in the overall message of the program if the administration decides to change that, that will add more costs to our

system and caused a 20% ago 21, 22, 25, what have you. there is a huge choice that want to continue the policies and placed to restrain costs growth of the medicare program with the federal budget that have brought value to the overall health care system by taking a number of the waste another payment. that is a huge choice in how to do in addition to coverage expansion going forward. >> let's go to this question and then i will come back to you. >> thank you. i wonder if you can speak to kind of the position of coming in as the new cms administrator, owning a program figure paused says is fundamentally flawed and will like to get rid of right away but the other smart people here say the aca will continue for at least a couple years so it's kind of like iona. i've got to run it, but on the

other hand we've got to take it apart and how do you balance the responsibility of doing business the right way in the short run versus what you assume your bosses in congress on long-run plan might be. >> the law is the law. people forget there's 50,000 contract employees and 50,000, 60,000 cms employees feared what i would say there were 12 political cleanings. figure out who the really good career people are in the way bunch of them as far as i can tell were democrats. they did not that way. they are very apolitical. the agency is based in baltimore so that the washington nice to some degree. very good, very loyal, do what they told to do and figure out quickly spending $1.5 trillion

this year. they better than the census department spending last to figure out to the 10 or 15 top career people you can trust and sean kristol changed the law but until then you've got to keep going with programs great >> the law passed in 2003 was a very popular democrats in a lot of folks wished the administration would've changed the structure, how they operate in 2009 when the president came in. the loan was pretty popular and it would have created pushback by the beneficiary community. any team that goes in kind of understands that people are receiving a method that people are used to the undecided outcome educated about the law,

difficult proposition to think about the transition at a time you have other priorities you are trying to achieve and the ultimate decision the president made was not to fundamentally change the benefit but to tweet it come the tinkering and make it stronger and must reason. precious one reality once you step into a new agent they come to you on this loss i'm you have to think about the transition and the pushback that will happen once people receiving the benefit believe that they're going to lose the benefit here >> you don't know where repeal and replace will look like. it could be a continuation of what exists today. therefor you don't want to kill something that you might have to rebuild and that means you have to work with those individuals who are only out side whether they see insurance companies or providers helping make the

program work as much as it is currently pay make it work better if it's going to continue and sean way, shape or form going forward. not only is it incumbent upon you to do the best he can because it's currently the law, you don't know what the alternative may be and what is very today in order to be successful in the future. >> thank you. if we are predicting that coverage may be rolled back about 30% of the benefits gets in your cover obviously we spent time talking about destabilizing the house insurance market, but this morning we haven't yet talked about potential for destabilizing the hospital side. do we envision as the rate of uninsured go up or at least predicted as we put together placement, are we going to see every focus around dish from how

that's calculating. i don't think we will help hospitals wanting to turn them away in emergency situations they can't. i'll be interested in any sense you all have been that regard. >> a little biased. the fact is the hospital sector in my opinion has changed more by looks to its, managed care and medicare advantage because what is happy or moved into the world of risk for doctors and providers make a to the way they save money and theoretically make a lot of hospitals. volume of hospitals will drop no matter what because they look at tougher on the margins. that's a matter of going to occur damage.

i'll be 50% quickly. medicaid managed care is 80%. so the model change in the impatient that model will change and create pressures. republicans created medicare to begin with. he'll be hesitated to throw new subsidies and hospitals that they have to be sensitive to the biggest employer in every community in the country. look at the matter crassly. something will be done but it's less a result of the aca and changes in these benefits than it is changes in the market in the inpatient system is changing. >> the ability to perform minimally invasive surgery and get someone out of the hospital within 24 hours so does the qualify as an inpatient stay would have a big impact going forward for hospitals, how they were defined in the medicare benefit was passed in 1965 and

what a hospital looks like today and well in the future can be entirely different in the medicare payment systems, cap to the practice of medicine. that may or may not be an opportunity that congress takes up in the next four years, but it's certainly something that will be focused on whether a cmi or congress. >> one example to hospitals. when senator baucus was at cms, yet pretty bad. cms regional administrator one bed. they wanted to shut down. the regional office said bush had done the hospital. he showed them a hospital, i'm going to shut down the regional office. my point is members of congress, democratic chairman of the

finance committee care a lot about their hospitals insist cms will also care a lot about hospitals. >> i met a former administrator. no one's asked me about the question, but i agree with tom that there's going to have to be some sort of consideration in for a massive hospitals will potentially incur greater amounts of incumbent baby care. if you look at the way in plan, reestablishing dish. potentially combining with medicaid dish covered the idea that ultimately it hospitals will be sharing pools of money where his referred medicare is this never-ending thing that could get greater and greater cannot think that that will ever happen again. it will be a shared pool. i'm mindful we're probably at a time and another additional questions but i have an obligation from the committee to make sure we are on schedule in

currently taking a break. i'll just want to do for these guys if you have questions you want to ask individually i'm sure they will tell you that. thank you very much to the panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the c-span student cam contest is in full sign that we are asking students to tell us the most important issue for the new president and congress to address in 27 team. joining me is ashley lee, a former winner of 2015 for a documentary, help for homeless heroes. ashley, tell us about your student cam documentary. >> in 2015 can we produced a documentary for recovered issues of homeless veterans in orange

county, california. we decided the people will file for our country and giving their all for our country and are now living on the streets not having family or anyone to care for them or not okay. we decided we are going to talk about this issue within our community and we decided to make a documentary about it. i encourage all seniors in high school juniors in high school and middle schoolers to use this platform to raise your voice to say that your generation deserve to be heard and the government and there is a better place to speak these issues. this is a period i think my advice for students on offensive sturdiness documentary is he really dug into the community and see what is the fact immense around you because they are the ones you love. they are the ones who see the amounts the noose around with

every day. so if there is an issue that you see happen every day on the street, that is probably where you can start. be a part of this documentary because you want to be a voice for your community. >> thank you for advice and tips. if you want more information on our contest, go to our website, student cam.o. r. g. >> local governments across the country known to sanctuary cities submitted a policy to not assist deportation proceedings. legal analysts opposes supporting his policies debated these issues at the national press club. we hear from jessica vaughan at immigration studies at william scott, president of the american immigration lawyers association. this is 50 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the national press club newsmaker on sanctuary cities. my name is toni gallo with the newsmakers committee at the national press club, the world's largest organization for professional journalists. if you are interested in joining, please see me afterwards. sanctuary cities is an extremely issued today. we have 300 of these jurisdictions. the governor of new york is now proposing new york become a sanctuary state. san francisco is proposing funding from the legal fees for undocumented workers. and with that, i think i've

spoken long enough and we will have each beaker speak 10 to 12 minutes and then we will have questions and answers. jessica vaughan represents the anti-immigration city side. she is at the policy director at the center for immigration studies. william stock is with the american immigrant lawyers association and he represents the pro-sanctuary city side. with that, jessica and then william and then you get one minute. >> thank you so much in thank you all for coming today. definitely a hot topic and i'm pleased to have this opportunity

to visit these issues and a format that is going to promote discussion and give us a chance to explore some of the details of the arguments. sanctuary cities, yes or no. the answer is very clearly now. i'll be telling you why mainly because they are of legal and because they create public safety problems, but also because they don't help in establishing trust between immigrants in the community and authorities. before i add, i will also tell you what i think should be done about them. we have heard the sanctuary policies are fine, that they are even necessary in the reasons people get for supporting our providing sanctuary policies are basically one of two reasons. one positive, one negative. the positive reason often given is the so-called trust issue.

we've heard is that if a authorities cooperate with immigration authorities, immigrants and the community will be afraid to report crimes because they are afraid they might get turned over for deportation. this is something authorities genuinely should be concerned about if that were true and it turned out it's not. i'll be delving into that later. the other main reason you'll hear about it favor of sanctuary cities is negative reason and that's what i call but you can't make me argument that the federal government can't force states to enforce or make them spend money on it on immigration officers. these don't want to be there upon examination and cooperation between local authorities and federal authorities is clearly within the constitutional framework. so i'm going to address these

arguments, but first i want to give you three reasons why i think the federal government must address the common sanctuary speared first lock on a sanctuary policies obstruct legitimate enforcement of immigration laws in their legal. it's important to remember that immigration law is not some obsolete relic of the law that is now worth enforcing. it protects job opportunities for americans and for legal immigrant, especially those legal workers who don't have a college degree. their job prospects have non-proof whatsoever in the last 10 years. not even close to improving. these are the american family coworkers who are hurt most and that needs to be more of a consideration of our unique others. also, immigration law protects resources for education health

and welfare there should be reserved only for citizens and people here legally. illegal immigration is a net fiscal drain on the federal budget to the tune of $50 billion a year. that's not insignificant. perhaps most importantly, immigration bond for us to protect security and safety of our communities because the main target for deportation is and always has been a small fraction of the illegal alien who are criminals and causing problems in our communities. since i says and patrolled the streets looking for people to arrive from it depends on one's person and to identify which are causing the problems and it turns out that the sanctuary's with the criminal alien. it is one that tells local law enforcement agencies not to cooperate when the feds remove someone arrested for a local crime.

90% of the people removed nowadays have a criminal conviction. that is is protected by sanctuary policies. commerce that is important for agencies to have the cooperation that they passed a lot in 1996 amid sanctuary policies illegal. eight u.s. code 1373 says no local government can have a policy that in any way restricts local officials from communicating are exchanging information with the feds, which is exactly what the most egregious sanctuaries do an exact policy in place when san francisco sheriff's office released the men who later killed two timely in the now infamous case. in addition, no one may harbor illegal aliens for federal authorities. any place as the sanctuary policy against these laws is not only putting people in the

community at risk of putting themselves at risk the consequences for the federal government. aside from the legal and constitutional issues, sanctuary policies caused public safety problems. this is because the practical effect is that they end up releasing criminal aliens back to the community they should be deported. january 2014 will never sanctuaries started to proliferate come i started keeping track of exactly which jurisdictions are not cooperating. the number of detectors rejected because of sanctuary policies, the subjects of the detectors were and what happened after they were released. i was able to obtain a copy of this report drew a request posted on our website and this is what i sound. but with the eight-month. they studied sanctuaries released about 8000 individuals who were the sub check them in a stew dinner. by june 2015 of his 17,000.

63% of those who were released already had a serious criminal record coming and a felony or by the misdemeanor. within eight months, 23% had re-offended within this eight-month than they were charged with more than 4000 new crimes. of those, able to rearrest about 40% and the rest are at-large. the sanctuary supporters have no responsibility for the problems created by these releases -- just go arrest them. easier said than done. if you had to an arrest an illegal alien gang member or a drug dealer, which are rather do it? in the jail where they are already held a local charges, on the street in their apartment where you don't know who else is there? of course not. forcing to make these arrests in the community is dangerous for the community and for the aged and is also upsetting to the

public and creates this climate of fear that the immigrant advocates say that they are opposed to. some say that they understand and deploy the public safety problems created by sanctuaries, but nevertheless come the sheriff said no choice but to let criminal aliens go and they say that because some courts have ruled holding the alien for i.c.e. is a civil rights violation. brochures don't agree with that. 90% are complying with i.c.e. detainer is and i estimate 250 of the 300 sanctuaries that exist now fall into this category of erroneously maintaining that they cannot hold someone for i.c.e. what i say is i.c.e. does provide warrants. administrative warrants are not required to provide criminal warrants. i.c.e. is offered to pay any additional costs for holding the alien and has established rapid response teams to get officers quickly to minimize the cost of

the local jurisdiction. but there are still some of these places -- cooperate on any terms. cook county, illinois compass given cisco, contra costa and santa clara in california and king county in washington state still do not cooperate with even the accommodations i.c.e. is offered them and the reason is not because of legal issues or cost issues. the reason they have the sanctuary policies because they want to obstruct immigration enforcement because they disagree with it. the federal government can't look the other way. so the sanctuary policies are illegal and dangerous. to top it off, they do not even accomplish that goal that they allege is their main reason for having them, which is to encourage immigrants to report crime and trust authorities. first, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that immigrants report crime and a less than others.

not reporting crimes is a problem in a lot of places in the reasons are calm lives. but as i mention in the report that we are putting out today, which is available on our website, the national level data on crime reporting showed no signs of less reporting of crime that immigrants. the data from one first and agencies that have looked that shows no sign of a decline in crime reporting that immigrants when there's robust cooperation between the police and i.c.e. including a detailed study and virginia, a few years ago. there have been some surveys done and reported in the academic literature and what they found when immigrants are asked if they did not report crimes and what was the reason, what they say is they faced a language barrier. the second reason is they don't

know how to report the crime or they didn't think what happened was a crime. not because they were afraid of being turned over. to the extent that their access problems to services, local police should adopt tried-and-true community policing policies that directly address those problems. higher officers to speak the languages of the community have anonymous tip line and the nonuniform taking crime reports, do average to the community to build ties and most importantly, what they need to do is get the message out that innocent victims and witnesses are never targets for immigration of enforcement. that is the message this group should be spread in a set of the message that immigrants have something here from police. none of the community policing type accent mentioned above suppressing immigration enforcement. what can be done to address

sanctuary problem? it's reasonable to expect this'll be a focus for the new administration because the president-elect has said to be clearly took to heart the story said the americans who've lost family members to crimes by illegal aliens. addressing the sanctuaries has to be in part part of the trend administration's plan to boost the deportation of the estimated 2 million criminal aliens now in the country. 90% of the jurisdictions are cooperating. 10% happy to be in places that do have a lot of criminal aliens. the first thing the new administration should do is address the legal can do at the jurisdictions that make up the sanctuaries. the 250 i mentioned. one easy step is to agree to it yesterday but she warrants were requested. this is not a big deal for i.c.e. did they have to do it

anyway in processing for deportation said they may as well do it than to issue detainer in the odd person agencies halfway and help them out. this is a solution that has allowed several county on long island, which is a big community with a lot of problems illegal alien crimes. they reversed their sanctuary policy last week which again i described in the report they needed to do this because it's a huge problem with ms-13, which has been growing since the arrival of the illegal alien youth in central america and hundreds of them have been resettled to long island in those communities. the next thing i would do would be to begin to publish a weekly list of all the criminal aliens released by the sanctuaries. i would call it then is left after dennis mccann who was killed by an illegal alien drunk driver in chicago 2011.

that illegal alien, saw a shot as the son of people released bush's of the most extreme in the country. he fled to mexico because cook county released him because of the newly good ordinance that said they will not turn anyone over or hold anything to i.c.e. don't give folks something to write about on a weekly basis. new administration should continue the process that has begun to cut federal funds in the sanctuaries. they determine certain sanctuary policies are in consistent with federal law and if you are not complying with federal law, then you cannot receive federal funds. in 2016, the 10 jurisdictions identified by the department of justice as having a policy

that's a problem received $96 million this year that they might end up paying back if they don't change policies by june 30th, 2017. some have claimed is proper for the federal government to do this as local governments are violating federal law. after taking no steps of meeting the jurisdictions halfway on legal concerns about warren and withholding federal funds to the noncompliant jurisdictions. there is still some diehard sanctuary jurisdiction that are going to cling to their policy. if that's the case, the federal government should look at withholding other kinds of grants. but if they persist, the

government will have to book a possible litigation to enjoin the sanctuary policies or possibly prosecution insert circumstances selectively because this continued egregious obstruction of i.c.e. is going to cause more horrific consequences as we've heard the same happened. i have to say if i were a police chief or sheriff, watching what's going on, observing what's been happening, i certainly would not want to be on the other end of that kind of the case on the other end of a microphone tried to explain to family members of the victims or the citizen in my community why i did not do everything possible to get the person turned over to i.c.e. i certainly would not want to deal with the potential legal liability either. it's going to be interesting to

watch this play out over the coming year and i think right now some of the sanctuary jurisdictions are playing a game of chicken with the federal government. but i'm not sure how long the public is going to tolerate it in the federal government should not tolerate it either. thank you very much. >> before we go one, and number of people in the back are very lonely up here. can you please come up? there are plenty of seats here. we will speak for a maple amount of time. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here with you today. sanctuary cities, the phrase is a think a state official standing between the immigration authorities and endocrine sore

subject to removal somehow shielding them from removal and in spite of their unlawful status. and number 300 jurisdictions, there is no policy that instructs officers to thwart the enforcement of immigration law. what we are talking about is policies that instructs state officials to stand aside from the federal agencies that are responsible for enforcing immigration laws. but federal law-enforcement do their job of enforcing federal laws of the state law enforcement resources remain focused on was involved in their communities and keeping their communities safe. the question before us today is not whether or not david local law enforcement is allowed to assist with immigration law enforcement. clearly they are if they wish to be so. the question is whether state and local law and were smacking me compelled to provide assistance and federal law enforcement matters in the civil

immigration law was meant. in my remarks today, i'd like to briefly address how this current question of immigration enforcement relates to disputes between states in the federal government over how much the state is supposed to be involved with enforcement of a federal civil law. you have to go back all the way into the founding of the republic when you find out one of the first arguments between the states and federal government is how much states in the north side to cooperate the states in the south who are trying to return fugitive slaves and when african-americans would be kidnapped out of new york or massachusetts or other states, what assistance did those states legal systems have to provide two southern agents who were coming up to capture individuals that take them back. that was the first set of issues the supreme court had to decide.

the state of pennsylvania was involved in a cave for bed the state of pennsylvania could not make it illegal for federal agents to be able to work under the fugitive slave act said of pennsylvania because of the supremacy of federal law. at the same time they've never had to make their own state law enforcement resources available to help with that. fast-forward to prohibition. everybody remembers the 18th amendment to the constitution made it illegal to manufacture, distribute, sell alcoholic in the united states. the federal government didn't have anywhere near enough to infer is that throughout the united states. states and cities are passing laws that allowed them to also concurrently enforce the 18th amendment. the cities and states also decided not to. the entire state of maryland for the entire duration of prohibition never passed a law allowing the enforcement of that

and so of course alcohol remained available on a much greater basis in the state of maryland and other places. the city of new york had more places where you could get alcohol during prohibition than it did before permission because city and local officials did not support the federal law and did not cooperate in the federal government was not able to compel them to do that. when we talk about whether the federal government should be allowed to compel a state or city to go along with its priorities, and think we need to be careful that in a precedent set could be equally applied in other areas of law. for example, the federal firearms act requires registration insert kind of firearms, sawed off shotguns that may be perfectly legal to possess under state law. many lack the involved in

terrible crimes are not registered properly. should there be a law that says no state shall get federal funding if they refuse to turn over to the alcohol tobacco and firearms any unregistered within a police encounter. it is not very dissimilar from what happened in the brady act in 1983 when congress said because there was no national system, state law enforcement officials had to run a background check of any handgun purchaser. all the way to the supreme court the supreme court and the prince versus united states, the supreme court said the federal government could not commandeer those local resources to enforce a federal purpose for your so is responsible for the enforcement of the immigration laws.

if an individual comes into the united states and they do not have a proper status and they let it pass through the committee start list of crime, they are removable from the united states and federal authorities harassed hospital for moving them. but to say that a state law enforcement officer has to hold on to that individual while a federal officer is coming to get them, while a federal officer is determining whether or not a person is subject to removal raises serious constitutional concerns because while it is true that it may be a relatively short period of time, it may be 48 hours or less. in some cases it is not. more important late, the supreme court has said the de minimis requirement are burning about jack cunningham could purchaser is not something the federal government can compel the states to do.

to require them to hold and house and feed and =tranfour someone who is a person. this isn't just a background check. this is keeping physical control of a person for a period of time goes well beyond what the supreme court has saturday said it's not something allowed to be required in the federal government. so then we get to the question of fun day in -- removing funding a suspension for refusing to cooperate and provide assistance to the federal government in this matter. the supreme court has saturday made that decision is well quite recently in the case of obamacare for the supreme justice robert said it was unlawful for the obamacare statute to threaten to remove medicare payment unless states adopted apothecaries medicare expansion.

so in the same way if the federal act were to say states should be deprived of more than a directly relevant law-enforcement grants that provide state assistant for the cost of housing persons who are undocumented who commit crimes, to go beyond that, due to an even more broadly would be an unlawful coercion of violation of the 10th amendment. why are we here? we are here at easton part because we have allowed immigration to be different from every other kind of flawed worsening. the city of philadelphia where i am from has a policy that has been labeled a sanctuary policy. our mayor has been quite clear that every other law enforcement agency that once to take custody of someone in the philadelphia jail system can get a judicial

warrant produced a warrant. the montgomery county police can do it. the other federal laws was that officials can do it, but i.c.e. believes it does not have to. they believe they can rely on administrative warrant which is not a warrant at all. the fourth amendment is a someone and proven by probable cause to an independent magistrate. none of those elements are necessarily required of an emigration detainer. our immigration officers will look in the database or decide that someone is potentially subject to removal. not even probable cause subject to removal. if the person is detained, it's a warrantless arrest similar to

when a police officer in counter someone driving around. they have to have a probable cause. this isn't even a crime. this is a civil violation of the immigration laws. requiring these procedural protections is not about protecting criminals. requiring procedural protections is about protecting lawful resident and american citizens because situations in my own state of pennsylvania when the lackawanna county sheriff's department was served for a u.s. led who was then cab to detention for longer than 48 hours are cases of why these procedural protections are necessary. why is it not required but i.c.e. bring a person before a neutral magistrate within a reasonable period of time, 48 hours according to the supreme court. why is it a big -- every other

law enforcement agency in united state somehow manages to. i want to conclude with the story about community trust because what our members tell us is that these kinds of issues are fundamental to the relationships that police in their communities are trying to set up with their broader communities of legal immigrants. there may be undocumented immigrant to live within these communities are recent immigrants to the united states. community policing efforts are about establishing chips and as a practical matter, what happens when local police become enmeshed in the enforcement of immigration laws are cases like what one of our reported from washington state. they're about which is not her actual name was arrested during a domestic by the incident. she was the victim of domestic violence by her u.s. citizen has

been. she had never called police before because of course her husband was telling her that the police would be on his side and she would be deported. when police came to the house because of this incident, she only speaks spanish and her husband was able to convince the police officers that she had been the aggressor and so she was arrested. she was taken into removal. she was deported from the united states. this is a situation where an individual who was the subject of a criminal investigation at a local level became enmeshed in this deportation system. this is what will happen if you have a car which gets pulled over their heads for people in it, it won't matter that there is only probable cause to stop the car because of what the driver was doing. everyone in the car they become

subject to immigration enforcement. these are the reasons why we say that each community needs to be able to make its own decision in this matter is. there are committees who have decided to fully participate in what he immigration horsemen. they were communities who will decide to partially dooms of communities who wrote this to honor federal requests, to comply with federal law consistent with the constitution but to go no further. that is what we are asking should be able to continue. [applause] >> clearly what we are talking about your sanctuary is there not just standing aside. they are standing in between the federal government and an

individual that they are trying to deport and who should be deported from this country. they are not reading compelled to enforce immigration laws. they are being asked to hand over an individual for a legitimate line for the purpose just like every other one person agency does and cooperates with other law enforcement agencies routinely. this analogy doesn't apply. when the washington d.c. police hand over someone who's wanted by the state of california on a warrant, they are not enforcing california's law. they are cooperating and that is what i.c.e. is asking for. i.c.e. is the only agent the block in this way. the other reason that we know that these issues of constitutionality and cost are not the purpose for sanctuary policies because when i offered to pay for a cost to the agency

for holding the individual coming to sanctuary still say no. i.c.e. has done everything he can to overcome suppose that excuses for not cooperating and they still don't cooperate. why vested i.c.e. give criminal warrants? number one, there's no such thing. and the agency that asks for a warrant with the detainer maisel asked yet to be delivered by a blue gin accord on a silver platter because it doesn't make sense. it is just a way of giving themselves an out there. what this debate is really about is who gets to decide when the immigration laws will be enforced. our constitution clearly gives authority over immigration matters to congress that congress give is this the tools that they need to enforce the law and also when there is

legal. that is the problem. that is what's unconstitutional. i am back >> no, that's fine. i'd be happy to take the first question. >> please identify who you are with. idea of mac [inaudible] >> is they occur outside, we do not refer to people who immigration laws are deemed anti-immigrants. we don't refer to people who support sanctuaries being pro-immigrant and we do refer to

people who are supposedly undocumented that have false documents, fraudulent documents. we refer to them as illegal immigrant. i want to clear that up as a member of the press club. my question is does they understand when we first convicted felons who have served their time. their families know they are going to be deported. this is no surprise that everybody knows that the end of their sentence that i.c.e. will come in and secure them yet for some reason they say we are not going to let a deport us via google release them. i don't know how you can defend not continuing with the sentence that is unique to illegal immigrants, but they are convicted felons. >> i think it's very important to recognize that we support enforcement of immigration law,

of people who work on the date of crimes that are listed in results as resulting in deportation and if there's no relief from deportation were those folks. the problem with the secured communities program is it was not focused as at the conviction end of the process. it was focused at the arrest end of the process. someone who was arrested and charged with a crime or even worse if you look at another statistics, they are compiling together detainer requests that were refused for people who were convicted, arrested were suspected of criminal activity. so what we have seen is our members report to us that what will happen is an individual will get tagged as this is gang member and will then be sent back to a detainer order from immigration because the criminal authorities don't have anything to charge them with.

instead they say that sees immigration instead and get this person out of our community. it is really using immigration law in lieu of criminal law against someone who they can prove the case for her. we saw this after 9/11 where individuals had violations and were lied a suspect to terrorists and there is no evidence of whether they were a terrorist or not would be detained under the immigration authority so that they could be interrogated, for example. >> again, it is not the prerogative of state and local government to decide which illegal aliens are criminal and will be subject to deportation. the constitution has given congress that authority and isis

executed that responsibility simply cannot substitute for states and municipalities cannot decide which illegal aliens are deported. it is simply not their call whether they are criminals or not. >> other questions? >> name and where you're from its >> i'm going to do that. >> my name is steve cameron and i'm at the center for immigration studies. if somebody is arrested for drunk driving or doing something in the local jurisdiction does that hold them when we had a dozen charges that had shown the person is a clear a them were fingerprinted in the fingerprint match. your position is they don't have told this person in the united states illegally. immigration service asks them to hold them and you say you've got to be a solid has previously been conveyed it.

how is that different than open borders? he's been identified as an illegal alien. most americans say we don't want the police rounding people up, but when both of you said that person should be deported and the jurisdiction should hold them even if they haven't actually killed ahmad were committed and other serious crime. either one of you. >> share, so the first thing i would point out is that the founders of this country understood the physical gin of any person with the most coercive power that the government had and should only be exercised under the supervision of neutral magistrates. the enshrined the privilege of habeas corpus: in front of a judge and holding her detention is unlawful in the constitution that it could not be suspended except in cases of asian or civil war. so what we are talking about is

their requirements for physical detention of any person in the united states that it be done lawfully. one of those requirements is that any detention beat down upon probable cause of a neutral magistrate. when an immigration officer requesting suspects in the then notified through fingerprint check. you don't have to prove that to anyone. that foreign national may not be sub back to any kind of post-detention review of their status for weeks or. the supreme court will decide whether or not the constraints they assess were lawful and detention of people during the immigration process, whether those have been exceeded of the last 10 years as they make their first decision. because that coercive detention power is the power of the

government that the founders most feared, they required to be exercised exercised within strict constitutional limits. cities which they immigration it is getting more of a show a mutual magistrate they are subject to jurisdiction are upholding the amendment to the constitution. >> again, the solution that bill has suggested neither required under the law, what we are talking about is people are getting arrested. it is discovered that they are here illegally are potentially deportable through fingerprint match or an interview in a jail. i.c.e. issues a detainer. the detainer has an indication that i.c.e. has probable cause to believe the individual is deportable. that's not even the standard. the standard is articulable

facts. this is not a criminal case that there are no trappings of the criminal system in a magistrates available who could provide the blessing he said testing. congress has decided that i.c.e. is articulable facts that the person is deportable and that the state or local law enforcement agency shall maintain custody of that alien. that's what the federal regulation says shall maintain custody of that in the jewel just as they would do for any other by enforcement agency up to 48 hours. usually i.c.e. gets there much quicker than that. state and local governments get reimbursed partially for their costs already doing federal awards program. again, we talk about people who have already been arrested to a sanctuary would rather read these rather than have the descent back to their home country where they could no longer pray on individuals in

the country. [inaudible] you mentioned that this is not a criminal case. i want to ask you, why is it that we are holding the suspected undocumented immigrants in detention and 10 year note to any other instance of federal civil laws requiring people being detained before being given due process. >> share. again, it is not just that they are successive suspected of being terribly coy. i.c.e. have to have articulable facts and often the identity of smash through fingerprint. so they know what they are doing. those are the individuals being released by the sanctuaries and

the reason that they need them held in custody is because i.c.e. can't be in every jail for every courthouse patrolling the streets looking for criminal aliens when they are notified that a criminal alien or illegal alien that they want to deport is in someone's custody. they are asking them to be held in custody in accordance with federal regulations and in accordance with the law congress has written, which determines what the due process will be. the >> artist that number come from? what does it include? >> the $50 billion a year is the net drain on public coffers.

the difference between what illegal aliens are estimated to have paid in the system in taxes and fees in the one minus what they are estimated to receive and welfare benefits, educational services, housed in, health care and all the other array of publicly funded services that are made available to them. so it is a net cost. >> i would just point out that you did that not cause on trade cost attributable to u.s. citizens children onto foreign nationals, but revenues as they grow up and become taxpayers. so that not only works if you count the u.s. citizen children is caused on children, but as benefits when they grow up. >> other questions. >> how does the legal definition

of sanctuaries, especially when you talk to the immigration policy. >> i think it's very critical that we have some sort of understanding of what we are talking about. there is no accepted legal definition. right now section 1373 cents bad no state policy can prohibit communication between state officers in the federal government with respect to immigration. that's fine but it doesn't answer far more important question, which does mayor jim kenney while philadelphia police officers spending time and resources finding out information in the course of enforcing the law. so does i think we have to define in 300 jurisdictions you will find 300 different definition of how they cooperate or don't cooperate so we don't

have an idea appears sanctuary cities is the label applied to argue that these are cities who are somehow shielding and the grand when in fact what they are doing is requiring the federal government to do it jobs. >> there's definitely a step term of sanctuary policies across the nation and it may mean different things to different people. ..