Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Conference Of Mayors Panel On Immigration 20180126

Issues of importance to the latino community, larger than just immigration because we care about education and Economic Development and other things, that in your cities where there are large populations of latinos , that there is a great bipartisan consensus on an agenda to move forward. We will be talking about some of our defensive measures today, but i wanted to say that it is important for all of us to stay proactive and make sure that while we are doing what is right, doing what works, and doing what will help this nation move forward on immigration policy, that we not only point out the things that we think need to be fixed and solved by washington, but the ways that American Cities in particular are innovating in that space. The hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of residents in america who qualify for citizenship but have not filled out their forms. The ways we can reach out in moments of insecurity to make sure our streets are safe. To make sure that our Small Businesses are starting up. And to make sure that the families are kept whole. It is been a privilege to lead the latino alliance, and i want to thank the conference for putting that alliance together. I also want to thank our great staffer that has helped put together an Exciting Program as well. For the past year, a lot of our energies have been consumed by the whims of washington. We see everchanging movements even just yesterday. I have been so impressed by this conference and the north, south, east, west, republican, democratic, independent, to be able to continue marching forward. The federal government is sometimes talking about deporting communities where we want to help build them up. Building community is what this is all about today. We see in congress a lot of discussions that happens sometimes without our people at the table. The people we represent or even the voices of their leaders. We know we are best when no one is left behind. Since last year, when we all sat together, coming together, bipartisan mayors, saying lets pass bipartisan immigration , we want to also be able to make sure that we have a strong agenda to move forward with some of the tactical issues before us, from dreamers to some of the work we can do to continue to look at what we need to do in our communities, and our integration with ice and federal authorities. And the work that we need to say loudly and clearly as we have that knowledge from the ground. I want to share a quick story. Some of you heard this yesterday. And then i will hand it over to mayor tate. The worst phone call a mayor can get is hearing that a Police Officer has been shot in your city. I got that call in december. It was a korean immigrant who had come to america to study and in she ended up being a los angeles Police Officer. She graduated last year. She had been on the job for less than a year. During a normal traffic stop, she and her partner were fired on by somebody down the street who saw two people wearing a badge and decided to kill them. Nine shots later, eight of them did not hit anyone but one hit her. Thankfully, it was in her leg. She was rushed to the hospital helped to save her, and she is back at home recovering after some intense trauma. We were able to find that wouldbe assassin of a Police Officer, because of the work we had done in our Law Enforcement and the immigrant communities. Many folks, who probably were undocumented, said he went that way. In a halfhour, they found the shooter in a store and were able to charge him. This is something that should transcend our politics. At moments of need or trauma or aspiration and hope, we know how important immigrants have been. And on behalf of the alliance, the fastgrowing latino population has been and continues to be in our cities. We look forward to opening this up on the immigration agenda and the latino agenda. To toss it over to tom tate. Mr. Tate thank you for your leadership on this issue for years. My name is tom tate. I am the mayor of anaheim. Anaheim is a city of about 360,000 people. Maybe 70,000 people in our city are undocumented and thousands are dreamers. The reason this mayors conference is passionate about these issues is that mayors deal with these issues firsthand. The dreamers are our neighbors. Our friends. We know them. They all share the American Dream. As mayors, we have come together in a bipartisan way, and so this issue needs to be solved. It needs to be solved by congress. We have been seeking comprehensive Immigration Reform for the past five years. But now this one is critical. There is a deadline. And maybe i am optimistic or maybe that is why i am optimistic is because there is a deadline. Sometimes it takes a deadline in congress for things to actually get done. Hopefully, we are close. Am a republican my cochair from providence is a democrat. He is from the east coast, while i am from the west coast. The symbolism is on purpose. Just about every mayor in this conference agrees with us on the need for reform on this issue. Last fall, we had a bipartisan day of action calling for passage of the dream act, in which a Bipartisan Group of mayors that with members of congress. Weve held several days of action. Weve sent letters to congress, but passage of the dream act still it eludes us. We know there are currently bipartisan efforts underway in congress to resolve the untenable situation in which Daca Recipients and their families find themselves. We must do everything we can to get congress and the president to accept these bipartisan efforts and pass the dream act. We are fortunate to have it does today two people to help us do that. We will first hear an update on where the dream act stands. Shes a senior policy attorney with an organization thats provided us with invaluable advice and assistance over the last two years. Then well hear from a dreamer who came to this country at the age of nine from korea. Overcame many hurdles, earned a college degree, and is now working in new york city and advocating on behalf of dreamers and for passage of the dream act. He will tell us what the impact of uncertain legal status and fear of deportation has been on him and his family. The floor is yours. Ill make one quick suggestion, i would ask mayors not to say your name and where youre from. But mayors, if you could introduce each other . Kevin richardson, lake barrington, illinois. Watts, denton, texas. Clara, gilmore, santa california. Michael vargas, perris, california. Kevin buckley, annapolis, maryland. It is a long swing from australia. And i am the mayor. Thank you. I am not a mayor, but i am the executive director of an Asian American civil rights organization. Durham, north carolina. Ocala, florida. Steve jones, mayor of garden grove. Central falls, rhode island. Union city, california. Emeryville, california. Karen freemanwilson, gary, indiana. Providence, rhode island. Anchorage, alaska. Gresham, oregon. Thank you, that was very helpful. Kansas city, missouri. Kalamazoo, michigan. Thank you so much, and thank you to all the organizers of this important event. Im very grateful to have all of you here in washington, d. C. , at a very timely moment in the struggle to protect those with daca and to protect all dreamers. As was said before, im avideh moussavian. Im a senior policy attorney with the National Immigration law center. For those of you who may not know our work, we are an organization that has been around for over 35 years. We are based in los angeles, but have an office here in washington, d. C. , and we are exclusively dedicated to advancing the rights and opportunities of low income immigrants. The issue of access to status for all the 11 million plus people who are here, the parents of dreamers who have their own dreams and are dreamers themselves, are extremely supported to us and making sure they are embedded into the fabric of our society through the recognition of granting them status as well as other rights and opportunities is really critical to our mission. I want to provide a little bit of context for how we got to the place we are in today. As many of you know, during the 20152016 campaign period, candidate trump very much campaigned on a platform promised to, among other things, both build a wall and also to terminate the daca program. As that happened, we entered the third, fourth, and then fifth year the daca programs existence. It has been in place since june of 2012. In that time, we have seen nothing but the unflagging successes of the program and what it has meant to transform the lives of the 800,000 people who have been granted daca and the many more who look forward to aging into the program. For the first several months of the administration, it was sort of left in an uncertain state. On september 5, that uncertainty , in ournd unfortunately view in what was in arbitrary, swift, and cruel manner, the entirety of the program was terminated. I want to be clear because i know it can be confusing to understand the contours of the program and what exactly happened on september 5, but at that time, and since then, 122 people have been losing daca every day. Some of you may have heard this idea that there is a march 5 deadline. That was only a temporary, basically an endpoint, for folks whose daca was expiring between september and march 5, they would have an opportunity if they had already applied for and received daca to renew it. What it meant for the many hundreds of thousands of people whose status expired after march 5, they would not have an opportunity to renew. I think that in terms of triage, we are dealing with a very suffering, someone who is very much in need of assistance, and instead, what we will see starting march 5 is a hemorrhaging of the pain that is being inflicted on communities. It is already present and has very much created a destabilizing effect for the many people who have daca, and also we cannot isolate communities. We know that folks with daca are siblings, colleagues, parents, teachers, Health Care Providers, neighbors, and so the idea that there is somehow someway to restrict and isolate the harm unfortunately is not at all the case. It has a very pronounced Ripple Effect on entire communities, as all of you know quite well. Since september 5, there has been an active push to urge congress to act now, not to wait until march 5, not to wait until any other date, but really to pass legislation. This is also not a new concept. Some version of a dream act has been introduced in congress for over 16 years now, and we have been fighting this fight with many of you for many years. It is something that has only increased in bipartisan support in that 16 plus years. Recent polls show 87 of americans from very diverse parts of the country want to see a permanent solution to make sure that people with daca have a pathway to status and a way to remain in our communities. Unfortunately, we obviously have had a lot of challenges on the congressional front. There has been an effort in this congress, probably no surprise, its very difficult to move things on their on. Much of the fight has revolved around the budget process, and democrats who are in the minority have used this as an opportunity to try to insist on the inclusion of some kind of daca legislation. There has been now bipartisan efforts where there has been a lot of support both in the house and in the senate. Some of you may be familiar that in the last couple of weeks, there is a house bill they currently has around 50 cosponsors, half of whom are republican and half of whom are democrat, that would ensure a permanent fix to daca and to allow for a path to citizenship. It also includes border provisions. Speaking on behalf of my organization, theres obviously things we would like to see different in that legislation. However, we recognize the importance of that kind of bipartisanship and reasonableness in trying to move the conversation forward. It has been very difficult with the backandforth in negotiations and real uncertainty around how the decisions are being made and who is making the decisions on behalf of the white house. As many of you know, not just with respect to daca, but with respect to other populations at risk of losing their protections or who have already lost their protections, including hundreds of thousands of salvadorans, nicaraguans, people from haiti, and soon the fate of syrians under temporary protected status is also under consideration. Theres a real fear around not just how decisions around dog are being made but other programs at risk. Currently, at the moment until february 8, there is a temporary continuing resolution on our budget that is in place. As you may have seen in the last 15 hours or so in the news cycle, there is once again very different signals coming from the white house in terms of what they are willing to consider with respect to any dream package, what has been made clear is that they are going to separate the pursuit of finalizing the budget and then also separately dealing with daca. I think it is extremely challenging to have a president who has a base that looks to him for an antiimmigrant agenda, while also having a president who i think would like to be viewed favorably and has made statements that suggest he wants to be viewed favorably by the dreamer population. I think those two things are inherently in conflict, which has made it incredibly challenging to rely on the statements from the white house as indicators of what may happen. What is clear, and what will remain true and consistent, regardless of the position of the white house between now and march 5, and certainly only more starkly clear after march 5, is that the pain and suffering that is happening in communities, in all of your communities, will only become more pronounced. What i would say to all of you is, as much as there is room to really push policies at the local level and the state level to advance protections, whether in the form of access to drivers licenses and Higher Education and allthat kind is the kinds of things that really help ensure that people are embedded and protected in their communities as much as possible, even in the absence of reforms in our federal immigration laws, and i think you all play a crucial role in uplifting the challenges and harms that you will see in only more increased ways in the coming weeks, and certainly after march 5, if we dont have a congressional resolution to this problem. On a parallel track, i just want to briefly mention that we are also fighting for dreamers in the courts. There are currently a number of cases that have been consolidated in california and there is a nationwide temporary injunction that was issued that allowed for not new daca applications, but for anybody who had previously applied, they may renew. On january 13, u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued guidance on what that process would look like. I think it is fair to say that there are large questions looming around how those applications will be processed, if the same deference to prior applications and the discretions that was used in prior applications will be applied by this administration again, what the timing will look like for processing those applications. This is an administration that has made it very clear they want to quickly appeal this and have the Supreme Court take this up, so the idea that the same agency that is fighting to maintain termination of the program will also be favorable to processing renewal applications is a little bit hard to reconcile. At the same time, there is also a court that we are cocounsel in in new york, and that is the that is advancing as well. There is an upcoming hearing on tuesday to argue for also another nationwide injunction that would actually be broader in scope and not just allow for renewal applications to go forward, but new firsttime applicants as well. I think it has been made clear by the judges presiding in these proceedings that they feel this is something that congress should address. That being said, i think this really reflects that there are multiple strategies we can engage in collectively to help fight to protect dreamers, even though ultimately the final and really permanent solution does lie with congress. I will pause there. Very good. Choi, a dreamer. Tony, please tell us your story. Tony good afternoon. Thank you to the United States conference on mayors are extending this invitation. I would also like to show my appreciation to mayor landrieu for showing strong leadership. My name is toni choi, and i am 29 years old. As of today, i have 315 days on my deferred action for childhood arrivals. This means that after 315 days, i will lose protections that guard me from being detained and return to home country that i have not seen in 20 years. While i may have the privilege of having a ticking time bomb above my head for the next 300 my peers get closer and closer to deportation and are falling out of the protections every single day, with some already falling on status. Despite many like senator cornyn saying there is no emergency until march 5, approximately 122 Daca Recipients are losing daca every single day. This is what will really happen on march 5. The number will skyrocket to more than a thousand a day. Every day, thousands of employers will have to let go of their qualified employees. It represents students without teachers, patients without health care workers, and Community Members who depend on each other to survive and thrive. More importantly, these are thousands of lives that are being shattered, thousands of families being broken up and ripped apart for no justifiable reason. This is already happening because of congressional inaction, as we witnessed last weekend. With every day that goes by, the prospect for dreamers grows dimmer. Ever since President Trumps into daca on september 5, we have all gotten our elected officials from both sides of the aisle, promises. All we had gotten were promises, in spite of 80 of americans, both republicans and democrats, wanting to pass a decision for Daca Recipients. This is also in spite of the fact that the Republican Attorney general of tennessee, who had been one of the litigants suing the Trump Administration to terminate daca, had withdrawn from the case and called on senators to find a solution. Recently i had the pleasure of meeting senator lindsey graham, who has been spearheading this exact effort. Senator graham was adamant in the fact that he wanted a fundamental overhaul of our immigration system to make significant changes to familybased immigration. In recent days, familybased immigration had been denigrated as chain migration by the white house and by antiimmigrant voices. Republicans want to use the opportunity to fundamentally change our immigration system to a meritbased system. This is a terrible idea. Over 80 of Asian Americans depend on familybased petitions. Familybased immigration helped america as it is today. Even for purposely trying to attract more high skilled workers, they lose incentive to come here without their families. Many immigrant entrepreneurs we see in Silicon Valley were the result of familybased immigration. The meritbased system is a sexc lusionary one, as it would slam the doors to many women seeking to join their families. I want to end with a story of one immigrant family, and it is mine. I am the proud son of a Breast Cancer and Domestic Violence survivor and a proud u. S. Citizen as of last april. I am the son of a woman who refused to testify on her abuser in court because she feared my future in america would be placed in jeopardy. Im the son of a woman who se citizenship came at the price of her health and her justice. I am in washington, d. C. , today, last week, two weeks ago, fighting fighting not only for her dreams but for thousands of other immigrant families and mothers upon whose backs we are starting from. We as dreamers are the living embodiment of their hopes, dreams, and justice. Just as many of you represent the legacies and dreams of your ancestors. Stand with us today and let us pass the dream act. Thank you. [applause] thank you, toni. So there is the argument. Let me turn to the mayor of providence, rhode island. Thank you, mayor tate. I want to begin by recognizing mayor tate and mayor garcetti. Thank you for your leadership on this. Its been great to work with you over the past couple of years as part of this joint committee. I also want to recognize two people in the room today very quickly. We have mickey, who has been running the tribute to mayors for many years. The dinner today is at 6 30 at the Mayflower Hotel and everyone is invited to join us. Mayor garcetti might be receiving a nice recognition today, so please come out in support. I also want to recognize jonathan, who is here from year up. It is a Workforce Development organization that does amazing work throughout the United States. They have really leaned into this dreamer and daca issue and they work directly with dreamers, they mobilize the corporate community, they have been amplifying the voices of dreamers and have done amazing work. Jonathan has mentioned that if anyone is interested in the work they do and how they might do some of this work in your cities, please talk to jonathan. Reflecting back on yesterday, for me personally, one of the most satisfying experiences i have had as mayor is being among other mayors. Yesterday literally Standing Shoulder to shoulder and standing together, it was a really powerful show. In particular, i believe what is so powerful about being amongst mayors and learning from mayors is that we have little interest in winning an argument. Our interest is in solving problems. As mayors, we are not driven by ideology. We are driven by evidence. We are here to continue telling the federal government that if they are truly interested in solving problems, then follow the evidence. We know that immigrants participate in the labor market at higher rates than natives. In 2010, we know that 40 of fortune 500 companies were founded by either immigrants or their children. So if we want to have a strong and healthy economy, we should have a welcoming policy toward immigrants. We also know that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than natives. If we are looking to ensure Public Safety throughout our country, we should have a welcoming policy toward immigrants. We also know, somewhat ironically, that in survey after survey, immigrants show that they believe that the American Dream still exists at higher rates than do natives. And so at a very deeply ironic level, if we are looking to preserve those ideals that frankly give rise to our own sense of national identity, then we should have a welcoming policy toward immigrants. And we as mayors in our cities know this and recognize it. As a result of that, we have adopted a number of very thoughtful policies that we have implemented in our cities that have built those strong relationships with the immigrant community, and have sought to fully integrate them into our cities. Unfortunately, many of these policies we have implemented are under continuous attack from the federal government and oftentimes, more and more, by state governments. We have been told to do things that, frankly, we know are unconstitutional. We also know they are unproductive. And if we dont back off or backtrack, we risk losing federal enforcement funding dollars. Furthermore, some of us have been called out very directly and very particularly by officials at the highest level of government. Just yesterday, the attorney general sent letters to 23 jurisdictions demanding that they produce documents to show that they are complying with the law. 23 jurisdictions were called out just yesterday, but as mayors, we know that when you threaten one mayor, you are threatening us all, because it is these 23 jurisdictions today, but it could be any one of us around the table tomorrow. So it is an issue of which we are very deeply concerned. Here to brief us today on some of these federal and also state efforts challenging many of our communities, citywide and local efforts, is ryan hausman, who is a partner in chicago. Brian has been providing outstanding pro bono representation to the uscm in chicago versus sessions, and he is here to give us an update on the state of litigation across the country and also in our communities. So i will hand it off to brian. Brian thank you so much. I want to thank the mayors, first of all, and the conferences leadership for trusting my partners and i to represent them in federal court in chicago. One of my partners, kate obrien, is with me today. Weve had the honor of representing you, and we thank you so much for allowing us to say a few words today about the litigation and about what we see as issues going forward. Thank you also to my fellow panelists for letting me sit next to you, and toni for sharing your story. Firm believer that policymakers often get it wrong when they lose track of the actual impacts their decisions may have on people in their communities. So toni sharing his story today is important for us. Thank you. Thank you, mayor garcetti. Specifically, the issue in chicago versus sessions is whether the attorney general can condition the receipt of federal Law Enforcement Grant Funding on several Immigration Enforcement related conditions. I will talk about them in a moment, but significantly, as the mayors articulated a moment ago, the stakes for cities here are very high. Cities such as chicago have had welcoming city policies in place for decades, and chicago mayor Harold Washington enacted the first such iteration of that policy in 1980, or the early 1980s. They have had those policies in place in large part because the evidence suggests that those policies make their communities safer. They do not, as some would have us believe, particularly lately, they do not call for the harboring of criminal aliens. They call for the appropriate enforcement of local laws in a way that does not alienate communities that are absolutely essential to the enforcement of those laws, and the evidence i think is that socalled sanctuary jurisdictions are safer because of it. The case in chicago has implications not just for the grant programs, but for other grant programs. And it has implications for cities across the country as well. It has its genesis really in President Trumps executive order last january in which he purported to give the attorney general Sweeping Authority to withhold any federal funding of any kind to sanctuary jurisdictions of his choosing. Beenerms have never defined for me, and that was part of the problem with the order. That order was enjoined in california and is now on appeal to the ninth circuit. What that caused from a political perspective, and ultimately led to the chicago case, was kind of a fallback. The attorney general, rather than being granted kind of across the Board Authority to withhold funds, then started choosing particular statutes that he could withhold funds on, in exchange for conditions. So what are those conditions . There are three that are at issue in the chicago case and other cases that have popped up across the country. They are first, notice that cities like chicago provide federal Immigration Enforcement officers with advanced notice of the release date and time of any alien in their custody. Second, the access condition that any city or jurisdiction that has a lockup or jail of any kind provide access to federal authorities to conduct custodial interrogations of aliens or suspected noncitizens in their jurisdiction. And finally, something that made the news yesterday as the mayor mentioned, 1373, a statute thats been on the books for some time, and it merely provides that localities cannot prohibit their Law Enforcement officials or other agents from sharing citizenship and immigration status information with federal authorities. For the first time in 2016, there was some version of the applications that required some compliance with that statute. Cities like chicago were happy to report that they complied with the statute on the grounds that they do not prohibit the sharing of such information. They also dont make it a point to collect such information, but they certainly are not in violation of the statute. That has been their position throughout. Just a quick point of clarification on that, section 1373. To the best of your knowledge, are there any cities in the United States that dont comply with section 1373 . Im not aware of any city that does not comply. I am also not aware of any city that has not certified compliance or been willing to certify compliance with section 1373, as written. I say that because the attorney general, following some of the chicago litigation, in large part, the attorney general had begun to reinterpret section 1373. I want to tell you how we got there as well. In august, chicago filed suit. They challenged all three of the conditions on the program, both constitutionally and they argued that by statute, the attorney general was not authorized to oppose those conditions. Last september, a judge in the Northern District of illinois issued a preliminary nationwide injunction against the first two, the notice conditions and the access conditions. The court ruled that the attorney general lacked authority under the statute by congress to impose such conditions on the receipt of the funds. He declined at this time to rule that the attorney general was not allowed to require a certification of compliance with section 1373. Those two issues are now up on appeal in the second circuit. The case was argued at last friday. I would expect a decision within weeks, but it is hard to say. The injunction that was issued in the Northern District was nationwide in scope. On appeal, the attorney general has brought two challenges. The first is to the ruling that he lacks Statutory Authority to oppose the conditions in the first place, the second is the issue of whether or not chicago is able to pursue a nationwide injunction that protects all of you in this room. Both of those issues have been argued in the senate circuit. In large part, that second issue has caused the conference to play a very major role in chicago litigation. Following the grant of the preliminary injunction, the attorney general moved to stay that injunction. For the first time in this stay motion, the attorney general argued not just that the court should grant the injunction, but the court actually lacked the authority to do it. Because chicago was chicago and it did not need a nationwide injunction according to the attorney general in order to satisfy itself. The conference was asked by chicago at that time to intervene as a coplaintiff in of give the lie to the notion that there are not other committees out there relying on this injunction. We did move to intervene. The court held that intervention essentially is premature. It reaffirms that all of these cities are relying on this, on the injunction, and reaffirms that the conference has the ability to represent its members in that way in litigation. I think it was a significant ruling for the conference. Where do we go from here . In chicago, our case has been accepted. It is under review by the seventh circuit. Depending on how the seventh it may veryes, well go to the Supreme Court. There are of course other jurisdictions who have filed a similar lawsuits. In addition to that, the attorney general fell back to placing conditions on specific grants. Now that two of those preconditions have been enjoined , the notice and access conditions, he has begun to reinterpret section 1373 two require a minimum notice of the release date and times of aliens in custody, which is not, does not in my view fall under the definition of immigration status or citizenship information that is governed by 1373, and even a signal that he will take it a little bit further than that. That has led to three ways in which i think we are going to see further litigation from cities on 1373. The first is that the administration has continued to delay not just the release of almost 300 million in allocated funds to cities and states, but has delayed what he has claimed to be a final ruling. Rther information that everybody has provided or is willing to provide, and could have provided many months ago had it been requested. But i think thats an effort to further delay both the litigation perhaps for other measures. And so i think that those it shalls surrounding 1373 are not going to go awayless of u how it rules on first two conditions. Theyre going to continue to be litigated. Thank you. Well keep it to the ends of the session as well. Were going to hear from two with mayors who have adopted policies and are engaged in litigation now because of as state preemptive measures that theyre dealing with in their stition cities and states and hear fromnd mayor of gary, india mayor freeman wilson. Good afternoon, and thank you to chairman garcetti and to mayor lorza for opportunity to share our experience with you. You know, gary indiana is not a city that has a large immigrant population. But we are like so many of you around this table a city that was built by immigrants. And so in may of 2017, we took it upon ourselves to pass welcoming, a welcoming city ordinance. And the ordinance was very specific in, with in a number of aspects. Ts but it specifically said and this is something that members of the conference actually said to attorney general sessions that we are not going to extend our precious resources ensuring that our Political Service i. C. E. Agent and we also indicated that, however, understand and nothing in the ordinance prevents or explicitly states that we will not comply with a us csection 1373. We understand that. And we went about the business of of implementing that ordinance and doing the peoples business in the city of gary. Well welcome the state of indiana issued a state statute that went further quite frankly than section 1373, and they have now indicated that any city in the state of indiana that fails to actively cooperate and in any way restrict that cooperation with the federal government in its immigration or essentially in its deportation policies, then that city is found to be in violation of the state statute. And so in november of last year, we were sued by a group of citizens ironically one of whom was our former municipal judge and we were sued by gentleman by the name well thats using that term loosely by a person by the name of james bot who you may recognize as one who initiated the Citizens United litigation some years ago. So he came all the way to the small state of indiana to the little cityns of gary and found this ordinance and decided that he would try to further his agenda on our backs. But we are fighting that litigation. Were doing it in partnership and with the help of Public Policy group from georgetown university. And what we understand and and brian underscored this as he talked about the posture of the justice department, they are withholding the distribution of jag funds for everybody. Not just those who have welcoming ordinances, not just those who describe thmses as a sanctuary cities. But they have gone after every jurisdiction that receives jag funding and withheld those doctors. And so to the extent that we can play a small role in saying that we believe it is in the best just of the city of gear but thete state of indiana and the United States, to welcome all people and to be a welcoming city than we stand by that. And well certainly defend this litigation with all vigor. Thank you. Thank you mayor freeman wilson. [applause] no i well hear about great work being done it in austin and pass it off to steve adler. Good afternoon. I want to join many in in asking mayor garcetti and for your leadership on this issue. Over the course of the last year, i will tell you that as our state and our city has been embroiled in this issue, knowing that there were a a union of mayors across the country. Actively engaged as you have kept the mayors engaged over the last year unified and meeting and speaking or for all of us has been a source of strength to my community. To know that when we stoodz up and said something, we were only saying what other mayors and other cities were found saying arrangedsa the country. It has impacted the run of the stories in the media tension because it changes the context. This is not austin being weird. Out by ourselves but being part of what i think is a very mainstream movement and effort on behalf of the mayors. You know, this whole discussion about immigration began in our state as it did at the federal level with effort to demonize a certainon group of people by suggesting that immigrants were were more inclined to be lawbreakers than ore people. Disregarding the fact that the incidents ofe crime among immigrants population lower than the general population. An the crime among undocumented immigrant populations is lower than the incidents courtroom in the general population. Without regard to thing that the that if we really wanted to lower krill rate around the country, obviously, then we should bringti in a lot more immigrants to average down the crime. But i it also began with demonizing cities as targets and suggesting that there were cities all over the country that were breaking federal law. In an fort to harbor bad people. Neither of those things are true and thats how discussion began. And i will tell you that i had people in my city and in my state wanting to know why it was that austin thought it could violate and break federal law especially for the purpose of protecting people that would be inclined to commit the crime. And that discussion that we had for the first part of last year was over o the question of whether or not we were violating federal law. And you three led several trips to washington, d. C. We met with with the attorney general home land security knowing we were not violating federal law or 1373. We were not violating anything by, by complying with what was required and making individualized decisions about whether we would agree to do the actions which were not required of cities but rather discretionary. Once it became apparent that we werent violating any federal laws, the legislature decided to create a law that we could violate. [laughter] and i think that it reads pretty much you know, kind of like the law in indiana. That seeks to make mandatory the requirements under federal law that are discretionary now. To require cities to comply containers in ways that were not federal law and local Law Enforcement to spend resources insisting in federal immigration in ways that are not required under federal law. Youve already gone through the reasons why that is bad policy it make our city less safe because it impacts the trust relationship between our community and our police. And quite frankly our city doesnt have resources for our local Law Enforcement people to be federal immigration agents anymore than federal tax agents orx federal or federal anything agents. They have a job to do in keeping our city safe. But our law was was passed. The the governor signed the law with a Facebook Live session late one sunday. And then on monday morning there was a preemptive lawsuit filed against austin in Federal District court. Of course, the u law has signed and didnt go into effect for another two months. So it was really hard to make claim that we were violatings a law thatla was not in force butt was kind of a preemptive strategy austin responded to that lawsuit by by pointing out that we couldnt be violating something that wasnt we had and then we joined other cities. In in federal court action that we brought as you can can challenging a lawou which on its base is unconstitutional in the stoinl federal court. We challenged it that and in part because it requires cities to do things that fundamentally violate a constitution guarantee and we challenge that because we believe state action is preempt ifer by a congressional balancing of what should and should not be required of local entitieses. And we s challenged it because t was impossibly vague. Its impossible to apply a law that is seeking to prevent local municipalitieses from interfering with or needing to support federal action to know what it takes does it take part discretion in whether assertions investigate a murder or support on i. C. E. Raid we dont know how that works and importantly in the texas u law, theres a section where the attorney general and the governor have ability to remove me from office. If i were to endorse a policy expressed iny our senate bill 4. Clearly thatnn cant be constitutional. I do, however, have a very supportive city everybody has offered to visit me. [laughter] in jail or to so we thought our action in federal Court District court. The Federal District judge in san antonio supported the taken by the city an joined e enforcement appealed to fifth circuit unfortunately dissolved allowing part of the law to continue to be enforced. Maintaining the injunction on other parts of it mow is back in the san antonio district, district court. But at this point, because of the state law that expressly requires our state or cities to do things we are complying with that expressioned revision even as we challenge it which is why our city avoided the the honor i guess yesterday of being named with 23 of our colleague cities. But know that we are fighting this battle as from trench it is that exist so this was supposed to end 12 what but we want to have face for everybody to speak so another ten minutes i think that gives us five minutes to walk 30 seconds oh to the next session. And take whatever breaks people need to fool free if you food to peel off but we want to have space for all off you. Ryan will be here. Day will be here. Folks want to make contact or ask individual questions and ask brief concise questions or brief points just to make sure we can try to get to do a handful of mayor before we have to recess but i want to thank the entire panel for their courage. For their story, and for the fourth rightness in putting forward these american values. What should we be looking for on february 8th in terms of a senate bill in assuming that we can getting clean bill out of the senate what happens in the house . Save the easy question for me. So in the senate is im sure youre aware senators durbin and graham have been leading the bipartisan effort there. I think it is unclear i think theres a lot more confidence ab pathway forward for something in thed senate it is less clear in the house. And ultimately, the will of the speaker is really i think going to be a very crucial part of that. So it is just hard to say. That will hasnt been there yet. But even for the Republican Leadership, that has from our perspective kicked the can down the road on an issue that shouldnt have been forestalled any longer. Theres a recognition that marte fifth is a distinct date and serves, not a deadline in our view that deadline has, you know, been many place really since the program ares terminated. But even for Republican Leadership recognize that march 5th is a turning so that may change dynamics but i wish i had the crystal ball of but i m think that, you know, i kind of joke that in this congress and in this administration a day can sort of it the density of activity is sort of like a dog year. So february feels very far away. But i think that ultimately the will of the speaker is really critical. Mayor so touch your button so we can hear. Fnlings what legal action can a municipal take that has significance in terms of an immigration content to add layers of protection . To individuals you mentioned things like drivers drivers license and such but what else . Daca in terms of dreamers making sure that were providing every possible Legal Protection to people who might otherwise be subject to federal immigration authority. Terms of daca i think defer to vita to give you a better answer. But tactical answer is mayors have against a muslim ban whether it was for whether some of the work in the criminal justice and you can join those, in terms of a brief and be a part of that. You can also launch ones in creative area. But those are done in a defensive reliant on existing constitution and the law buttening theresin something proactive one is ihe want to thank everyoe in this room on so many issues especially now as we are on the one Year Anniversary of the signing of some of of those executive orders just the importance of your with role in the brief process and in statements and resolutions at the local level. So i would be happy followup with more specific resources. But as more and more locality and states are are under assault, we have been very much engaged in creating model processes for Health Care Providers k through 1 and Higher Education institutions to have certain policies in place. They, obviously, dont override federal law. But they play a very port role much in the same way that training people to know their rights and to know how to exercise them this is sort of the institutional version of that. In Civil Society spaces and then in terms of policy theres a lot of that can be done in terms of limiting information sharing and state and local database so they cant be used for immigration and enforcement purposes. Access to things like professional licenses, Higher Education, and state Division Drivers licenses, theres a very diverse and exciting portfolio of options and state and localities push for and be more than happy to talk to you about that after. Maybe in boston we can talk about presenting those thinkings to work on it ahead of too many but getting back on proactive agenda and wish for more positive outcome in legal areas to present that in boston at the meeting too and have a few mayors speak about that. One thing i would like to bring u is us municipal id something that new york has done thats been pretty successful. Now parents can both pick their children, you know, without the peer of, you know being arrested and being deported. You know, i think thats one of the key things a and another key thingon that you know like i wod like to see is hague sure that immigrants student have access to their records. You knowwo like i have beyond this work i have also provided a lot of daca Legal Assistance to a lot of young immigrants. And one of the troubles that they had was access ising school rods in new York City School high schools charge 5 for transcript which is they essentially need if they want to send many their daca applications so i mean like i think basic policies like that making sure that like daca immigrants can access these things without peer would be a great assistance. The city scanner cruise joined lawsuits but were also starting to fund access to Legal Services for families in our communities. Are there clearinghouses where you where best practices, the materials that are provided to families for people that need informational resourceses are available that we can turn to . Yes. There is a website called informed immigrants. Com that is intended to be sort of a consolidated one w stop resource shopping for for different audiences including policymakers and individuals as well on a range of issues and in multiple languages and certainly if theres something that is missing or a gap i would welcome that feedback because were always trying to update it. And i just want to thank you also for providing those local services because theyre very crucial and more and more localities are engaging in that kind of commit to fund people particularly as were increasing the threating and the ability to detain people. Where theyre just most vulnerable inil fighting their cases being able to stay here. Yes, with please we just press your button so we can hr you. Thank you, appreciate it. Name is al opinion simon from mayor of the village of spring valley. We have with about 10,000 people and we have a immigration problem there and we have approached and large to approach a more personalized basis. What were looking to do and we partially funded or it already is to engage this service of immigration specialists from a legal aid society. Who will provide Services Free of charge for our immigrant population. We want to do that because we find that in the area of immigrants some of the local specialists have a very harsh really of getting money in advance andon maybe not providig the service that we wanted to provide a universal Service Available to our citizens so they can get the protection that the law allows. When you spoke about education, we thought this would be the best way by providing representation free eve charge asbe if they were sort of in a criminal area or a certainly not be a criminal being born someplace else. We thought this would be a good idea and were pushing and we have aho great deal of support from our Assembly People this the area who have ability to fund these things. On a secondary basis, we were looking to get to know the immigrants in our area who have problems. And guess being on a personal basis. We were going to do to determine their legality. The remembers of my board one of which is here, has indicated that they would sit down with the immigrants and write prnl letters to the immigration authorities indicating that the individual livings here for a certain amount of time and work here has beene, steady in his jb or o employment and has in essence three or four kids in the school system. They have done well in this school system. And theyre seeking to of america and of our area. And we were going to end on a prnl basis with a mayor or one over here who was on our board in one of the most active communitybased individuals. Thats wonderful thank you close up because were going try to get to one more person but this is wonderful stuff. Anything else like to add to that . Okay so i didnt mean to cut you off. Thank you for sharinging that and it shows no matter what size your city is thank you for what youre doing to bring that and other folks leak to followup and what youre doing i hope mayor youll be a resource one last comment or question over here. Yes. I had a question followup on the informed immigrant. Com site just in terms of resources that could be shared with the conference generally. My city is one square mile at the east span of the bay bridge in emeryville 12,000 residents and 50,000 employees the daytime. Many of them are hotel workers, janitorial staff at mall and Office Buildings and begun a proactive campaign about reaching out to employers about their rights are in term its of not cooperating with someone who is not caring an active warrant. Im just really concerned about number of employees in the east bay especially with the Trump Administration conversations about targeting in northern california. Does this have leak a handout we can give to employers about what they can and cant say and do . Just reminded me to see if the website is updated to how to include that information. But on a website we have information that isy, specifically for employers some of it is targeted towardse employers who have fos with daca on their staff and then some of it is more generally . Response to this environment where their employers who want to know what their obligations are but also what kiengdz of right it is that they can exercise. So or slay to what i was saying about sort of schools and Health Care Providers adopting what we call safe zone policies. It is similar to that. But for the work site. Build happy to email that to you. Thank you to cspan we love for them getting it out to all of america speak and speak out is my last message. Tonnys in every single community. People who are american, except for the final step, an that we need to continue to stand up for speak out for and tell the stories of. We are mighty and strong inside this room andid inside this conference. And that i think we really have one thing that none of folks on other side have. An intimate knowledge of who people are in the wisdom of what it actually means to have their contributionings in our cities and in our towns every single day this is a cause that is well worth fighting for. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. [applause] well have more from the u. S. Conference of mayors winter meeting with this morning about discussion about trade and future of work. Live coverage begins at 9 0 eastern time here on cspan2. Were going life now to switzerland where President Trump is expected to address the World Economic form. Hes the first sitting u. S. President to speak since president clinton live coverage here on cspan2