Transcripts For CSPAN3 American Artifacts 20151019 : vimarsa

CSPAN3 American Artifacts October 19, 2015

To the advocacy groups more broadly to the changes . Are you still absorbing it . A wait and see approach . Thanks for the question, lynden. The American Immigration Lawyers Association ultimately opposed the secure Communities Program that mary described. There was so much controversy about the program. We opposed it largely based on the impact within the communities as well as the legality and the constitutionality of the detainer hold requests being used on a widespread basis where immigration Customs Enforcement would request that a local Law Enforcement agency would hold somebody for a longer period of time foreign a immigration purpose even though the local Law Enforcement agency was done with that purposes. Ala ultimately opposed secure communities. And as lynden was flagging on november 20th when the memo came out we were pleased that the secretary had signalled a need for a reboot of the program. The memo that the secretary issued specifically referenced conference that several federal courts had issued decisions considering the constitutionality of the secure Communities Program and the use of these detainers. We were glad that there was that recognition of the constitutionality of this being one of the issues. As for where we stand now, we havent issued a specific formal position about p. E. P. The analysis that we are looking at the issue from specifically concerns the legality and the constitutionality of the program. As mary mentioned, the use of the detainers will no longer be the default mechanism, so were pleased that there is at least some shift away from holding people, depriving them of their liberty without probable cause is the basic framework, its the Fourth Amendment analysis drawing upon the constitutional law backgrounds from law school. Thats the basic framework. At least it wont be the default practice. But the memo itself on november 20th was not Crystal Clear about what circumstances it will still be done and it uses language such as in special circumstances detainers will be issued. What are special circumstances . We dont know yet. From a. L. A. s perspective the way detainers had been issued without a requirement of probable cause, without a judge reviewing a decision, which is the typical way its done in criminal justice, that a judge issues a warrant for somebody to then be held. That has never been the practice for i. C. E. And that should be the practice. We are waiting to see how it is done, and one of the challenges that we know i. C. E. And dhs are now proactively, aggressively going out, meeting with Law Enforcement, sheriffs and police to try to in a sense sell the program to gain the collaboration. We think those conversations are important. But there hasnt been any transparency yet from the federal agency itself as to what is the baseline for what will be acceptable from a constitutional perspective. Because there are certain cities that new york or chicago that we know will think thoughtfully about how to protect all its community members. Others jurisdictions there is no concern whatsoever for the constitution, quite frankly and there is a possibility that they would allow for detainers to be issued by i. C. E. And respect those detainers without making sure to protect the Constitutional Rights of those who apply to them. I would say that would be our concern. The last thing ill mention since, lynden, you mentioned the issue of sanctuary cities is a tragic murder which happened in San Francisco which is my home town of a young woman shot while walking on a wharf by somebody who was undocumented. This opened up the issue in the media and caused the congress to look at this in the month of july. I think well face similar conversations throughout the month and when Congress Returns theyll look at it again. The bigpicture perspective as it applies to this specific program is some kind of coordination is going to be helpful between states and localities and federal Immigration Enforcement. The question is how do you do it without this is probably the broader issue how do you do it without scaring communities to think that, if they work with, if they report crimes and go to the police for protection that they themselves arent going to end up being deported. A woman from washington state, Domestic Violence advocate who worked in washington for years came to testify before the senate in july. One example that sticks in my mind is a 5yearold girl in colorado who was apparently sexually assaulted by somebody. And the parents were undocumented. And the parents, in talking with other immigrants, decided were not going to report this crime to the police because youre going to get deported if you even go to the police. Not only was that tragic in itself, but i guess a year later that same perpetrator sexually assaulted another young child. It was only then that the families came forward and reported it. I think both families were undocumented. Thats the other side of this question of how do you keep the communities safe . If there is too much collaboration viewed from the perspective of the community between Immigration Enforcement and local Law Enforcement, because local Law Enforcements main task is community safety, not necessarily Immigration Enforcement, which is typically seen as civil. If there is too much collaboration then the Community Gets afraid. That doesnt help anybody in terms of community safety. Mary, you want to chime in . Yeah, just because i think its really important to recognize and understand that people are taking these issues very seriously been dhs and that that effort to try to find the right balance is one of the reasons why i think the know fication component of p. E. P. Is so important and offers the sweet spot for many communities. But i think that we also have to sort of step back and recall that one of the reasons why this sort of ongoing issue of trust is so great is, again, part of this systemic problem that we dont have comprehensive immigration reform. And i occasionally people are like, youre just going back to the poly annaish this would solve everything. It wouldnt. If we got comprehensive immigration reform, there are still a whole series of other things that need to be fixed. But it would recalibrate the balance between enforcement and benefits issues that exist in the law. As long as we have a system where, even with our best efforts, there really are very few alternatives for people once theyre in the removal process, those fears that greg is identifying will be very real. And even in the most perfect of worlds were not going to be able to fix all of those problems. But we can make, i think, a great advancement toward it if we actually start looking at the p. E. P. Program and some of the other initiatives that the administration is trying to do as a way to reach some levelve consensus. So weve heard what the administration has done, a bit of a waitandsee approach. Gary, youre new on the hill, but in the prioritization of what you see happening in the fall, is that is the Emotional Energy on this issue translating into legislative activity or are there other priorities stacked up right now . Thanks, lynden, before i start i am supposed to say i am here not speaking on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee or its members. I guess that leaves me free to say almost anything. Let me rephrase my question, then. [ laughter ] so, working for the ranking democrat in the immigration subcommittee who was a vocal opponent of secure communities. We believe that p. E. P. Is heading in the right direction. To gregs point we continue to have concerns with the constitutionality of detainers. So we will be monitoring p. E. P. As it is implemented. In terms of legislative action, the house mercifully prior to my arrival. Not the passage but prior to my arrival did take action on a bill, hr 3009, the House Democrat democrats were nearly unanimous in opposition to the bill. It would have taken money away from local Law Enforcement for those jurisdictions that did not cooperate, either because of the constitutional issues or because of the community trust, Law Enforcement issues that greg talked about. The senate is has a markup scheduled for september to look at its own legislation. Well see how that comes down. I think well maintain our opposition to legislation, legislative proposals that undermine community Law Enforcement and dont deal with the constitutional issues out there. I also think, you know, well see what happens as we get through the august recess and whether anything else trumps this issue. Pun intended. [ laughter ] and just to follow up on the legislative, at the end of the fiscal year there are expiring authorizations in the immigration realm. Are folks already looking at those and those have their own issues in terms of if they sunset and impact on the immigration program. Right. We have four programs set to n sunset september 30th. The eb 5 immigrant Investor Program where people can invest a million or 500,000 in a targeted employment area to get a green card for their individual spouse and family members, children. We have a conrad state 30 med for a medical Doctor Program for doctors who serve in medically underserved areas, religious worker bill. There are discussions going on right now, robust discussions to extend the programs. I think eb 5 has been a real focus around new needed integrity measures, making sure that these projects, the offerings around the projects are subjects to securities laws, and also the addressings making sure that targeted employment areas meet the spirit of the law and we dont have sort of gerrymandering and crazily drawn teas. Were looking at that right now. I guess as the term is cautiously optimistic that the programs will be extended before the september 30th sunset. I suppose another option or possibility out there is that we have a continuing resolution and the programs get a shortterm extension if we dont have a deal to extend them otherwise. Great. All right. Lets turn to the challenges, particularly during the summer, with unaccompanied minors. I know this chart is a little bit tough to read here up on the screen. But youll see there was nothing short of a significant increase in the number of unaccompanied children who were apprehended or encountered on the southern border really beginning in the end of 2013 and into 2014. Just to clarify, were really focused on children from el salvador, guatemala and honduras. The numbers from mexico did not see a similar spike as you saw from the Central American countries. So i think were going to turn to greg now to give us a little insight about whats going on, what have been the challenges for the administration on this issue. Thanks, lynden. So, if there is an issue that has really placed the administration in a difficult spot, both in terms of its policies and the grand picture of whats happening with border and imbrags policy and the humanitarian responsibility for people seeking asylum in the United States, what happened in Central America that is partly on the board in terms of the statistics is probably what most captures a difficult moment now. What we saw happen in 2014 was not just an increase in the numbers of unaccompanied children coming here to the United States from primarily those three countries, el salvador, guatemala and honduras, but adults as well and family units in much larger numbers. The approximate number is 70,000 unaccompanied children and families and family units, about the same number of families. Youre talking a sizable but not a huge number. Not hundreds of thousands. Were talking tens of thousands of people coming here. Over 100,000. The spike was anticipated by those working in the state department or those who work in International Crisis areas. Largely due to the crisis thats happening in Central America from inability of the state to respond to gang violence, Domestic Violence, and the murder rates now in honduras and el salvador are higher than theyve ever been. The capitals of the cities are in the top two or three of the murder capitals of the world. Domestic violence. There is very little capacity for those governments to be able to respond to incidents of Domestic Violence and typically reports of those either go completely uninvestigated or are even sanctioned to a certain extent by Law Enforcement. So that is the crisis that fueled what was a large migration out of those countries. So that is the real root cause that needs to be looked at here. What happened with the spike last year, unfortunately, put the Obama Administration in a very difficult place. What we saw happening was increased border restrictions and tightening of apprehensions, placing of families in detention, also shortterm detaining of the children in violation of a 2008 law that was designed to protect trafficking victims and unaccompanied children coming to the United States. I will just say that, for an association of about 14,000 Immigration Lawyers, we tend to be lawyers that are rather stodgy on any issue. Were not the rabble rousing crowd but i have never seen an issue galvanize an organization more than this in the years ive worked where aila because of the depth of concern for in particular weve seen on a continuing basis families really mothers and young children, toddlers and infants who are still nursing being deta detained on the level of thousands of people in facilities that have been placed set up very quickly since last july. And there was one set up in new mexico that was shut down in november that had five or six hundred people. Mainly because the conditions were not adequate. Two are now operating in texas that total have about 1500 people, families, detained this. For some context, in 2009 a facility that was so used in texas also for family detention was shut down because of lawsuits brought against the conditions and the inhumane situation there of detaining families in a jaillike circumstance. So that continues now. A. I. L. A. And several other few other nonprofit organizations have been trying with volunteer efforts to provide some Legal Counsel for the families there. Its heartbreaking. I am on the phone regularly with volunteer staff working there in texas near san antonio. These are lawyers many of whom dont do immigration fulltime or have decided to take vacation and go work with the families. These attorneys who are crying because the mothers Mental Health is deteriorating. The children are losing weight. 12 or 15pound babies who have lost a third of their weight. At risk of their health. Its tearing apart my own association, the gravity of the situation. The governments need to do this generates from political pressure, to demonstrate that it has the borders in control and that it has a tough border policy and its not going to let hundreds of thousands of people come across. Thats in direct association with our asylum responsibilities. The rates at which these people are qualifying in initial interviews for asylum is extremely high. 70 , 80 , 90 of the people who are initially interviewed to see if they have whats called a credible fear demonstrated to qualify for asylum. Thats much higher than the National Average of 60 typically. These people are fleeing for their lives. Where we stand now in to sum up, the administration has continued with this policy. I dont think it will change anytime soon in terms of the detention of the families. And the there have been two lawsuits that were filed that have reached kind of decisions, one in february, the court issued a preliminary injunction. The d. C. District court and more recently a few days ago, federal court in los angeles issued a sd decision. I wont go into the details right now because of the time. He is nodding over here. But the summary is that there are real concerns about the practice of what the government is doing. The government needs to change how it is treating these families. It cannot hold them long term. It needs to release them on an expedited basis. It cannot be holding these families on the justification that it wants to deter more people from coming. Detention has to be done on an individualized basis, whether the person poses a threat to the community or a flight risk. Ill stop there. Thats kind of where the situation stands now. And feel free to take questions. I just want to quote on family detention. Its unacceptable, unamerican and will end. I do think, though, its important to point out that, throughout the entire issue there has consistently been an evolution of the governments approach and attention to these issues. The vast majority of people have not been detained but have either been released on their own recognizance, under a bond or otherwise, in some form of alternatives to detention. Even in the categories of the folks who have been at issue in the lawsuit, as the lawsuits and other things were progressing the secretary was moving more and more towards using those facilities as Processing Centers to very quickly address, i think, a lot of the issues that greg was raising in terms of the high level of credible fear and reasonable fear that people were getting. These things are always difficult issues but there really is a great deal, i think, to the way the government has attempted to continually reassess wh

© 2025 Vimarsana