Transcripts For CSPAN2 Sanctuary Cities 20170520

Cosponsored by the section of civil rights and social justice and the commission on immigration of the American Bar Association. My name is karen, i am a special counsel here in the washington d. C. Office. And for purposes of this program this morning i serve as special advisor to the commission on immigration. I am delighted to be our moderator for the program and i am especially honored to be sharing the stage with this distinguished group of panelists. I have moderated a lot of programs for the American Bar Association before but i have learned so much preparing for this one because this is not a topic on which i work every day. So the materials that we have gotten and the preparation that i have been able to do with these folks has been really instructive for me. Im very pleased to have the chance to offer this wide range of diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives to all of you this morning. In short, todays program is going to explore in depth the sanctuary city concept that has come so much into permanence in the National Discourse since the recent executive orders on Immigration Enforcement priorities. As you will hear later in the program, the actuary is not a new concept. In the law or in practice but is really in the forefront of some of the discussions today. Will be talking about the definitions of sanctuary cities, the various ways the state and local jurisdictions can limit their cooperation with federal enforcement authorities. The consequences of those decisions for local jurisdictions and their immigrant population. The panelists will be talking about various policies. Detainers, litigation around detainer issues and the very practical real daily questions of whether sanctuary city policies do or do not create safer, more prosperous communities. With apologies to all of the panelists, im going to give only very brief introductions to each of them and direct your attention to the full biographies that are in your materials. I will introduce them in the order in which we intend to proceed this morning. First to my immediate left michelle Senior Research and policy analyst for the American Immigration counsel. And in her role she focuses primarily on high skilled immigration and enforcement issues. To michelles left the associate director of the National Immigration project of the National Lawyers guild. Next to her, Betsy Cavendish, the general counsel to d. C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and to betsys immediate left, tom manger. Tom is the chief of police for the Montgomery County Police Department. And also interestingly, the president of the major cities chief association. We are looking for him to wear a couple of hats in this program also. To his left, chad from the department of justice. Tom im sorry chad is counsel for the attorney general and will bring is the doj perspective. Then to his left, tracy short. Tracy is the principal Legal Advisor for ice, immigration and Customs Enforcement within the department of Homeland Security. So he will be our second government speaker this morning. And at the, no pun intended, far left [laughter] Michael Michael is the principal in the d. C. Region of Jackson Lewis tc. Michael himself is former general counsel of ice so im really looking forward to his opportunity to reflect coming from both the private practice side but also with the government ice enforcement experience to round out our discussion. [laughter] we probably messed up the seating order. If not the introduction order. So our plan is to have brief presentations from each of the speakers. With michelle starting us off with a history background and basically framing of the issue. Then each of the panelists will speak. Then will have some time for a roundtable discussion that i will facilitate. So that people can speak among themselves response to some questions that we prepared. And we have a good amount of time for question and answers from the audience. I have a housekeeping manner which is that we have only one microphone. For the audience for q a. So when it comes time, if you do have a question we would like you to indicate that you have a question. Raise your hand or stand and wait for the microphone to come to you. And then identify yourself and your company or Organization Affiliation before you ask your question. Reminders to everyone that this program is being broadcast and recorded. Everyone bear that in mind when you make your comments or ask your questions. I have just one thought to start us off on the panel. The people who helped organize this reminded me of a quote from Justice Kennedy in the arizona litigation. The arizona versus United States litigation from 2012. It is not about sanctuary cities at all. It is a very good device to help set the stage for us in the discussion that we hope to have this morning. Im going to kick it off with this. In talking about the relationship between state policing and federal Immigration Enforcement, Justice Kennedy wrote, the sound exercise of National Power over immigration depends on the nations leading its responsibility to base the laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful and rational specific discourse. So we begin the panel with that goal in mind. To facilitate a dog will and rational discourse on the subject of where National Immigration authority interacts with state policing. With that im going to turn to michelles opening presentation. Thank you so much karen grisez. And thank you to the American Bar Association for inviting me to be part of this panel this morning. My job was to present an overview and basics so we can get the conversation started. As you all know over the past several decades states, counties and cities have adopted a variety of different policies that restrict the cooperation with federal authorities to enforce Immigration Law. And elected officials and Law Enforcement officials in many localities as we will hearsay have determined that this is in their communitys best interest to limit their role in deportation for a variety of reasons. You will hear from the other panelists today but generally they believe that these policies allow them to determine best how they protect and serve their own communities and it allows them to decide how to spend their own resources. They truly believe that these policies make their community safer. Some people call these policies that limit or restrict cooperation sanctuary policies. We know that the administration believes that they are sanctuary policies and that they violate federal law. And they have threatened to withhold funding from these socalled sanctuary cities and have attempted to publicly shame them. With published reports of their alleged failure to protect the community. I strongly believe that same joy policy, contrary to what many believe sanctuary policies do not shelter unauthorized immigrants. Immigrants are deported from sanctuaries jurisdictions every single day. They do not shield immigrants from prosecution, criminal activities. The police can enforce all criminal laws against immigrants who commit crimes. Starting there, this morning im going to discuss first what policies are included under this umbrella of sanctuary policies. Health socalled sanctuary cities to cooperate with the federal government. How they are in compliance with federal law. And then im going to go over to the evidence that we have that these cities are safe and economically vibrant. First, what policies are considered under this umbrella of sanctuary policies . They take many forms. Some examples include prohibiting 287 g agreements. These are agreements to which ice deputize his local Law Enforcement officers to enforce federal Immigration Laws. Sanctuary policies can also be refusing to enter into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention. It could be restricting the police or other cities workers from asking about immigration status. From individuals that they encounter or served or arrest. Sanctuary policies can be refusing to allow i. C. E. Into the local jazz without a warrant. It can mean restricting Immigration Enforcement and sensitive locations like hospitals and schools. And a same joy policy can also be restricting local police responses. Restricting them from honoring all immigration detainers. I know that will talk a lot more about detainers but says this is the one that we hear about most frequently have to give a little background. For our purposes a detainer is a tool used by the department of Homeland Security and i. C. E. Specifically when they identify potentially deportable people who are held in jails or prison. A detainer is a request by i. C. E. Asking local Law Enforcement officials to hold that individual for a period of up to 48 hours longer than they would have usually held that person. After bell has been posted, active charges have been dropped or after the person has served their sentence. You hold them an additional amount of time so that i. C. E. Can a sympathy. The detainers are not judicial warrants and compliance with detainers is voluntary. I said that sanctuary policies or cities with sanctuary policies did cooperate with the federal government on immigration. They do this in a variety of ways. Even in the sanctuary jurisdictions, officials send federal immigration agents the fingerprints of any person built into a jail or prison. Including immigrants. They use those benefits and information to identify noncitizens for deportation. This is what we know as the secure communities program. Sharing fingerprints. This is a mandatory program for all jurisdictions across the country. Sanctuary cities can also cooperate in joint task forces and other joint operations with i. C. E. And dhs. Operations should target gangs and others. Even in sanctuary cities, these jurisdictions may honor detainers from the federal government in circumstances. In many cases, these jurisdictions will honor detainers if the individual has been convicted of a crime rather than just charged with a crime. Or they will honor the detainer of the individual has been charged with or convicted of a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. One thing that we have heard often recently is that sanctuary cities are not in compliance with federal law. Again, we will hear more about this from the other expert lawyers on the panel. Specifically, some people do claim that the sanctuary policies violate this is a federal statute that prohibits state and local governments from enacting laws of policies that limit communication about information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of individuals. So pursuant to section 1373 station localities may not prohibit or restrict sending or receiving or requesting information regarding the citizenship or immigration status. Lawful or unlawful of any individual from federal immigration authorities. They may not prohibit or restrict maintaining information regarding an individual status. They may not prohibit or restrict exchanging information regarding individuals immigration status. But by plain language section 1373 only applies to sharing of information regarding an individuals citizenship and so not only does this limit the communication about citizenship or immigration status and do not forbid maintenance of such information are not violations. Moreover, section 1373 does not mandate that jurisdiction is complied with immigration detainers. It does not prohibit policies or laws that restrict compliance with detainers. And it does not require state or local enforcement to collect information on immigration status. It does not prevent jurisdictions from living the collection of that information. Many would argue that these policies i described are not in violation of federal law. But finally, what i want to talk about is that we had concerns that the jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with i. C. E. Are basically allowing criminals to run free. Failing to deal with threats to Public Safety and National Security. However there is evidence that the opposite is true. Of course there is plenty of evidence that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than nativeborn americans. And many cities with large immigrant communities are among the safest communities in the country. Police officials will tell you and probably will tell you that it is easier for them to serve and protect their communities when there is trust between the police and the communities. And when all residents are willing to cooperate and report crimes. This is especially important right now. There is a lot of fear in communities. Even in sanctuary jurisdictions immigrants are fearful. They are just been reported that in los angeles denver, el paso and other cities, the reporting of crimes including Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault is down. In these cities with large immigrant populations. Announces the beginning of the year. So if immigrants are not going to commit crimes, im sorry if immigrants do not report crimes that they witness or that they are victims of, then the perpetrators may not be arrested. And everyone in between his left peers of my house is being roger miles is on fire and the only witnesses and unauthorized immigrants, i sure as heck want that person to call the Fire Department or call the police to protect me and protect my house regardless of their immigration status. On wednesday the attorney general of new york california rhode island washington oregon and the district of columbia release an excellent new report called setting the record straight on local involvement between federal civil Immigration Enforcement. That report i would recommend to all of you. It makes many of the same points and i made here today. From a Law Enforcement perspective, it tells many examples of immigrants have come forward and been very helpful in the arrest of criminals. Also really explains in detail why these policies are good for the states that they represent. Then another study is a 2017 report by a professor in san diego. They found its enjoy counties there are lower crime rates and higher Economic Indicators than in nonsanctuary counties. They looked at counties that both have sanctuary policies and those that do not. He found that on average, there are 35 and a half fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuaries counties. Compared to nonsense were counties. They found that Median Household Income 4000 higher in sanctuary counties than in nonsanctuary counties. For those who fear that this is driven by income gains of latinos at the expense of whites they found that among whites, Median Household Income is actually 2000 higher is a great counties. They found that poverty is lower. Reliance on public assistance is lower. Labor force participation including white Labor Force Participation is higher in sanctuary counties. Finally, unemployment is lower in sanctuary counties. The employment rate was actually 1. 1 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. So in conclusion, i know that we are looking forward to my fellow panelists going into more detail. I hope i have laid the groundwork for a constructive conversation and i look forward to your questions and comments. Thank you. [applause] thank you michelle. You still my. I was going to ask, can you take it deeper and out into the world of detainers, constitutional issues around detainers and what some of the litigation challenges have been and sort of what is the landscape on the existing litigation. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here today. I also wanted to open this, agreeing with michelle that sanctuary policies really are in exercise. A basic local power to regulate the health and safety and buffers of the residence. Some people may think that people have done is to stop mass deportation. But really it is the rarely motivation. Ensuring that residents failsafe reporting crimes. Basic Government Services. Others are responded to the risk of collaboration with federal immigration can lead to profile and Civil Liberties violations. Youre trying to remedy policing problems. Recently, Public Schools and universities have voiced concern the more aggressive Immigration Enforcement will jeopardize student safety and interfere with their Schools Educational mission. Another question always is whether they are lawful. There is a long answer which i will get into and there is a short one. The answer is yes. They are possible. Ive been practicing losses 1998. And i have been involved with sanctuary policies for over 10 years. I think during the first years ive seen the first years, doj tried to merge state police and local police with federal Immigration Enforcement. They did rely on this mechanism called immigration detainers. And at the time in 2006 or 2007 and detainers have been here for decades when secured companies would launch no one really knew what they were. About 20,000 were issued after secure began. Hundreds of thousands of detainers start pouring out of the department of Homeland Security. The landscape of Immigration Enforcement changed radically. And that impacted communities across the country. We also, people somehow managed to get a detainer and somehow even after they had been granted and fail, after charges were dismissed for charges were dropped. We began hearing of extended detention through the immigration detainer. Many people around the country, most people actually, there was so much confusion. They believe they were compulsory. This mechanism actually was instrumental to beginning what we think is some of the largest mass deportation policies we have had in government for many years. As michelle said the detainer is a request. It looks like this. It is a form. It is usually a form that i. C. E. Has the says that they will intend with the purposes of putting them into removal proceedings. A jurisdiction that complies with an i. C. E. Detainer is an engaging in a warrantless arrest. Have already conceded to that. And who is the jailer at that time . Is the local jurisdiction. The local jurisdiction has the body. They are the jailer. That is what we will see later on. They will bear the frontend liability. So what are the problems with detainers . Like i said before, i think there was a lot of confusion. Everyone thought that they were regular warrants. Of arrest. That they were criminal warrants. Meaning that people just but that they were outstanding warrants everywhere and that noncitizens could be picked up for just outstanding warrants. People assume that the detainer met or concluded that someone was here unlawfully. I will tell you why. And there were many errors because we found out that detainers worth launched on people with many errors involved. I think fundamentally the arrest that the detainer provides no oversight. There is no judge overseeing what evidence is supported. No article to be judged. The magistrate appeared to look and see what is the evidence supporting how the detainer is being issued. Procedurally what is very frustrating for me when i was practicing Immigration Law is that i can never get a copy of it. I could never get a copy of the detainer to understand why was this person here in the first place . And you know throughout the years they propagated this confusion that detainers were mandatory. So communities and litigators at some point were first forced to act. We have the challenge of detainers which work, and administrative tool, really should not have the kind of power that dhs was saying theyre going to have. And it was not easy. You did not do this overnight. Litigation did not happen overnight. There was a debate. We went to our stakeholders and the policies that emerged came after many many years of debate, reasonable debate. Where we talked about what was important to the communities, what is good policing, how do we protect victims, how do we protect Due Process Rights . It did not come about as an arbitrary discussion. Detainer is a new procedure that requires probable cause. In 2015 a morality check warrants this is a case in the First Circuit over an island resident who is a us citizen and was held in a detainee for the second time after she had been released. In fact this was the second time , as i said again, that the detainer was being held on a warrantless arrest. First Circuit Court of appeals upheld the disc courts finding that detaining someone beyond the release date is an arrest under the Fourth Amendment and it required that i have probable cause to issue a detainer request. Then courts have also held that detainers do not provide probable cause for arrest. In 14 miranda of the county sheriff in oregon held him his miranda from a detainer after she could have been released on bail and transferred her to know what the Federal District court in oregon real that the detainer does not provide sufficient proof, probable cause allowed miranda. [inaudible] be held unlawfully detained her and would have to pay damages. Many courts have also found localities to be liable for the. This happened many of times. We found for permanent residence and we found in the damages of upwards of 100,000. In october, 2016, the Northern District of illinois in the class action case called humana s. [inaudible] invalidated nearly all detainees it found that they have limited authority to arrest without a warrant and that detainers on individual custody generally exceed that authority. In january, the Northern District could be held liable for unlawful detention. Even if they claim to be probable cause that is not probable cause for a crime. The long and short is i didnt get a chance to go into the San Francisco decision which id love to get into at some point but these policies are lawful and jurisdictions declined detainer request prolonged detention are not violating it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Im sure will come back to have a chance to talk about the San Francisco in santa clara litigation were done. We are going to move to Betsy Cavendish to talk to us about the perspective of dc and betsy, david c is a unique jurisdiction when were talking about cities. I know that a lot of the research thats been done and michelle talks about from the county perspective so feel free to take us into dc and how you analyze dc in terms of its status at his jurisdiction and what is comparable to and what has dc done and what is it doing on the sanctuary front. Thank you, karen. Thank you for coming this morning. Michelle set it up very well. She discussed sanctuary cities and generally what is a misleading term that can be. We cant offer and dont offer perfect immunity from all federal Immigration Law in a jurisdiction but dc is a city, its a county and its estate. We have all those powers which are really not states and we want to be a state but we dont have a state but we act like one for many legal purposes. What ill do in my seven minutes here is trying to go into what we think being a sanctuary city means and what it doesnt mean and how we think we are very much in compliance with federal law as she was discussing. We want to expand the concept of sanctuary city beyond what it means for Law Enforcement and think about what it means for embracing all of our residents. We think of being a centricity as part of safer, stronger dc and part of our dc values. As michelle said, cities that are centricitys are safer and she showed data about that and we believe we are all safer and people feel secure in their persons. And that they can report crimes as she mentioned with respect to our metropolitan police, metropolitan police will not question persons about their residency or immigration status unless the member is investigating Crimes Involving criminal and harboring of immigrants or other crimes in which immigration status is an element. In a brief that means we dont have a show me your papers a lot and if someone fenced off for other reasons, speeding ticket or whatever, no one is going to be questioning their immigration status. Mpd wont make inquiries into the immigration status for the purpose of determining whether an individual has violated the civil Immigration Laws and for enforcing their loss. Nor will mpd make any inquiry into any database solely for the purpose of inquiring about an individual immigration status. Now, our npd spends a lot of time in the immigrant community. 70 of the residents in dc are foreign born and that isnt to say theres nowhere close to that number is missing papers. We want that whole population of people who are foreign born to feel comfortable and secure in their persons and that they wont be questioned about let me see your papers and are you here legally or illegally. Continuing on with mpd. Mpd does send a big difference of refugees to the fbi. The fbi does share them with ice ice may issue an order to detain an arrestee. Mpd only has custody of people for a short period of time, like about four hours. This would more than likely be received when the department of corrections or the us marshals actually have somebody. Then we moved to the department of corrections. What does our century city policy mean and what doesnt it mean when someones at the oc. Well, first i want to say that much of the federal focus has been on very similar as serious criminals. In the district the federal bureau of prisons has all of our convicted felons. We dont have the most serious criminals here federal dop may take some of the dc residents who have committed felonies and they may go right into ice proceedings. We dont have those people and we dont house those people in our jail. The oc district the way it cooperate and doesnt is that it notifies ice 48 hours before someone is scheduled to be released and then its up to ice either theyre there for the release or theyre not there for the release. Toc will not hold an inmate past his or her release date and if a judge orders someone released they are released immediately. We dont hold them to wait for ice to count them up. So we believe that this comports with the Fourth Amendment of the constitution and that it comports with a usd 1373. Our mayors order says theres a lot of law that governs this and i brought a notebook just to show and tell they are mayors orders, policies from the department of corrections, there mpd partners policies that spell this out in more detail. Mayor orders especially confirms clients with 1373. So, lets think, as i said, i want to spell this out much more broadly than Law Enforcement because as i said we are a sanctuary here in the district and that means that when we are interacting with the public to our various agencies we arent questioning their immigration status to the extent that we dont have to. Some federally funded programs require that we sift out here is legally and not for benefit sake but we have a special purpose drivers license so people who can get a special purpose drivers license. Of course, under everyone can go to Public School but here they can also get lunches and practice and there is nowhere near segregated out at school. They can have special Education Programs and benefits, the kids right of freedom and metro regardless of immigration status and all the dc headstart, Healthcare Alliance and immigrant children program. We have a burial assistance program, special supplemental nutrition for women, infants and children, spd on immigration clinics, river smart home programs, hiv housing and supporting services, aids drugs and assistance, special milk programs, prenatal home visitation programs and summer food programs. Those are examples of the programs and probably thats not even anywhere close to competence of what i wanted to show that were stronger together permeates all of our agencies and we have special liaison units at mpd with immigrant communities and mpd officers come to events where immigrants are likely to be and try to reassure them that they should report crimes, should talk to them, should feel comfortable with mpd and the mayor signaled her commitment to immigrants and recognition that people are feeling very afraid now by putting 500,000 into an immigrant test of Legal Services Grant Program this year and monies on the street to some of our Legal Services provider to help immigrants with their file an application, converting green cards to sit still, these applications in she has money in the proposed budget for immigrant Justice Services as well. Thank you back okay. Thank you very much, betsy. Chief manger can you take us from the sort of executive angle focus on the discussion to your perspective from the police agency, the police and Community Policing angle. I am happy to. Thank you all for being here. I am not an attorney so i am a diversity on the panel. [laughter] i have been a Police Officer for 40 years and actually wanted to take us back to a lot of these issues have really popped up recent times because we had secure communities starting six, seven years ago which was a bit of a moving target for local Law Enforcement has worked with dhs, went to the priority enforcement programs which, in my view and in the view of large urban Police Departments around the country, was exactly the right balance that we were looking for in terms of focusing on individuals with committed crimes, serious crimes, and jurisdictions. Now emily back to secure communities which again were trying to nail down exactly what that looks like. This really started for local Police Became a problem right after 911 when, then attorney general john ashcroft, decided to begin to put the civil administrative warrants for immigration violations into ncic ncic is a National Database that if i stopped some guy in the middle of the night for anything , for a stop sign, and while im writing the ticket if it comes up i can run his name, date of birth to an ici and it will come back if there is a warrant out for his arrest in any part of the country. I will tell you, and all my experience as a cop, if you got a hit from ncic it was a 100 authority that you took that guy back if you have probable cause to believe that is the individual who warrants and you took him into custody. When we started to get the civil immigration in ncic than it was a problem. I have auppercaseletter does this give me the authority to pick this individual up or not. Of course, the advice i got from our county attorneys was no you dont have, you can notify ice the how this person you cant take them, you dont have the authority to take them into custody. Now all of a sudden you have hits of ncic that arent actionable in terms of what the cops can do. That was confusing for us. The Chiefs Association which is the largest Police Departments in this country took a position that we wanted those administrative warrants taken out of ncic because it was confusing. That started back in 2003, 2004 as more and more warrants got into the system. Actually, all of the panelists, certainly michelle did a great job at laying out the landscape, so i dont want to repeat what she said but we do struggle ill tell you from a police chief perspective that ive had elective officials worse standing on their soapbox saying we are a sanctuary jurisdiction and i have my boss county executive saying we are not a sanctuary jurisdiction and i have a municipality within my jurisdiction that say they have passed resolutions, ordinances that say they arent a century jurisdiction yet they send the people that they arrest to our counties corrections and i have news for you, we are not a century jurisdiction. In fact, betsy talks about it. We have much of the same policy as the district. We do notice i ice within our jail and theyll say if you have just met in your deal, will tell them we had to in our deal and we will let them know when joe will be released. It might be a little different than if the judge releases somebody it takes two to four hours to let them out of the jail and if will call ice and say joe is getting out. The judge releases. Be here within a couple hours and you can have them. If they are not there then joe walks out. The impact on local police, its been tough. Its been a moving target for us as things change on the federal level. Weve been consistent in localities. We dont ask people about their immigration status. We dont care about their immigration status. The fact is that if someone is the victim of a crime, they deserve everything we can give them. I dont need to tell a roomful of attorneys that no matter what your documentation status is if you are in the United States, the constitution applies to you. And all the protections apply to you. This notion that folks that are here undocumented give up their right to be a victim of a crime is just ridiculous and its maddening for those of us who are trying to protect folks from being victims of crime. The president s executive orders brought a bit more urgency to defining what a fixed rate jurisdiction is because we now risk losing grant money if we are determined to be a sanctuary jurisdiction. Ive had the opportunity to sit and speak oneonone with secretary kelly from dhs, i spoke with the attorney general at least four times about immigration issues and i will tell you that oftentimes what the attorney general says, what secretary kelly says, what the president takes, they are not on the same page. [laughter] we are trying to navigate through this. I will tell you that the attorney general and the secretary are trying to work with us and are listening to what our issues are. It remains to be seen where the dust settle in this. I hope it settles in a place where we can in fact work with our federal Law Enforcement partners which we do every day but not have to be in immigration please. Thats what we want to end up. Thats what is best for the safety of our jurisdiction. Had a case and the notion about name and shame game and i know my colleagues at ice dont like it when i use that term but in fact, thats exactly what this is. For a couple of weeks they put out a report that was brought within inaccuracies and brought to their attention and they sent suspended the report. I dont think its come out since for at least about a month or so. We had in Montgomery County we had a case where an individual broke into a car, stole dons and was caught with a stolen car with those stolen guns and 18 yearold young man arrested and he, in fact, had a detainer placed because he was undocumented and he was released by the judge suspect that if another issue. How do you get someone who steals guns and get them released by a separate panel but he was able to get out. There was a detainer on file. It was a mistake. Our Corrections Department made a mistake by releasing him and not notifying ice but we were taken by surprise that the judge would release him. Ice from the multiple field Office Released a press release saying that Montgomery County did not counter their detainer and that the Public Safety of our community was impacted because the status person was allowed to walk out because Montgomery County did not honor this detainer. Ill finish up by saying i had the opportunity to work with tom holman who is the acting director of ice. He is a career ice guy. Hes a straight shooter. Im a great deal of respect for him. I think he will try he understands that there is nothing of value that comes out of those kind of press releases. Weve honored a number of detainers ice notified and i didnt show up in years past, dozens of times they didnt show up. Should we be releasing these press releases that say we held some guy and they didnt show up so we had to release them . There is no value in that. Were heading down the wrong path with his name in same strategy. I hope that goes way. Ill finish up by saying that director holman has assured me, and i believe him, but they understand their sensitive location, hospitals, schools, churches, courthouses that they are not doing random seats. They will not target people at those locations. However, in courthouses, he said , if we had an individual that we are looking for and we have no other way of finding him and we know they will be in court, yes, we will be at the courthouse and wait for them. Theyre not just going and hanging out at courthouses. Im not defending ice, this is what theyre telling me. Every case in my jurisdiction said yes we were waiting for him but we had a board. It was not just hey lets go hang out and see we can pick up. There are certainly been enough Media Coverage and ill finish by saying this, im not here to defend ice, utterly from a long lawenforcement perspective theyve been divided more than any other agency in this country in the last ten years. A lot of people in this country dont like what they do and dont have any respect for their mission, no respect for the people who do that work and the fact that the president is elected to specifically went out and talk to ice ages and said i have your back, now, if theres been some backlash because they feel emboldened to finally shackles are often we can do our job. That dust will settle. I am convinced, ice is focusing on people who commit crimes. Every day we read about, i locked up this many people had committed crimes. They also picked up this many edits. What tom holman said and this is what we have to understand is that he says yes, we are focused on picking up criminals but nobodys table. The fact is that a reality. Thats the prerogative of this president and administration. The same positive of the state for Previous Administration said we will pick up people who have committed crimes. They like that. The fact is that isis has a mission and we have to respect that mission and my hope is that we can work so that we can maintain the trust and confidence of the public. Ice needs to maintain the trust and confidence of the public the same way we do. You do that by making sure the public understands what you are doing, youre transparent about it and that your balance and you find the right balance of protecting your community, getting dangerous people off the streets and focusing on your resources on the right people. I cant speak for ice and i wont speak for ice but we have tried to find the right balance. We been accused of being a saints. City because we dont ask about immigration status but the fact is we do cooperate with ice same way we operate with the dea, fbi , ats and every other federal Law Enforcement agency. We can find the right balance and we can do whats right for the safety of our nation but but we have to understand there will be some folks that like what we do and some folks that dont. We have to navigate this with the most integrity ethics and the right priorities that we to maintain the trust and confidence of the people we serve. Thanks thank you very much, chief. We are going to let ice speak directly for themselves and will turn to chat for the dojs perspective on the sanctuary concept and sanctuary issue. Thank you for that commission on immigration. Thank you for bringing us here to talk about this topic. Thank you, chief, for your remarks. I appreciate that. The attorney general is committed to working with our state and local police in order to make pretty safe. One of his most famous dissents, Justice Scalia said we have a government of laws, not of men. This people existed long before Justice Scalia put pen to paper. The foundational to our republic although Justice Scalias dissent discussed the horizontal the executive, legislative and judicial branches, this people of a government of laws and not of men, the people that the rule of law ranges in this country is highly relevant when we talk about the vertical allocation of power between the federal government and the states. At the heart of the debate over sanctuary is agreement over whether an alien who is in this country illegally and has violated our criminal laws should be supported. I think the answer answers that question. Eight usc 12. 7, any alien shall be removed if the alien was inadmissible at time of entry, present in the United States and in violation of Immigration Laws or has committed sumer numerous times. The last claim and the attorney general plainly intends to do what he can to enforce this. What can the state do when the state disagrees with the law and disagrees with the attorney generals important priorities perspective first, let me start with what a state can not do. A jurisdiction cannot set its own immigration priorities. According to benjamin johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration council, the federal government and only the federal government has the power and authority to set the nation immigration policies. Mr. Johnson when he gave that quote in reference to the arizona case clearly understood that the federal government and not state local jurisdictions that are charged with the establishment of uniform rule of naturalization. Mr. Johnson also clearly understood that the federal government, not state and local governments, was charged with controlling and conducting former relations he stated that the department of justice must quote seek to define and protect the federal governments Constitutional Authority to manage immigration. Well, mr. Johnson, on that point we do agree. Yet jurisdiction after jurisdiction to determine based on its own priorities have at night ice priorities, not the department parties when it is going to hand over an alien to be deported. Some jurisdictions hand over criminal aliens that are in the country regardless of their offense and others only hand them over a jurisdiction interviews Public Safety. The possible result of this a la carte approach to Immigration Enforcement is a patchwork of conflicting mandates which predictably undermines the federal government to enforce this nations Immigration Laws. This threat is not hypothetical. For example, in february under policy set by new york city mayor bill diblasio, new york city released eight known ms 13 gang member from rikers despite the fact that ice had launched a detainer against him because he was not in new york citys field and in the mayors view, he would not pose a threat to Public Safety. As we know, in april ms 13 brutally murdered for young men a lot on long island. Just a couple days ago i got a letter from to take all necessary action to ensure that Illegal Immigrants convicted of certain crimes are immediately designated for deportation. This is from the legislators of the county in long island. Here new york citys actions are directly impacting their neighbors in long island and in cording to the bill diblasio there is nothing the federal government can do about it. He is wrong. There is reason why the constitution takes the choice out of immigration out of state and local and put the in the hands of the local government. The Immigration Council has spot on. The federal government must assert its authority to establish an uniform immigration policy that it can be held accountable for and the current environment it is unclear who is responsible for sending Immigration Enforcement priorities and who is responsible for their success or failure. There are a couple points that some of my Panel Members raised and i would like to respond to. First, again, i would like to echo what the chief said. The department of justice and the attorney general is committed to working with our state and local authorities to adopt a common sense approach to solving the immigration problems in this country. Contrary to what might be said or alleged the attorney general has never once suggested that a part the Police Department should detain or arrest victims that the Police Department should detain or arrest those who report crimes. The department of justice agrees wholeheartedly with the chief that the constitution applies to all of those in this country. The question is what does the constitution require and what does it permit. It permits the department of justice and ice to identify particular targets for Immigration Enforcement priorities. In this case, those are people who are in the country here illegally and have committed crimes. The way we communicate that and ill let tracy go into that more is through issuing a detainer request. A detainer request is two things. Its not yet been talked about the two very important things. First, a detainer after jurisdiction to notify ice ahead of time with enough advance notice that ice can get there in order to pick someone up. I was very glad to hear that that is a practice that dc, in fact, does and im a practice of chief in the county as well. That is crucial and that is important. The second thing that ice detainer does is act in circumstances where ice cannot get there within enough time to pick someone up immediately after their reported to hold someone for 48 hours. If all jurisdictions adopted the same policy sdc in the county of montgomery, then we be in a much better place. If all jurisdictions that we will notify you ahead of time, 48 hours at a time, seek because person up but will hold them for a minute longer than is required , we would all be in a better place. Sadly, that is not the policy of all counties. A lot of counties including cook county, including certain counties in california, including washington and oregon state counties that dont notify us at all. The second thing i want to point out is the Legal Authority for detainers. Again, tracy will talk more about this. One thing i want to point out is right here it says eight usc 1226 on a warrant issued by the attorney general and alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. Theres been a lot of question about when the United States has Legal Authority to detain a criminal alien. The answer is within the ministry of war and they are allowed to detain somebody pending that decision. One of my Panel Members mentioned moreno. Marino was the case in the Northern District of illinois in fact held that warrantless arrest was improper in that instance. It had nothing to do with the rest based on an ministry of boring. Thats clear because again, eight usc 1226 clearly says on a warrant issued by the attorney general and an alien may be arrested and detained. Ice has a new policy which i mentioned tracy will get into but all of its detainers are now accompanied by administrative words. That remedies any potential problem and that the squarely within eight usc 12. 6. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Tracy, will turn to you now. Thank you, karen. Like to thank the section on civil rights for giving me the opportunity to speak your today, as well as the press club posting this and my distinguished Panel Members and thank you, karen for moderating this very important topic. Let me first say that since its creation in the aftermath of the 911 terrorist attacks the mission of the department of Homeland Security has been to prevent terrorism and to ensure the safety and security of americans in the homeland. Now, as a component of the department ice, Us Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has a similarly critical mission. That is to promote Homeland Security and Public Safety to the criminal and Civil Enforcement of our immigration, customs and trade laws. Now, sanctuary cities are generally those jurisdictions that in some way prohibit through official action or practice their Law Enforcement officers from operating with ice and the enforcement of the immigration office. I would submit to you that rather than promoting Public Safety these policies and practices in fact endanger the public. I can give you a very real example. In the past the former Immigration National services which capacitor to ice, had very good working relationships with state and local Law Enforcement agencies in the context we would cooperate and collaborate with regard to the sharing of information regarding individuals that would be removable aliens from the United States. That is to say if theres some indication that an alien was removable whether criminal basis or simply removable on another basis, we would share information with the Law Enforcement agencies. What we would have his agencies would allow ice and the ins to enter the facility and interviewed the individuals to determine if they were removable aliens and they would also communicate, pick up the phone, call ice when they had some reason to believe there was someone in their custody that has been arrested for a state, criminal offense and they would let us know. We may have someone in our custody who may be removed and you may interview them and come to your jail and interview them at your leisure but keep in mind , these are individuals that the state and local officials had arrested for state and local crimes. From murder, rape, child exploitation, down to driving while intoxicated and down to other offenses assaults and so forth. Across the spectrum. Ice and ins in the earlier days would have an opportunity to engage, to discuss, to share information about the individual and we would have some indication of the individuals may be removable from the United States under the immigration and nationality act. So, fastforward to today. What we have are the rise of sanctuary jurisdictions that will prohibit ice from entering their jails, they will prohibit their officers and agents from communicating with ice about the presence of individuals who may be subject to removal from the United States. Again, these are significant high risk criminal aliens. What we have here is that ice is no longer welcome in these tales so they can no longer expect the rest of these criminal aliens who are Public Safety threats in the safety and security of public facilities like jails or county detentions or state penitentiaries. The sheriffs, chiefs of police, wardens of these facilities that we use to interact with on a very collegial basis they essentially shut off our access. What does that mean for ice . What it means is that ice is going to enforce the Immigration Laws. Were not going away. Thats our mission. To enforce the Immigration Laws, both civil and criminal to promote and protect Public Safety. That forces the ice agency and officers out onto the streets to arrest these individuals in target Enforcement Actions. Let me be clear, ice as the chief pointed out, ice does not conduct raids, ice does not conduct suites or any other instrument form of arrest practices. These individuals are targeted because we have some indication that they have been in state and local facilities for a criminal violation or rest. However, once they are released these agencies and jurisdictions dont notify us we have to target them individually. Our agents and officers undertake an investigation, we review the file and we target these individuals which means we have to go out into the neighborhoods, we have to go to their homes, potentially to their businesses or other public areas to affect the arrest as opposed to the safety and security of a jail facility which is certainly the most appropriate place when these individuals have already been screened, they cannot have an access to a weapon, they cant flee. Its an orderly transfer of custody. Again, the teeth points out, rightly so, that we are going to conduct our mission it just means that we will be out in the neighborhood where people dont want us to be in the neighborhoods targeting individuals at their homes, again, their businesses and in public areas so we would prefer this other transfer of custody. As the chief pointed out, we are targeting criminal aliens. That is our focus. As he indicated also, the director of ice has indicated that no aliens are off the table because under the immigration and nationality act of those who are simply here unlawfully are subject to removal from the ics. Irrespective of whether they had no history. That means that if an ice agent or officer or team goes out and identifies individuals at their home and they encounter them or they encounter them in a public place, if they also encounter those who are not criminals but they are there with them and also subject to removal under the immigration and nationality act, they will also be apprehended because they are here unlawfully for reasons separate and apart from criminality. They are here unlawfully. Thats the president s directive under the executive order that we will take enforcement action against all removable aliens. The point is if you dont want those who are not criminals to be arrested, the idea is dont make us go to the homes or Public Places or other agent where we have to affect these arrests do to carry out our mission. Lets have it in a safe and secure jail environment where we can transfer custody for the officer safety, for the alien safety and for Public Safety. We would encourage greater cooperation and i think the chief for his cooperation with ice and those other jurisdictions that want to cooperate with ice, we simply want to carry out the mission. Its no different, as you point out, then working with da, fbi or other federal Law Enforcement agencies. We have a mission in the mission is for Public Safety. We can all agree that Public Safety is a critical aspect here and we simply want to affect these arrests and seek removal of these aliens who are removable under the nationality act in a safe environment so the public is protected and not exposed to unnecessary risk. Ill be happy to take questions. You very much. Thank you, tracy. Michael, i have the pleasure with this long list of questions growing over here to print it to you. I see how youre going to respond to the comments from the whole table that proceeded you back yeah, weve covered both sides of the spectrum. My role here and i want to thank the aba for inviting me to be a part of the commission and also to have a forum like this where we can exchange the ideas rather than talking in an echo chamber. Id also like to thank the oj and ice for participating. My background, i was in tracys seat in the bush administration, frankly, when secure communities and information sharing really was developed. To some extent it made sense. Post 911 when there was a real concern, security concern and was here and we have a handle on our Immigration Enforcement. That was a priority. Something that we are charged with. How would we more effectively enforce the Immigration Laws that have always been on books. The idea of having Technology Work together and be able to share information from the states and local Police Departments, fbi and us which was now capturing all sorts of information on individuals who were in the country and immigrant status. This was a good idea that made sense. To some extent it created something that we really hadnt anticipated. One of the panelists mentioned the numbers and how we were identifying so many more individuals who were in state, local jails automatically as having maybe they were here unlawfully, they may have been removed previously and now we have access and we had that information. We really struggled and worked with state locals very closely to come up with now what will we do with that. How would we rationally implement that process. Frankly, dc and Montgomery County during those years were great friends working with how can we do that. Now one of the concerns and i think this is what tracy and chad were mentioning with the whole sanctuary talk is the pendulum going to go so far the other way that state and locals are going to say were going to shut off any information sharing whatsoever. I recall when i was in that ice position, that was a huge concern. Are we, criminal, grain member, are they going to be released and we wont know about it . If that real information sharing on the flip side there are real issues about what our authority as state and local. Can we hold this person beyond the time that were going to release them . Those are real issues. Thats where coordination, communication between state and local used to be increased rather than drawn lines. Thats is not the solution. From my private practice, some of the frustrations that ive seen frankly with the system, now that we are identifying individuals more efficiently, now that were placing more people into this immigration process, thats not working. I have clients that are sitting there and theyre not getting a court date for years and years and years. Some of these folks are detained by ice, not for years and years and years we are getting quicker court dates on that but even in the non detained docket where they have to go on and live their life. There really are sympathetic stories out there. These folks have families, they are us citizens, they need their day in court. On both sides everybody recognizes that these folks have to be provided with a timely hearing where a judge can decide if their release or do they need to be removed. Ice needs to be able to make a decision prioritizing those folks in light of the resources. If the system is so broken that were not Getting Court dates for individual calendars are not being set for four years from a master calendar, theres something wrong. Were talking about the front end of the system. Our individuals who are being identified by state and local will be turned over and get the process started. We have to remember theres a long process and we need to make sure that also working. Thats all the comment i wanted to make. The round table comments are the interesting part. Thank you, michael. I will start on your left point right there about the Immigration Court backlogs. Often the years are delayed even for a master calendar hearing. Even if we think about in the detained context the lengthy amount it takes to america. What is your solution for that not in an effort context but when were talking about the issue of detainers communications with federal authorities and more people coming into the system. I imagine that part of your points is that Immigration Court system is getting clogged with cases where some may be serious criminal offenders and some may not but at the end of the day, people across a variety of contexts are having a delay in having their case heard. Whether its a criminal deportation, you know, criminal conviction type deportation or an asylum seeker, whatever, more cases coming in me the delay in getting to your ultimate hearing. How does the question of detainers and corporation play into that from your point of view . The sooner that ice can know about an individual, know when they will be released and be able to decide, is this priority , those priorities, as the chief said those priorities change. Its broader now than it was in the past several years. Thats a rational basis for that there still has to be i think would be helpful if attorneys got involved in this case earlier, if everybody can make a decision if there relief available, is there some way that we could speed this process along, can we vet to some of these issues. So that we can more efficiently resolve whether this person can be granted relief and not continue the case if for whatever reason there is not a valid case there or it meets the discretionary requirements. Or if they will be removed is there a way to move in that case along. It wont happen without Research Research makes a difference and ive seen this is anecdotal but we know that theres been several new Immigration Judges that have been placed in various locations and ive heard anecdotally, at least, in miami, were starting to see individual cases been scheduled much quicker than they were in the past three years ago. Thats a good thing. Sometimes you look at the numbers and think theres ever going to be an answer that were so in the hall that boy, lets get 300 more judges we wont be able to move forward. We wont be able to plod through this. But we have seen that even a smaller number of ids being dedicated in select locations can have a huge impact. Okay. Thats going to put me to you, tracy and maybe to chat. On the backlog question and the call for attorney early priorities, who do we want to remove, at least, my understanding of the current executive orders and some of what you mentioned in your marks is that everybody is a priority if they come to the attention of ice, if they fall within the net whether a targeted or action or by accident in the context of apprehending someone else. How do you respond to that suggestion that there has to be prioritization, resources have to come into play when were talking about all the people who essentially the president s executive orders are clear that those who are subject to removal from the us are still on the table here come the point im making is that we are no longer going to categorically take out of the enforcement realm classes of aliens that meet certain categories and publish those categories are quote we are saying under the immigration and nationality act, aliens who are here unlawfully under sectionre 212 of the ina and those who have come here and overstate or otherwise generally under section 247 of the act are now subject it to removal, so we will internally determine our priorities and utilize our resources in the best way that we can first as i indicated earlier, but one of our clearest missions is Public Safety, so we are obviously going to target criminal aliens first in addition to those who would threaten National Security. En they may or may not be n criminals. There are maybe intelligence on those individuals, but we will target those who threaten National Security and Public Safety, so within those parameters we are going to go after those clearly who have the most egregious criminal offensel because they are the ones that are more easily identified through the process from the chiefs Police Officer apprehends someone on a felony charge. El theres a reason why we have ways we have criminals we look at those that are the most significant threat, we charge those individuals, mostly felony and of those who commit assaults. Ls, mo nevertheless, they are offenses against the person so these are situations where what we want to prioritize our resources and our assets to target individuals that we can make the most the greatest impact on Public Safety as possible. Does that mean we will not target those who are who have driven without a license or those who have a dui arrest or Something Like that . No, we will if we encounter those individuals. We will take action against them because they are subject to removal from the us, so to michaels point yes, there is a massive backlog and we have to be mindful of that backlog. Do we want to place someone a relatively low priority alien in proceedings that will extend it for many years and may or may not result in removal or if they have a release from removal typically criminal aliens have fewer opportunities for relief under section 101 of the act, but also other egregious offenses, so we will targeten those with the greatest impact r that will make america safer ani aligns with the idea that again we are not indiscriminately rounded people up and checking documentation. We encounter them typically in the context of a civil w enforcement action and thats when we will apprehend them and move forward, so we do prioritize, but we do have we are not going to tell the American Public heres a schedule of offenses and if you fall within them we will talk target un if you fall without them we wont. An we dont do that because there may be circumstances that warrant an arrest of an individual that dont quite fall within certain parameters. One quick followup, do i understand correctly when you are talking about targeting for enforcement that means actually arrested issuance of mta or are you talking about pursuing the case in removal proceedings after that . When we arrest make a civil arrest our purpose is to seek the aliens removal from the us, but keep in mind on arrest of an alien whos been previously removed may lend itself to prosecution for illegal reentering. Generally speaking, if we are enforcing the civil Immigration Laws, yes, we are targeting the individuals for removal from the us either through the issuance which will result in some other charging document that will initiate removal proceedings. Em that is to say sometimes there are administrative under section 238 of the actors proceeding that do not require a proceeding before an immigration judge, so whatever authority we have we will take all of our utilize all of our authority to initiate proceedings and expect that removal of these proceedings. Chad . The backlog, so the attorney general has taken steps to reduce the backlog. We realize its a real problem and everyone deserves their day in court. We are streamlining the immigration judge hiring procesa previously it took one year to fill one position and we areli trying to shorten that time because we have open slots. We are placing new judges inin highpriority areas trying to hire new judges. We are conducting removal proceedings in jail. At our facilities where an illegal immigrant is in the facility we can conduct a removal proceedings well this person is serving time, so as soon as this time their time is done they can be removed. We would love to work with state and locals using somethingng similar, so if someone is serving their time as opposed to that getting out and going to eight i. C. E. Detention center if they would allow us to come in and bring our Immigration Judges in and conduct a hearing how in jail that would streamline the process and where also doing videoconferencing serious to get to a place where we can use judges all over the country to hear cases particularly in light highpriority cases, so maybe we a judge from michigan to go to the southern border, but we can put up a camera so we are actively trying to reduce backlog to give people their dat in court. I want to just chad, while you before i wanted to ask questions. You say and i think you mentionv right now about illegal aliens having their hearing while in proceedings. What do you mean when you say that . They do you mean people who have criminal convictions or undocumented people because i think you are talking about people who havent had removal proceedings yet and im trying to understand the reference to illegal alien. N when we are conducting removal proceedings with people who are suspected to be removable from the country either from 1227 or other position of the Immigration Laws, some of these are people who have committed other criminal offenses in the us and obviously those people are priority for the administration, but that sort of what i meant when i said that. One other question similarly when you were talking about the detainers. Sorry i dont have the exact language now, but it wasas something now about criminal aliens, detainers in the context of criminal aliens, but i think when youre discussing it some of that was preadjudication, people who may have come into the system on a criminal charge and thats when you said criminal aliens. Did you mean to say people who are charged with crimes or adjudicated or had come into the system and maybe had charges dismissed . We would say people who have been both charged and convicted of a crime. Im going to take a break to look for my next question and invite anyone else on the quack panel to an speak before we got these topics. I want to echo chads comments as a relates to criminal aliens. We look at criminal aliens as those who are charged with a criminal offense, those convicted of a criminal offense and at the end of the day again, if they are removable from the us by virtue of their illegal presence here, then we will seek the removal and if we encounter them through our interacting with the criminal justice problem process of medicine to say engaging with them through the jails with the prison, then if we deem them a Public Safety threat we will take action against them notwithstanding the lack of a criminal conviction. For example, there are statistics just suggesting that those who drink and drive engaga in that type of conduct many times before they are arrested, so the fact that someone is arrested while driving intoxicated and not convicted does not suggest they are not a Public Safety threat, so we look at those aliens who are subject to removal, but also as a Public Safety threat when we say enforcement action against them. There are many aliens who are separately removable from no spaces, but nevertheless under the immigration and nationality act of section 212 if they are here unlawfully than we can take that action and we gauge their Public Safety threat at that time. Mind you, there are aliens who are here with unlawful status, so clearly a lawful permanent resident who is arrested for driving while intoxicated, that individual is not subject to removal. We dont take enforcement action against them because that would require a separate basis, but generally speaking those who are here unlawfully have no status and we determined that they are Public Safety threat and we will take enforcement action against them. I just want to say one thing. Some number of us of these cases especially person that has been here for a significant number of time, they had children what have you and if we can get that case into the system and moved through the system and potentially talk with a i. C. E. Attorney on an individual casebycase basis to make decisions about whether or not this is a good case for that relief. When you get into a judge quickly, then that person doesnt it stand limboon potentially detained for some extra time and then we can regularize or whatever the status, but under the current law that person now resides here legally, so if the back end is not working then its blocking everything up in this person is really just Walking Around withk no ability to work and other negative consequences. On derek sounds like you may be speaking primarily about cancellation or removal were the only opportunity for that relief unity [inaudible] if the person is not a procedure. So, if you get that person relieved before being removed as well, those are other options. Gift a look at the whole list, not just one piece of the immigration. My deepest concern is the steps that will be taken by the department of justice since were talking about procedural protection in immigration cases where it doesnt really look like they are streamlining, but more like railroading people through a process where you are taking away immigration procedural protection. For example, people do have relief, you know, i think theres an understanding that they will not be any continuances granted for people who might be eligible for aha visa, married to a us citizen, a victim of a crime. Those people will not be able to pursue immigration because i think the department has change their position on how they will allow those cases to proceed, so when im streamlining a case, but at the same time taking away some of the remedies that use it to be available to attorneys is it kind of a tough pill to follow for advocates that a bit of work you communities for decades trying to ensure families stay together. The second comment i have i think is that its worrisome to me that people who are you know, where there is no findings , no dangerousness, lets say. Thats a poor term to use, but people charged with crimes have been convicted of one and i think thats not an issue of law, actually. What thats an issue of rhetoric because how we fall down on that question will impact the right of the people in those proceedings because as you know, most immigration relief is discretionary in the hands of the Immigration Court. It is opted in the hands of the Trial Attorney who can agree or not to decide if they join in t and as for the many years that i have practiced its these are difficult was. They are harsh laws that have been on the books for 20 years and have allowed 400,000 people to be deported every year, so the question is as we talk about deportation and immigration cases, do you want to expand the 400,000 per year even higher . Is at the gold . Is it a numbers game or is it a game to actually protect theet right of the people in proceedings at the time because im not really sure where we are going . Unhappy to respond. Michelle to and then you may be. This idea that being arrested for a crime or being charged with a crime is considered the same as having a conviction and they are seen as threats to Public Safety. Im wondering if that then would incentivize Certain Police who want to play a larger role in deportation to arrest people who they believe look or sound like immigrants to get them into the system, to rest them in charge them with a crime knowing even if there is no conviction that i. C. E. Will still be initiating deportation to get that person is a Public Safety threat. Let me call out if i may then down to trace and chad. False arrest is a false arrest. No matter what your motivation is. There are large segments of our community why shouldnt say large, there are segments of our community that believe police are motivated by race, ethnicity , immigration status. The facts is there are checks and balances in our kernel Justice System that will hopefully keep those arrestsogrs from progressing through the criminal Justice System and if i dont believe this is a huge issue. Does it happen . It happens occasionally, but its the same notion that unfortunately the American Public has been convinced by present social media theres an epidemic of Police Violence in this country. And there is not. There is less use of force today than there has been historically by the police. Police are better trained and use less force today than ever before and not a force that has three but, because of that you only need if you knuckleheadedd police doing knuckleheaded things around this country to convince folks its a big problem. So, its not an issue, i believe that police are incentivized to arrest someone based on the way they look or the fact they may be undocumented. We have enough real crime we have to deal with that we dont need to with keeping the public safe i dont think thats a big as concerned as other folks might think. If i understood i dont mean mean to speak for myself, but taking your point that the criminal Justice System will weed out the bad arrest from the criminal perspective. The problem is people are then surfaced to i. C. E. Potentially face removal and not in your jurisdiction where people weigh carefully whether arrests should be made in a rigorously trained and try to follow character carefully the proper law, but their other jurisdictions in the country where people are not as careful about what they do from a criminal perspective and that people are far more adversely affected or can be by removal proceedings than whatever the criminal issue is for even if the arrest is ultimately dismissed. Is that which you are getting there . Okay. Tracy and then i went to shift gears to betsy. Let me First Respond to the comment as it relates to a numbers game trying to get deportation to a certain level, thats absolutely not the case. This is about Public Safety and we are simply identifying threats to Public Safety and removing them from the us, so if the law seems harsh, that its h only because the laws were enacted basically as part of the illegal Immigration Reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 during the Clinton Administration and for 20 years these laws have been on the books, so the law plainly states that aliens present in the us are subject to removal from the us. Nothing more is necessary, so as indicated earlier we dont do sweeps or raids. We encounter individuals during the course of targeted enforcement act, so this doesnt have to be an arrest or even conviction. The fact that someone is here illegally we are made aware of it through operations then we can take enforcement action against them and congress clearly stated that was the case and Congress Also builtin mechanisms that michael pointed out for relief. Adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, so under section 212 of the act your mere presence subjects you to removal him a week need not say more. We dont have the resources and we are not going out randomly checking people for papers, but the point is congress built the relief valve by allowing other forms of relief to individuals who are arrested in seeking removal, so in immigration context we are first prosecutors. Weed removal proceedings and ones that alien is eligible for release we shift our roles andfo litigate where the alien is eligible for relief, so Congress Said under certain circumstances if you been here 10 years with good character qualifications and you dont have certain offenses you can day, but congress did not put in the law if you just if there is no other basis for removal you canl just stay here or that criminal basis for removal is required for your Congress Said these individuals are subject to removal and heres your relief valve. If you qualify you are eligible. Congress made that decision for us. The point here is that we are simply enforcing the law thats been on the books for 20 years. Theres nothing new. We are going back to where the enforcement was prior to the last eight years and we are simply getting back to the enforcement aspect of this. Also know and i could not agree with the chief more. A he nailed it on the head. There is no medication that the enforcement of Immigration Law will result in any more racial profiling than any other aspect of Law Enforcement. In i mean, if that were the case you would see it in the context of drugs or Violent Crime or any other manner of criminal enforcement of any other federal agency. Isaac suddenly i. C. E. Agents or people that cooperate with i. C. E. Come up Police Officer or deputy would be predisposed to profiling than any other law . We know many many of aliens in federal custody in the bureau of prisons are doing hard time for drug tracking and other serious offenses, so you think maybe the dea or other criminal investigative agencies would be more targeting towards individuals than others, butut its clearly not the case. There is no suggestion ort education they are more predisposed to racial profiling than any other context because they have their careers with an internal review process and can be prosecuted and the chief is probably aware, i dont know ifh their ongoing investigations with his agency, but hes made aware of situations that arise because these individuals have the ability to allege their claims to go through the process through litigation, so that will be there and there will be some bad apples, but by a large there is no indication that racial profiling is going on. Thank you, tracy. I went to come back to betsy and tom with more questions and then we promised q a here. The thing i wanted to ask betsy and time from your jurisdictions and also from your awareness of whats going on in other city, county and state level jurisdictions, how do local entities decide about sanctuary city policies at all . Is it an executive decision, legislative decision, litigation decision . How do entities grapple with and actually decide on this question . Well, thank you, carrying. I cant speak for cities across the country, but the district of columbia has both mayors order and legislated legislation regarding century cities in the night there is a communicative function thats an ongoing one from the mayor and how does she and other officials interact with their communities, but i think you could see from c micheles discussion and tom in mind that jurisdictions route the country interpret differently what it means to be century city and i hope that the department of justice and Homeland Security wont cut off grants to cities that are important for Community Policing and Domestic Violence and Homeland Security and other kinds of grants when cities take a different approach casebycase to understanding what makes their city safer and we came to our decision many years ago and dcs crime rates have been trending downward by and large and we feel like we are safer when people feel like they have access to Government Services and when they can come out and send their kids to school and when they feel like they can report crimes to police. Rettig was a misunderstanding i dont know if you are thinking i said you were arresting people that were victims of crime, but cr i think people are very afraid that interaction with police will turn into a immigration proceeding then they will be less likely to report a crime because again Domestic Violence contact is common if a woman is being up and she reports it the perpetrator may say well, she hit me first and you should arrest both of us and then if she is in the system she would be vulnerable, so we think we are safer and stronger together with this legal architecture of mayor orders and departmental orders and legislation and its very nuanced and complicated in a way that goes well beyond the term sanctuary city. Thank you. We are running short on time, but you mention in Montgomery County that all the entities dont even agree on whether the county is or isnt a sanctuary jurisdiction, so can you say briefly who decides or across the spectrum who you think should decide . There are only a relatively few jurisdictions around the country where the mayor stands up and says we are a sanctuary jurisdiction or the city council will pass resolution. Actually, very few that are getting a lot of attention coming when its chicago or new york or San Francisco it gets a lot of attention, but the vastjd majority would guide their policy is legal decisions. The fact that we will not hold of someone be on the time they would normally be released based on even if we have a i. C. E. A detainer is not a political decision. Its a legal guidance we have from the Court Circuit that we have from her own attorneys and when my Attorney Says you should not hold this person, we are liable if you do, i have to follow my attorneys advice. Its a legal decision. Thank you and one diy to come back to, you alluded earlier to the california decision about the funding restriction in the constitutionality of that in the executive order. Can you take a minute on what happened there and then we will go to audience questions. Im so sorry. Well, for executive order that was issued by the Trump Administration and actually the attorney general, there was essentially a threat that was made that there would be withholding of federal funds from cities is a designated century city. The argument is that the cities are violating federal statute that addresses how people communicate with i. C. E. First of all, many of these nearly all of them, i think, dont violate the statute and second if you did actually try to make this happen, if you do try to take away federal funding than it would violate the constitution and it would violate the constitution because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled through a number of decisions, one called prince which is about how information should be shared and through sabia lias, which was the hca decision that the federal government cant commandeer state and local officials by compelling them to work with federal officers. Last month a us District Court in San Francisco granted a temporary injunction of the sanctuary city and concluded that the executive order likely constitutes unconstitutional commandeering because it coworkers state local local governments to force federal law in violation of several Supreme Court precedents. I kind of wanted to maybe and by reading, you know, this. The decision from the court. Its short. The Government Counsel explaining order is an example of the president s use of the pt bully pulpit and even if fred narrowly to have no legal effect serves the purpose of highlighting a president s focus on Immigration Enforcement. While the president is entitled to highlight priorities an executive order carries the force of law and i think the reason why this judge felt compelled to respond was the actual imminent threat of the executive order, which was that it could force, course localities to either give back money that was and i anticipate the government speakers will want to address that point. I said i would come back to each of the end for a Closing Remarks or invite you to hold onto that point if you want to address that when i come back to you. For the audience, we had the remaining time for questions and answers and i would like to remind people identify yourself by name and organization and then ask your question and i encourage people not, its, please, but true questions for the panel. And will start in the front. A low. Im with the state local legal center. Im wondering if there are any Court Decisions that say that administrative warrants signed by someone who works for i. C. E. Meets the requirement of the Fourth Amendment . I think this issue hasnt really been decided and there t are several quarts to have questioned the validity that are some for many the detainer form and have not yet decided whether they will meet the probable cause requirement. I would just say that i dont think there is necessarily any case law directly on point on that question. That issue was just teed up in texas where the state of texas has sb for requiring austin to honor immigration detainers. I think that county tends to propose that policy and one of the arguments i anticipate they will raise is the Fourth Amendment that it is a detainer accompanied by an administrative warrant is compatible with the Fourth Amendment. I dont think we have an answer yet. But there is the us versus watson talking about warrant with a criminal arrest with respect to probable cause. The bases there i think can be drawn off, but if police have probable cause we have always had a practice where Police Officer can attain someone based on probable cause that they committed a crime and the fact we are dealing with a crime that is now disfavored among thewi government or among the i population doesnt really change that legal analysis, so doesnt answer your question to answer your question there is really nothing on point. I suspect we will get there. Next question over here on my left. Yes maam . Hello. Im from peoples power dc. We have been asking the director of the department of corrections in dc to review and make alterations in the recent directive that guides the wayof immigrant inmates are handled in doc facilities. The people in those facilities are not the convicted felons that are generally in those facilities for up to 21 days, sometimes a year according to the director. Might question is for really michelle. We are pressing for requirement that there be a court order to accompany request for information about when an inmate will be released, specific information on the sentencing and access to the inmate for interview. Our understanding is requesting a court order does not in any way violate section 1373. Yeah, those are two separate trains, so there wouldnt be a violation. 1373 by requesting i mean, i would also probably pose brand that considerations that come out with interviews of inmates in detention for purposes of moving into proceedings. It would just be a prerequisite for communication. Can i get a show of hands how many people have questions, so i can decide how to allocate the time . Let me go here and be concise and the question and i will ask the panel to be concise so we can take as many as possible. There is pending legislation in congress about sanctuary cities. They are trying to extend Liability Protection if you comply with a detainer and make sure Law Enforcement officers, federal immigration officers, isnt that commandeering and with that not be subject to the 10th amendment if that legislation gets passed . Who would like to take that one . One thing, about the commandeering point,the co commandeering came up in the United States and its when the federal government requires a state to do something, in that case handgun prevention act that requires state or local officials to conduct a background check. Theres another Supreme Court case and we conditioned the federal government conditiony cd requiring a state to do something with attaching federal grants and in that instance we will give you transportation highway funds if you raise your drinking age into mac 21. The court was clear there is no commandeering problem when thehe state has a choice whether to comply or not comply. There might be a course of problem where you mention that if there is too much money attached and in that case he wau 10 of the state annual funds, then you might get into a course of analysis, but not the commandeering because the state house has a choice to take the money or not. Gilly question is that if its so much money that the state has so much money but to act or enough that they can actually make im going to take a positive do we have a hard stop at 11 . Okay. One of you want to answer it . There are many provisions in that bill that actually tried to conflate immigration, civil Immigration Enforcement with policing. Yes, i think it would raise serious constitutional problems panelist, start getting ready im going to pare down to about 30 second closing, and i will call on wendy. I wanted to ask, many people we see be arrested by i. C. E. In and around courthouses have pending cases and there may be undocumented with a pending criminal case. Was they are arrested they are o held in detention. They are not brought back into the state criminal court, so that case never gets resolved in some of those cases the prosecutor wants to dismiss thet the state may not be able to prosecute it, so courts are unable then to resolve the cases victims dont have closure on the cases and it also prevents the individual who was taken into i. C. E. Custody because they have a pending case even if theyre eligible for relief it will likely be denied because they have an open case or if they are deported they wont be able to lawfully return because they have a pending criminal case and for some of those cases they would otherwise be dismissed or found not guilty, so that impacts significantly states and i guess im looking for a Quick Response for states feel like this is really interfering with their prosecution. I can take that question. I couldnt disagree more. I would say that when the local. I. C. E. Officials are aware there is a pending matter, if they work closely with the das offices in the Law Enforcement officers to ensure if there is a pending matter that they can get it back over to stay custody working with them through their case, their state judiciary to get it back into state custodynw for those proceedings. We dont simply take and remove them because we dont allow the victims to have closure in their cases and we dont allow the criminal prosecution to go forward, so if we can do it at all possible we will work with them to get back to their custody so they can complete those pending criminal matters because there really is no interest in simply whisking summing someone out of the us so they dont stand trial. I can assure you i am well aware of situations where we have worked collegiately and cooperatively with the d8 to ensure those individual stick around particularly if there are felony matters. There may be times when the state doesnt really want to pursue the charge. When we take them into our custody a lot of times the state locals simply wash their hands of it, so we dont have to pursue this and we will say save the county money. Y we often asked them to pursue the criminal charges because its important because that may be the only basis for remove ability that we can establish with having a criminal conviction, so my understanding as we work with them. I dont know the situations you are talking about and i be happy to talk with you offline because i dont to leave that issue lingering, but thats my understanding. We will have to wrap up because we had to vacate the room, so i will ask everyone for a 30 minute closing thoughts sorry, 30 seconds. That would really be all day. I went to invite the panelists who do not have to rush out in a hurry to step outside and invite those of you who have questions we didnt reach you would likee to speak with one or more of the panelists if they are available to continue the conversation outside, so michelle and im sorry we really need to literally be on 30 seconds. Several people have a trip down memory lane and improper a lot of thoughts from the early 2000 when i first startede working on these issues in the post 911 policies were focused on getting state local police to work with federal immigrationpo laws and we saw a lot of studies indicating that hispanics were being arrested for minor traffic violations at higher rates after secure communities was initiated other reports of people being arrested for reasons to get them [inaudible] we also saw the reports off people who died because they did not want to call an ambulance, for example, and i hope we can learn from the past as we start this new era in new conversations. Superquick, please. Then you can take a whole minute you know, i think this time its going to be its a important critical time thats really going to challenging time being able to figure out who we are as a country, how wee address issues, immigration,n, policing, how we address our constitutional safeguards, how we address our due process protections are all on the line right now, i believe. Its too easy to say that the rhetoric doesnt matter and that it doesnt impact the decisions made on the ground. The fact is that many of us who have been doing this work know it does and have seen a disturbing rise in rhetoric and also the impact it has on our communities. I would say when it comes to the court, we need to come back and decide where we think police power should go and i think that right now local communities and local and state have made good decisions on sanctuary cities and sanctuary policies. They have made it to support the communities and to attack them i think headon by executive order by threatening usurping of federal funding or creating additional penalties is not a good way to go for our country. It will not actually heal some of the division that people see exists in the us. Betsy. It is a very scary time for many people and you lawyers play a Important Role in immigration. We dont have a right to cancel in immigration proceedings, but by engaging in Community Groups you can provide some security to immigrants who live in our mitts there are many people who are here who are supposedly illegal, but they may have a natural claim to state if held by ast lawyer to get various visas provided more security. There are many people who are green card holders who have never converted to citizenship for financial reasons were others and with the help of counsel like you, you can bring them more security so if theyo are arrested or find themselves enmeshed in the criminal Justice System they wont find themselves deported, so thank you. Public safety is based on trust and confidence in the people who serve and for local Police Department its no different than for the federal Law Enforcement agency. I believe we can find the right balance where everyones interests are served. It is not served by local police being the Immigration Police ani any influence or pressure to integrate in Immigration Enforcement by local police is the wrong direction to go. However, again, i believe we car find the right balance between local and federal Law Enforcement agencies so i think we can support each other in our mission, but the federal government and not that they need me to do tell them how did do their job, but the federal government needs to understand that they want the trust and confidence of the people they serve they need to be transparent and what they do and if there focuses on criminalsth and folks that are a danger to Public Safety they will have the support and confidence of the public they serve. If they are picking up folks that are here because they came from a awful situation in their country and made a life for themselves in this country and had not broken one law other than the one they broke when they entered into the countryngu then i think they will erode the trust and confidence of the people we serve because why are you using your resources to focus on that individual whende there are plenty of folks im dealing with, the gang bangersth doing Armed Robbery and the other folks committing crime that i will work every day of the week with my federal colleagues to get them out of our communities to make ourur communities safer. Co we have to focus priority in a way that gets that trust and confidence. Thank you. Chad. Thank you very much here there is one point where i could not agree with her more, rhetoric matters. I call out as unhelpful the rhetoric which suggests you are a victim of a crime or a victim of Domestic Violence and if you go to a state or local police and for some reason the attornee general once you deported. Lo that is not true. I call out the rhetoric as unhelpful that says local police and tried to agents bind for share Immigration Laws are engaged in pretext or racial profiling. Again, unhelpful. We can find Common Ground and the Common Ground is that if yoc are in the country of country illegally you have no right to be here and in situations where you have been charged or convicted of a serious crime the federal government will use its resources to ensure the threat to Public Safety is no longer present. The attorney general is committed to working with state local police and hearing their concerns and to working with e everyone to make our nation safe. Tracy. Thank you so much. Again, thank you for allowing me to be here today on this important topic. If i could like to dispel the myth that judicial warrants are required to effect a civil arrest. Thats never been the case. The Supreme Court has long held that the rest of Public Places are sufficient based on probable cause, so the extent to which we have administrative warrants that are set forth in the statute establish probable cause, so the administrative warrants in and of themselvestha are no less of a warrant because they are not issued by judicial law professor because im not aware of provision to a criminal procedure that allows a mr. Gill judge who gives you eight warrant any symbol civil immigration case. Congress has set up the system under its power to legislate on immigration setting forth individuals and procedures that issue these warrants establish an probable and how the i. C. E. Detainers have probable cause because they have a warrant of removal or warrant of arrest establishing the basis for probable cause. There just is a valid the use of the Fourth Amendment. I just want to let everyone know here that we are affecting the rest consistent with the law and the constitution based on the framework congress set up for the ease kinds of Enforcement Actions under the Civil Enforcement action under the Immigration Nationality act, so i went to go with that that these are consistent with law and pursuant to law and no less lawful because theres not aul judicial warrant. Thank you, tracy. Michael. This was a trip down memory lane with how a lot of these a laws and policies came to play post 911. I will say i would agree with the chief and chad and others that no one wants to see norwood to target individual, but im also realistic enough to know that as we ramp up enforcement we have to be mindful of those issues and make sure part of our procedures we have someone looking at that to make sure that we are not doing things unintended. There are consequences and when we see those we can have that off, so it protects the government. It protects the individuals targeted. Thank you, michael. Meredith, we had a written request for one more question. Are we able to take it . All rights. Maria . [inaudible] chad, you said obviously also of the event a clear Immigration Enforcement is a federal task,a so i was wondering with the law going through the hill now like the one on the judiciary committee, one of the bills would allow states to make up their own Immigration Law so that if we already have a tangled up system, having 50 different laws probably make it tougher for all of you here, so i was wondering what sort of guidance or what sort of behindthescenes work are you doing at the doj with people on the hill to make sure they dont make the system the system that is already bad to make it worse for olive you involved involved in Immigration Enforcement . Im not familiar with the specific bill you are talking about, so im not familiar with that. I havent personally been involved with that. I will say everything we do, we want to make it a consistent law, so the Supreme Court held in a think the constitution recognizes that having a patchwork of contradictory immigration regulation is unhelpful and not whats going to create this sort of clarity that we need and create who will be accountable so while i cant, on that specific piece of legislation i would just again reiterate with the American Immigration counsel says on arizona that in the current environment its unclear who is responsible for setting Immigration Enforcement priorities and who is responsible for the success or failure. We want to change that and make it clear the department ofof justice is responsible for setting immigration authorityde and we are were state and local jurisdiction feel they can deviate from those priority it creates this patchwork of conflicting mandates that is unhelpful. I went to and on that note. I want to thank everyone for your patience with us in running a few minutes over time and to our host at the press club for allowing us a few extra minutes in the room. I want to thank the immigration on him at the pen on immigration, civil rights and now i will forget the name. I was doing so good. I knew i would forget that before the day was over. Anyway, think both of thosein entities for cosponsoring this important program. Its obvious how complicated thw issues are, how difficult it is to resolve them with satisfaction on both sides of the issue, but one thing we cand all agree on is that we have had a Stellar Group of people presented to us and sharing their views. [applause]. So, thank you to the audience. Thank you to all of you and we will move outside for those who want to linger for a few moments this weekend on American History tv on cspan3, tonight at 10 00 p. M. Eastern on real america if 50year old cbs broadcast with Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan taking questions via satellite students in london. In england there is a movement against discrimination, with those candidates like to comment on this and how the countries may learn from each others experience criminal living with a heritage of 150 years and the injustice of the Minority Group particularly negros, mexicanamericans, indians and we had just begun to recognize it and now, we are starting to deal with it. On apm Georgetown University professor brian taylor in the military strategy and political calls of emancipation during the civil war. That i did of a president in the event of a sectional were over slavery might have that authority to emancipate slaves as a military measure predates the civil war. Its not a new idea. Its articulated by John Quincy Adams on a number of locations. Sunday at 6 45 p. M. Eastern history professor talks about the first u. S. Congress in the 1790 debate on slavery and race. In a series of petitions that generated that heated debate, antislavery activists in the Pennsylvania Abolition Society put forth a vision of a new nation that imagine a racially inclusive republic or the basic rights of an enslaved african were respected. 8 00 p. M. On the presidency history professor on letters that were exchange between Abraham Lincoln and joshua speed. For them to talk about their everlasting love was normal and encouraged to be expressive about intimacy and connection and i think that is the way to see this relationship. As long as the boundary against sexuality was stricken maintained. For our complete schedule go to cspan. Org. Youre watching the tv on cspan2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. Book tv, television for serious readers. We with visit trenton, new jersey to talk to local authors an visit the citys literary sites. That all happens this weekend on booktv. 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend on cspan2, television for serious readers. First up heres a look at working class america, told through the experiences of the residents of janesville, wisconsin