Transcripts For CSPAN3 Immigration Policy Discussion At Migration Policy Institute Conference 20240713

That is true for the speakers as well and the audience. So i will not use any time to repeat what the speakers would need for introduction, but they come from three important perspectives on the debate. This is obviously a law and policy conference. I think that we will discuss a little bit more law than we have discussed in other panels, and hopefully a little policy as well. So the broad theme for the panel which is true for a lot of the immigration stuff since trump took over is some important issues having been sort of shuttled between and among three branchs of the government. In one way of the wall leaning from one branch of the government, and each branch of the government is putting the can in the other persons lap, and hoping that the can will stop there somewhere. Many of the cans have not stopped. So this is the chance to see where the cans are and where they will finally land. So i will begin talking to the panelists in more of a conversation topic, and so we can get into the issues. And let me start with sis celia, because she represents the uclu which is the president s conon the side more than any other organization, and it has brought more than 100 cases against this administration. As law school, every law student would salivate for the 100 cases, but we are going to stick to one or two. And start with daca, and this is one audience that i dont have to say what daca stands for. So start with daca, and the can has been shuttled by three branchs of the government, and the president ended the program, and lawsuit was brought almost the very next day to challenge injunction and the president said it is the job of congress to do this, and david hale is going to end up doing nothing, because congress could argue that the court were busy and they did not intervene to provide the protection, and that can has to be stopped. We passed a bill in the house. I have to point that out. And nothing is a little inaccurate there. And so, i will i will give you some of what has happened in congress, but it is not resolved. Fair enough, chris. And so on what we are going to hear an argument on the daca case. And cecilia tee up for us what are the challenges that you are seeking in the case, and what is the governments defense, and how is the court going to rule, and when is it going to court . Sure. Thank you, mousse, and thank you all for inviting us to the conference. It is always very illuminating. And so we have filed over 100immigrationrelated cases against the Trump Administration, but the daca rescinding case is not one of them. I am not one of the litigators on that case and i should make that important disclaimer, but i have spoken to many of the attorneys who are doing that including the folks from the National Immigration law center from the state of california and other states and municipalities, and make the road new york, et cetera, et cetera. But to take away that i would highlight both from the daca rescission cases from the Supreme Court now as well as every other major Immigration Initiative from the Trump Administration and i would include the muslim ban, and cluster of policy change, and the public charge rule, and rescission of the dhaka, and also the sanctuary city policies of this administration. The lesson from all of the many Court Battles over all of those issues is 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, and so for all of you georgetown and other Law School Students here, you are in the right place doing the right thing and to get ready to do more of the right thing. So, even when we have unfortunately lost as with the muslim ban when we got injunctions from all of the lower federal courts, but ultimately the state of hawaii lost in the Supreme Court, and we bought time for people, and 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, and attend someones graduation, and be there for the birth of the child, and be at an important academic conference or business meeting, et cetera, et cetera, and in the case of the rescission of daca, i am optimistic about the daca case, and dont chak thshake that, pl but i am optimistic, and even if, even if the Supreme Court were to rule against all of, all of the immigrant groups and states and municipalities that are harmed by the rescission of dhaka, that kind of litigation even when unsuccessful has so many consequences to protect people, and again, to buy people a little bit more time, and buy people more time with documented status, and dacamented status, and it is a important vehicle i think to talk about how we think in this country about immigration. It is important to look at how the asylum mistakes have been made in the immigrant Rights Groups have made, and mistakes in talking about the path to legal citizenship in the past, and the dreamers, themselves, have been in the lead both as clients in litigation, as litigants and as advocates in their own right and in pointing out some of the mistakes with respect to people who are already in the United States and lack lawful status. So that is lesson one. Lesson two is a flipside. Most of the claims are under the Administration Procedures act and most of those cases are about the abuse of executive authority, about Trump Administration taking to an extreme an illegal extreme laws, the application of laws that are already on the books. Lesson two is that we cannot rely on the professed will of the executive branch even when we have friends in the executive branch. We cannot rely on executive Branch Officials to comport with unwritten norms and the enforcement of laws that are repeatedly subject to abusive, illegal and immoral, immoral application must be struck from the books one way or another. That is the way i see the abuse starting with the muslim ban, and the minority statutory that was the beginning of the asylum ban proclamation. And people are picking up loaded guns that are lying around in the immigration and nationality act, and in the jurisprudence of plenary power and old Supreme Court precedents. And to be clear, i should be really clear about one thing as a litigator, all of the policies that our agency has challenged under the Trump Administration is illegal under law. I am not saying that precedents need to be overturned in order to challenge the illegalities of the trump policies, but if we no longer want the loaded weapons the be lying around for the next donald trump, the next abusive White Nationalist, and i dont say that lightly, but face it, these are the White Nationalist policies [ applause ] then we need to make sure that the loaded is disarmed. So we have seen this with the use of the expedited removal of the statutory maximum which all of the previous administrations in both parties have, you know, without conventional wisdom exceeds the bounds of due process, and the public grounds of municipality which we will talk about this on panel, and also the mass detention without individualized hearing, and exceptional, exceptional under u. S. Law, and civil detention, and the immigration detention is the only area in u. S. Law where civil detention can be imposed without an individualized hearing on the flight risk in danger, and extraordinary, and yet that is approved by the Supreme Court so far. And efforts to limit the review of other reviews to challenge the systemic litigation. So, i think that Going Forward and david and kate will talk more about this along with mousse, we really need to uproot the frame of law breaking that has infected immigration policy making since 1996 most pertinently, and both from the law and from our framing of the policy debate. No more get right with the law. Okay. No more legalizing the border so that we can look at the system to look at individuals as due process and individualized scrutiny of people as individual human beings, and that is my take away. Thank you. And just the philosophical case, and it is going to be argued november 12th. You have argued before the Supreme Court very skillfully, but you are not going to argue this case. I lost. It was a surprise twice to do this argument. Yes. Could you tell me who it is, and how the choice was made . Sure. Gangs, im not one of the litigants, but i was peripherally involved in discussion about this. And you all know that ted olson, the noted conservative and member of the Supreme Court bar is going to be arguing the case in support of daca against the rescission of daca, and it is an interesting, and i have to say somewhat painful discussion. There were what is it, seven separate lawsuits coming out of three different districts, and Federal District courts that are consolidated in the Supreme Court, and states and municipal tis i should add Michael Mongen who is the solicitor general of california is going to be splitting the argument with ted olson, and with the pending Supreme Court, and contingent on the Supreme Court approval, and that is what the respondents have made. And so, this is what happens when our issues get to the Supreme Court, and Nancy Moravetz has talked about this topic where we have an entrenched Supreme Court bar that is not very diverse, and it does not necessarily represent movements and when the movement cases make it for the court, and so there was a pretty fraught discussion i think among, and it is no secret among the various groups of the counsel and parties, and ted olson, you know, to give credit where credit is due, is someone who i think that he is a choice calculated to appeal as broad a group of justices as possible. It is a decision calculated to win a majority. But i must say that as someone who is a immigrants Rights Movement lawyer, and aclu lawyer, and there are so many extraordinarily brilliant lawyers in our movement who could argue this case. And i have to just express my personal sentiment that i think that ted olson is a brilliant choice in some ways, but i also feel some regrets, i guess. Not regrets, since it was not my decision, but a little sad that we dont have a Movement Lawyer up there. So, you said that you were optimistic about the daca case. Could you tell me why you are optimistic when three or four years ago on the case that had the same arguments that we by now know that the four conservative judges voted and never know about the vote, and it was a tie decision. They probably voted to say that it was unlawful, and why do you think that dacar is going to be unlawful . Well, obviously, the Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court circuit by a 44 tie, and i guess that twoword answer that legal realism, and i think that this case is a political one, and like many hot button cases in front of the Supreme Court. And i have to believe that there are not going to be five justices who have the stomach to agree with the Trump Administration on this one. I think that we have seen this court already, and who will in the census case, the right way, and i think that this, too, daca would be a road too far to get to the technical reasons that this case is different. There is an argument that as to dapa, the inila had a adjustment to the parents of dreamers, and which isnt present here. And theres also alliance interest that here we are talking about the rescission of the program that is in effect for years already, and that the people have come to rely on that. And finally, you know, there is a dynamic here of the pattern of the solicitor general here providing incorrect data to the court, and there was the Trump Administration saying that daca was in the texas case in the dapa case, the Trump Administration took the position that the Obama Administration had applied daca in a boilerplate way, and that basically anyone who met the qualifications for daca under the jay joeh johnson memo would relief, and judge hainan relied on that and the fifth circuit also relied on that, and the argument here is that evidence since then has demonstrated that in fact, the Obama Administration was applied the agency under obama, and the Trump Administration, and applying for it, and it was a rubber stamp, and they were not handing out daca to everybody. So i think that, this correction and development of the record in the subsequent litigation, and that is very important. Okay. So i let you off soon. But, the rule which a lot of people who are earned can about here is going to dedefect, and nine lawsuits brought, and how there is good fallout from the Trump Administration, and 14 attorneys general of the United States brought action against the charge. It was a lively discussion from the Southern District of new york, and what you are doing with the public charge is, and what is the time line that people should be looking at . Sure. Again, a disclaimer that we are not involved in the fully charged litigation, and none of the cases is the public charged case, but i did speak to niko from nmilk about the hearing tht took place in california last week. As to the time line, you know, i think that almost the litigants with the exception of one case has sought a preliminary injunction, and 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 not preparing for this and not looking at the news, that the readout from new york was positive and 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 and urged the parties to try to reach an agreement on the scope of injunction, which i dont believe it is going to happen, based on a little inside information, but it is interesting, because we have seen the 9th circuit in the return to the mexico case which is an aclu case litigate the preliminary injunction that we have gotten from the court that was nationwide in scope to the 9th circuit. So i think that what you may see if we can read the tea leaves from the argument in front of judge hamilton is that she may be preemptively trying to narrow the geographical scope of the injunction. Okay. But on this, we talked about the asylum a lot in to a good part of the conference and many of us are surprised by the Supreme Court letting it go ahead the new rule on the transom country go forward and how do you read that on the merits . The Supreme Court did not purport to rule on the merits at all, and so we have to take them on their word at that, and continue the litigate it. The stay, and there is no getting around the fact that the stay order is painful. And, you know, we have a situation where the previous panels went through in greater detail that we have the first asylum proclamation which put everybody through the ports of entry, and then the administration was bottlenecking, and then they did return to mexico which is leading to estimates of 20,000 people including kids. Stuck in mexico. Sleeping on the ground, and then the third world country proclamation. It hurts, because we are desperate to get relief for people who deserve to have asylum in our country, and who have been turned away in every possible juncture by this administration. So, you know, i think that we take this court at its word. We keep going with the litigation, and keep litigating it, and build our word to show the harms clients, and thats it. Okay. David, now your turn. You are as you represent the will of the people. You really by now have the more interesting places in this debate, you spend a lot of time in the administration the last administration, please. On the hill, both as minority and as majority counsel. And so, just start with the daca thing. Sure. Because, obviously, the hope was congress would intervene in the daca case. First on the budget, which it decided not to do, but because the litigation was going, people were protected, and that sort of is going to end as we now discuss at some point. But you did also manage to pass impressive legislation in the house and 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 . Sure. So if i can just address first of all thank you to npi, the clinic, georgetown, appreciate the invitation. So one, i want to say i am not as i am not as optimistic, i should say, about the Supreme Court. I think the Supreme Court im not surprised. This is like this is how we are. Yeah. I am the pessimist in the room normally, yes. But i actually think the Supreme Court probably doesnt even get to whether daca is or is not lawful. I think what they do is they say it is my assumption, my guess is they look at the memo that was originally issued, the memo itself says it can be rescinded at any time, either to any individual or in its entirety. They say if this is an act of discretion, you dont need to go through apa rule making to undo it and they say whether its lawful or not the administration has the authority to end it and kick it back to the administration and set a time line. Thats my assumption to what happens. Thats not what i want to happen. But i think thats the way it goes. So, you know, if that were to happen, i hope that means that there is some real thoughtful, you know and some just some discussions between both sides about what to do and how i think there would be a lot of there will be a lot of democrats that want to, of course, fix it and lots of republicans that want to do it. And the question is how do they do it and is there a trade . Is there a space political space for one. Thats one of the things we found difficult when we moved this dream bill this you know, the one we just did at the beginning of this congress. You know, there were some on our side who wanted to kind of work on Bipartisan Legislation, there were others that wanted to do something that was more kind of pure and democratic friendly and take a onesided approach and move that, and dare republicans to vote against it. Thats kind of the the path that 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 to sign it. And that may, in our system, require deal making. And the question is whether that space is there and whether people are, you know, 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. You be in the middle of the deal making a lot. Yes. So what do you think the republicans will ask for for a daca deal to happen . Its always been about the border and about the eith erthe asylum provisions or the unaccompanied children provisions or other provisions that affect the ability to provide a Law Enforcement response to people coming across the border is the way they would put it. Usually its been in that area where discussions have really focussed. Now with the Supreme Court taking a lot of pressure off the border, im not sure what they come forward with. They may want to perhaps, knowing that thats an interim measure, thats not likely going to be in place for, you know, 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 remain in mexico, cod fie some pieces of it in some way, they might come forward with that. You know, they may seek certain revisions to the immigration system, you know, eliminating family based visas and moving to employment based or getting rid of the diversity based. But their hearts are in the border and how to weather how to affect and deter. They want tools to be able to deter people from coming across the southern border. Its not lost on anyone that the decision is going to come out in the middle of an election season. Yes. Just put your political hat on, how do you think thats going to affect the dynamics in congress on working on daca . What if theres an impeachment on top of that . I mean, its going to be i have no idea how to predict that 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 republicans want or where the deal making space is and what maybe a good deal looks like 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 think things are so different now. The you know, where the deals are and some of the areas are im not sure i fully understand it, im not sure theres anybody on the hill that really does. Some of our normal partners we work with, like senator lindsey graham, are not in the same place policywise or politically. I think its going to need people of good faith basically putting down their, you know the 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, you know, survive politically on both sides. But again, those conversations are not happening now. The ground work for that isnt in place. And that makes me pretty sad right now. I think were trying to build some of that right now, because we know we need these good relationships in order to get things across the finish line. So were trying to build through other measures. But theres a lot of work to be done. On the public charge issue. Sure. So do you think the congress is likely to act or let the litigation run its course and not deal with it . Weve acted in certain ways. So weve you know, we filed comments, which i thought were very powerful comments, where we we clearly think when i say we, i 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, you know, meaning behind the words public charge. Public charge has meant people who are destitute and cant survive but for Government Housing and help. It was originally meant, people who were so destitute they were relegated to what were called back then poor houses or insane asylums. Not people who can survive perfectly fine on their own, are working but can use a little extra help, health care or some nutritional assistance to improve the Health Outcomes of our communities. That is a bastardization of those words. So we laid out a legal argument that were hoping would provide a foundation for the litigation. We also drafted a brief and were 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 you know, 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, theres i dont see a path in the senate. So i just will say one last thing about it. It is an issue that for Many Democrats is not a difficult issue to talk about but its not true for all democrats. So then the question is, you know, 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 appearances sake may not be the smartest move. Its very difficult, a lot of dynamics at play. There are a lot of people that care a lot about it and 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. Crossing the bridge to asylum. So there was a lot of conversation here about asylum. Sure. Luckily daca and the public charge stuff is stuck in litigation so no one is being immediately harmed. On the asylum the impact is real and urgent now. Supreme court let go ahead the new rule on the transit country and the administration is busy signing these socalled third country agreements, which really dont meet any of the statutory requirement of the third country. Correct. A safe country requirement. So i think a lot of representing a lot of feelings today that congress has been missing in action on the asylum issue. So what are you doing on this . Take suggestions. So, you know, you know, what im going to stutter for a little bit here. So we have done some things, right. We i say that i work for two bosses mr. Nadler, the and mrs. Lofton, who introduced a bill that sought to reform the entire refugee and asylum system in the hemissphere creates a way to deal with them in our hemisphere, theres a regional approach, works with International Apartments apartne are more humane ways of dealing with people. So weve tried to be leaders in that space. Weve held hearings on detention and 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 history, usually theyre like we dont want to deal with it, you deal with it. Now youve seen other committees, government oversight, Foreign Affairs, you know you know, tackle these issues. We had the Armed Services tackle an immigration issue in a hearing. So, you know, we we have lambasted the you cant just lambaste a Supreme Court decision. We expressed our strong disappointment over it. We think the decision is wrong as a legal matter. I agree with you, 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 requirements have not been met in these cases. I just dont really understand, you know, why the you know, why the Supreme Court did what it did. But here we are. And were not going to get a decision on the merits for quite some time. 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 that maybe comes out of the house and itll die there. Thats the best we can do right now when you have control of one house. Okay. So kim, well let these two rest for a while. I think its a reflection of how much this debate as changed, that states were considered kind of spectators to the immigration policy debate for a number of years. I said 14 ags have brought action on the public charge. So suddenly its become a big issue for states. You represent the largest state in the country and run its social service program. Could you describe sort of how the developments in immigration, whether its enforcement or the public charge, what kind of impact is it having on social services on a state like california. Thank you, and thank you for the invitation to be here as well. Ill start with just a little bit of context around california to have a sense of why i see such passionate response and investment in a number of ways here that ill talk about. 11 million of californias 40 million residents are foreign born. One in two children in california has at least one immigrant parent. 35 of californias civilian workforce is comprised of immigrants and imgranlts are contributing 715 billion in terms of californias economy. So in terms of californias response, immigration is a big part of what we do. You may have heard of governors trademark, california to all, its a home to many newcomers and we offer services that allow immigrants become part of the fabric of our state. So in that its been a busy couple of years. So 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, just want to talk a little bit about response to public charge and kind of what were seeing as proposed impact and what were actually seeing as impact on the ground. I want to note 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, an acknowledgement that the public charge rule may cause worse Health Outcomes, increase use of emergency rooms, presence of communicable diseases, increased rates of poverty instability, lack of education and attainment. The analysis we conducted in california is similar that we see that and are seeing the direct impact on health and well being of individuals and families subject to it. But i would also state to you its not just those impacted and specifically called out in the rule, but also individuals who are not subject to public charge. Its not just the Public Benefit programs that have been added to which programs would be considered, but its also those who are participating in programs that it wont be considered. So the broadcast of impact and the complexities and interpretations that Human Service agencies 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 Human Service providers, what weve done is invested in things like Immigration Legal Services and remedies, 60 Million Investment this year plus Case Management that are focussed on supporting populations to have an immigration remedy, whatever they might be eligible for. Thats a way in which they can also be a resource. I think that there was just i appreciate the comments from david as well. The public charge rule that stands today certainly recognized the health and well being 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 of what its supporting in terms of disrupting poverty is huge. Just the Nutritional Program is one of the largest antipoverty programs in the country. Its also about the improved math and reading skills that will be in effect the longerterm outcomes, low birthrates, increased Graduation Rates and so forth that we see as outcomes of having things like a s. N. A. P. Program. Theres myths in terms of whos accessing these programs. Across the country, 87 of the s. N. A. P. Recipients are households that have a child, a senior or a person with a disability, about 74 in california. Whos being targeted and served z are truly the most vulnerable in making those connections. So in terms of public charge, what were seeing across some of the other proposals, certainly we are anticipating and seeing disenrollment from programs and, therefore, the Ripple Effect that means for Health Outcomes, not only for those specifically targeted in any of these given policies, but also those who arent. Its just the Broader Health impact of the policies across the state. So its its significant. We have been very mindful and thoughtful about looking at enrollment and what we do about it. And certainly, there is a a complexity of describing who it does and doesnt apply to, like i said which programs it applies to. Also were just trying to make sure we have trusted messengers in 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. So its a different strategy of kind of going into the weeds in detail of whats being proposed versus actually making sure were doing our Due Diligence in connecting to the services we know make a difference for people across the state. Let me ask you a question about the daca and tps if it ends. Obviously the impact is going to be felt at the state level. What do you what do you predict the impact is going to be on the state and on the residents and is it a plan the state of california has to respond to that . So daca for california has been tremendous. Just in the last 18 months alone, 574,000 individuals have renewed their daca application. Again, i just mentioned the investment we had in Immigration Legal Service providers to help assist with the renull newels. We supported renewal fees as well. So 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 of our noncitizen populations in a household with a citizen. So 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 1 billion just in 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 within uncertainty of the program are real. And so, thats also a concern of ours should that occur. Let me ask you kind of an obvious question. The mistrust of the government in general, especially among immigrant communities, especially during this administration, 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 making an impact on peoples lives. In 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 applicable to their circumstance is a hard connection to make. That individual or family has made up their mind when they walked into that office or made that phone call to disenroll. Really from our perspective its about getting in front of that. Its about that connection where we have a number of Rapid Response networks across california with the know your rights campaigns and how do we ensure that the information about apply aability of public charge and knowing the communities. So its certainly a Public Private partnership from our concern. So we are investing in that kind of outreach to connect with individuals and families so they understand what that is. But its true that its a real its a real the distrust is real, fear is real in communities, so thats how we ae weve approached the relationship. Luckily we dodged a bullet, the Supreme Court said the Citizenship Question will no longer appear on the census. But the narrative around that, is that affecting the level of participation do you expect in the census . Yes, i think so. We have a number of investments in this space too and how we conduct outreach really recognizing what it means to have undercounts of populations here. So its a similar strategy and really engaging with trusted messengers, different models that are connecting with community, but it is absolutely a real thing. When i talk to the fear, we 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. Its a similar strategy were using in this space with the census too of really looking at the Community Based organizations and trusted message messengers in community. Let me do another round with you. There was obviously a lot of euphoria soon after trump came in, all these Federal District courts all over the country issuing injunctions, 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 . Is that a surprise given there has been a lot of deference to executive in 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 Point to trump versus hawaii, right, because in both cases you had a record which showed cabinet level 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 forum. So in the muslim ban case, we saw really a cynical decision, i think, cynical in that the majority opinion purported to overrule after 80 plus years, around 80 years. But in reaching its decision on the muslim ban reaffirmed koramatzu in so many ways. I dont have the quote in front of me but its telling if you look at chief Justice Roberts opinion, he refers to the states, the respondents pointing to these statements by the president. Just expressing the most blatant antimuslim sentiment and said well, 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 Supreme 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 ca, flat out, t administrations argument that the courts could not adjudicate the issue. Right. They purported to apply the mandell standard, is there a bona fide and legitimate reason given. The Fourth Circuit did that as well and reached a different conclusion, mandell with teeth, not as an empty letter. And the Supreme Court attempted to apply mandell 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, you know, 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 cens census. He lied about whether the idea originated with the Justice Department or his department. And, you know, thank god or, you know, thank justice 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. The intellectual honesty i have to make a note 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 the right way, just as a matter of record. Kim, let me turn to you before i turn to david for his last question. This is obviously you represent the state of california, but this is a debate going on. Is there any correlation among states to do this in a more cohesive way . Yeah. In addition to the litigation and certainly our attorney general has been we call that partnering with other states in litigation efforts. But i would say more on a program attic space what were doing is not only thinking about the Legal Service that washington and new york have made investments in but looking at the broader immigration strategy. So were sharing, combining strategies, resources, materials not only related to how were doing communication around some of the proposed rules and policies but also on the broader economic mobility strategies, education, access to services and so forth. There have been some convening and conversations for state that are interested and have the same interest in the population moving forward. Those of you wanting to ask questions, please line up there. We will do this in five minutes. I will turn to last question for david. David, with all this lack of hope we have had all morning, i hear there is some hopeful sign on some decent Bipartisan Legislation moving in the house. Were hopeful. So, you know, we as i noted earlier we needed to start laying the ground work for bipartisan reform. You know, weve always put everything all together and always kind of attacked the issue comprehensively, as you know its comprehensive immigration reform, the catch word or phrase. You know, this is there was a realization after this administration came into power that was not likely so there have now been attempts to try to move things in a more piecemeal kind of fashion. But here were taking theres been a group of members, a Bipartisan Group with some conservative republicans and some less conservative or liberal democrats working on an ag labor deal. This is an area where we think, you know, it is easier for republicans to, you know, provide a path to legalization and increase the number of visas available, as an example. So under the theory you have to take baby steps before you can run, we have been working on a package that provides a good Legalization Program for undocumented farm workers to come out of the shadows, that provides reforms to the Current Program to make it more of a streamlined program, kind of an easier to use, more business friendly but still protect workers kind of program. And then if we can get all that working, enforce it by im afraid of the reaction from some in the room by also then, you know, instituting mandatory verify in the Agricultural Sector as a kind of way of, you know as the those are the trades. And that is the what again, you know, i dont believe youre ever going to get legalization of the undocumented farm workers without doing the other two pieces. And so in the interest of moving the ball forward, building bipartisan support, getting members to talk to each other and feel like we can do things in this area, it is an effort that we think is worthwhile, its very meaning to me. Something ive wanted to champion for a really long time. Were working with ngos and united farm workers and people across the political gamut. Anyway, im very excited. I hope that we can at the very least pass it out of the house. We have conservative 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 send it over, but well see. Any reason to believe the 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 who are 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. Right. You have a sector thats 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 they 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 so we were hoping that by and theyre saying things that 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 where it doesnt you know, you can argue that 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. I know you said we need to stop talking about for example, you said we need to lose the phrase, get right with the law. 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, what motivates them, how 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. Like whats the just outcome and how do we get there, and how do we interpret the law to 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 and there arent legal pathways to meet our economic needs, 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. I mean, and thats to try 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. I hope thats the i have two people at the mike. 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, maybe we can speak more offline because i want to make a plug for yearround dairy farm workers theyre there. Ill let them know. Cecillia, given especially the back drop of how this president , his administration is really just destroying what it means to be an independent judiciary, we see it every day in immigration court, how many of these deportation orders are unjust in the first place, but also 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 not much hope either, so if were stuck with this for the long haul and were reshaping how the executive interacts with the immigration policy through our courts, which they are reshaping, 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, these are extremely hard decisions to message to communities. And when im sitting in an upstate New York County jail who talking to a woman 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 for a tro. I guess i have two responses. One is, whats the alternative . If you dont challenge these policies, they are the law, right. So, 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 use to try to do that. But i think at the end of the day, ill start with my lesson one, you know, in my opening remarks, which is we dont have any choice. Because if you dont challenge the policies, you dont get rere relief and 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. But 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 is that you know, i 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 muslim ban, which is a relatively tough case about the president s exercise of power under 212f. And finally, the 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. So thats my threepart answer. Thank you. Great, thank you. Please introduce yourself. Thank you. Im with the american Friend Service community. My question is with regards to tps and ded. So i have sort of 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 we are, actually. They are doing one in southern california. What does the road look like . Is there a path to the Supreme Court . One of the read outs was it was more likely that 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 country safe thirty country agreement, for example, el salvador, that was brought up, how does that play in 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 tps 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 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 immigration legal remedies for populations. We have over the course of this multiyear investment targeted different populations and strategies. Tps has been one. So weve had focussed dollars and commitment and resource to support those who are tps the tps population across the state and also just ensuring that were not missing anything in terms of any other potential remedy they might be eligible for in that connection. David . So, one, i dont know if you know this oh, there you are. Tps ded is in the dream bill. You know that, okay. Just to make sure. I actually think its easier to deal with tps and ded than it is even the dream population because of, one, how long theyve been here in a lawful status. So there its just 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 tradeoff. That is just the way our institution is built. It is not its just 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 with tps or ded was it was a temporary program, and 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 tps holders is subject to a point of 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 possibly now 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 of them 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. And so, nothing happens. Thats just a real dynamic that im just 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 that i if hopefully if theres a cliff and there are people who have had status for 20 years or 30 years and theyre about to lose it, 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 our three panelists. If you had to ask from your representative perches, if you had to ask the audience what they can do to improve or help the kind of work that you do, what would that be . Start with you, kim. 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 Capacity Building effort, and please continue on that path. Other than joining the aclu, what can 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 that 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 of us in the movement and immigrant communities. You know, in the summer of 2014, you know, the Obama Administration was talking about a surge and the president and Vice President , secretary of Homeland Security declared that nobody coming from Central America was eligible for asylum and they would detain and then rapidly deport people, explic 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, you get the 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. I think people need to vote. I mean, the fact that the congress hasnt done much is a reflection of the fact we control one house. Thats a reflection that 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 really understand what a good strad is or a 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. So you at least need, you know, some voices on the outside. Maybe not vocally but at least in the room to be very pragmatic and to be able to help guide us in a way that we feel that we can move forward and that were not violating our values. Sorry. Thank you. Please help me thank 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 at the 17th law policy conference next year. And safe travels. C spans campaign 2020 is with President Trump live today at 7 00 p. M. East everyone as he holds a rally in sunrise, florida his first since changing his residency from new york to florida in late october. Live coverage on c span, listen on the go with the free c span radio app. C span student cam 2020 competition is in full swing. All across the country middle and high School Students are hard at work creating documentaries on what they would like the 2020 president ial campaigns to address. Take us behind the scenes and share your photos 2020. Still working on an idea . We have resources on our website to help out. Our Getting Started page at student cam. Org has information to guide you through the process of making a documentary. Cspan will award 100,000 in total cash prizes. All eligible entries must be uploaded and received by midnight, january 2020. Youre never too young to have an opinion so let your voice be heard now. For more information go to your website, student cam. Org. Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and housing secretary ben carson were on capitol hill to testify about access to affordable houses and finance reform ons