Debate. And this is obviously a law and policy conference. I think well discuss a little more law than we have discussed in other panels and hopefully a little policy as well. So the broad team we picked for this panel, which i think we have detected has been true tore a lot of immigration stuff, since at least this president took over, is that some very important issues have been sort of getting shuttled among three branches of the government. These are you could say these are every each branch of the government is sort of hitting, putting the can in the other persons lap and hoping the can will stop there somewhere. Many of these cans havent stopped. This is our chance to see where the cans are and where they will finally land. So ill begin this by asking questions of our panelists more in a conversational style so we could get to many topics, than sort of one issue only for a long time. So let me start with cecil lia because she represents the aclu which many people regard has been the president s thorn in the side, many than other organizations. They have brought more than 100 cases against this administration. Now, this is a law school. Im sure every single law school will sal vault talking about all those hundred cases, but well stick to only two or three. If you dont mind starting with daca, and i think this is one audience in which i dont have to say what daca stands for. Start with daca. The can has been shuttled by three branches of the government. The president ended the program. Lawsuit was brought almost the very next day to challenge the injunction. President said this is the job of congress to do this. And they will defendant their institution. Congress ended up doing nothing. They could argue that the courts will busy, why they didnt need to intervene because courts will provide the protection. That can has to start somewhere. We passed the bill in the house. I wanted to point that out. There will be ill give you full credit what happened in congress. But it hasnt been revolved. Fair enough. On november 12th, the Supreme Court is going to hear an argument on the daca case. Cec cecilia, tee up for us what is the government doing, how is the court going to rule and when . Thank you. And thank you to mpi and clinic and georgetown for inviting us to this conference. Its always very illuminating. Muz mentioned that i work in the aclu. We have indeed filed over 100 immigration related cases against the Trump Administration. But the daca recision 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 from the National Immigration law center from the state of california, from other states and municipalities, make the road, new york, et cetera, et cetera. The takeaway that i would highlight, both from the daca recision cases that are at the Supreme Court now as well as from every other major Immigration Initiative of the Trump Administration, id include the muslim ban, a whole cluster of policy changes, the public charge rule, recision of daca, and also sanction wary city, the lesson from all of the many Court Battles over all of those 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 of you georgetown and other Law School Students here, youre in the right place, doing the right thing, to get read y o do 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 death bed 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 bee. In the case of daca im 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 were harmed by the recision of daca, that kind of litigation even when unsuccessful, has so many consequences to protect people, again to buy people a little more time, buy people some more time with documented status, dacamented 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 in the immigrants Rights Movement weve made, mistakes that weve made in talking about path to legal status and citizenship in the past. And dreamers themselves have been in the lead, both as clients 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 is kind of the flip side. The big lesson of most of these cases, remember most of these cases raise claims under the administrative procedure act. Most of these cases are about the abuse of executive authority, about the Trump Administration taking to an extreme an illegal extreme, laws, the application of laws that are already on the books. And so lesson two is that we cannot rely on the professed good will 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 statory authority under ina section 212 f which was again his basis for the asylum ban proc lamation, hes been picking up loaded guns that are lying around in the immigration and nationality act and in the your Juris Prudence and other power of other old Supreme Court precedence. To be clear, i should be clear about one thing as a lit gator. All of the policies that our movement has challenged in litigation by the Trump Administration are illegal under existing law. Okay . Im not taking the position that statutes need to change or precedents need to be overturned in order to challenge the legality of these Trump 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 say that lightly, okay, but lets face it, these are White Nationalist policies. [ cheers and applause ] then we need to exercise the will of the people to make sure that the loaded guns are disarmed. In addition to 212f, weve seen this Administration Try to abuse expedited removal to the statory maximum, which all previous administrations in both parties have, you know, put out the conventional wisdom exceeds the bounds of due process. The public charge ground for inadd missability that well talk about, 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 individualized hearing on flight risk and danger. Extraordinary, and yet thats been approved by the Supreme Court so far. And efforts to limit article 3 court orders. Thats something that the Trump Administration like its predecessors have raised in all of the systemic litigation to challenge these policy moves. So i think going forward, and i know david and kate will talk more about this along with muz, we really need to up roroot the frame of law breaking that has infected immigration policy making 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 of 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 imbaud with due process and individualized scrutiny of people as individual human beings. Thats my takeaway. Okay. Thank you. So just filled us up. The case is going to be argued in november 12th. You have argued before the Supreme Court very skillfully but youre not arguing this case. But i lost. I hear there was a surprise choice to do this argument. Uhhuh. Could you tell me who it is and why they have their choices made . Sure. Im not one of the lit gapts but i have peripherally involved in discussions about this. You probably all know that ted olson, noted conservative and member of the Supreme Court bar, will be arguing the case in support of daca and against the recision of daca. And it was an interesting and i have to say, somewhat painful discussion. There were what is it, seven separate lawsuits coming out of three different District Courts that are consolidated in the Supreme Court. And states and municipalities, i should add Michael Longin who is the solicitor general of california, will be splitting the argument with ted olson if pending Supreme Court, contingent on Supreme Court approval. Thats the proposal that respondents have made. This is what happens when our issues get to the Supreme Court. Nancy morrow vets is someone whos talked a will tlot about 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 there was a pretty fraught discussion, i think, among, its no secret, among the various groups of counsel and parties. And ted olson, you know, to give credit where credit is due, is someone who i think is a choice calculated to appeal to as broad a group of justices as possible. Its a decision calculated to win a majority. But i must say that as someone who is an immigrants right movements lawyers, a civil rights lower, an aclu lawyer, there are so many extroard nairly brilliant lawyers in our movement who could argue this case. And i have to just express my personal opinion that, you know, i think ted olson is an interesting and a brilliant choice in many ways, but i also feel some regrets, i guess, not regrets since it wasnt my decision. But a little sad that we dont have a Movement Lawyer up there. So you said that youre optimistic about the daca case. Could you tell me why youre optimistic when three or four years ago in the other case which had essentially same arguments that we now by know that the four conservative judges voted but well probably never know about the vote because it was a tie decision, they probably voted to say that it was unlawful. Why would you think the daca is going to be ruled as lawful when the other was not seen as lawful . Obviously the Supreme Court affirmed the fifth circuit by a 44 tie. I guess twoword answer, 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 arent going to be five justices who have the stomach to agree with the Trump Administration on this one. I think we, you know, have seen this court already rule in the census case the right way. And i think this too, daca would be a road too far. To get to the technical reasons why this case is different, you know, there was an argument that as to dapa, the ina already provided a statutory provision for adjustment of the parents of dreamers, which isnt present here. And theres also reliance interest, that here were talking about recision of a program that was in effect for years already and that people have come to rely on that. And then finally, you know, there is a dynamic here, you know, continuing a pattern of the solicitor general of the u. S. Across several jen raigs providing incorrect, lets say, data to the Supreme Court. You know, there was an element here of the government, the Trump Administration, staaying that daca was in the texas case, the dapa case, the Trump Administration took the position that the Obama Administration had applied daca in a boilerplate way. That basically everyone who met the qualifications for daca under the jay johnson memo was getting relief, getting the deferred action. And they went into court and said that. Judge hanin i think relied on that. The fifth circuit i believe also relied on that. The argument here is that evidence since then has demonstrated that in fact the Obama Administration was applying the agency both under obama and the Trump Administration, was applying discretion. It wasnt a rubber stamp. They werent handing out daca to everybody. I think that correction or development of the record in the subsequent litigation will be important. Ill let you off soon. The public charge rule, which a lot of people here are concerned about, was going to go into effect. There were nine lawsuits brought to tell you about how fallout from the Trump Administration. 14 brought an action against public charge. Act of litigation, i heard there was lively argument of the Southern District of new york this morning. Could you tell us what your view on the public charge challenge is and whats the timeline that people should be looking at . Sure. So again, a disclaimer, we are not involved in the public charge litigation. None of the hundredplus cases is the public charge case. But i did speak to nicko spiratu from nilling to get his read out from the Northern District of california hearing which took place last week. I think as to timeline, i think almost all the litigants maybe with the exception of one of the cases has sought a preliminary injunction. The idea is to get the rule enjoined before the october 15th effective date, as you told me since i was on the train this morning and wasnt looking, i was preparing for this. The readout from new york was positive for the challengers. The readout was also positive on the Northern District of california case. I will say that in the Northern District of california, the district judge did express some concern about the request for a nationwide injunction. She has requested additional briefing on the scope of injunction, had urges the parties to try to reach an agreement on the scope of injunction, which i dont think is going to happen based on no inside information. But, you know, its interesting. Weve seen the ninth circuit and the forced return to mexico case, which is an aclu case, limit the preliminary injunction we had gotten from the district court, which was nationwide in scope, to 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 preemtively trying to narrow the geographical scope of the injunction. Okay. But last on this, because we talked about asylum a lot a good part of this conference, and i think many of us were surprised by the Supreme Court letting go ahead the new rule on the trends of country, need to apply for asylum there. How do you read that affecting the decision of the court on the merits when it comes . Well, you know, the Supreme Court didnt purport to rule on the merits at all. And so i think we have to take them at their word on that and continue to litigate it. You know, the stay, theres no getting around the fact that the stay order is painful. And, you know, weve got a situation where, you know, previous panels went through in greater detail, we had the first asylum ban proc lamation, which funneled everyone through ports of entry. Then the administration was bottlenecking 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 the third country resettlement proc lamation. And, you know, it hurts, because we are desperate to get relief for people who deserve to have asigh flum our country and who have been turned away in every possible juncture by this administration. So, you know, i think we take the Supreme Court at its word. We keep going with the litigation, keep litigating it and build our record to show the harms to our clients. And thats it. Okay. David, now your turn. You are as you represent the will of the people. You really by now have one of the more interesting plagss in this debate. You have spent a lot of time in the administration. Youve now the last administration, please. On the hill both as minority and majority counsel. Just start with the daca thing, because obviously the hope was that congress would intervene in the daca case and the budget which it decided not to do. But because the litigation was going, people were protected and thats sort of going to end as we now discuss at some point. But you did also manage to pass early legislation on the house and it got nowhere in the senate. 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 . Sure. And even if the Supreme Court says it was to end it was not unlawful, what do you think the court will do after the pressure . Sure. So if i can just address first of all thank you to mpi, clinic, georgetown, appreciate the invitation. So one, i want to say that i am not as i am not as optimistic i should say about the Supreme Court. I actually think the Supreme Court im not surprised. This is how we are. Yeah. I am the pessimist in the room, normally. Yes. I actually think that the Supreme Court probably doesnt even get to whether daca is or is not lawful. I think what they do is say that it is my assumption, my guess is that they look at the memo that was originally issued. The memo itself says it can be rescinded at any time, either to any individual or in its intooirt. If they say this is an act of pros curetorial discretion, you dont need to go through rule making to undo it. They say the administration has the authority to end it and kick it back. Thats my assumption as to what happens. Its not what i want to happen. Ive been anyway, but i just think thats the way it goes. So, you know, if that were to happen, i hope that that means that there is some real thoughtful and, you know just some discussions between both sides about what to do and i think there will be a lot of democrats that want to fix it, and there are lots of republicans who want to do it. The question is how, and is there a trade, and is there the political space . Thats one of the things we found difficult when we even moved this dream bill, the one that we just did at the beginning of this congress. You know, there were some on our side who wanted to work on Bipartisan Legislation. Oo others wanted to do something more democratic friendly and take a oneside approach and dare republicans to vote against it. Thats the path we decided to take. But in the end you are going to need to have democrats and republicans in both houses, you know, vote for it in order for it to become law and the president assign it. And that may in our system require dealmaking. The question is whether that space is there and the people are acting in good faith to try to find a good deal that we can maybe not love but all feel okay about. And im not certain that that space is there on either side. And that would be unfortunate. Yeah, but youd be the middle of the deal making art. What do you think the kind of things the republicans will ask for a daca deal to happen . Now, its always been well, its always been about the border and about the either the asylum provisions or the unaccompanied childrens provisions or other provisions that affect the ability to provide a Law Enforcement response that people coming across the borders, as they would put it. Usually it has been in that area where the discussions have focused. But now with the Supreme Court taking a lot of pressure off of the board, im not sure what they would come forward with. They might want to perhaps knowing that thats an interim measure thats not likely to be in place for longer than when the Supreme Court acts again, they might, you know, see what they can, you know, whether theres a way of adjusting the laws at the border either when it comes to detention or how to treat Asylum Seekers or they remain in mexico or codify some pieces in it. They may come forward with that getting rid of the diversity visa program. May come with that. But their hearts are in the border and how to how to affect and deter. I mean they want tools to be able to deter people from coming across the southern border. I think its not lost to anyone of us that the decision is going to come out in the middle of the election. How do you think thats going to affect the dynamics in congress . What if theres an impeachment on top of that . Its going to be i have no idea how to predict that move, to be honest with you. Ive been around for a long time. I, you know, tend to have a decent sense as to what it is the republicans want or where the dealmaking space is or what a good deal looks like and that can get enough republicans to pass in the house or maybe gets republican interest in the senate. Were working on a different bill now. Which i know were going to talk about at the end. Where were trying to like, you know, you know, i guess, you know, read the tea leaves right and navigate the channels. But here i really dont know. I mean, i think things are so different now. The, you know, where the deals are in some of these areas, im not sure i fully understand it. Im not sure theres anybody on the hill that really does. Some of our partners like senator Lindsey Graham are not in the same place at all policy wise or politically. I think that its going to need people of good faith basically putting down their, you know, their weapons and coming and speaking privately to each other and trying to figure out what is, you know, what is good policy and that can survive politically on both sides. Again, those conversations are not happening 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. We know we need these good relationships right now in order to get across the finish line later. Were trying to build. Theres a lot of work to be done. On the public charge issue, do you think that congress is likely to act or let the litigation run its course and not deal with it . Weve acted in certain ways. I just want so weve, you know, we filed comments, which i thought were very powerful comments, where we clearly think, and when i say we, i would say the members that i work for, clearly think that the rule is illegal. It is a it is far from the longstanding interpretation and the congressional and meaning behind the words public charge. Public charge has always meant people who are destitute and cant survive but for Government Housing and help, right . It was originally meant people so destitute they were relegated to all mz houses or poor houses or insane asylums, not people who can survive perfectly fine on their own, working, but can use a little extra health care or nutritional assistance to improve the Health Outcomes of our communities. That is a bastardization of those words. We did file pretty strong comments. The congressional intent, we were hoping that would help undergird and provide litigation. We have drafted something ready to file when the case when the time is right at the appellate level. But, you know, this is a difficult issue. One, because it is and weve taken strong stands, there are bills that are there to undo the rule. We can always do a congressional review act. But you do need both houses. And at this point in time even if the house were to pass something, it is, you know there is i dont see a path through the senate. So i just will say one last thing about it. It is also an issue that for Many Democrats is not a difficult issue to talk about but thats not true for all democrats. The question is, what do we do . And if not every democrat is there or every democrat is comfortable taking that issue on, you know, sometimes just, you know, doing something for public appearance sake may not be the best move. There are a lot of dynamics at play. A lot of people care a lot about it. We are very much rooting for and trying to support the litigation now. I think we will have to take, you know, well cross the bridge when we get to it. Okay, crossing the bridge to asylum. So there was a lot of conversation here about asylum. Sure. And luckily daca and the public charge stuff is stuck in litigation, so no one is being immediately harmed. But on the asylum the impact is real and urgent. Supreme court let go ahead the new rule on these transit countries and the administration is going ahead signing these third country agreements which dont immediate the requirements of a shirred country, safe country requirement. I think im representing a lot of feelings, that congress has been sort of missing in action on the asylum issue. So what are you doing on this . Take suggestions. So, you know, you know, i mean so im going to stutter for a little bit here. So we have done some things. I say that i work for two bosses, mr. Nadler, the judiciary chair and the Immigration Sub Committee chair. Miss laugh grin introduced a bill that sought to reform our entire refugee and asylum system in the hemisphere, creates an entire new framework for how to deal with refugees in our hemisphere, provides assistance to sending countries but also other countries so theres a reeksal approach, works with International Partners and so that there are other ways of coming and more humane ways of dealing with people who cross the border. 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 the treatment of families and children at the border in our committee. And there are many other committees have come forward and have taken on ive never seen any other committee in my 13year history on the hill ever want to take on an immigration issue. Others are like, we dont want to deal with it. Now youve seen other committees, government oversight and Foreign Affairs, you know, you know, tackle these issues. We had the Armed Services tackle an immigration issue in the hearing. So, you know, we have lambasted the you cant just lambaste the Supreme Court decision. We expressed our strong disappointment over it and we do think that the decision is wrong as a legal matter. I agree with you that there are two ways in which you can deny asylum for someone who crosses through another country, and those are spelled out by statute and those statutory requirements have not been met in these cases. I just dont really understand, you know, why the, you know, 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. You know, we can move a bill, and i think 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 then it will die there. Thats the best we can do right now when you have control of one house. Okay. So kim, let these two rest for a little while. I think merely is a reflex of how mu how much this has changed. States have sidestepped. 14 a. G. S have brought action on the charge. You represent the largest state in the country. And run its social service program. Could you describe from your perch how the developments in immigration, whether enforcement of the public charge, what kind of impact is it having on social services in the state like california . Sure, sure, thank you. And thank you for the ichbtation to be here 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 in investment in a number of ways ill talk about. 11 million of californias 40 million residents are foreign born. One in two children in california has at least one immigrant children. 35 of workforce is immigrants. Theyre contribute thing 715 billion to californias economy. In terms of californias commitment and response, immigrant immigration is a big part of what we do. Governer newsoms essential trademark is california for all. Its a home to many knnew comer and we offer service todays them that become part of the civic fabric in our state. 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 all day about impact on individuals and populations across the country. And certainly in california we have seen that in the number in numerous policies that have come from the federal government. Specifically i just want to talk a little bit about response to public charge and kind of what were seeing as pro posed impact and what were actually seeing as impact on the ground. I want to know that certainly it is our belief and heres where were in agreement with the department of Homeland Security, in the actual rule for public charge, theres a recognition and acknowledgment that the public charge rule may cause worse Health Outcomes, increased use of emergency rooms, increased prevalence of communicable deceases across the country, increased rates of poverty instability, lack of pro ducktivity and educational attainment. The analysis that weve conducted in california is similar, that we actual lee see that and are seeing the direct impact on health and wellbeing of individuals and families that are subject to it. But i would also state to you that its not just those impacted in specifically called out in the rule, but also individuals who are not subject to public charge. And its not just the Public Benefit programs that have been added, which programs would be considered, but its also those participating in programs that it wont be considered. So the broad cast of impact and the complexities that services across the country are needing to understand in terms of who it impacts and who it doesnt is significant. And we certainly have not spent time Capacity Building on Human Service providers of those intricacies. Weve invested in reamdies, 60 Million Investment in year plus additional things that are focused on supporting pop lairkss to have an immigration remedy whatever they might be eligible for. That is the way in which they can be a resource. I think that and there was just, i appreciate the comments from david as well, right. The public charge rule that stands today certainly recognized the health and wellbeing benefits and who was targeted is different. This is going well above and beyond the intent and certainly from a Human Service social service perspective, the impact of our safety net and what its actually supporting in terms of disrupting poverty is huge. Just the Nutrition Assistance Program or snap program, is one of the largest antiprofrt programs in the country. Its collude here. Its not just about nutrition asichks but about the improved math and reading skills, the longerterm outcomes, low birth rates, increased graduation rates, so forth. We see those in the outcomes of having a snap program. I also want to say theres myths in terms of whos accessing these. 87 of the snap recipients have a child, a senior or a person with a disability. Thats 74 in california. Whos being targetedles are truly the most vulnerable in making those connections. In terms of public charge, what were seeing across some of these other proposals, certainly we are anticipating and seeing disenrollment from programs and therefore the Ripple Effect that means for Health Outcomes again not only for those specifically targeted in any of these given policies, but also those who arent. Its the Broader Health impacts of 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 applies to and which programs it applies to. But also were just trying to make sure we have trusted messagers and communities that are partners with government in being that messenger. And having programs like two generation approaches and home visiting, to have the connections with families, to talk through some of these complexities and in fact sometimes enroll families or individuals that might be eligible for service. Its a different strategy of kind of going into the weeds and detail of whats being proposed versus actually making sure were doing our Due Diligence and connecting to the services we know make a difference for people across the state. Let me ask you a question about daca and tps, if it ends. 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 on the residents, and is there a plan, the state of california has, to respond to that . Daca for california has been tremendous. Just in the last 18 months alone, 574,000 individuals have renewed their daca application. And again i just mentioned the investment we had in immigration legal Service Providers to help assist with those. We supported renewal fees as well. Weve 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 mixed households so having a different status of various populations, thats 74 in a household with a citizen. We just know that the impact of the financial hardship, i mean the prediction and estimates in california is that california businesses would lose over a billion dollars just in the turnover if daca wasnt renewed. So its a huge economic impact. I think also just studies that are showing the Health Impacts and the mental Health Impacts of the populations with the uncertainty of the program are real. So thats also a concern of ours, should that occur. Let me ask you kind of an observe questi obvious question, the distrust of the government, especially of the immigrant communities, especially during this add straigts, how is that affecting peoples trusting the government of the state of california . Sure. As i mentioned that partnership is key here. We have seen that. Weve looked at a number of strategies to try to mitigate the disenrollment of benefits that we know are huge, again, in making an impact on peoples lives. And doing so, what weve also recognized is that the individual or family that walks into the social Service Office to disenroll in benefits, that were trying to connect to that Legal Service provider to determine whether or not its actually amicable to their circumstance is a hard connection to make. That individual or family has made up their mind when theyve walked into that office or made that phone call to disenroll. From reel again our perspective its about getting in front of that, about that connection where we have a number of Rapid Response networks across california with a know your rights campaigns, and how do we ensure that the information about am kablt of public charge and how to get those connections are happening with those trusted messagers and communities. Its a Public Private partnership from our perspective. And we are in fact even investing in our immigration funding in that kind of outreach to connect with individuals and families so they understand what it is. But its true that its a reel the distrust is real, the fear is real in communities. Just on the distrust, and ill sneak in a question about census because it was on our topic, luckily we dodged the bullet the Supreme Court said the Citizenship Question will no longer appear. But just the narrative around that, is that affecting the level of participation that you expect in the census . Yes. I think so. We have a number of investments in this space too on how we conduct outreach, really recognizing what it means to have undercounts of populations here. Its a similar strategy in really engaging with trusted messagers, models, different models that are connecting with community. But it is absolutely a real thing. When i talk to the fear, we actually have those stories of individuals and families who truly are disengaging from any kind of Community Touch points at all. Going without. And thats i think a huge impact. Were talking about going without some basic necessities and services but also just not connecting at all with communities. So its a similar strategy that were using in this space with the census too of really looking at those communitybased organizations and trusted messagers in community. Great. Let me do another round with you folks before we get to the mics. Sessil liia, there was sessil there was a lot of euphoria in the country, people parading in the streets, but the dust has begun to settle, as the cases have now come to the Supreme Court. A, do you agree with that, that the Supreme Court at the end of the day is now going back to the traditional deference to executive authority . And is that a surprise, given that there has been a lot of deference to executive and immigration for a very long time . I think the answer is that the Supreme Court has a mixed record at this point on Trump Administration policies, as you already pointed out, we won the census case which was an aclu case, i should point out. And, you know, it was the census case is an interesting counter pointer to trump versus hawaii, because in both cases you had a record which showed cabinetlevel and lower officials trying to make up a rationale to justify the official action, when the president was saying what he says on twitter and in other public fora. And so in the muslim ban case, we saw really a cynical decision, i think, cynical in that the majority opinion purported to overall korematsu after 80plus years, around 80 years. But in reaching its decision on the muslim ban, reawefide cora mat soou in so many ways. It was undeniable. And i dont have the quote in front of me but it was very telling. If you look at chief Justice Roberts opinion in trump versus hawaii, he refers to the states, respondents pointing to all these statements by the president. Just expressing the most blatant antimuslim sentiment and said, you know, lets set that aside. We got to think about how this ruling will affect any president , not this president. Right . And so it was really disingenuous because the prem court is setting forth the law. And the whole point is that they now 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 you know, they didnt, one thing i will say about trump versus hawaii to the courts credit is they did reject flatout the administrations arguments that the court could not adjudicate the issue. Right . They purported to apply the mendel standard, is there a bona fide and legitimate reason given . And the Fourth Circuit had done that as well and reached the different conclusion, you no, mandel with teeth, not as an empty letter. And the Supreme Court purported to apply mandel and said we are looking at the justification but we find the muslim ban in its third watered down version does pass muster. In the census case i was very worried that if you follow the reasoning of trump versus hawaii, you know, we had the secretary ross in this case, you know, pretty blatantly up to no good, you know. 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 the idea originated with the Justice Department or with his department. And, you know, thank god or, you know, thank justice robert, chief Justice Roberts, they reached the opposite conclusion in the census case. I think, you know, the kind of, 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, you know, rigging the system for the next redistricting battle in favor of republican states, you know, maybe that also gave the majority pause. But yeah, i think those were intellectual honesty make the noted for regular law school audience that the Supreme Court did not say that the administration did not have the authority to add a question. They just said they did not do it right way. Just as a matter of record. But kim, let me just turn to you before i turn to david for his last question. This is obviously europe isnt the state of california. But this is a debate all around. Is there any coordination going on around states to do this in a more coheesive way . Yeah. In addition to the litigation and certainly our attorney general has been we call that partnering with other states in the litigation efforts. But i would say more in a programmatic space. And what were doing on the ground is really thinking about not only the Legal Service effort that i mentioned that both new york and Washington State also have made investments in, but also in looking at the broader immigrant strategy. So were sharing and combining resoerss, materials, not only related to how were doing communications around some of the rules and policies but also on the mobility strategies, education, access, theres been some convenings and conversations for states that are interested and have that same priority in the population thats been moving forward. All right. So those of you who will ask questions, please get and line up there. Well do this in exactly five minutes. And i will turn for last question to david. So david, with all of this lack of hope we have had all morning, but i hear there is some hopeful sign on some decent Bipartisan Legislation moving in the house. Were hopeful. We as i said earlier, we need to start laying the groundwork for bipartisan reform. Weve always put everything all together and always kind of attacked the issue come prehencively as you know. Its comprehensive reform, catch word or phrase. And this is there was a realization after this administration came to power that that was not likely. And so there have now been attempts to try to move things in a more piecemeal kind of fashion. Named one of those things. But here theres been a group of members, with some conservative republicans and less conservatives or liberality democrats working on an ag labor deal. There is an area where we think it is easier for republicans to provide a path to legalization and, you know, increase the number of visas that are available, for example. And so under the theory that you got to take baby steps sometimes before you can run, we have been working on a package that both provides good Legalization Program for undocumented farm workers to come out of the shadows, that provides reforms to the current to make it an easier to use, you know, kind of more business friendly but still protect workers kind of program. And then we can get all that working, enforce it by and im afraid of the reaction from this room, but by also, yeah, by also then, you know, instituting manned tory verified in the Agricultural Sector as a kind of way, as those are the trades. And that is what but again, i dont believe that youre ever going to get a legalization of the undocumented farm workers without doing the other two pieces. So in the interest of moving the ball forward, building support, getting people to talk to each other and feel like we can do things in this area, this is an effort we think is worthwhile. It is meaningful to me. Something ive wantsed to champion for a very long time. Were working with ngos and united farm workers and then grower associations, people across the political gamut. Anyway, im very excited and i hope that we can at the very least pass out of the house. We have some conservatives republicans rooting for us to get it out of the house so they can take it, try to move it over in the senate. It might come back differently than the way we sent it over, but well see. I have hope. Any reason to reason to beli senate has an appetite to do this . Well, there are yes, and there are a lot well, there are you know, there are some important republican senators who are in discussions with us and the republicans that were speaking to and rooting for us and know what our package looks like, and would like to see it come out of the house. They think they can take it over there. Will mcconnell let it go to the floor . Will this president and Stephen Miller see it and, excuse me language, crap all over it, thats possible but you have to try, right . Having seen this debate, do you think that kind of dealmaking is a down payment for the larger deal at some point . I think so. I think that the idea i mean, our idea is this is a mini crr. This holds the promise of comprehensive reform. You have a sector clearly 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 deport them, we close down and we cant just replace them. There are a million of them and they know what to do, where to go, how to pick our crops and feed our country, and theyre willing to take political hits. And they can do things back at home and they can talk about that population in a way where they dont get the political blow back you see in other areas. And theyre saying things you would normally not hear conservative republicans say. And were hoping that that takes. People get comfortable with that. If you can show how this can help improve that sector and, you know, both be businessfriendly, workerfriendly and enforce it in a way you can argue its not a magnet for future unlawful migration. Forgive me, im still stuck in the old ways of talking. You know, i mean, can i just say i want to say one thing. This might be useful. You said we need to lose the phrase, get right with the law. Maybe you h maybe, but i will say, you have to understand, if youre going to achieve political success on the hill and get legislation through two houses and get it to a president to sign it, you have to understand the other side. Were never going to get everything we want. I just dont believe thats ever going to happen. So, you have to understand, to compromise, you have to understand what the other side wants, how to motivate them, what they think. Many of you know this is the way i think. I think democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives are kind of wired differently. Were wired to be justiceoriented and outcomeoriented. Whats the just outcome and whats the law that make sure it results in the most just outcome . Republicans really come at it by saying, what are the rules . Its black and white. Did you follow the rules. Did you not . What does the law say . What doesnt it say . Thats just the way they approach the issues. Once you understand they have a real legitimate some are motivated by other things, but those who are motivated by just rule of law, and some of them are, you have to figure out how to deal with that. And it is about, you know i mean, they get that the rules were antiquated, but you still have to recognize that people did something unlawful or here unlawfully. You cant just hide it. You have to provide a way to get right with the law or to become lawful or to at least legalize your status, however it is. Youre not going to be able to get around that kind of rhetoric. And i think trying to do so may be creates even more distance between the two sides. So, thats my take. Okay. I know you wanted to speak no, no, you can. Two people at the mic. Maybe well get your answer in to answer one. So, camille, introduce yourself and ask a question to who you want. Im camille from the new york immigration coalition. I have a question for cecillia. David, make we can make a plug for farm workers. Theyre there. Ill let them know. Cecillia, given especially the back drop of how this president , his administration is destroying what it means to be an independent judiciary, we see that every day in immigration courts, how many deportation orders are unjust in the first place, but also how theyre reshaping the judiciary, the bench, the federal bench. I worry that all these lawsuits eventually, the way they are reshaping the way the executive impacts and has the enormous powers they have on immigration policy, that its going to backfire on us in the long term because, a, if congress doesnt get its act together, no offense, but no hope, if were stuck with this for the long haul. Its just sort of very convoluted and complex and dangerous. If you take it a step further, you leave the beltway, go into the communities, that es are extremely hard decisions to message to communities. And when im sitting in an upstate New York County jail who came from texas, got caught at the Canadian Border and was trying to flee, its meaningless the ninth circuit said, remaining in mexico is illegal but you didnt prove your requirements. I guess i have two responses. Whats the alternative . You dont challenge these responses, they are the law. Yes, we should pick and choose our battles. We should be mindful of counting votes in the Supreme Court. We should try to figure out how to avoid certain courts that are we believe will be inhospitable. There are different tactics we can do. At the end of the day i think ill start with my lesson one in my opening remarks, we dont have any choice because if you dont challenge the policies, you dont get relief. They become the law. Of the eight major asylum policies that weve challenged through big systematic cases, all of them except for the third the asylum ban number two are currently enjoined. So i think we have to yes, we should be careful about the collateral impact of losses as well as victories in litigation. Thats certainly right. I totally hear you about how we talk to affected communities about the lawsuits and orders in them. But and we should be careful about how we bring cases and which cases we bring. I dont see any alternative otherwise well be stuck with what weve got. My second i agree with that. The second response is that actually, i have three responses. Second response is, you know, i actually think theres a limit to what an article 3 judge is willing to put up with. I think this president is extreme. I think weve seen plenty of republican appointed judges, federal judges, ruling against this administration. And, you know, the overall arc of immigrants rights litigation and other litigation touching on the immigration power, and more broadly Foreign Affairs power thats related, you know, i came back to the aclu in 2004 to litigate against the george w. Bush administrations torture policy. All we had to do was walk in the court and hear the government lawyer, doj, say, i represent the United States national security, end of case, youre dismissed. And thats not the case anymore. Even with mousse luslim ban, wha tough case about the president s exercise of power under 212f. A third, very quick point is, i think, you know, our siblings in other social Justice Movements are thinking a lot about how to avoid the u. S. Supreme court now. A lot of them have more options than immigrants rights advocates do in state court, but we do have state court avenues and weve gotten a lot of interesting results in state Supreme Courts on detainer policy under state constitutional law, for example. Or through state legislative relief as in california. Thats my threepart answer. Great, thank you. Thank you. Please introduce yourself. Thank you. With the american friend service. My question is with regards to tps and ded. I have three questions for each of you. So, for California California has a Large Population of tps holders. Im just wondering whatever happens with the courts or inaction or action of congress, is there a plan for the road to undocumented status . Because theres families involved. Like you said, its multistatus families. For you, cecilia, i dont think aclu is litigating any of the cases they are. They are do know doing one in southern california. What does the road look like . Is there a path to the Supreme Court . Its more likely the Supreme Court will take it up if the government requests it, not the plaintiffs. If you could just talk about the landscape for that and ded in particular. Also in the context of Foreign Policy because these are individual countries and we hear through the third kurt safe third country agreement, for example, el salvador, that was brought up, how does that play into the decision . Can that be brought to a court . What happens in the court . Theres a whole lot, i dont know, but if you could share. David, when you bring up t. S and ded in the room for when youre trading and battering lives, what does tps bring up . That is what is happening with the programs. When immigrant rights advocates do not pit other immigrant communities against each other. We dont want you to uphold daca and then throw enforcement into communities. How do you sort of make sure you represent that voice in the negotiations . Yeah. I mean, well i dont know why im going first. No, go ahead. I have no idea why im going first. Im working on two hours of sleep. Ive been traveling. I just want to say that. Very quickly, i mentioned the investment california has made in supporting Legal Immigration remedies for populations. We have over the course of this multiyear investment targeted different populations and strategies. Tps has been one. We have focused dollars and commitment in resource to support those who are tps the tps population across the state and ensuring were not missing anything in terms of other potential remedy they might be eligible for in that connection. David . I dont know if you know this. There you are. Tps ded is in the dream bill. Just to make sure. I actually think its easier to deal with tps and ded than it is the dream population because of, one, how long theyve been here in a lawful status. You know, theyre its an issue where a lot of republicans didnt even know it existed. A lot of democrats didnt know it existed until the administration decided to no longer continue the to issue tps designations. So, you know, again, i just want i will reiterate that no matter what we do, it is likely going to require some kind of tradeo tradeoff. That is just the way our institution is built. I hope what youre hearing is a reflection of reality and not necessarily kind of a normative kind of statement. But, you know, there were times where so the big gripe from the republican side was it was a temporary program. If you look at the statute, 244, theres a lot in there to actually say, hey, we really mean this to be temporary. Indeed, it actually says that any effort to move a bill to provide permanent residence to tpl holders is subject to an order in the senate. Thats how much when Congress Passed it, they wanted to make sure they codified this idea and its to be temporary and temporary only. Theyre upset it wasnt temporary. And every administration, you have ded holders for almost 29 years from liberia and tps, you know, rightfully so, by the way. Im not trying to but that is their gripe. So, there were times where there were offers to provide permanent status to tps and ded holders but change the statute to make it even more, you know, kind of just make it temporary, right . We mean its temporary for real this time kind of language. And weve never moved forward with that. Im not sure thats even possible because i think this administration would want a lot more than that. But, you know, it was one of those things where theres a lot of confusion on our side as to what a good deal is and what it isnt. If you were to ask tps holders, a lot would say, thats a great deal, do it. You get to protect the people here now and youre potentially making it harder for people in the future to stay but thats a tradeoff worth making. Others dont agree. And it splits us. We dont ever coalesce around a particular idea. Nothing happens. Thats just a real dynamic im trying to shed some light on. I cant tell you now that i know what we would do or what the right outcome is. I will say hopefully if theres a cliff and there are people who have had status or, you know, for 20 years or 30 years and theyre about to lose it, that that that will be an easier thing to get across the finish line. Even if its temporary. I have two minutes left. We didnt have much control over how we began this conference, but we had a lot of control over how we landed. I just want i just want to give last 30 seconds each to all of the panelists. If you had to ask from your perspective, if you were to ask this audience what they could 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. That is, thank you for signing up and making this commitment. Keep going. I think one thing im certainly grateful in addition to the investment we made, we made an investment in Capacity Building. So fellowships, really building the capacity of the community to be present and support populations in our larger immigrant and immigration efforts. So thank you for being part of that and please continue on that path. Other than joining you, what should they do . Hopefully theyre all members already. You know, i think ill end with what i started with and rebutt what david said. You know, i think i knew it was coming. Look, i dont like to think of myself as politically naive. I really dont think i am. And i understand anything that happens legislatively is going to be the product of compromise and there will be wins and losses involved. But, you know, when i say that we need to move beyond the language of law breaking and the frame of law breaking. I really mean that for those of us in the movement. Hopefully for those of us who those in congress and state houses who represent our views for those in the movement and immigrant communities. In the summer of 2014, you know, the Obama Administration was talking about a surge andle president and Vice President and secretary of Homeland Security declared nobody coming from Central America was eligible for asylum and they would detain and rapidly export people, explicitly for deterrence purposes. Its not that far of a leap from a surge to an invasion. Its not that far of a leap doctrinally from detention at artesia and expedited removal to what we see now. Legally i think theres a big difference. We sued the Obama Administration in the summer of 2014 just as were seeing the Trump Administration now. But i think its important for us not to buy into those frames. David, last word. Sure. So, just two things i want to say. One, belief and i think belief system and being true to your values is extraordinarily important. But being true to your values and not having the power to do anything about it doesnt get us very far. We need to be politically engaged. We need to vote. The fact congress hasnt done much is a reflection of the fact we control one house. We havent been able to win the senate and we lost a presidency as well. So, i mean, again, some people didnt vote for Hillary Clinton because and they voted for jill stein or someone else because they couldnt vote for her but there were consequences to that, right . So, you need for the people who stand up for immigrants to have power. You need that to happen. If those are the people you care about. And the other thing i would say, last thing is, challenge yourselves a little bit in the sense of, you know, whats difficult if youre in the hill, if youre on the hill, is that, you know, we still we dont think of ourselves as gods or we know what to do. We have to go to the outside and go to the immigrant communities and ngos to understand what a good trade is or good policy is. We need the support of the communities. And if theyre all over the place or if theyre in a kind of no trade mentality, you know, we want to be pure, then it makes it very difficult for us to cut a deal of some kind. So, i just say that because thats just something i recognized in my time as well. You at least need some voices on the outside. Maybe not vocally but at least in the room to be very pragmatic and guide us in a way we feel that we can move forward and were not violating our values. Thank you. Please, help me think kim, cecillia and david. [ applause ] and since this is the last panel, my privilege to thank all of you for coming and staying with us all day. I want to thank our cohosts at the clinic and Georgetown Law Center for this extraordinary conference. Well see you all of the 17th law policy conference. And safe travels. The National League of cities releases a report today on the state of the nation cities. Theyve analyzed Budget Trends and other results from more than 500 cities, towns and villages for their 2019 report. Live coverage begins at 12 15 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. The Heritage Foundation held a discussion with veteran secretary robert wilke on improvements at the department of veteran affairs. You can watch that conversation tonight at 8 00 eastern. Following that at 9 00, a u. S. House hearing in chicago on gun violence. The energy and commerce subcommittee went to chicago learn about the gun violence there and its impact on the community. Lawmakers heard from doctors, a funeral homeowner and a woman who lost both her son and brother to gun violence. Thats tonight at 9 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. Tonight on the communicators when it comes to facebook, the ftc recently fined that company. How did you come up with 5 billion and where does that money go . So, to take your second question first, the money goes to the u. S. Treasury. And in terms of the Monetary Fund, remember, of course, the Monetary Fund is only one aspect of the relief that we obtained from facebook. Yes, 5 billion civil penalty. Also broad injunctive relief that constrains the way facebook can handle consumer data going forward. Watch our interview with if. Tc commissioner Christina Wilson on the communicators on cspan2. Thinking about participating in cspans student cam 2020 competition but youve never made a documentary film before . No problem. We have resources in our website to help you get started. Check out our Getting Started and downloads pages on studentcam. Org for producing information and video links to footage in the cspan library. Teachers will find resources on the teachers material page to help you introduce student cam to your students. My advice to anyone that wants to keep this year is to find a topic youre truly passionate about and pursue it as much as you can. Were asking middle school and high School Students to create a Short Documentary on issues you would like the president ial candidates to address in the 2020 campaign. Cspan will award 100,000 in total cash prices and 5,000 grand prize. Go get a camera and microphone and produce the best video you can possibly produce. Visit studentcam. Org for more information today. We are live here on cspan3 for a look at the fiscal state of cities around the u. S. And a new report by the National League of cities with results for more than 500 towns and villages as cities anticipate a revenue decline for the first time in seven years. Officials will discuss ways cities can head off problems and the likely recession. This is live coverage on cspan3. We expect it to get under way in a couple of minutes. Once again, were live this afternoon for a discussion on a new report by the National League of cities. This gathering today will review the fiscal state of cities around the nation over 500 towns and cities took part. And officials who worked on the study will look at ways the cities can head off some of the problems they face. Theyll also look at the likelihood of a recession. This is live coverage on cspan3