was major chris turner i said wire you hear he said because i cannot get out of my mind to see a buddy of mine killed. and i paid from pictures polar photos as i was painting in turner i wandered without must we like in his mind. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning to the program title sanctuary cities. co-sponsor for the rights of social justice special counsel here in washington d.c. office and for purposes of this program tries serve as special adviser to the spmmission on immigration delighted to be your moderator this morning i am especially honored to be sharing the stage with this distinguished group of panelists.inguis i have learned so much preparing for this because it is not a topic on whiche to work everyday so the materials them of

preparation i have been able to do has been instructivere for me and i am pleased to have that chance of wide range of diverse backgrounds . in short today's program will explore in depth thert concept that has come into prominence in the national discourse on immigrationco enforcement and as you'll hear later in the program sanctuary is not a new concept into law or practice but in the forefront of the discussions today. we will be talking about the definitions in the various ways states it can limit the cooperation and the consequences of an immigrant population. with those local policies

and litigation and the practical daily question of a century city policy that is a more prosperous community.pologies so i will give only a brief introduction to direct your attention to what is it your materials.ies i will introduce in the order we will proceed.o to a miami left a senior research and policy analyst in then on high skilled immigration enforcement issues. with that associate director of the national immigration project and then we have the

general counsel to the mayor and then to her left we have the chief of police for the montgomery county police department. we're looking to wear an. couple of cats in this program with the department of justice counsel to the deputy attorney general than to his left we have the principal legal adviser for i.c.e. within the department of homeland security and

then on the far left and no pun intended. [laughter] from the d.c. region so we're looking forward to the opportunity to reflect coming from the private practice and that experience to round out our discussion. we probably messed up the seating order is not the introduction order. said to have a brief presentation with michelle starting is off with a history in the background in the framing of the issuelly fram then we will have a roundtable discussion soop people can speak among themselves and then with a a

good amount of time set aside with question and answer from the audience.estion we only have one microphone for the audience if you haveth a question please stand and then announce your affiliation before your question. so bare that in mind so just one thought to start us off on the panel. with a quote from justice kennedy and it is not about

century city settle the live very good device with that discussion and we hope to have this morning. so talking about the relationship justice kennedy wrote the exercise of national power over immigration defense of the nation's meeting its responsibility informed by searching irrational civil discourse. said to facilitate a rational discourse of the immigration authority so with that we will turn to the opening presentation. >> thanks for inviting me to

be part of this panel with the basic and as we know soov we have adopted a different policy into an forced immigration law and end inhe many localities have determined this is the best interest to limit their role of deportation and how they protect and serve their communities and they truly believe the policies make their communities safer. those that restrict cooperation reno the administration believes they

are a sanctuary policy to violate federal law and threatened to withhold funding from the sanctuary cities and tried to publicly shame them over there alleges failures to protect the community but strongly believed it is a misnomer and contrary to what many believe they do not shelter immigrants are deported from those jurisdictions every single day she'll for criminal activities to enforce all criminal laws against immigrants so starting their i will discuss which policies house so-called sanctuary city's corporate with the federal government and in compliance with federal law and then i will go over the evidence

that economically vibrant. what is considered under the umbrella of sanctuary policies? prohibiting the agreements to enforce federal immigration laws san trade policies could be refusing to enter into a contract with the federal government to restrict the police from asking about immigration in status. refusing i.c.e. to go into their jails without a warrant for restricting and foresail like hospitals and schools and it could be restricting from honoring all immigration and detainers but since this is

the one we hear about most frequently for our purposes so when they identified ago they are held in jails or presidents and now asking local law-enforcement officials to hold the individual fourth period 48 hours lumber so after bail has been posted in charges dropped to hold that an additional amount of time.an ado they are not judicial warrants things to those century policies capri with the federal government on cooperation and in a varietygo

of ways they send federal immigration agents that his book into a jail or prison then they use those fingerprints to identify for deportation.we kno this is a mandatory program for all jurisdictions sanctuary cities can in thetu joint task force with those operations and to attractat gangs are other crimes they may even rent jail space to house the detainee's and they may offer decatur's from certain circumstances

and in many cases of the individual has been convicted of a cry rather than just charged. or a felony has opposed to a misdemeanor.posed to a one thing we have heard often recently they're not in compliance with federal law we will hear more about this but some claim that these policies violate section in 1373 as a federal statute to prohibit state and local government that live it communication regarding the immigration status of individuals so pursuant to section 1373 they my a not prohibit or restrict sending receiving

requesting informationinform waffle or unlawful of any individual they may not prohibit or restrict information regarding the individual's immigration status or exchangingat information regarding the immigration status for proing ii but it only applies to sharing of informationon regarding individual citizenship the policies that do not explicitly limit communication with dhs and do not forbid that means are not in violation. moreover section 13 does not mandate with the decatur without restrict the compliance with detainers to

collect information and doesn't limit the collectionn of that mini the -- a federation.ould a so finally those that ledd the cooperation allows criminals to run free however there is evidence the opposite is true so that immigrants are less likely to commit crime so police officials tell you it is easy to protect communities and there is trust between the police and the communities when aller residents are willing to cooperate and especially

important right now so there are reports coming out this week showing a loss in angeles denver old castle and other cities those including domestic abuse and sexual assault is down for girl it is down since the beginning of the year. if immigrants would notof report those crimes so if my house is being robbed or is on fire and the only personan is not authorized degradation and with them tor call the police to protectit my house regardless of their status. just from wednesday the attorneys general with the

district of columbia and then i would recommend that report to all of you from the law enforcement perspective with those examples of immigrants to of come forward and to explain in detail what the century policies from the state to represent. >> in they found out in this century counties with those indicators in the ninth century counties.

so they found on average 35.5 you were crimes committed for every 10,000 people compared to the non sanctuary counties.in san in those who fear this is driven by those income gains they found white median households it is higher in the sanctuary counties. locause poverty is lowerer than in the sanctuary county. labor force purchase of patient is higher in sanctuary counties so that is lower compared to non century counties.

so i look forward to going to much more detail to lay the groundwork and a look forward to your questions. >> can you stole my next line. looking at those constitutional issues so what is the landscape of that existing litigation?. >> thank you very much it is a pleasure to be here today by also one to say that sanctuary policies are in ann exercise to regulate some people may think they have

done mass deportations the arm that is not the only motivation many recognized windows with federal immigration officials with that problem in public schools and universities have the more aggressive immigration enforcement i know that question is if they are lawful and that long insert in the answer is yes.ere is a i have them practicing lawaw since 1998 and have been involved with sanctuary policies and during those first years with the

homeland's security agencyt d.h. dassin doj attempted to merge through programs like secure communities and they did rely on this federal mechanism and at that time in 2006 when they would launch nobody knew what they were but after six your began hundreds of thousands started to pour out of the department of homeless security and the landscape changed rapidly and that impact it across the country. even though they may be granted bail and to begin

hearing of extended detention in many people are around the country there wasn so much attention they solieved it was compulsory that is instrumental of the largest mass deportations and policies of the federal government firm many years. so it looks like less of it says it is in custody and a the bed individual those that complies with the detail their is indeed being handy hs has already conceded to that and did say local jurisdiction and they will bear the brunt so what

are the problems? everybody thought it was a regular board during a criminal warrant meaning people bought they could be pickedd up sold people assumed the detainer concluded sunday was here unlawfully.hat and i think fundamentally tost provide judicial oversight they're not employees of the department of homeless in security there is no road judge to see the evidence. no magistrate what is the

evidence? and i could never get a copy of the the cater to understand why was the person here in the first place? so litigators were forced to act in we had to act because we had a challenge as the administrative tool to have that kind of power that d.h. just said we had and we did not do this overnight. we went to the stakeholders then those policies came after many, many years where

we talked about what was whportant, a good policing policing, protecting victims into process rights.rights? it did not come about as an arbitrary discretion the al we treat people in in the communities and where they have ended is that they are not mandatory as a u.s. citizen was held there not compulsory in they could be liable. holding someone on a detainer that requires probable cause so that morality a rhode island

residents who was a u.s. citizen for the second time after she was released in fact, even dhs conceded like betty taylor was a warrant was held they upheld the finding under the fourth amendment and that there was causable cause to issue. also i.c.e. containers cannot hold probable cause and then transferred to i.c.e..

in that they were unlawfully detained and for those prolonged detention in to find the residents so the northern district of illinois in a class-action case invalidated to say with those generally exceed so, that dallas could be held liable so long and short butce

the policies are lawful but they're not violating its. >> manager we will come back to talk about the litigation so now we will talk about the prospective of d.c. and obviously that is a unique jurisdiction talking about cities i know a lot of the research said has been done from the county perspective so feel free to take us into hobby analyze d.c. so what does a done and what is it doing?. >> thanks for coming this morning michele's set up and

is a misleading term because they don't offer air perfectan immunity but d.c. is the city and county may have all those powers but we're not a state of the act like one for many illegal purposes as they were discussing 1473. sova to expand that concept it what it means for increasing. that is part of save her

hand struck under d.c. she showed the cities were safer we believe we're all safer and stronger when people feel secure in their person. so with respect to the metropolitan police it will not question in persons about immigration status or residency unless they are investigating a crime of criminal or harboring of immigrants over the immigration status is the element that means we do not have made sure of your papers live here stopped for other reasons like a speeding ticket number eight girl question their immigration status. their i cannot make inquiry into thehe status for the purpose of

determining if they have violated civil immigration laws. so with those immigrationn status we spend a lot of time in the immigrant community that is nowhere close to that number for those to feel comfortable and secure their person to let me see your papers. in the fbi does share them with vice.

but only to have custody for a short period of time likely hc $4 so this is more than likely be seen from the department of corrections so that we move to the department of corrections so does our policy mean? first, much of the federal focused is on very serious criminals the federal bureau of prisons have convicted felons we don't have the most serious criminals your fedl but those that will take those residents to commit a felony in girl into those eyes proceedings.

but it notifies i.c.e. 48 hours before somebody is scheduled to be released.n it's the they are there or they are not. if a judge to order some released we do not love them and to wait for eyepiece - - i.c.e. to pick them up. but this comports avoid is already been discussed there is a lot of law that governs this dollar the is that spelled this out in detail

that explicitly has compliance single-a-2 lou spell this out much more broadly said to be interacting with the public they are not questioning their immigration status.ut her but to have their special purpose trevor's license so everyone can go to public-school with lunches is them breakfast nowhere are today segregated kids

ride free of natural regardless of immigration status, , burial assistance special zero supplemental nutrition immigrationle clinics hiv aids supportive services prenatal programs over food program, those are examples. not even close to a comprehensive so that permeates salvi agencies with special liaison units

where the immigrants are likely to be to reassure them that they should feel comfortable.o immigr so live that recognition of $500,000 and with those legal services providers and with those applications this also creates for those justice proceedings as well. >> seven from the executive finkel -- angola the police agency?. >> i am not an attorney.

[laughter] but i have been a police officer for 40 years and actually to take us back to these issues that have popped up in recent times because we have a secure communities six of seven years ago which was a bit of w a moving target.wo and we went to the prior the enforcement program in my a view was exactly the right balance in terms of reference to single individuals who committeded serious crimes. so now we try to nail down what that looks like so this issue started to move become

a problem right after 9/11 when attorney general john ashcroft purpose of the administrative lawrence of the immigration violation in to a national database so vice stop for anything likee running a stop sign i can run his name end date of birth if we had saved the winter for his arrest anywhere in the country with all my experience as a cop if you have a hit from ncic if you space have probable cause that was the individual you took him into custody.nts an when we started to get the civil and immigration and warrants into ncic it was a problem because the cops

would say does this give me the authority or not? you can notify i.c.e. you have the person but it doesn't give you the authority to take him into custody said that you have hit 76 better not actionable with ncic. do. the association of the largest police departments in this country of the position we wanted those taken now because it was confusing celeste's starteds in 2003 as more warrants got into the system all of the panel but michelle did a great job to lay out the landscape i don't want to repeat but we do struggle't wan

from a police chief perspective with elected officials standing up on the soap box to say we are an sanctuary jurisdiction by have bylaws that say we are not. municipalities that have passed resolutions that say they are not yet they send the people there rest to county correction. i have news they are not and we have the same policy as the district we do notify i.c.e. and they call us to save you have jurors with? we will let you know, when he is released.l let th if the judge releases is somebody takes two or four i

hours to process if we have a decatur we will call i.c.e. to say that a judge released him you can have him if they are not there then he walks out. so the impact from local police has been tough and is a moving target has been changed at the federal level but we don't ask people about their status we don't o care.about th if somebody is a victim of a crime they deserve everything we can give themion t you don't have to tell a roomful of attorneys that if he were is in the united states the constitution applies to you with their projections so the notione consi those that are here on document to give up theirth right is ridiculous and it is maddening for those of ust ru who try to protect thosein

folks from being victims of crime with the president'sth executive orders bring urgency to buy the jurisdiction is not a risk losing grant money if we are determined to be a sanctuary jurisdiction.e determin but had the opportunity to sit and speak with secretary kelly and the attorney general at least four times and i will tell you oftentimes with the attorney general says in secretary kelly says with the president tweets is not on the same page. [laughter] but i'll tell you the t attorney-general and the secretary try to work with us and listening to our issues better remains to be seen a hope the dust settles

in a place that we can work with federal law enforcement partners but not have to be the immigration police that is the safety of our jurisdictions we had a case about the name and shame game and over colleagues felt like it was the use that term but that is exactly what it is for a couple of weeks they put out a report. oh of inaccuracies of they have suspended that i'll take anything has cabellas since. but we had a case where an individual group into a car car, stole guns and waske caught with a stolen car and

the guns and 18 year-old man arrested he had a detainer placed on him and he was released by the judge.r that is a completely separate panel but he was able to get out there was a detailed on file it was a mistake we were taken by surprise the judge released him. the former field office issued a press release tuesday montgomery countyce rela did not honor the decatur in their community will orrin's impacted because a dangerous person could walk out for college finish by saying it had the opportunity to work

with the acting director a career i.c.e. the guy in a straight shooter and have a great deal of respect for him i think he understands the value that comes out of those types of press releases. we honor a number of duty nurse -- decatur's should be, releasing his press releases? there is no value i think we're headed down the wrong path i hope that those of late fall of the of so the director has assuredy me ninth of the kemp their locations of hospitals, schools, churches hospitals, schools, churches , courthouses are not doing

random spitzer targeting people at those locations. however at the courthouse if we have an individual we are looking for an rigo baby in court we will go a and wait there not just hanging out this is what they're telling me. every case in my jurisdiction yes we have a warrington we were waiting not just let's go hang out but there certainly has been enough media coverage i am not here to defend vice but from a law-enforcement inspective --- there is a lot of people that don't like what i.c.e. does and has no respect for their mission or the people that do that work so the fact

ever-present elected in specifically talk to i.c.e. agents to say i have your back there has been some backlash because now they feel emboldened but i thinknk the dust will settle. dust wi i am convinced i.c.e. is focusing on crimes but if i locked up this many people they also picked up this mini so what we have toman sa understand yes we're still focused nobody is off the table and that is a reality it is the prerogative of the previous administration to save the you're focusing on those convicted of crimes if they are meshed with their own political views but

i.c.e. has a mission we have to respect that i hope this is we can maintain the trust and confidence in me do that to make sure it understands what they're doing and balanced to protect youran community and focusing on your resources. we have tried to find that we don't ask about the immigration status but we do cooperate like we do with dna or fbi every year there agency.

we have to understand some folks like what we do and some don't and we have to use the most integrity to maintain the trust and confidence of the people that we serve. >> we will let i.c.e. speak for themselves but now weil will go for the doj to ch perspective. >> links to the commission on immigration for bringing us here to talk. talk abou and also a chief for your remarks and the attorney general was committed to work with state immokalee's -- and local police. justice scalia city of the government of lois of course

that existed long before he put pen to paper with that foundation focus is on that horizontal allegation of power between the three branches the principle of a government of was with the rule of law is highly relevant with the vertical allocation. at the heart of the debate for century cities is a disagreement whether in alien in this country illegally violating criminalhe law should be deported. bill what answers that question and any alien shall be removed if inadmissible at the time of injury or has committed enumerated crimes for:in the attorney general

will do what he can to enforce it. what can they do when the state disagrees? first what the state cannot do a jurisdiction cannot said its own immigration priorities the executive director of the american immigration council says the federal government has the power and the authority to set immigration was when he give that quotation in reference to the arizona case clearly a understood the federal government not state or local jurisdiction with a uniform rule of naturalization he clearly understood the federal government not state and local to conduct foreign relations that the t

department of justice must seek to define and protect the constitutional authority proposal on that point we do yet e. but jurisdiction after jurisdiction determines the prairies when it will hand over alien suns handover criminal aliens some only hand over those that threaten public safety butin the predictable result of this approach is a patchwork of conflicting mandates to undermine the government's ability the threat is notl. hypothetical since february under a policy set by the new york city mayor new york city released a known and

has 13 gates member from breakers -- rikers because he was not a threat to public safety. but as we know in april and missed 13 brutally murdered four men on long island then i got a letter asking the attorney general to take all necessary action to ensuret those prep to foreword deportation so here in the eric city is directly impacting long island and there is nothing the federal government can do the reason why the constitution takes it out of the hands of the state and locals exclusively in the hands of the federal government so with this point again the american

immigration council is spot on the must assert its authority for emigrationn policies to be held accountable in the current environment for those setting priorities in who was responsible for success or failure.failure. there is a couple of planes that would like to respond to the first-ever pipean tobacco what was said the department of justice is committed to working with state and local authorities for a common-sense approach. contrary to what was said or alleged the attorney general has never was adjusted -- once suggested they should detain or arrest victims or those who report crimes.

department of justice agrees wholeheartedly that the constitution applies to all of those in this country but what does it require or permit? it permits the department of justice and i.c.e. to look at enforcement priorities those who were here illegally the way we communicate that is through the issuing 80 cater request for:so the things that have not yet beeno talked about it asks the the jurisdiction and to notify i.c.e. ahead of time withn taking get there to pick somebody up i am glad to hear the practice of the chief and his county is

crucial and important segment it will ask in circumstances where i.c.e. could not get there immediately impose them 48 hours so if all jurisdictionon did these policies and we would be in a much better place to say we will notify you ahead of time that we don't want to hold that person one minute longerrs than is required. sadly that is not the policy of all counties there are some including those in california or washington or oregon state that do not notify i.c.e. at all. . .

>> that is clear because it clearly says all warranty should by the attorney general and an alien may be arrested and detained. ice has a new policy again which tracy will get into, all of its detainers art company by warrants. that remedies any potential

problem that puts us within the guidelines. >> thank you. tracy, we will turn tuna. >> thank you karen. i like to think this excellent silver rights and social justice for giving me the opportunity to speak today as well as the f national press composting this. in my panel members and thank you chair for moderating thisto important topic. let me first say that since its creation in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack the mission of the department of homeland security has been to prevent terrorism and ensure the safety and security of americans on the hamlin.ic as a component of the departme department, ice, u.s. immigration customs enforcement has a similarly critical

mission. that's to promote homeland security and public safety to the criminal and civil enforcement of our immigration customs and trade laws. things were cities are generalld those jurisdictions that in some way prohibit through official action or practice their law-enforcement officers from cooperating with ice with the enforcement of immigration laws. i would submit to you thati wou rather than promoting public safety, these policies and practices in fact endanger the f public. i can give you a real example. in the past, the former immigration a natural service those a predecessor tice had very good working relationships with state and local lawng

enforcement agencies. in that context, we would cooperate and collaborate with regard to sharing then information regarding individuals that would be removable aliens from the united states. if there's some indication whether an alien is removable on a basis we would share information with law-enforcement agencies. but would have this they woulds allow ice to enter the facilities and interview these individuals determine if they are removable aliens. they would communicate, pick up the phone and call if they had some reason to believe they had someone in their custody that have been arrested first a criminal offense. they let us know that we might have someone in our custody, you can interview them at yourou leisure, but keep in mind these are individuals that state local

officials had arrested for stata and local crimes. from murder, rape, child exploitation down to driving while intoxicated another fences, assault and so forth. so ice and ins in the earlier days would have an opportunityty to engage, discuss and share information and we would have some indication thesedu individuals may be removable from the united states under the immigration and nationality actr fast forward to today. what we have is the rise of sanctuary jurisdictions that will prohibit ice from enteringn their jails. they will prohibit theirja officers and agents from communicating with ice about the presence of individuals who may be subject from removal of the united states. subject

these are significantlynt high-risk criminal aliens. will have his ice is no longer welcome in the jails. they can no longer affect the arrest of the criminal aliens were public safety threats the safety and security of public facilities like jails or county detentions or state penitentiaries. the sheriffs and chiefs of's police and wardens of the facilities that were used toto interact with on a close basis they shut off our axis.. what does that mean for ice? what it means is that ice will continue to enforce the immigration laws. were not going away. that's our mission is to enforce immigration laws both civil and criminal to protect and promote public safety.sa that forces the ice agents and

officers onto the street toce arrest individuals and targeted enforcement actions. let me be clear, ice is not as the chief pointed out, they do not conduct raids they do not conduct suites or any other indiscriminate form of arrest practice. these individuals are targeted because we have some indication that been in state local facilities for criminal investigation or rest. once released and the agencies don't notify so we have to target them individually. so we undertake investigation, we review the file and target individuals. we have to go out into the neighborhoods we have to go to their homes, potentially to businesses or other public areas to affect the arrest. as opposed to the safety and s security of a jail facility. that is certainly the most appropriate place when they have

been screened, they cannot have access to a weapon or flee. it's an orderly transfer offlee. custody. so as you point out rightly so we are going to conduct our mission, just means that we will be out in the neighborhoods where people don't want us to be targeting these individuals at their homes and businesses and in public areas. we would prefer the other transfer custody. as the chief points out we are targeting criminal aliens.rg that is our focus. also the director of ice has indicated no aliens are off the table.ted also under the immigration and nationality act those here unlawfully are subject of removal from the united states. that means if a nice agent or officer team goes out to

identify individuals at their home and they encounter them or they encounter them in a public place if they also encounter those not criminals but also subject to removal they will also be apprehended, because they're here unlawfully separate and apart for criminality.ey are and that is the president's directive is that we should take enforcement action against all removable aliens. the point is, if you don't want those who are not criminals to be arrested the idea is don't make us go to their homes or in public places or other areaser where we have to affect these arrests to carry out ourout ou mission, let's have it in a safe and secure jail environmentcan n where we can transfer custody for the officer safety, the alien safety and public safety. we would encourage greater cooperation.er

i think the chief and those other jurisdictions want toat cooperate, we want to carry out the mission.n. it is no different than working with other federal law enforcement agencies. we have a mission of the mission is for public safety. public safety is the critical aspect here. we want to affect these arrests and seek removable of the aliens in a safe environment so the public is protected and not exposed to unnecessary risk. i'd be happy to take questions. >> thank you. now i have the pleasure with this long list of questions toto punted to first to see how youu' will respond to the comments from the table that proceeded to. >> i think we have covered both sides of the spectrum. my role and i wanted to thank

the ada for inviting me to beab part of the commission and to have a form where we can exchange the ideas rather than talk internet go chamber. i like to thank doj and ice were participating. my background is that i was the principle lead advisor in the bush administration. one secure communities and information sharing was developed and to some extent it made sense. post 9/11 there is a real security concern on who is here and what the status and do we have a handle on the immigratioa enforcement. there was something we're charged with. how are we going to effectively enforces immigration laws on the books. so the idea of having technology work together and share information, fbi and u.s. visit

which was capturing information on individuals in the country was a good idea that made sense. to some extent it created something we did not anticipate. you mention the numbers somehow we were identifying individuals in state local jails automatically as having maybe they're here unlawfully and now we had access on that information. we struggled and worked with state locals closely to come up with what were going to do that. frankly d.c. and montgomery county during those years were great friends working with how can we do that. tha now one of the concerns on this is what tracy and chad were mentioning with the sanctuary tl

talk, is the pendulum going to go so far the other way that state locals are going to say were gonna shut off any information sharing whatsoever.a when i was in the ice position i was a huge concern. our individuals were national security concern, criminal, gang member, are they going to be released and we won't know about it.ey it's the real information sharing. on the flipside their issueth issues about what is our authority a state local, can we hold this person be of the time we will release them. those are real issues. of that is work ordination and communication between state local needs to be increased rather than drawing lines. that is not the solution., some in my private practice there's the frustrations that i've seen with the system is that now that

we are identifying individuals more efficiently and placing more people than ever in this w immigration process that is notn working. have clients not getting the core tape for years.d some of the folks have been detained by ice for years, were getting quicker court dates on that.years we but where people have to go on and live their lives. they really are sympathetic stories out there. they have families there are u.s. citizens, they need their day in court. on both sides they recognize that they have to be provided with the timely hearing where a judge can decide if there's relief or if they need to be removed. ice needs to make their decisions prioritizing them. if the system is so broken were not getting court dates for

individual calendars are not been severed for years from a master calendar there something wrong. were talking about the front end of the system. individuals are being identified by state locals been turned over ties get the process started.e d we have to remember there's aoc long process and we need to make sure that is working. better all the comments i want to make. roundtable discussion is interesting anyway. >> thank you. will start on your left right there about the immigration bacl backlogs and the delay even for a master calendar hearing. even if we think about it in the detained context and the amount of time it can take, what is your solution to not in an abstract context but when we are talking about the issue of

detainers, communications with federal authorities and more people coming into the system. i imagine part of your point isr the immigration court system is getting clogged with cases where some may be serious criminal offenders, semi be not. at the end of the day people across a variety of contexts are having a delay in having their case heard. whether it's criminal deportation, criminal deportation or asylum seeker.ere more cases coming in means a delay getting to your hearing. how does the question of detainers and cooperation play into that?ooner th >> the sooner ice can know about an individual know when they will be released and be able to decide is this priority, and

those priorities changed. it is broader now that it was in the past several years. there's a rational basis for that. there still has to be it would be helpful if the attorneys got involved in the case earlier. everybody could make a decision, is there relief available that would be some of the issues so we can more efficiently resolvee whether these person can have relief, maybe not continue with the case if for whatever reasonn there's not a valid case there are mesa discretionarydiscreti requirement or they are going to be removed. it's not going to happen withouh resources. the resources make a difference. this is anecdotal but several new have in place and very

locations. i have heard anecdotally that i, miami there is starting to seeee cases been scheduled quicker than they were in the past three years ago. that's a good thing. see sometimes look at the numbers and think there's not going to be an answer were sold in the hole. unless we get 300 more judges were not going to be able get through this but we have seen that even a smaller number of select locations will have a huge impact. >> now that will put me to you tracy. it may be to try. on the backlog question and onan the call for early involvement and look in priorities who do we want to remove. at least my understanding of the current executive orders and some of what you mentioned is that everybody is a priority if

they come to the attention of ice. if they fall within the net and a targeted action or by accide accident. how do you respond then to thean suggestion that there has to be prioritization, resources have to come into play when we're talking about all of the people who made be subject to detainers or who mice may receive notification.tificati >> essentially the presence executive orders clear that those were subject to removal of the united states are still on the table. the point i'm making is we are no longer going to categorically take out of the enforcement realm classes of aliens that meet certain categories.

and publish those categories. over saying is under the immigration and nationality act, those here unlawfully under section 212 of the ina and those who have come here and overstay an otherwise deportation generally 247 of the act are now subject to removal. we will internally determine our priorities and utilize our resources and the best way we can first. as i indicated earlier one of arthur's missions is public safety. where obviously going to target criminal aliens first. in addition to those who would threaten the national security, they may or may not be criminals. nonetheless, we will target those were threats to national security and to threats to

public safety. within those parameters were going to go after those clearly who have the most egregious criminal offenses. they're the ones more easily identified through the process. when the police officer apprehend somebody on a felony charge there is a reason why we have grades of criminal offenses, we have felonies and misdemeanors. misdeme we look at the most significant threat to public safety and target those individuals. and those who commit assaults,re those are generally misdemeanors. there offenses against a person. these are situations where we w want to prioritize resources and assets to target individuals to make the greatest impact on public safety as quickly asible. possible.

does that mean we'll not target those who have not driven without a license or those who have a dui arrest, if we encounter those individuals we will take action against them. they are subject to removal from the united states. so, to michael's point, yes there is a massive backlog. we have to be mindful of that backlog. we want to play somebody asi relatively low priority in alien in proceedings that will extend for years that may or may not result in a removal order. typically criminal aliens have fewer opportunities for relief. that is true with aggregated felons.egious o also other egregious defenders. we will target those with the greatest impact will make americans safer and align with the idea that again we are not

indiscriminately rounded people up and checking documentation. if we encounter them in a civil enforcement action we will apprehend and move forward with the removal. we do prioritize. do we are not going to tell the american public hears a schedule of offenses.l the amer if you fall within them will target you again, there might bg circumstances that warrants an arrest of an individual that they don't quite fall within certain parameters. >> to one follow up on that, to i understand correctly what you're talking about targeting for enforcement that means actually arrest and issuance of an nta. where are you talking about pursuing the case in removal proceedings after that? >> when we arrest our purpose is

to seek the aliens removal from the united states.se keep in mind, and arrest of an alien was been previously removed may lend itself to criminal prosecution for illegal entry. there's other bases for that. generally speaking if we are enforcing civil immigration laws we are targeting the individuals for removal of the united states which will result in an issuance of notice to appear or some of the charging document that will initiate the removal proceedings. under section 238 there's removal proceedings that you not require a proceeding before an immigration judge. whatever statutory authorities we have we will utilize all of

our authorities to initiate the proceedings and effect that through whatever is available. >> the attorney general has taken steps to reduce the backlog. we realize that the problem and everybody deserves their day in court. we are streamlining theize the immigration judge hiringeverybod process. previously it took one year to fill one position. were trying to shorten that amount of time. replacing new judges in high priority areas. we are conducting removal proceedings in jail. this is key. at our facilities were an illegal immigrant is in theti facility we can conduct the proceedings while a person is serving time. a sternest time is done the person can be removed from the country. we like to work with state and locals.

someone is serving their time as opposed to having to go to a del nice detention center. we can go in and bring your immigration judges and and conduct a hearing while in the jail. that would help streamline the process. also trying to get to a place where we can use judges all over the country to hear cases in particular of high priority areas.y maybe we cannot get a judge from michigan to go to the southern border but we can put up a camera so an immigration judge can hear the cases. were trying to reduce the backlog to get people there dan court.lo >> while you have the floor i wanted to ask a couple ofrt. questions. i think you mentioned right now about illegal aliens having their hearings, what you mean when you say that?n you sa

to me people have criminal convictions or undocumented people?i i think you're talking about people who haven't had removal proceedings yet. i'm trying to understand the reference. >> whenever were conducting these proceedings their people suspected to be removable fromed the country under some provision of the immigration loss. some are people who have committed other criminal offenses in the united states. that's why they're in custody. those people are priority for the administration. >> thank you. one other question similarly when you're talking about the detainers. i don't have the exact language but it was something aboututthex criminal aliens but i think when

you are discussing it some of it was pre-adjudication. people who may have come into the system on a criminal charge. when you are saying criminal aliens did you mean to say people were charged with crimes, or adjudicated or came into the system and had charges dismissed? >> we would say people who have been charged and convicted with crime. >> i'm going to take a break and i invite anybody else to respond to these points. >> i lock on the comments as it relates to criminal aliens. we look at that is those were charged with a criminal offense those convicted of a criminal offense. if they are removable from the united states by virtual of a

legal presence and we will seek their removal. if we encounter them to the criminal justice process andng engaging with them to the jails or prisons, if we deem them a public safety threat we will take action against the notwithstanding the lack of a criminal. so there are statistics thatt ss suggest those who drink and drive who engage in that many times before they are rested. the fact that someone is arrested for a dui and are nottt convicted does not suggest that there are public safety threat. we look at those aliens who are subject to removal but also as a public safety threat when we take enforcement action. there are many aliens who have

criminal convictions were separately removable, nevertheless under the immigration and nationality act if they're here lawfully we can take action against them. we gauge public safety threat at that time. there are aliens here on lawful status. a lawful permanent resident arrested for driving while intoxicated that individual is not subject to removal. we don't take enforcement action against them. that would require separate basis but those speaking those here lawfully have no status and if they are public safety threat we will take action against the >> in a number of those cases

especially those who have been here for a significant number oh time they might have some really. if we can get that case into the system and move through the system and potentially talk with a nice attorney on a case-by-case basis can make some decisions about whether this is a good case for that we can get it to a judge quickly than that person doesn't stay in limbo for extra time. the we can regularize, under the current law that person can reside here legally. if that's not working then it clogs everything up on this person is walking around with no ability to work. >> i'm not sure but it sounds like you might be speaking about cancellation of removal where the only opportunity is the

forms of relief that might be available. >> so >> so if we can get that person really before you have to look at this holistically. it's not just one piece of the immigration system. >> my deepest concern is the steps taken by the department of justice since were talking about procedural protections in cases where it doesn't look like there streamlining but railroading people through a process where you taken away immigration protections. for example people do have relief there's an understandingn out there that might be eligible for visa there won't be any continuances. people who might be married to a u.s. citizen, those people will

not be able to pursue immigration relief because the department of justice has changed their position on how they will allow cases to proceed. so on one in streamlining the case but also taking away remedies that used to be available for attorneys is a tough pill to swallow for those who have been working with communities for decades to ensure family stay together. the second comment is that it's worrisome to me that where there's no finding of interest let's say that people who are charged with crimes and being convicted of one, i don't think it's a issue of loss an issue of rhetoric.rh how we fall down will impact the

rights of the people in those proceedings. most immigration relief is discretionary. it's in that hands of the immigration court. it's often in the hands of the trial attorney who can agree or not whether they will join in on ridley. for many years we have practiced these are difficult laws. there harsh laws on the books for 20 years. they have allowed 400,000 people to be deported every year. the question is as we talk about immigration cases you want to expand the 400,000 per year higher? is ethical?n is it a numbers game or a game to protect the rights of the people in proceedings at the time. i'm not sure where we are

falling on that. >> i think this question follo follows. this idea that been arrested for a crime are being charged with a crime is the same as having a conviction of their seed as threats to public safety. i'm wondering if that would incentivize certain please who want to play a larger role in deportations to arrest people who they believe look or sound like immigrants to get them into the system and arrested and charged them with a crying knowing that if there's no conviction that ice will be there. >> tom if i may in the back down to tracy and chad.

>> false arrest is a false arrest. no matter what your motivationtn is. there are large segments of our community, since a large, segments of the community thatmo blue police are motivated by race, by the city, immigration status. there are checks and balances in our criminal justice system that will hopefully keep these arrests from progressing through the criminal justice system. wih i don't believe this is a huge issue. does it happen? it happens occasionally. it's the same notion that fortunately much of the american public has been convinced by the present social media there's an

epidemic of police violence in the country. there's not. there's less use of force today than it has been historically by please. they are better trained and use less force today than ever before in law-enforcement history. because you only need a few knucklehead a policeman doing things around this country to convince folks it's a big problem. it is not an issue i believe that police are incentivized to arrest someone based on the way they look for the fact they may be undocumented. we have enough real crime to deal with keeping the public safety that i don't think that is as big of a concern as other

folks might think. >> if i understood and i don't mean to speak for michelle at this point was taking your point that the criminal justice system will weed out the bad arrests from the criminal perspective the problem is that people face removal proceedings and that in your jurisdiction where people weigh carefully whether rest should be made in a rigorously chain trained and try to follow carefully there are other jurisdictions in the country where people are not as carefule about what they do from a criminal perspective and that people are far more adversely affected or can be by removal proceedings them by whatever the criminal issues even if the arrest was ultimately dismissed.

>> that i want to shift gears a bit. >> thank you. the my first respond to the common as it relates to if it's a numbers game for trying to get deportations to certain level. this is about public safety. we are identifying threats to public safety and removing them from the united states. if the law seems harsh, then it's only because these laws were enacted in part of theille immigration reform 1996 during the clinton administration. for 20 years they laws have been on the books. the laws plainly state that aliens president in united states are subject to removal from the united states. nothing more is necessary. we don't to sweetser rates. we encounter individuals during the course of targeted enforcement action.

this doesn't have to be an arrest or conviction. the fact that someone is here and we are made aware of it operations that we could take enforcement action against them. congress stated that was the case. they also built a mechanism for relief. cancellation of removal, adjustment of status. under section 212 of the act subject to removal that sufficient. we need not say more. we don't have the resources. were not randomly checking people for their papers. b but congress built-in by allowing adjustment of status and other forms of relief to individuals arrested. in the immigration contacts were first prosecutors and then once they are eligible for relief we shift the roles and litigate whether there eligible for

relief. under certain circumstances to make good moral character qualifications you can stay. congress did not put into the law that if you, if there's no the basis for removal you can just stay here or criminal basis for removal is required.relief v said these are subject to removal, if you qualify your eligib eligible. congress make that decision for us. the point here is we are enforcing the law is but on the books for 20 years. there's nothing new. going back to where the enforcement was prior to the last eight years. were getting back to the enforcement aspect.em i cannot agree more, the chief nailed it on the head, there's no indication the enforcement of

immigration laws will result in anymore racial profile than any other aspect of law-enforcementy if that were the case you would see in the context of drugs or violent crime club or any other man, why is it suddenly ice agents were people that cooperate with ice will be any more predisposed to racial profiling than any other loss.ii we know many of the aliens in federal custody in the bureau prisons are doing hard time for drug trafficking and other serious offenses. you think maybe the dea or other agencies would be more targeting toward the individuals than others. that is not the case. there's no indication there anymore predisposed to racial profiling than any other.

they had their careers. they can be prosecuted and the chief probably is aware. he is made aware of situations that arrive where that arises. these individuals have the ability to allege their claims. they go through the process of litigation. there are gonna be some bad apples but there's no indication that racial profiling will go on. >> thank you. i want to go back to betsy and tom with more questions. then go to the q&a. what i wanted to ask betsy and tom from your jurisdictions and your awareness of what is going on another city, county, and state level jurisdictions, how lo do local entities decide about sanctuary city policies?

is it an executive decision, litigation decision? how do entities come to grapple with an decide on this question? >> thank you. i cannot speak for cities across the country. but the district of columbia has both a mayor sword andnd legislation regarding century i city's. i think there is a communicative function that is not going oneha from the mayor and how does she another officials interact with the communities.om the d i think you can see from therisi discussion that jurisdictions interpret differently what it means to be sanctuary city.of ji i hope the department of justice and homeland security will not w cut off grounds to cities that t are important for community

policing and domestic violence when cities are taking a veryach different approach, case-by-case understanding what makes their city safer. we keeps our decision many years ago and he sees crime rates have been trending downward. we feel like we're safer when people feel like they have access to government services and when they feel like they can come out and send their kids toe school and report crimes to police. i think it was a misunderstanding i said you're arresting people of crimes. the people are afraid of interaction what the police will turn into immigration proceedings there will be less likely to report it crime.r

is very common if a woman is beaten up and she reports that the perpetrator might say she hit me first and then if she gets in the system should be very vulnerable. were thinking were safer and stro stronger together with this legal architecture of departmental orders. it's very complicated that goes well beyond the term sanctuary city. >> we are short on time but you mentioned the montgomery county that all the entities don't even agree on whether the county is or isn't sanctuary jurisdiction. can he say briefly who decides or who should decide?s run the >> there are relatively few jurisdictions from a country where the mayor stands up and

says we are sanctuary jurisdiction the city council will pass a resolution. but they get a lot of attention. what a chicago, new york or san francisco it gets attention. the vast majority of jurisdictions guides their policy is legal decisions.l all the fact that will not hold someone beyond the time theyme would normally be released event if we have a ice retainers not a political decision. it's a legal guidance we have gotten from the four circuit from our own attorneys. when my attorney says you should not hold this person we are liable ifis you do i have to follow my attorney's advice. it's a legal decision political. >> thank you. you alluded earlier about the california decision about the funding restriction in the constitutionality of that in an executive order.

can you tell us what happened. >> so sorry.cutive for an executive order that was issued by the trump administration and actually the at attorney general, there is essentially a threat made that there be withholding of federal funds from cities that they designate sanctuary city. all of that helps police department communicate with ice. so first of all, nearly all of these don't violate the statute, and second, if you did actually try to make it happen and try to take away federal funding it

would violate the constitution. one called prince which is about how information should be shared and one that was involving nac decision. the federal government really can't comment on the officials. last month the u.s. district court in san francisco granted a temporary injunction of that executive order. it concluded that the executiveo order constitutes unconstitutional, daring. because they can enforce federal law in violation of several supreme court violations of the tenth amendment.

i wanted to end by reading this. the decision. after hearing the government explain the orders an example of the president's use of the bullet pulpit and even if fred nearly to have no legal effect serves the purpose off highlighting the focus on immigration enforcement. while the president is entitled to highlight his but an executive order carries the force of law. the reason why this judge feltto compelled to respond is the imminent threat this executive order posed. >> okay. i anticipate the government speakers will want to address that point.

i did not say to the audience but a set i will come back to each at the end for closing remark. i invite you to hold onto that point if you want to address that. for the audience we have the remaining time for questions and answers. i want to remove mine people to identify yourself by name and organization and then ask your question. i encourage people not speeches or comments but your questions for the panel. >> hello. i'm with the state and legal center. i'm wondering if there any court decisions that say that an administrative warrant signed by someone who works for ice weeds the requirements of the fourth amendment?

>> i think the issue has not really been decided. several courts have questioned the validity of those warrants. those could be supplemented the detainer for and have not yet decided if they will meet the probable cause requirement. >> i would say that i don't think there is necessarily any case law on point, question. that issue got teed up in texas where they passed sb four which would require austin to honorden immigration in travis county. one of the arguments i anticipate they raise is the fourth amendment argument. texas filed a lawsuit that it ia a detainer accompanied by an

administrative warrant is compatible with the fourth amendment. i don't think we've gotten an answer on it. so there is a supreme court 1976 talking about war with criminal arrest with respect to probable cause.es i think their principles to draw. when your probable cause the chief can probably speak to this, we advise had a practice if they can detain someone based on possible cause the person is committed a crime. the fact that were dealing with something that is disfavored and does not change the legal analysis. there is nothing right on point, i suspect will get there. >> the next question. >> hello. i'm from people power d.c. we have been asking the director of the department of correction

of d.c. to review the recent directive, the way immigrant inmates are handled in facilities. the people in those facilities are generally in the facilities for up to 21 days, sometimes a year. my question, we are pressing for the requirements to be a court order to accompany requests for information about when an inmate would be released, specific information on the sentencing of the. our understanding is that requesting a court order does not in any way violate section 1373.

>> those are two separate so there would not be a violation of 1373 by requesting a the magistrate decision. i would also pose that there are miranda considerations that, with interviews of inmates in detention for purposes of moving it to legal proceedings or even a federal prosecution. >> 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 theha time. >> okay. let me go and try to be concise on the question. i will ask the panel to be concise so we can take as many as possible.

>> soothers pending legislation in congress, their liability protection if you comply with the detainer makes law-enforcement officers or federal agents, isn't thatect te commandeering? would that not be subject to the amendment if the legislation gets passed? >> would like to take that one. >> commandeering came up in the united states it is when the federal government requires the state to do something. so in my case it was the brady handgun act that required themgr to conduct background checks. another case in that case wened conditioned requiring the state to do something with attaching federal grants. in that instance was we will get you highway funds if you raise

your drinking age to 21. there is no commandeering problem in the state has a choice whether to comply or not. there might be a coarser problem which is the case you mentioned roof there's too much moneynd attackeattached they make it ina course of analysis but not commandeering. the state always has the choice to take the money or not.so muc the only question is is it so much money the state has noo choice but to act or is it where they can make. >> to a need to answer the question. >> yes. so there are many provisions in the bill that try to complete civil immigration enforcement with policing. i think it would raise serious constitutional problems.

>> panelists get ready. were going to go down to 32nd closing, and i will call on wendy. >> hello. i want to ask many people who are seen being arrested by a nice in and run court housesco have pending cases and there may be undocumented with the pending criminal case. once arrested they are held in detention, they are not brought into state criminal court. that case never gets resolved. some of those cases the prosecutor wants to dismiss them. the state may not be able to prosecute it. courts are unable to resolve the cases the victims do not have closure on the cases and it prevents individuals taken into custody because they have ath pending case even if they're eligible for some relief. it will likely be denied because

they have an open case or deported they will be able to return to the united states because of a pending case. for some of those they would be dismissed or the individuals be found not guilty. that impact significantly andt i'm looking for a quick response first states are feeling like this is interfering with their prosecution. >> i could not disagree more. i would say that when the locall ice officials are aware there is a pending matter, if they work closely with the da office a of law-enforcement office to ensure there's a pending matter they can get them back over to state custody working through the state court to get them back into state custody for the proceedings we don't take themem and remove them because we don't allow the victims to have

closure their cases we don't allow those to go forward. if we can do it at possible that will work to get them to complete the pending criminal matters before the state. they really have no interest in whisking someone out of the united states so they don'tan stand on trial. i'm well aware of situations where we have worked with the da office to ensure those individuals to grow for the trial particularly if their significant family matters. there may be times when the state doesn't want to pursue the charge. a lot of times the state local will wash their hands with it so they don't want to pursue it will save some money. but we asked him to pursue those charges because it's important that may be the only basis for

remove ability so tell you my understanding is that we work with them. i'm happy to talk off-line about those i don't want to leave that issue lingering. >> thank you tracy. we'll have to wrap up. we have to vacate the room. i'll ask everyone for a 30 minute closing on sorry 32nd. i want to invite the panelists who did not have to rush out and her to step outside and those who have questions who we did not reach would like to speak with the panelists if they're available to continue the conversation outside. i'm sorry we need to be on 30 seconds. >> people have mentioned the helen was a trip down memory lane and a brought back thoughtt from the early 2000's when i

first started working on the issues and the policies were focused on getting state local police to enforce loss. coming out that we saw studies indicating that hispanics are being arrested for minor traffic violations at higher rates after secure communities was initiated. other reports of people being arrested we saw many horrific reports of people who die because they didn't want to call an ambulance. i hope we can learn from lessons of the past as we start the new era in the new conversations. >> i think this time is the

senate really critical time in the challenging times and been able to figure out who we are as a country and how we address issues of immigration, policing, how we address our constitutional safeguards in our due process protection on the line right now. it's too easy to say the rhetoric doesn't matter and impact the decisions being madee on the ground. many of us doing this work know that it does. and have seen a disturbing rise in rhetoric and the impact it has in our communities. when it comes to the court we w need to come back and decide where we think police power should go. i think right now local

communities and states that make good decisions and sanctuary cities and policies.or those they have made it in support of the communities that reside within them and to attack them head-on by executive orders by threatening federal funding is not a good way to go for country.al it will not actually heal the division that people think exist in the united states. >> thank you. >> it is a very scary time forse people. a you lawyers play a very important role when it comes to immigration. we don't have a right to counser in immigration proceedings the by engagement and community groups you can provide security in to immigrants who live in our miss. many who are here are illegal but that they might have a claim

to staff their help by a lawyer to get visas to provide more security. so w many people who are green card holders have never converted to citizenship for financial reasons or other. with the help of counsel like you you can bring more security so they are arrested they won't find themselves supported.d.thee thank you. >> public safety is based on trust and confidence of the people we serve. for local police department that is no different than the mission of the federal law enforcement agency. i believe we can find the balance for everybody's interest are served. it is not served by local police be in the immigration please and any influence or pressure to engage by local places the wrong direction to go. however, i believe we can find

the right balance between local and federal law enforcement agencies. i think we can support each other in the mission but the federal government and they don't need me to tell them how to do their job but they need to understand if they want to have the trust and confidence off people they serve they need to be transparent in what they do. if there focuses on criminals they will have the support and confidence of the public they serve. if there picking up folks that are here because they came from an awful situation in the country of fortune they made a life for themselves and have noa broken one law other than perhaps when they broke with entered into the country, and i think you start to erode the trust and confidence of the people we serve because why are you using your resources to focus on that when there's folks

that i'm dealing with with folks that are committing crime and i will work every day of the week with my federal colleagues to get them out of our community to make our community safer. we have to focus the priority on a way that gives that trust and confidence to the public. >> thank you chat. >> thank you very much there's one point right cannot agree more. that rhetoric matters. i call out is unhelpful the rhetoric that suggests that if your victim of a crime or of domestic violence and you go to see the local police that is not true. a call out the rhetoric that some health because local police and nice agents are somehow engaged in pretax or racial

profiling again that's unhelpful. you can find common ground onouy this that is if you're in the country illegally you have no right to be here. in situations where you been charged or convicted the federal government we use its resources to ensure the right of private safety so all of us can be say.r were committed to hearing concerns and working with everybody to make our nation safer. >> thank you. thank you for allowing us to be here on this important topic. i want to dispel the myth that judicial warrants are required to affect a civil arrest. it's never been the case. the supreme court has long held that an arrest -- the extent to which we have administrative warrants set forth in the

statute establish probable cause. the mr. warrants are no less because i'm not aware of a provision of the criminal procedure to allow the judge to issue a warrant in the civil immigration case. those are for criminal matters. congress has a system under his power to legislate an immigration setting forth individuals and procedures that issues these words and establish probable cause. and now they have probable cause because they're attached to a warrant of removal or rest. those are just as valid under the constitution has any other use of the fourth amendment pursuant to an arrest. i want to let you know that we are affecting arrest consistent

with the law and the constitution based on the statutory framework under the civil enforcement actions under immigration nationality act. i will go that these are pursuant to law and no less lawful because there's not a judicial warrant. michael, your closing thoughts. >> jus >> i'll just be very quick. how a lot of these laws and policies came to place post- 9/11. i will say that i agree with the chief and chat, no one wants tot target individuals because of w immigration but i am also realistic to know that we have to be mindful of those issues and make sure that part of our

procedures we have somebody looking at that.g to make sure that were not doing things unintended. and that what we see those we can have those thought. it protects the government and the individuals who are targeted. it's a way we have to proceed. >> meredith a written request for one more question, can we take it or are we at a time? [inaudible] >> i'll stick to one question for you chat, he said that most are all made it clear that immigration enforcement is afeda federal task. i was wondering with the laws that are going through the hill now like the one of the judiciary committee, one of the bills would allow states to make up their own immigration laws so

if we are ready have a tangled up system having 50 different loss would make it tougher for you here.l what sort of guidance behind the scenes work are you doing at d doj, the system that's already bad to make it worse for all of you involved with immigrationarh enforcement? >> i'm not familiar with the specific bill, i haven't personally been involved in that, i will say that everything we do we want to make consistent with the law. the supreme court held and ist think the constitution recognizes that having a patchwork of contradictoryon immigration regulations to create clarity that we need and

create who will be accountable. i would reiterate with the american immigration council set on arizona. that in the current environment it's unclear who is responsible first setting priorities in his responsible for the success or failure. we want to change the make it clear that the department of justice is responsible. set they can deviate from those priorities. this patchwork of conflicting mandates that are not helpful. >> i want to and on that note and thank everyone for your patience with us and running overtime mentor host for allowing a few extra minutes in the room. i think the commission on immigration and the silver

rights, i was doing so good until now. the civil rights and social justice. i think both of those entities for cosponsoring this important program. it is obvious how complicated issues are but we need to resolve them with satisfaction on both sides of the issue. one thing we can agree on is that we have had stellar people presenting to us. pres [applause] [applause] >> thank you to the audience and thanks to you. we will move outside for those who want to linger for a few moments. [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> it resulted in the naval victory for the u.s. over japan just six months after the attack on pearl harbor. on june 2, american history to be will be live all day from the mcarthur memorial visitor center in virginia for the 75th anniversary of the battle of midway. the five star admirals who won the war at sea. elliott carlson with his book, joe rocheford tour. the odyssey of the code breaker. anthony tolley, co-author of shattered store sword. and timothy or, co-author of

never call me hero, legendary dive bomb pilot. >> watch the battle of midway 75th anniversary special live in virginia on june 2 beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern in american history to be on c-span three. >> a panel representing nonprofits and educators discuss the future of black colleges and university. this was hosted by the american enterprise institute of washington, d.c. >> first of all, let me sayirst welcome.t the am my name is yard robinson. i'm a resident fellow in education policy studies at the american enterprise institute. for those of you were here at the first time, welcome to ourv home. for those who have been here