Passionate health care provider, a dhaka recipient and i am here today as a plaintiff. My family and i moved to the United States when i was nine years old my parents were working long hours at the restaurant to help our family achieve the american dream. Calling their example, i went on to become the first undocumented person to graduate from medical school. I am also a graduate of the university of california berkeley and the Harvard School of public health. I have gone on first een named the to promote this organization that works for undocumented students in their pursuit of health careers. I have made it my life mission not only to improve the health of all communities as a doctor but also to afford others who share that same mission paradigm here today to share my story, and the stories of everyone who is here today and those who could not be here. Two years ago when i met david, a 15yearold unaccompanied minor who walk through our doors at the San Francisco hospital. As i was treating his asthma, i could not help but be reminded about thehesitation health care system. It is my familys expenses that allowed me to walk on the path that im on today and have allowed me to provide compassionate and effective care to people like david. Today i am one of almost 200 undocumented medical students could nottca we complete training, and without it the health and wellbeing of all the families we care for will offer will also suffer. I hope today that the Supreme Court will uphold eventually da is legal and constitutional and it has been highly effective for undocumented immigrants and our entire country. Ending get simply would be consequential for all of us. Today i look around and see my friends, my community and everyone is here to fight to be a part of the country we love. Everybody deserves happiness, deserves safety in place we call home. I am thankful to have been in the courtroom today to make sure that our voices were heard as the decisions were made, and to make sure this country knows our home is here. Thank you. The attorney general for the state of california, we along with a number of others, along with states like new york filed actions as well. I first want to say, to the dreamers who have come, we all stand on their shoulders to try to make the case that no one is above the law and everyone must respect the law. We learned from a very early age there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Tried toal government terminate the program the wrong way. Just as our parents would tell us or as a referee on the field would tell you, if you do it the wrong way, you get penalized. Try to alterration what it did and tried to correct what it did by moving the goalpost to justify the unlawful actions. Just as any parent would tell you or any referee would tell you, and i hope the nine justices of the Supreme Court will tell you, do it the wrong way, you cannot try to move the goalpost. Today we stand here very proud of the arguments that made on behalf of of the more than 700,000 recipients, and substantially many more dreamers, so many more immigrants who are waiting to come out of the shadows. We are here to say that we understand that this nation is based on the rule of law and we understand that there is a right way and a wrong way. We are here to stand up for the right way and that is why we believe that the recipients, the dreamers of america and emigrants who must live in the shadow will someday get to prove that the justices got it done the right way and we are very proud of that. I will now turn the microphone over to my your friend from new york, the attorney general. I want to say thank you to the seven hundred dreamers in this country including the 42,000 from new york state. I think it is important that there are two issues that were discussed today, whether or not the termination of this program should be reviewed by the court. The answer is clear. The courts have wide discretion with respect to this question. And on the merits, whether or not the reasons that were provided were adequate, and the answer is no. They came and made remarks both , with respect to the termination and the rescission and what we say is if you are going to resend this program, should take into account that significant numbers who have filed over three hundred briefs have relied upon healthogram for institutions and higher educations and businesses. I particularly want to single out micro pots microsoft for all they have done or defending this program. It is important that again by terminating this program would theide great distress to countless number of individuals who are here and who arrived here under the age of 16 to live and to go to school and to work. Terminatet, we cannot and or rescind a program for countless numbers have relied upon a stunning whim or based on the fact that individuals decided that they wanted to and it. I think the words of the justice were critically important, who indicated that it was the president who said that he would recipients, protect the recipients and he has failed to do so. As a result of those statements coming out of the mouth of the president of the United States, this court should understand this is a nation of immigrants and that all of us should uphold the values of our country and are here toigrants stay. We need to perfect protect these individuals who came here for opportunity and for freedom. In the great state of new york, it is an honorary religion to be here and to represent this coalition who filed on behalf of these individuals. Good afternoon. Aa recipient. I am honored to stand here in front of you continuing our fight. I am from the suburbs of long island which has been my home for the last 17 years. This is our home. Program forever changed my life. It allowed me the opportunity to come out of the shadows and finish college and become a homeowner. As a parent, defending this program is my duty. My children are the reason why i will work walked to 30 miles to washington, d. C. No physical compared to the emotional pain i will feel if we are ever separated. My children deserve to stay with their mother in the place they call home. I hope that the justices can see andhumanity and our work our contribution that we make to this country. Therefore i hope that they rule on the right side of history. I believe that we will win. Our fight is not over after today. Andy we fight for daca tomorrow it will be for citizenship. All of the marchers that were with me, i admire you and you have inspired me to continue fighting not only for the recipients but for the 11 million undocumented people who live here. [speaking spanish] we will try to take if you questions and then we will go ahead and let others speak, but i know there are others that want to speak. We will try to take some quick questions. Secretary whoe can i ask the secretary a question. I am the secretary of Homeland Security and i authored the memo that created this program, and now i am privileged to serve as the president of the university of california, the First University to have sustained the program. Here with 17 hundred plus students in our student body, they are undergraduates and law and medical students. So the interest in this case is immense. Even one of the justices said today, and i would like you to camera, what is the point . If we send this back and all they have to do is jump through some sort of hoops, what is the point . Rhetoricale than hoops. They have to really analyze the benefits that this program produces, which are substantial and have been evidenced by and in all of the briefs that have been filed. If theyhope that actually did a real analysis of daca they would recognize this is a valid exercise of this authority. I am undocumented and unafraid and here to stay. I stand here in this courtroom to be clear that the lives of undocumented,000 people are at stake. I am optimistic that the justices will file on the side of justice. Whether or not they do, undocumented organizing and young people across the country will fight and we will continue to win and establish the role of law because it is this moment that these people are standing to defend the democracy that we cherish. We are excited that our partners all across the country have been here, and thousands of people are here and we believe we will win. This was a Program Announced and administered bytary napolitano and it made perfect sense to designate individuals who came to this country as been vetted have and committed no crimes and the government does not have the authority or the power or resources to move with respect , soeportation proceedings these individuals are the last persons in the world that we want to evict from this country. This policy made perfect sense to everyone, most people realize that this administration does not want to take responsibility for terminating it and gave the excuse by the attorney general sessions that it was unlawful and had to be terminated. That was an excuse that made no sense, the policy was lawful and constitutional and so the reason why the attorney general and administration said they were terminating it because it was unlawful is that they did not want to take ownership of the decisions heard they did not want to be responsible to the people of this country and to all of the individuals involved in this program that they were going to enforce the law against them. If they had done that, they wouldve had to explain to people what this program has meant and why it was being terminated. They would have to take the blame and accountability, and the reason they did not want to do that, to take responsibility for the decision, so they said they had no choice, no destruction discretion. Thats what we were arguing about, if they had reason and to explain their decision, they would have done it. They did not. And they will not. We were asked what difference does it make, it will be sent back and they will make the same decision and explain the reasons. I do not think so. They do not want to take responsibility for this decision. They do not want to own this decision and they will not do it. If we are successful and i believe we will be. The court will say that decision was not justifiable, not consistent with the rule of law. You cannot justify it that way and it cannot be sustained that way. Go back if you want to do it and do it right. And they will not. Court does sustain the decision and doesnt even have to say the program was illegal, they could say all kinds of things, what will be the impact of that . It would probably be june of 20 20, what would be the impact . Thats one of the reasons they will not do this. If they had to make this decision in 20 in an election year, they would have to explain why they were making this cruel decision. These individuals have become part of the community and they have had jobs and they have had thousands of children where they have become a part of the community. They have jobs. They served in the armed forces. If youre going to rip them out of that when they came here as children and threatened them to be sent to countries that they dont even know or they may not even understand, they will not do that. If they have to take if that is what our government is about, you will make decisions, you have to take responsibility for those decisions. If you are afraid to do that and do not do that, thats what will happen. They will not make that decision. How can you explain the work permits . The congress has passed a statute that says that if a person is in a deferred action beegory, that person may given and there are regulations, that person may be given authorization if they apply for it and meet all of the standards. That makes perfect sense that someone that the administration has decided is not going to be deported is in a position to support himself or herself and be a part of the community rather than be depended upon the government. What once the decision is made, there are statutes authorizing the application for permission to work those are laws which the government has not even challenged. Do not have a particular site for that. We will get you the actual citation of the statute could believe me, no one challenge that. It is a law and the government does not dispute that. [speaking spanish] any other questions . Thank you. [indiscernible conversations] where live fromout side the u. S. Supreme court here on cspan, oral argument in the daca case wrapped up. Scheduled to begin at 10 00 eastern time. Justices were to hear about 80 minutes of argument today. Well have the oral argument in the case in prime time on friday on cspan2 you can always check our page online on the Supreme Court at cspan. Org. Coming up at the top of the hour, actually any moment now, live, President Trump will be delirg remarks at the Economic Club of new york. Expecting this to start shortly. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome barbara van allen, president of the Economic Club of new york. Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone. Barbara van allen, es