversations for states and are interested in habitat same priority in a population thats been moving forward. Those of you who ask questions please get in the lineup there. It will do this in exactly 5 minutes and i will turn for the lastquestion to david. David, with all this lack of hope we have all morning but i hear there is some hopeful sign on some decent Bipartisan Legislation in the house. So you know, as i was ordered earlier, we needstart laying the groundwork for bipartisan reform. We always put everything altogether and always attack the issue comprehensively as you know, its a cover Immigration Reform were really this is, there was a realization after this administration that was not likely. So there have now been attempts to try to move things in a more piecemeal kind of fashion, but here we are taking, and a group of members, a Bipartisan Group with some conservative republicans and some less conservative or liberal democrats, im working on it Agricultural Labor which is an area where we think it is easier for republicans to provide a path to legalization and increase the number of visas available for example. So under this area you have to crawl before you can run. Weve been working on a package that will both provide a Legalization Program or undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. That provides reform to the aca program to make cornell a more streamlined program. I didnt easier to use more business friendly but still protect Workers Program and then we can get all that working, and force it by, and im afraid of the reaction from some in this room but also, i also then instituting mandatoryeverify in the agricultural sector. As a kind of way of, those are the traits. And that is what again, i dont believe that youre ever going to get a legalization, youre not going to have the two pieces so in the interest of moving the ball forward, billing bipartisan support and getting members to talk to each other and feel like we can do things in this area, this is an effort we think is worthwhile. Its meaningful to me. Its something i wanted to champion for a long time. Were working with ngos and united farmworkers and farmworker justice and grower associations across the political gannets. Anyway, so im excited. I hope that we can have the release in house, we have republicans rooting for us to get out of the house they can try to move it over in the senate. It might come back differently than the way we set it over. But we will see. And maybe the senate has the oversight to do this summer. Yes. And there are a lot of, well there are some important republican senators who are in discussions with us and the republicans that we are seeking to, rooting for us and knowwhat our package looks like. And would like to see it come out of the house and they think they can take it over there. When mcconnell let it go to the floor, will this president and even millers it and use my language, crap all over it, thats possible youve got to try. But having seen the city, do you think that kind of dealmaking is a down payment for the larger deal at some point after mark. I think so. Our idea is this whole comprehensive reform, you have a sector that clearly is dependent on immigrants. You have a lot of very conservative republican farmers who recognize that and go to their republicans and say we need these people, you cant just deport them. If you deportthem, we close down and we cant just replace them, there are 1 million of them and they know where to go. They. Across an ac our country and theyre willing to take political hits. They can do things back home and talk about population away where they dont get the political blowback you seen in other areas so werehoping that by , theyre taking those same things you would normally hear various republicans say and were hoping that case. And people get comfortable with that. And that if you can show how thiscan help improve that sector. And both the business friendly and worker friendly and also enforces in a way where you can argue that is not a magnet for future unlawful migration. Im still stuck in the old ways of talking. You know, and i just say i wanted to say one thing because this might be useful. We need to stop talking about for instance lose the phrase right with the law. Maybe. But i will say that you have to understand if youre going to achieve political success on the hill and get legislationthrough two houses and get to a president decided, to understand the other side. Never going to get everything we want. I just dont believe its ever going to happen so you have to understand how to compromise and understand what the other side wants and how what motivation and this is many of you know this is the way i think but i think democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives are wired differently. We are wired to the justice oriented and outcome oriented oriented. How do we interpret the law to make sure that its results in the most just outcome. And republicans, by saying what are the rules . Did you follow the rules or did you not . What does it say, what doesnt it and thats the way they approach the issues you want to understand that they have a real legitimate some of themare motivated by other things. But those who are motivated by just rule of law, you have to figure out how to deal with that and it isabout , they that the rules were antiquated and that their hearts pathways, legal pathways to meet our Economic Needs but you still have to recognize that people did something unlawful or are unlawful and you can just hide area you have to provide a way to get right with the law or to become lawful or two please legalize your status however it is. And to try, youre not going to be able to get around rhetoric and i think trying to do so maybe creates even more distance between two sides. So thats my view. I dont want to see. I have to be blessed and maybe well get your turn to answer. So camille to introduce herself and ask a question. I have a question for ceciliadavid maybe you can speak because i want to make one around gary farmworkers. Okay, good. Cecilia, i have, i guess my question is the backdrop of how this president has an ministration is destroying what it means to the judiciary, we see that the immigration court, how many deportation orders are unjust in the first place but also how theyre receiving judiciary, thebench. I worry that all these lawsuits eventually the way that they are reshaping the way the executive impacts and the enormous powers they have on immigration policy is going to backfire on us in the long term because if congress doesnt get it back together, no offense but not much there either so if we are reshaping how the executive interacts with immigration policies through our courts as they are themselves reshaping, its just very convoluted and complex and dangerous and you leave the beltway, you go into the community and their extremely hard decisions a message to communicate and when im sitting in upstate county jail talking to women from texas who got caught at the border and got turned around, that she heard our president on tv said we dont want asylumseekers, its meaningless the ninth circuit said leaving new mexico is illegalbut you didnt prove your requirements. I guess i have to responses, whats the alternative . If you dont challenge the policies they are law. So i think yes, we should take to the battle. We should be mindful of counting votes in the Supreme Court. We should try to figure out how to deploy certain courts that we believe will be inhospitable and there are different tactics you can use to try to do that but i think at the end of the day ill start with less than one in my opening remarks which is we dont have any choice because if you dont challenge people, challenge the policies, you dont get relief. They become law. Of the eight major asylum policies, we challenged through the systematic cases, all of them except for the third asylum and number two are currently enjoying. So i think we have to yes, we should be careful about the collateral impact of losses as well as victories in the litigation. I totally hear you about how we talk to affected communities about the lawsuit and orders in them, but we should be careful about how we bring cases in which cases we bring what i dont see any alternative, otherwise we will be stuck with what weve got. My second i agree with that. The second response is that, actually i have three responses. The second response is i think theres a limit to what an article prejudge is willing to put up with. I think this president is extreme. I think weve seen plenty of republicans appointed judges, federal judges ruling against this administration and the overall art of immigrants like litigation and other litigation touching on the immigration power and more broadly Foreign Affairs power thats related is that i came back to the aclu in 2004 to litigate against the george w. Bush administration torture policy and all we had to do was walk in a court and hear the government lawyer doj say i represent the United States national security, and of case. Youre dismissed. Thats not the case anymore, even with the muslim band which finally was a relatively tough case about the president s exercise of power. And finally a third very quick is i think our siblings in other social Justice Movements are thinking a lot about how to avoid the us to bring court now. A lot of them have more options and immigrants and advocates do in state courts but we do have state court avenues and we got a lot of interesting results in state Supreme Courts on detainer policy under state constitutional law, for example or through state legislative relief in california. Great, thank you. Thank you, my question is regards to tps. I have three questions for each of you so for california , california as a Large Population of tps holders and im wondering whatever happened with the courts or inaction of congress . Is there a plan for the road to undocumented status as these families involved and like you said its multistatus families , i dont think aclu is litigating on any of the cases. Ive seen one insouthern california. What is does the room look like is there a path to the Supreme Court, theres a hearing, one of the reality was that its more likely the Supreme Court willtake it up the government requested , not the plaintiff so can you just talk about the landscape of that entity in particular. Also in the context of Foreign Policy because these are individual countries and we hear through the Third Country National sacred for example el salvador, how to play the decision, can be brought to court, what happens in the course, theres a lot if you could share. Is for you david, when you bring up tes in the room for when youre trading in battery analyzed, what does tes bring because that is what is happening with the programs and when immigrant rights advocates they do not other immigrant communities against each other , we want you to hold proenforcement into community how do you make sure you represent that voice in the negotiations . I dont know why. I have no idea where im going first. But im working on two hours of sleep ive been traveling and i want to say that. Is an investment that california is made in supporting immigration , legal remedies for populations. We have over the course of this multitier investment target different populations and strategies, tps has been one so we focus dollars and commitment and resource to the support those who are tps, the tps population across the state and alsojust ensuring are not missing anything in terms of any other potential remedy that they might be eligible for. So one, i dont know if you noticed, there you are. Tps b is in greenville, you know that, just making sure. So i actually think its easier to deal with tps is even the population because of, one, how long theyve beenhere in unlawful status. Though its just an issue where a lot of republicans didnt even know existed, a lot of democrats didnt know existed until the administration decided to no longer continue the two issue tps detonations. So again, i will reiterate that no matter what we do, is likely going to require kind of tradeoff and its just the way our institution is. It is not, i just hope that what youre hearing is a reflection of reality and not necessarily a kind of a normative there were times where, so the big route or big right from the republican side with tps is it was a temporary program and if you look at the statute 244, actually, theres a lot in there that safe we need to be temporary and in the sense that any effort to move a bill to provide permanent residence to gpl, tps holders is subject to a point of order in the senate. How much when commerce and want to make sure they codify this idea that this is the temporary only. Theyre upset that it wasnt temporary and every administration, youve got the holders forall 29 years from liberia. And yes, rightfully so wideawake. Im not trying to, but thats their right. So there were times where there were offers to provide permanent status to tps and eee holders but change the statute to make it even more, just make it temporary. We need to start for real thistime language. And we never move forward with that. Im not sure that even possible now. This ministration one alot more than that. But you know, it was one of those things where theres a lot of confusion on our side as to what the deal is and what is and if you were to ask eps holders a lot of them would say a great deal, doing real people are now and youre essentially making it harder for people in the future tosay that the tradeoff work making. Others dont agree and it splits us and we dont ever coalesce around a particular idea sonothing happens. Thats just a real dynamic im just trying to shed light on the i cant tell you now that i know what we would do or what the outcome is. I will say that hopefully theres a click and there are people who have had status for for 20 years for 30 years and theyre about to lose it, that will be easier to cross the finish line. Even if its temporary. I have two minutes left. We didnt have too much control over how we began but we have a lot of control over how we react so i just want to give the last 32nd each to all of our analysts and if you had asked from your respect to purchase, if you were to ask this audience what they can do to improve or help the kind of work that you do, what would that be . I think since were here, ill tailor my message to the students and that is if you for signing up and makingthis commitment. Keep going i think one thing im certainly grateful in addition the investment we made, we made an investment in Capacity Building. So fellowship, really building the capacity of the community to the present and support populations in our larger immigrants efforts so that you for being part of that asset building efforts and lisa continue on that. Hopefully that all members already. And with what i started with an but what david said. I think. Look, i dont like to think of myself as politically nacve. I dont think i am but i understand that anything that happens legislatively is going to be the product of compromise and there will be wins and losses involved. But when i say that we need to move beyond the language of lawbreaking and the frame oflawbreaking , i really mean that for those of us in the movement. And hopefully for those of us who, those in congress and in statehouses who represent our views. Or those of us in themovement and immigrant communities. In the summer of 2014, the Obama Administration was talking about a surge and the president and Vice President , secretary of Homeland Security declared that nobody coming from Central America was eligible for asylum and they would detain and rapidly before people explicitly for deterrencepurposes. And its not that far only from a surge to an invasion not that far only doctrinally from the detention and expedited removal to what we see now. Legally i thinktheres a big difference. And we have sued the Obama Administration in the summer of 2014 says we are suing ministration now i think its important for us not to buy into those frames. Last one. So you know, theres two things i want to say. One, billy and i think its belief system and being your values. Again some people do not vo vote. There are consequences to that. So you need for the people to stand up for immigrants to have power. And you need that to happen. If those other people you care about. The other thing i would say challenges is a little bit and what is typical if youre on the hill, that we dont think of ourselves as god and we dont know to do, we have to go to the outside and go to the immigrant communities in the ngos to understand what good trade is for good policy, we need the support of the communities. And if theyre all over the place or in a no trade mentality, we want to be pure, then it makes it very difficult for us to cut a deal of some kind. Im just saying that because that is something that i recognize in my time as well. So you at least need some voices on the outside, maybe not locally but at least in the room to be very pragmatic and to be able to guide us in a way that we feel that we can move forward without violating our value. Lets get around of applause, since this is the last panel, and a privilege to think all of you for coming in and staying with us all day. I want t think everybody for the six turner conference and we will see you next year. State troubles. [applause] thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] that finishes todays coverage on Immigration Law and u. S. Migration policy. Tonight and nine eastern we will reair Homeland Security secretary kevin mcaleenans appearance at todays event when he was forced to leave the stage after being interrupted multiple times by protesters. That was followed by immigration policy in the 2020 election cycle. You can see that a nine eastern on cspan. Before that live coverage of the debate between Canadian Party leaders including crime the october tourney First Federal election. That begins live at 7 00 p. M. Eastern also on cspan. Tonight on the communicators, Michael Oreilly on the d. C. Federal Appeals Agency that they can repeal Net Neutrality but cannot block state laws. Depending on what you see, number things that are factored and tried to do certain things i disagree with and you probably see others to jump into the debate in 15 different other states. Us in different direction is not what the structure should be and its not interstate commerce its why we have a commerce clause. And it is not something that they have expertise in because of supposed to have intrastate traffic. My definition and structure and analysis of the architecture, there is no traffic on the internet. Tonight at the eastern on cspan2. Cspan washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. Coming up tuesday morning, andrew pollock whose daughter meadow died in the 2018 parkland, florida mass shooting discusses School Safety and why meadow died. Nation Magazine Editor talks about campaign 2020 and the candidates for the democratic nomination. Watch cspan washington journal live at seven eastern on tuesday morning. Be sure to watch washington Journal Wednesday at 7 00 a. M. Eastern as a cspan continues on the 2020 battleground states tour across the country. On wednesday we will visits about around state of pennsylvania. New york representative alexandria ocasiocortez held a town hall to talk about legislation she is proposing
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.