>> good afternoon, my name is jack bennett before we begin, a few notes. please silence your cell phone. c-span is recording this event. ask your questions in microphone at my left. today's guest, professor, director for some of immigrant rights at penn state school of

law. today professor is here to prevent her newest book. immigration enforcement in the time of trump. seeks to answer 4 key questions, what does trump immigration policy look like. who has been affected, how have they been affected. core american value, professor waddia to politics and pros. [applause] >> thank you for that. good afternoon. i want to thank politics and pros for hosting me. and i will get started. banning muslims, shrinking

refugee numbers, deporting cancers patients, trump administration has used discretion in extraordinary ways, but in america no president is above the law, courts have played an important check on the president's power. the people affected by immigration policy are worried about the future. they are living through a chapter of american history that future generations, my grandchildren will read about. and question. i document the story in band, and do so by combining a close study of shifting immigration policy in first 18 months of trump administration. with 21 interviews, i conducted with affected individuals, former government officials and attorneys on the ground. i am grateful to those who opened up to me. this book would not have been written without them.

everyone is a priority. it started in january 2017. the new white house unleashed two executive orders with goal of increasing number of people to be deported and scope of who is a priority. enforcement priorities refer to government's choice of who will dark target for highest premoval, government has limited resources, according to a guideline from 2011, government has resources to depar deport ls than 4% of the undocumented immigrant population. because of these limited resources priorities are necessary. who will the government deport? who will it leave alone? historically the people who are lift alone are those who exhibit strong equities. humanitarian need, lengthy

residents, steady open am. it is hard to see any real priorization in the time of trump. for example trump administration has labeled anyone with an old removal order as actual proorities, without mentions any type of, is that could be considered for a low priority, former i.c.e. head, tom homan said there is no population off the table. if you are in the country illegally we're looking for you. these words translated to tragedy on the ground. one immigration advocate toil me that everyone is a priority, does not matter if you have been in country for 20 years and never committed a crime, and you are on your way to sunday school. in time of trump, immigration enforcement has -- extended to

branches of government that don't normally do deportation. people today is go if for a mucn wernaturalization interview and walk out in handcuffs. their thos choice to deport dre, deferred action for childhood arrivals, or daca was rolled out in 2012 by barack obama. it has enabled 800 thousand people who be in united states often work and in many cases drive. when they make a request, they have to show they have been in united states for a period of years, that they are in school or graduated and meet other

requirements. they get a type of decraig known as deferred action. the trump administration announced an end to daca on september 5, 2017. the announcement delivered at a press conference at which former attorney general jeff sessions called daca recipients illegal aliens, and the policy unlawful. i interviewed a number of daca recipients in course of writing this book. one told me, she used her lunchbreak to listen to the ples press conference by attorney general sessions, she said just hearing everything he said, knowing it was such a lie, such bull, it was a pretty defeating dehumanizing moment. other daca recipients talked

about the mental toll. he said, i think it is not so much about the affect of the policies, that are being enacted which are dangerous and poisonous to the democracy. but it is psychological warfare we're subjected on a daily basis. we live in a time where president is just pick up the phone, send out a tweet, then you spend a whole day deciphering it, how bad is it? how bad isn't it? followed by bad actors across all agencies that are trying to de minish any real idea that nation continues to be a nation of immigrants. litigation in courts have stopped daca from being stopped, u.s. supreme court will hear oral argument on legality of how daca ended on november 12, 2019.

the court will hear two questions specifically. other lawful residents in the united states have been vulnerable to immigration enforcement in the time of trump am in 1990, congress created tps or temporary protected status, it provides durable status to people in united states who are unable to return to their country because of a specific events in their home country, like a natural disaster or civil war, than people with tps have lived in united states for decades. if the current administration, it was announced that several -- tps holders would lose there are

stat -- their status. according to one advocate, the government is actually taking people who have access to legal work thowr other and rao -- authorization, they have build their lives here, they are undocumenting them and deporting them. muslim ban also highlights how legal immigrants recognized under imfractio immigration stae congress wrote have also been a target under the current damage, it refers to three separate policy changes made by trump administration, most nations targeted involved populations that are overwhelmingly muslim. first was issued as an executive order in january 2017, and

implemented without guidance or training, creates chaos at our gateways. last version of travel ban or muslim ban survived in the court, has been operational since december 4, 2017. the ban excludes would be green card holders and several travelers from iran, libya and north korea. somalia, syria and yemen. in explaining the statute, u.s. supreme court upheld ban and said that the scat out exudes deference to the president at of clause. the muslim ban includes a waiver process for those who are otherwise covered. and this waiver process requires somebody to show they denying entry would cause undue

hardship. that granting entry is in the national interest. and that the individual does not pose a threat to national security. however there have been many people concerned about how the waiver process is actually working. to echo words of justice breyer, during oral arguments around ban he asked, is this really a functioning waiver processor window dressing? one attorney i pok spoke to described a case of an iranian physician a who gave birth to twins, but whose parents could not travel to united states it is hard, it really, really hard on the community. she continued, the common thread i see among every person that walks into my office is, i need

my mom, because i'm going to be in labor, and i can't do this without her. or, i am first person in my family to get a phd, and it would mean the world to me for my parents to be there. or i am in love, and i'm getting married and i'm getting engaged this is a huge moment in my life, i would like my parents to meet m my future. there are moments in our life we share with family, graduation, birth of a child. engagements, wednesday weddings, all destroyed for people because of muslim ban. immigration enforcement in time of trump has targeted the unauthorized. those who are in the united states legally. as well as the most vulnerable. asylum seekers, refugees, parents, children. none of these changes have been

legal requirements under the law. but rather have been choices. unprecedentedded discretionary choices by this government. refugees all side of the united states, and asylum seek erin side of united states, have to show to the government, that they have suffered a type of harm known as persecution. either in pastor in the future. because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or maybe in a particular social group. president trump so th set refuge numbers fiscal 2019, at 30 thousand, lowest number. meanwhile, in may 2018, attorney general jeff sessions announced a zero tolerance policy for

those crossing the border without papers, we will prosecute you. the policy also extended to asylum seekers. related to the zero tolerance policy, and later found to be unrelated, when a practice by trump administration to separate parents from children at border, said president trump, i hate the children being taken away. the democrats have to change their law. this statement is misleading, as there is no statute, no regulation, and no case law, that requires fa family siprati, as described by a former ins official. too define refugees as a national security threat, to the country, we have not thought that way for decades. crucial to the conversation of discretion, is not just who we

deport, but also how we deport. in june 2018 president trump tweeted, we can not allow all of these people to invade our country, when someone comes in we must immediately with no judges, no court cases bring them back to where they came pro, our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order. what president trump may not have known is that we already have programs this our immigration statute that allow for this speed or no court deportation. in fact even before that administration, the vast majority more than 75% of all deportations in this country happened before or in lieu of a person seeing a courtroom. but what the administration wants to do is maximize the

programs. there are two recurring themes if you think about changes in time trump. one reouour retheme is discretia that many policy changes, they are not legal requirements or mandates, they really represent choices and fact that the choices are informed by cruelty, as ao posed to compassion -- opposed to compassion is unpress denned, compare to history of immigration law. second recurring theme you see, is that sometimes you don't need to make a new law. but rather take laws that are already in the books, and use your discretion to maximize them to the fullest extent. as told by one attorney i spoke

to about speedy deportation, i don't think that public realizes how often speed deportation is used, and how even in this system that trump inherited people were just regularly deprived of their basic due process right. and other thing is. speed deportation is okay. people usually have no ties to u.s., we think of them at border or as people w.h.o. are previously removed. even if that true, in some cases, that is not universally tree. where do we go from here? courts have played a tremendous role in roll back some not all, of immigration policies in the time of trump. but the courts are not going to sieve us. court severely did not sieve us with muslim ban, they are short-term solutions, critical

checks. it needed, lies in the executive and legislative branches of government. the department of homeland security must narrow its enforcement priorities and recommit on use of pro prosecutl discretion. being an american who pays taxes, i don't want them to be deporting moms and dads who own their homes, they are working and have not done anything criminal. it is a misuse of resources, to deport folks because they have the paperwork pro problem from 20 years ago. discretion is essential to rule of law. one former government official from ins coined it at.

meaning of the law has always included law and equity. that is at rule of law. fairness, and rules. one without the other is not the rule of law. congress should mo modify secti. terminate the muslim ban. for students in the room this is a great civic lesson on their branches of government, where the executive comes in announces an order in form of a ban where the court steps in and say, by the way america, this is lawful. and then you are left with a third branch, responsible for really stetting limits on the

statutes that the court found lawful. congress has also provide allege latest solution to people who have been here for a long time. my own view is that, long-term residents is a useful tool in decidedeciding who should be hea permanent basis. it might include someone living in u.s. without paper, a old removal order as well as tprograms -- tps holders or daca recipients. many was government officials that i interviewed for this book support a program. said one government official in terms of tps, these people should have legal status in country, they should be part of a legalization program, it sill

to try to round up and send home people who have been here for 15 or 20 years and are members of the community. these solutions not an exhaustive list for this talk, represent to me what are an inclusive and humane immigration policy. they provide my answer for what kind of america i want to leave for my children, thank you. i look forward to your questio questions. >> thank you so much. i was issuin issue -- thinking,t

to another talk. we were displeased with the way that enforcement was happening. targeting people who should not be targeted. you know that kind of got me to thinking about the way that your book lays out not just how discretion is not being exercised but how it being exercised to harm.

enforce. and family separation, it turned out that they were taking u.s. attorneys, who were enforcing drug -- like large scale drug laws and convictions and focusing on that, took them from that task force to put them on you know prosecutor asee loom am seekers. i thought that the book was fascinating. a great picture of that. one thing i would ask, if you could comment on, how you see the very targeted attacks against immigrants of color in every contact where it is possible. also how you see the very destructive behaviors of setting a floor so low it makes it hard to be ambitious in our view of what our real nation of immigrants ideals should look like or laws should be providi

providing. i was wondering if you could comment on long-term affects in terms of trust. and among advocates who say, what can we advocate for now that floor is so long. i thought they ran through your book it would be great to hear you discuss them further. >> sure. thank you for that question. big question. so race is not an overt conversation in the book but it is an implicit conversation, i agree with you many policy thanks that we've seen in time of trump have attacked immigrant communities and in particular communities of color. in terms of how do we pic pick p the pieces? you know me a bit, and i am an optimist that helps.

i am reminded by -- one of my favorite quotes from doris from golden notebook. she said, whatever you are meant to do, do it now. the conditions are always impossible, right. that is really advice that i've been following for the last two years, that i think we should all continue to follow. because whatever it is that will ought to happen or be transformed. and we can't stop because it is inconvenient or too difficult. we do need places like aclu . i am aware is documenting every bad thing in this administration. so it has its laundry list of the things that need to be changed or repealed or reinvented in a new

administration. so there is also the tedious task of insuring thattin -- ensg that every change is documented, then sharp thinking about what is the tool that will be used to reverse or reinvent. >> there is old bipartisan reform of immigration legislation that has been languishing in congress forever and ever. if this ever gets moving what are most important features that should be in any reform of existing immigration law? >> thank you for that question. another big question. so the bipartisan legislation on immigration reform we have seen versions from 2006, 2 thousan -.

the level of dust on that legislation is pretty thick. the main or most important components to me include -- this is related to a recommendation in the book. what do you do about the people who are here? people living in united states in the shadows, people who are here in a temporary legal status, but are vulnerable to immigration enforcement. so, a major component of ledge lakeo reform, would be -- legislation or reform would to be create a pathway that does not exist right now, for people in united states w.h.o -- 2 areg with their families or contributing in meaningful ways. >> how are people going to come in, in the future?

many heard why don't they just get on-line. for many immigrants there is no line to be on. so, the best ledge lak legislatn included a mechanism 4,000 to address people coming in future. it may require getting rid of some restriction in the law. in the space of asylum, detention due process. we first have there is so. damage already done there is a lot of fixing, if you will, that needs to be made before we can start talking about how do we rethink who is in detention in the first place, as well as what are restriction that make it

harder for genuine asylum seekers or refugees to gain the protection they are ill i eligr under the law. those are some examples. >> you mentioned zero tolerance policy under which underlying predicate for the family separations. in the first democratic debate, cast ro-- castro pointed out whe it possible was a law making is a misdemeanor to cross border without permission. in second debate, all other candidates were asked, 8 said they would agree to decriminalize the border. but they did not explain how that differed from open border's policy. and i am sure that in the next elect campaign, trump administration will show pictures of 8 democrat raise

their hand, say that democrats are for open borders. if you were advising a presidential candidate, what would you have them say about what the rules should be now. for crossing the border? >> okay. so, unlawful entry is a federal misdemeanor crime under the criminal code. so for lawyers in the room, . i support the policy of decriminalizing unlawful entry. i would advise them to continue to support that policy. i would push back on the idea that it would somehow create open borders, there are significant reasons why people might come to the border. and they are typically not deterred by whether there is a rule in place. that criminalizes unlawful entry. i might also point out to trump

supporters or my candidates on other side of aisle that we have this system called the civil removal system, that still imposes a number of barriers for people who enter without inspection. the mere fact of decriminalizing border does not change the fact that someone is still be placed in removal proceedings, tried, defeignedegain tainted and de--d and deported. we still have a removal system that targeting people that enter without authorization. >> it a fantasy, mr. trump to think that decriminalizing border creates open borders.

>> obama administration deported more people in history to my understanding, even daca reform happened prior to midterm election. my question, what -- do you have a critique of obama administration policies, and more specifically maybe what changes did the obama administration make that paved way to ter turnover this machin. >> i don't talk a lot about obama administration in the bo book. i would be concerned and remain concerned about the number of people removed under the obama administration. i am an academic not a politician, that is what i would claim to answers why he rolled

out daca, i support daca as a policy, i am glad he announced it, i think if we go back to earlier framing how he used discretion, do we use it and have compassion underlying it or do we use it for cruelty, i think we see real differences between the obama administration and the trump administration. and so we can discuss who should not have been deported. or targeted under the obama administration. but i would say that as a matter of policy, the decision to announce prosecutorial discretion in open. the fact that he had delegates in arms of the department of homeland security at least announces policy, that uses and

identifies equity and circumstances that should be considers in the exercise of discretion, i see former administration as quite different than the current one. >> in terms of solutions, immigration judge union advocated to be independent from deputdepartment of justice. how successful do you think it would be? where do they en up fitting? >> you give my a lot of power and authority in that question. i'm in the going to mak that decision. i do talk about court in my recommendation second for the book. immigration court system is housed by department of justice.

immigration judges are employees of the justice department, and their boss is the attorney general. there has been a push prior to this administration for the immigration court system to be taken out of the department of justice, and for an independent court structure to be created. article i, i support that idea, if i were an immigration czar, i support taking the board with them, it provides more integrity and independence for immigration judges how long having to rely to directives or really irrational case loads which they are currently under. >> thank you so much for all the work you do.

what we see in immigration atmosphere. can you also comment on not just the removal side of immigration law and asylum, how there is already with this administration an invisible wall with regard to legal immigration and application from professional workers from the business end, other family who petitioned where there has been a change in against discretion and prosecutorial review of those application, which really lead to the satisfaction of highly skilled workers. so much so, in mi representation of businesses, they are leaving, they are leaving this country, this would lead to a brain drain of scientific needs and business needs, i don't think if you can

comment at all about that part of the immigration means of this country disseminated and dissolved by this administration. >> sure, i don't talk specifically about highly skilled workers in the book. it is a part of the theme in the book about the way in which citizenship and immigration services has taken on a more enforcement role, some of the interviews in the book were with former ins officials who talked about how different things are from old ins, and current uscis with use of discretion and enforcement. it does not help if the uscirks takes on a more ener enforcemen. to broader kea of how we used discretion to extent that

employment based petitions for highly skilled workers are at an all-time low or that request for more evidence, a piece of paper you might get that makes it very difficult for someone to start working on time or to receive a benefit later on, you see dischristian being use -- discretion used in an inhumane way. i think that way we reverse that is to think about the discretion as a capital d . >> thank you so much for your -- i rail look forward to reads your book. i have a question which has to do with if we think about president trump he appears to have a lot of fear and hatred of

immigrants and his policies seem to be to imminent that fear and hatred. it goes up and down, i it feel like of day he wakes up and his administration wakes up and try to think about how can we be more cruel too immigrants, deny people's ability to qualify for benefits they have always been able to qualify under law. and consequences seem to be stark. if someone cannot make their case. they return to country of origin they could face death. beside compassion and rule of

law, why should the rest of us care about these sort of violations. violations of humanitarian and morality, why should it matter to the rest of us? can we just continue to go on then you know. feel bad, but not -- why do we have to do something about it. >> being silent is not an option to me. i think if why should people care, i think there is an economic argument for why. the government has limited resources on how it enforces immigration law we should care more about our government going after those who are truly dangerous. as opposed to those who are seeking refuge. i the american public should care about the rule of law.

because we live in what is supposed to be one of the greatest democracies in the world. india may be biggest but we have been coined as greatest. if that is true. then we should not stand by to an executive branch that overreaches to such a degree, we don't know what type of government or world we're living in any more. then finally, i think that there is basic humanity that goes beyond law in terms of how we think about our communities, our neighbors as well as the kind of world we want to leave for the next generation. i don't expect everyone to have the philosophy that each person is a individual life that deserves the same opportunity

and the same treatment and humanity but that my philosophy, right. i don't know that i am more special than anyone else. so, beyond immigration, you know to ensure that everyone has that same opportunity to excel and be treated him ain'tled -- maum hut that's cuts across many core values. >> [applause] >> thank you for not being silent. one of the most fascinating parts of your book of are those interviewed, can you give your impression how they came across.

>> so thank you. it was an eye-opening experience for me. i intentionally did not interview clients, it is interesting to have these interviews when they are not your client, other piece i'll say a lot of people research is based on looking at data, through -- foia. >> look at what government provides in response and analyze it. it was much more of a intense experience, it brought me closer to human suffering and also opened b by -- my eyes to how defeated and disappointed former government officials in the roles, role that that are being

carried out to promote keuhl trecrueltytoday, how disappoint. those are some reaction that i had in a nutshell. >> thank you. you mentioned civil removal system. comment on paradox, this relies on detention, that what mean we're using detention in a civil context, and federal government most detainees. avail bill tiarkansasvillebilitp detiontion. >> thank you. >> in a lot of ways, detention is a good example, there are many features in civil

enforcement or deportation system that smell like the criminal justice system. in terms of detention, people who are held in custody are in jail. and often times in a jail that is with general criminal population. this is true in state of pennsylvania. i live where the vast majority of immigrants who are held are in county jail. so i think that the way that it has eresponded so much. is that it allows administration to show that it is clams down on the immigrant community. it helps localities in some cases because it fills beds that would otherwise go unused. that is som somewhat true in coy

jail contact. if i understand the frame of the question, you know there is a way to you could talk about civil detention or e en fore ent system, say it is like criminal justice system but without all of the rights like right to a speedy trial or a grand jury or court appoint council. some have said we should just criminalize the inia . then the inia stands for immigration and nationality act, maybe immigrants would have some protect shitions receive. i don't think tha that is a gret idea for other reasons. but i appreciate that question. >> struck me that title of your

book, i first heard it sounded like something in past tense. weary are 2 1/2 years of trump administration the people is growing and continuing, could you comment on president trump's asylum ban 2.0. which was announced in summer. supreme court just this week is going to allow it to go into effect. how is will get implemented remains to be seen. but particular be used to block asylum for most seekers other than mexicans at bonde border. >> so, i think it is a disaster. asylum ban 2.0. refers to a policy by this administration, to block asylum for any person who crosses through a third country before arriving in the united states

let's think about that. for a moment. people who are coming to the border through venezuela, guatemala. they are more likely than not going to pass through mexico. before they arrive in the united states to unilaterally strip the ability for this many people to apply for asylum, is boykin inhe and unlawful in my opinion. i was cocouncil in a friend was court of brief on the asylum ban 2.0. and the com challenge was basedn statute, immigration statute is leaclear that any person regards of how they entered united states may apply for asylum, does not guarantee they will receive protection but the clause is clear. seconsecondly there are restrics

for time spend in a third country before someone applies for asylum. congress was clear there too. congress said two things, first that if you are in a safe third country, and safe for you to apply for asylum there, and united states has an agreement with that country, then you might be barred, we have that agreement with one country, that is canada. the second thing congress said is, firmer settlement, if you firmly resettle in a country and conditions are such you have given an offer of lawful permanent residents or a green card, you cannot apply for asylum.

any person is banned. you see a clear violation of law. in terms of this supreme court ruling it is sobering to say the least. and also brings a flash back for me to the muslim ban, where supreme court was willing, able and did stay the injunction in the muslim ban before at appellate court even made up their mind as to whether the ban was unlawful. and that raises what will be my final point, and that is ryan that courts -- reason that courts can't save us, we can't always rely on the courtses to actually serve as a check on the executive overreach.

becaus[applause] thank you. >> thank you for coming. we will have a signing up here. thank you. >> thank you. >> take from vietnam the right lesson. don't get involved. that was not lesson of vietnam it was don't get involved in a civil war of nationalism that we don't understand. and that we can't win, by bosnia

he saw differently, like a kind of a fascist war. he thought we had to be involved 467involved. he negotiated the end was war at dayton. people think of him as a bully in diplomacy, he was really just tenacious. >> and willing to spend 8 hours eating lamb, rice. he did not drink, he wanted to stay sober while milosevic would get drunk, -- he had the patience to wait him out, he had, i did not understand how hard diplomacy was until i got into holbrook's life, how much

stamina it takes, i picture it climbing a mountain and breathing at high altitude. >> he went ons low t to -- to ms case. you look back at dayton, it begins to recede. here is the passage, history is officially brutal with our dreams, dayton wasn't the highest peak after all, of itn 't the marshall plan or opening to china it solved a nasty problem but it done create something new and big. for those who live through the war who suffered on the inside, or cared on the outside, bosnia

was all that mattered. but holbrook devoted three years of his life to a small war in an be oobscure place with no consequences in the long run beyond itself. then here is this versus. find to do do it with thy might. dayton did not mark a new path onward and upward in the american story it was closer to the end of something. i don't know if i need to go on, but, that is -- i feel dayton in some ways was a false hope. seemed at the time as if we had way we had. married. because russia was not a factor and china was not yet a factor. and we had a free hand, we could

use our diplomacy and our military and our ideals to solve these problems in the world, chaos that followed the cold war. it was a one off. and in retrospect it was maybe high water mark of the post cold warred it rather than beginning of a new era. >> our man. to watchful even visit our web site. >> a very warm welcome to first lecture of general society labor, literature and landmark lecture series. i am karen taylor program director of the general society. the lek tire are supported in py public funds from new