have bad neighborhoods and good neighborhoods, all kinds of like loaded ways in which pliskova communities differently, all kinds of loaded ways in custom the borders of different neighborhoods sit atop each other, interlock, overlap and create that sort of sant sandpaper friction. all of that to me was died to the bronx new york or cities. i moved to chicago and i loved in chicago and i lived in d.c., all these things pertained to these places. the thing that blew my mind it's just a municipality of 20,000 people. it's anywhere u.s.a. it's between the northern edge of st. louis and like the tonier subur suburbs. you just drive through it. it looks like anywhere. >> right. >> it's just strip malls and parking lots and houses and -- and the idea that what i experienced there was like the level of exploitation, and the level of racial oppression and friction, the level of the

basiveness of policing. the intensity of humiliation, all of that just in this place that was here to foreanonymous, something like that blew my mind. >> heretofor inremarkable. >> next, a discussion about sanctuary cities and president trump's immigration-related executive orders with remarks from immigration officials, law enforcement, and advocates representing immigrants in the u.s. this is two hours. >> all right. good morning, everyone. welcome to this timely program titled "sanctuary cities: legitimate law enforcement, policy or rogue action," co-sponsored by the section of civil rights and social justice and the commission on dpraegs of

the american bar association. my name is karen griza, i'm special counsel here in the washington office and for purposes of this program i serve as special advisor to the commission on immigration. i'm delighted to be your moderator this morning and i'm especially honored to share the stage with this distinguished group of panelists. i've moderated a lot of programs for the aba before but i've learned so much preparing for this one because this is not a topic on which i work every day, so the materials and the preparation that we've gotten has been instructive for me and i'm very pleased to have the chance to offer this wide range of diverse backgrounds, appearances and perspectives to all of you this morning. in short, today's program is going to explore in depth the

sanctuary city concept that has come so much into prominence since the recent bills signed. sanctuary is not a new concept in the law or in practice but is really in the fore front of some of the discussions today. we'll be talking about the definitions of sanctuary cities, the various ways that state and local jurisdictions can limited their cooperation with federal enforcement authorities, the consequences of those decisions for local jurisdictions and their immigrant populations. the panelists will be talking about various local policies, detainers, litigation around detainer issues and the very practical real daily questions of whether sanctuary city policies do or don't create safer, more prosperous communities. so with apologize to all of the

panelists, i'm going to give brief introductions to each of them and direct your attention to the full biographies that are in your materials. i'm going to introduce the speakers in the order in which we intend to proceed this morning. first, to my meet left, michelle wazlin analyst for the american immigration council. in her role there she focuses primarily on high-skilled immigration and enforcement issues. to michelle's left, parametha shay of the national lawyers guild. next to her, betsy cav endish, the general counsel to muriel bowser, then to bet si's immediate left, tom manger. he's the chief of police for the montgomery police department and also the president of the major

cities chiefs association, so we're looking for him to wear a couple of hats in this program, too. to tom's left, chad highs el from the department of justice. chad will be bringing us the toj perspective. then tracy short, the principal legal advisor for ice in the department of homeland security. so he'll be our second government speaker this morning. and at the -- no pun intended -- far left, michael nifak. he's a principal in the region of jackson lewis, p.c. he's former general counsel of i.c.e. so i'm looking forward to his opportunity to reflect coming both from the private practice

side and the government side to round out our discussion. so our -- we probably messed up the seating order, if not the --? >> no problem. >> introduction order. our planner is to have brief presentations from each of the speakers. with michelle starting us off with the history, background and basically framing of the issue. then each panelist will speak. then we'll have some time for a discussion that i'll facilitate so that people can talk among therms and we have a good amount of time set aside at the end of question and answer from the audience. i have a housekeeping matter which is that we have only one mike for the q. & a. for the audiences, so when it comes time, if you have a question we'd like you to indicate that

you have a question, raise your hand and stand, wait for the mike to come to you and then identify yourself and your company or organizational affiliation before you ask your question. reminders to everyone that the program is being broadcast and recorded, so everyone bear that in mind when you make your comments or ask your questions. so i have just one thought to start us off on the panel. the people who helped organize this reminded me of a quote from justice kennedy in the arizona litigation, the arizona versus united states litigation from 2012 and i'd not about sanctuary cities at all, but it's a very good device to help set the stage for us and the discussion we hope to have this morning. so i'm going to kick it off with this. in talking about the relationship between state policing and federal immigration enforcement, justice kennedy

wrote "the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, and rational civic discourse." so we begin this panel with that goal in mind to facilitate a searching, thoughtful and ration civic disforce between federal authority and state policing. i'm going to turn to michelle's opening presentation. >> great. thank you so much, karen, and thank you so much to the aba to be part of this panel this mornings. my job was to present the overview and the basics to get the conversation started. states, counties, and cities have adopted a variety of different policies that restrict their cooperation with federal authorities to enforce immigration law and elected

officials and law enforcement officials in many localities have determined that this is in their communities' best interest to limit their role in deportation for a variety of reasons. you'll hear from the other panelists today but generally they believe that these policies allow them to determine best how they protect and serve their own communities and allows them to decide how to spend their own reorss and they believe these p policies make their communities safer. we know that the administration believes that they are sanctuary policies and that they violate federal law and they've determined to with hold funding from these so-called sanctuary cities and have attempted to shame then with published reports of their alleged failures protecting the

community. contrary to what many believe so-called sanctuary policies do not shelter unauthorized immigrants. they don't sleeld immigrants from prosecution for criminal activities. the police can enforce all criminal laws against immigrants who commit crimes. starting there this mornings i'm going to discuss first what policies are included under this umbrella of sanctuaries policies, how so-called sanctuary cities cooperate with the federal government, how they are in compliance with federal law and then i'm going to go over the evidence we have that these stiz are safe and vibrant. first, what policies are considered? they make many forms. some examples include prohibiting 2887 g agreements, agreements through when i.c. demplt deputy sizes local law

enforcement fiblgs to enforce immigration laws. they can refuse to enter into a contract with the federal government for detention. sanctuary policies can be refusing to allow i.c.e. into their local jails without a warrant. it can mean restricting enforcement in sensitive cloaks like hospitals and schools. a sanctuary policy can restrict local police responses, restricting them from honoring all immigration detainers. i node somebody else is going to talk about retainers, but since this is the one we hear about most frequently, i need to give some background. it's a tal used by the department of homeland security and i.s.e., which they identify

potentially deportable people. a detainer is a request by i.c.e. asking local law enforcement officials to hold that individual for a period of up to 48 hours longer than they would have usually held that person. so after bail has been posted. after the charges have been dropped or after the -- to hold that person an additional amount of time so that i.c.e. can resume custody. compliance are detainers is voluntary. i said that thanks to policies -- or cities with sanctuary policies do cooperate with the federal government on immigration and they do this in a variety of ways. even in any sanctuary jurisdiction, officials send federal immigration agents the fingerprints of any person, w g including immigrants who is booked into a jail of prison. that information is used to

identify noncitizens for deportation. this is what we know as the security communities program. sharing fingerprints. and this is a mandatory item. they can kroopt in joint task forces, operations to target gangs or trafficking rings or any other number of crimes. sanctuary jurisdictions may rent jail space to the federal government to house immigrant detainees. and even in sanctuary cities these jurisdictions may honor detainers from the federal government in circumstances -- in certain circumstances. in many cases these jurisdictions will honor detainers if the individual has been convicted of a crime rather than just charged with a crime or they will honor the detainer if the individual has been charged with or convicted of a felony as opposed to a

misdemeanor. what we've heard are that the sanctuary cities aren't in compliance with federal. but specifically some people do claim that the sanctuary policy violate a federal statute that pro hikts laws or policies that limit communication about information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of individuals. pursuant to section 1373, states and localities may not prohibit or restrict sending or receiving or question information regarding the immigration sit dennis zenship lawful or unlawful of any individual. they may not prohibit or restrict maintaining information regarding a person's immigration status. they may n-- section 1373 only

applies to sharing of information regarding an individual's sit zenship and immigration status. policies that do not explicitly limit communication with dhs about an individual immigration status and do not prevent the maintenance of such information are not violations. makeover, 1373 does not mandate that they comply with detainers. it does not prohibit laws and it does not require state or local authorities to collect information and it doesn't prevent jurisdictions from limiting the collection of that nfgts. so many would argue that these policies that i've described are not in violation of federal law. finally, what i want to talk about is that we've heard

concerns that these jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with i.c.e. are basically allowed criminals to republican free and they're a threat to national security. but there is evidence that the opposite is true. there is plenty of evidence that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born americans. many cities with large immigrant communities are among the safest communities in the country. police officials probably will tell you that it's easier for them to serve and protect their communities when there's trust between the police and the communities, and when all residents are willing to cooperate and report crimes. this is especially important right now. there's a lot of fear in communities. even in sanctuary jurisdictions immigrants are fearful. there are reports this week that in los angeles, denver, el paso and other cities, the reporting

of crimes, including domestic abuse and sexual assault is down in immigrant populations since the beginning of the year. immigrants are not going to -- if immigrants will not report crimes that they want or that they're victims of, then the perspetrators may be arrested. if my house is being robbed or if my house is on fire and the only witness is an unfwlort immigrant, i want them to call the fire department to protect my house regardless of the immigration status. on wednesday, the attorneys general of new york, california, rhode island, washington, oregon, and the district of columbia released an excellent new sort. it's called setting the record straight on involvement of federal law enforcement. it makes many of the same points that i made here today. and from a law enforcement perspective, it tells many

examples of immigrants who have come forward and been very helpful in the arrest of criminals. it also really explains in detail why these sanctuary policies are good for the states they represent. another study i want to point to is a recent study, 2017 report by professor tom long. they found that in sanctuary counties they have lower crime rates and higher economic indicators than nonsanctuary counties. they looked that those who do and do not have sanctuary policies and on average, there are 35 and a half crimes commit ed -- they found that median household income is $4,000

higher in sanctuary counties than in nonlarge ware counties. they actually found that among whites, median household income is more than $2 the,000 higher in sanctuary counties than in nonsanctuary policies. reliance on public assistance is lower in sanctuary counties. labor force, including white labor force participation is higher in sanctuary counties. finally, unemployment is lower in sanctuary counties. the employment raid was 1.1% lower in nonsanctuary counties. i hope i've laid the groundwork for a constructive conversation. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, michelle.

you stole my next line. that was exactly it. i was going to ask can you tell us deeper into the world of detainers, constitutional issues and what some of the litigation challenges have been and sort of what's the landscape at least on the existing detainer litigation? >> so thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here today. i also wanted to open this with agreement with michelle that sanctuary policies really are an exercise of basic local and state powers to regulate for the safety and welfare of their residents. some may think that people have done this to stop mass deportations but rarely that's the only motivation. many local leaders rhode island that sanctuary policies are vital in ensuring that residents feel safe reporting crimes and still others are responding to the risk that collaboration with

federal immigration policies. more recently, they've voiced concern that more immigration will interfere with their school's educational. there's a long answer which i'll get into and there's a short one and the answer is yes, they are lawful. i've been practicing law since 1998. i've been involved with what is called sample ware policies for over 10 years. i think during the first years i've seen the birth of the homeland security agencies and during those first years doh and doj have worked together through programs like secure communities. and they did rely on this

federal mechanism called immigration detainers. they were about 20,000 were issued after secure communities began hundreds of thousands of detain e detainers. landscape of immigration enforcement -- that impacted communities across the country. we all saw how people managed to get a detainer and somehow stay detained even after they may have been granted bail after the charges were dismissed or charges were 2kr07d and began hearing of detentions. many people around the country, most people, actually, there was so much confusion they believed they were kpultsry. this was instrumental in beginning what we think is some

of the large mass deportation policies. we've had in our federal government for many years. so as michelle said, the detain certificate a good. it looks like this. it is a form. right. and it usually says it's going to attempt to assume custody of an individual for the purpose of putting them into removal proceedings. a jurisdiction that applies with an ice detainer is conducting an unwarranted arrest. the jailer is the local jurisdiction because the local jurisdiction has the biechltd they are the jailer. they will bear the brunt of liability when people are sued, let's say, for overdetention. what are the problems with detainers? well, like i said before, i think there was a lot of confusion. everyone thought that they were regular warrants of arrest, that they were criminal warrants, meaning that people thought they were outstanding warrants

everywhere and that noncitizens could be picked up for just outstanding warrants. people assumed that the detainer met, concluded that someone was here unlawfully. i'm going to tell you why that was also wrong. there were in errors, because we found out, you know, that detainers were dodged on u.s. citizens. i think fundamentally, the arrest based on the detainer provides no judicial oversight. the people issuing the detainers are employees of department of homeland security. there's no judge, no imagine trait to look to see what is the evidence that is supporting how the detainer's being issued. procedurally what was frustrating to me when i was in detention centers is i could never get a copy of the detainer to understand why was this person here in the first place.

and throughout the years dhs propagated this. communities and litigators were forced to act, we had to act. because we have a challenge that these detainers were -- which was an add miff tool really shouldn't have the kind of power that dhs as saying it was going to have. it wasn't easy. we didn't do this overnight. litigation didn't happen overnight. there was a debate. we went to our stake holders and the policies that emerged came after many, many years of debate, reasonable debate, for we talked about what was important to our communities, what is good policing, how do we proerkt victims, how do we protect our due process rights. it didn't come about assage arbitrary discussion around our rights. our rights are critical but how we treat people in our

communities is especially important. where have the courts landed on this? where they've landed is that first detainers are not maunt madonna story and the fifth circuit in a case where a u.s. citizen was held on n i.c.e. detainer, the court held that the detainer was not compulsory and in a corresponding case, the counties could be liable for this overdetention when it happens. holding someone on a detainer is a just arrest, a new seizure that requires probable cause. in 2015, a case in the first circuit, rhode island resident was held on a detainer for the second time after being released. she was a u.s. citizen. the detainer was like being held on a warrantless arrest.

the court upheld the district court's finding and it requires that i.c.e. has probable cause to issue the detainer request. courts have held that i.c.e. detainers do not provide. the clack mass county deserve held someone on detainer after she could have been released and transferred her to ice. the court ruled that the detainer did not provide sufficient probable cause to detain. and the court had unlawfully detained her and would have to pay damages. many courts have found localities to be liable for the prolonged immigration. this happened many times, for legal permanent residents, we have found -- we have seen

damages of up wards of a hundred thousand. in october, 2016, the northern district of illinois in a class action case called hi main eds versus neopolitano found that ice has limited authority to arrest without a warrant and detainers generally exceed that authority. and in january, the northern district of dallas found that dallas could be held liable for unlawful detention. so long and short i didn't get a chance to go into the francisco decision which i'd love to get into at some point but these policies are lawful. >> thank you very much. and i'm sure we'll come back to have a chance to talk about the san francisco and santa clara

litigation before we're done. we're going to move to betsy to talk to us from the perspective of d.c. obviously d.c. is a somewhat unique jurisdiction. i know that a lot of research that's been done and some of what michelle talked about is from the county perspective, so feel free to take us into d.c., how, you know, how you analyze dc in terms of its status as a jurisdiction, what is it comparable to and what has it done and what is it doing on the sanctuary front. >> thank you. i think michelle set it up very well, discussing sanctuary cities generally is what -- what a sometimes misleading term that can be because we can't and don't offer perfect immunity from all federal immigration law in a jurisdiction but d.c. is a city, it's a county, and it's a

state. so we have all those powers -- except we're not really a state, we don't get all the powers of a state, but we act like a state for many purposes. what i'll do here is try to go into what we think being a sanctuary city means and what it doesn't mean and how we think we are very much in compliance with federal law. we want to sort of expand the concept of sanctuary city beyond what it means for law enforcement and think about what it means for embracing all of our residents. so we think of being a sanctuary city is part of safer stronger d.c. and part of our d.c. values. as michelle said, cities that are sanctuary cities are safer. she showed some data about that, and we belief we're all safer and stronger when people feel secure in their persons, and

that they can report crimes as she mentioned. so more granularly with respect to our metropolitan police, metropolitan police will not question persons about their residency or immigration status unless the number is investigating crimes involving criminal smuggling or others crimes in which immigration-state is an status. that means we don't have a show me your papers law and if someone's been stopped for other reasons, speeding or whatever, no one's going to be questioning their immigration status. mpd won't make inquiries into immigration status for the purpose of determining whether an individuals has violated the civil immigration laws. nor will mpd make any inquiry solely for the purpose of choiring about an individual's immigration status. now, we -- rmpd spends a lott of

time. 17% of the rechtsz are foreign born. that isn't to say -- nowhere close that number is missing papers but we want that whole foreign born population to feel comfortable and secure in their persons and they won't be questioned about let me see your papers rchltd you here legally or illegally. mpd does send fingerprints arrest ease to the fbi and the fbi does share them with i.c.e. and ice may issue a warrant to detain an arrestee. mpd only has four hours. so twhen move to the department of corrections. what does our sanctuary city policy mean and what doesn't it

mean in well, first i want to say that much of the federal focus about immigrants has been on serious criminals and in the district the federal bureau of prisons has all our convicted falcon felons, so they may takes some d.c. residents who committed felonies and they may go right into ice proceedings but we don't have those people in -- we don't house those people in our jail. so doc, the way it koops and doesn't is that it notifies ice 48 hours before someone is scheduled to be released. and then it's up to ice. either they're for release or they're not.

they will not hold them past their release date. a judge orders someone released, they are released immediately. we don't hold them to wait for ice to come pick them u.c.e. to. mayors order 2011-174 affirms compliance with 123773. so let's think. as i said, i want to spell this out much more broadly than law enforcement, because as i said, we are a sanctuary city here in

the district. that means that when we are interacting with the public through our various agencies, we aren't questioning their immigration status to the extent we don't have to. some federal -- federally funded programs require that we sift out who's here legally and who's not for benefits' sake. people can get a personal purpose drivers license. of course, under one case everyone can go to public school but here they can also get lunches and breakfast and they are nowhere segregated out of school. the they can have benefits, kids ride free on metro, regardless of immigration status, they get all sorts of programs. a burial assistance programs,

supplemental nutrition for children and adults. hiv/aids and housing supportive services, special milk program, prenatal and early child home visitation programs, summer food program, so those are examples of the programs. and probably that's not even anywhere close to comprehensive, but i wanted to show that stronger together, the ethose permanent mates. our mpd officers come to events where immigrants are likely to be and try to reassure them that they should report crimes, should talk to them, should feel people with mrvegs pd. people are feeling very afraid now by putting $500,000 into a

grant program, this year and moneys on the street for some of our providers to help immigrants with all kinds of visa applications and there's money for immigrant justice legal services as well. thank you. >> ok. thank you very much, betsy. so chief manger, can you take us from sort of the executive angle, focus on the discussion to your per suspective from the -- you know, the police agency, the police and community policing angle? >> i'm happy to, karen. thank you all for being here. i am not an attorney, so i am the diversity on this panel. but i have been a police officer for 40 years and got -- and actually wanted to take us back. a lot of these issues are -- have really popped up in recent times because we had secure communities starting six, seven

years ago which was a bit of a moving target for local law enforcement as we worked with dhs. went to the priority enforcement program, which in my view and the view of large urban police departments around this provide was exactly the right balance that we were looking for in terms of focussing on individuals who had committed crimes, serious crimes and jurisdictions. now we're moving back to number two which we're trying to nail down what that looks like. this issue started to become for local police a problem right after 9/11 when then attorney general john ashcroft decided to begin to put these civil administrative warrants for immigration violations into ncic. that's a national database that if i stop some guy in the middle of the night for anything, for

running a stop sign and while i'm writing the ticket for running a stop sign i can run his name and date of birth and it will come back if he's got an arrest warrant anywhere in the country. in all my experience as a cop that if you got a hit from ncic, it was a 100% surety that you took that guy -- if you have probable cause to believe that was the individual who the warrant was for, you took them into custody. when we started getting civil immigration warrants into ncic, then it was a problem. i had cops saying does this give me authority to pick this individual up or not. of course, the advice we got from our county attorneys and our attorneys was, no, you really don't have -- you can notify i.c.e. that you've got this person but it does not give you authority to take them into custody. now all of a sudden you've got hits in ncic that aren't

actionable in terms of what the cops can do. that was confusing to us. an association of the largest police departments in this country took a position that we wanted those -- those administrative warrants taken out of ncic because it was confusing. that started back in 2003-2004 as more warrants got into the system. i think -- actually all of the panelists but certainly michelle did a great job at laying out the landscape, so i don't want to repeat what she said but we do struggle with -- i can tell you from a police chief's perspective, i've got elect officials saying we are a sanctuary jurisdiction. i've got other -- my boss, the county executive who said we're not a sanctuary jurisdiction. i've got municipalities within

my jurisdiction that have pas d ed ordinances but they send people to our department of corrections. we are not a sanctuary jurisdiction. i think betsy talked about it -- we have much the same policy as the district. we notify i.c.e. about who is in our jail. if they call and say, hey, do you have joe zenith the jail, we will tell them we have joe smith in jail and we'll let them know when joy's going to be released. if a judge released somebody, it takes two to three hours to be processed out of the jail. we'll call i.c.e. saying judge is getting out, if you can be here within a couple of hours, you can have him. if they're not there, joe walks out. the impact on police has been

tough. it's been a moving target for us as things change on the federal level. we don't ask people about their immigration status. we don't care about their immigration status. the fact is that if someone is a victim of a crime they deserve everything we can give them. i don't need to tell a roomful of attorneys that no bhaert your documentation status is the that if you're the united states all of the protections of the constitution apply to you. this notion that folks are here undocumented give up the right to be a victim of a crime is ridiculous and it's maddening for us who are trying to protect folks from being victims of crime. we do -- the president's executive orders brought a bit more urgency to defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is with because we now risk losing grant

money. if we are determined to be a sanctuary jurisdiction, i've had the opportunity to sit and speak one-on-one with secretary kelly from dhs. i've spoken with the attorney general at least four times about immigration issues. i will tell you that oftentimes what the attorney general says, what secretary kelly says, what the president tweets, not on the same page, so we're trying to navigate through this. but i will tell you that the attorney general and the secretary are trying to work with us and are listening to what our issues are. it remains to be seen where the dust is going to settle on this. i hope it settles in a place where we can, in fact, work with our federal law enforcement partners which we do every day but not have to be the immigration police. that's where we want to end up. i think that's what's best for the safety of our jurisdictions.

we -- we had a case -- and this notion about the name and shame game. i know that my colleagues at i.c.e. don't like it when i use that term but, in fact, that's exactly what this is for -- a -- for a couple of weeks they put out a report that had inaccuracies. they've since suspended that report. i don't think it's been out in about a month or so. but we in montgomery county had a case where an individual who had broken into a car, stolen guns, and was caught with a stolen car with those stolen guns, 18-year-old young man arrested, he in fact had a detainer placed on him because he was undocumented. he was released by the judge. that's a whole noster issue how somebody steals up guns and gets released, but that's a whole

separate panel. but he was able to get out. there was a detainer on file. it was a mistake. our corrections department made a mistake by releasing him, not notifying i.c.e. but we were taken by surprise that the judge would release him. i.c.e. issued a press release saying that montgomery county did not honor their detainer and that the public safety of our community was impacted because this dangerous person was allowed to walk out because montgomery county did not honor this detainer. now i'll finish up by saying that i've had the opportunity to work with tom holman, who was the acting director of i.c.e. he is a career i.c.e. guy. he's a straight shooter and i have a great deal of respect for him. he understands that there's nothing of value that comes out of those kinds of press releases. i -- we've honored a number of

detainers for ice, notified someone was being released and i.c.e. didn't show up in the past, dozens of times, should we be releasing praes releases saying i.c.e. didn't show up and so we had to release them. so i hit the that the nanl and shame strategy is no good and i hope it goes away. i'll finish up by saying that director holman has assured me -- and i believe him, that they understand their sensitive locations, hospitals, schools, churches, courthouses that they are not doing random sweeps, they will not target people at those locations. however, in courthouses he has said that if we have an individual who we're looking for and we have no other way of finding them but we know they're going to court, yes, we will go

to the courthouse and wait for them. every case we've had in my jurisdiction has been yes we had a warrant for that guy and we were there waiting. it's not just let's go to the courthouse and see who we can pick up. there are certainly been enough media coverage and i'll finish by saying this, i'm not here to defend ice, utterly from a long law-enforcement perspective they've been divided more than enforcement perspective, i.c.e. has been vilified more than any other law enforcement agency in this country. there are a lot of people in the country that don't like what they do and thus, have no respect for their mission and no respect for the people that do that work, and the fact that we have a president who is elected that went out and talked to i.c.e. agents that said i've got your f back and if there's backlash, where finally, the shackles are off and we can do our job, i think the dust will settle. i.c. ement, i'm convinced side

focusing on people who commit crimes. i.c.e. locked up this many peoplele who had committed crim. they also picked up this many thatat hadn't and what tom homa said and this is what we have to understand,th is that he says y, we are still focused on picking up criminals, but nobody is off the table and the fact is that's a reality and that's the prerogative of this r president and this administration, the same way it was thef ti preroga of the previous administration who said we'll focus people that were convicted of crimes and there are folks that like that better that meshed with their own political views and they likeke that. the fact is that i.c.e. has got a mission and we have to respect that mission and my hope is that we can work so that we can maintain the trust and confidence of the public and i.c.e. has got to maintain the trust and confidence of the public the same way we do and you do that by making sure that the public understands what

you're doing and that you're transparent about itt and find that right balance of protecting yournd community and getting dangerous people off your streets and focusing on your resources on the right people. i can't speak for i.c.e. i won't speak for i.c.e., but tried to define the right balance and we've been accused about being a safrpthiary because we don't ask about their status and we cooperate withth i.c.e., the sa way we cooperate with the dea andla atf and every other law enforcement agency and r we cano what's best for thefe safety of our nation, but, you know, we've got to understand that there will be some folks that like what we dolk and some folks tha don't ande we've got to try an navigate this with the most integrity, ethics and the right we domain so that thain the trust and confidence

of the people we serve. >> thanks. >> thank you very much, lychief. >> we'll let i.c.e. speak directly for themselves in a moment and i'll turn to chad for the doj perspective on the sanctuary concept and sanctuary city issues. >> great. thank you so much and thank you for the ava on immigration and the social just toys talk about this important topic and thank you, chief, for your remarks and i really appreciated that and as you maknow, the attorney genera is committed toey working with r state and local police in order to make our community safe. one of his most famous dissents, justice scalia quipped, we have a government of laws and not of men.d principle existed long beforee scalia put pen to paper foundational to our republic and although justice scalia'szo dissent focus on the allocation of a power between t executive, the legislative and the judicialt branches, this principle of a government of laws and not of men, the

principle that thee rule of la reigns in thisis country is higy relevant when we talk about the vertical allocation of power between the s federal governmen and the states. at the heart of the debate over sanctuary cities is disagreement alien who is in this countryur illegally and wh has violated our criminal laws should be deported. a i think the answer, i think the law answers that question. 8c usc 1227. any alien shall be removed if the alien was inadmissible at the time of entry, is present in the united states inin violatio of the immigration laws and has committed certain enumerated crimes and the law is plain and the attorney general plainly intends to do what he can to enforce it. so what can a state do when a state disagrees with the law and disagrees with the attorney general's enforcement priorities? >>rst first, let me start with t a state cannot do. ase jurisdiction, a state or lol

jurisdiction cannot set its own immigration priorities. according to benjamin johnson, the executive director of the american immigration council, quote, the federal government and onlyfe the federal governme has the power and authority to set themm nation's immigration approximately sees. mr.. johnson, when he gave that quote in reference to the arizona case clearly understood that is the federal government and not stateed and local jurisdictions that are charged withof establishing a uniform re of naturalization. he also clearly understood that the federal government, not state and local governments is charged withuc controlling and conducting foreign relations when he stated that the department ofce justice must, quote, seek toqu define and protect the federal government's constitutional authority to manage immigration. well, mr. a johnson, on that point, we do agree. and yet, jurisdiction after jurisdiction determines based on its own priorities, and not

priorities and not the department's priorities when it will hand d over an alien to be deported. somere t jurisdictions hand ove criminal aliens unluflly regardless of their offense and others only hand o over those tt in the jurisdiction's own view threaten public safety. the predictablet result of thia approach to immigration enforcement is a patchwork of conflictinghi mandates which predictably undermines the federal abilityty to enforce th nation's immigration laws. the threat is not hypothetical. for example, in february, under policies set by new york city mayor bill de blasio, new york city releaseded a known ms-13 gang member from rikers despite the fact that i.c.e. had launched ae detainer against h because he washe not, quote, a threat tobl public safety. as we know in april, ms-13 brutally murdered four young men

on a long island. just a couple of days ago i got a letter fromal legislators in long island, askingar the attory general to take all necessary action to ensure that illegal immigrants convicted of certain crimes are designated from deportation and the legislators in suffolk county and long island. ew actions are directly onimpacting their neighbors in long island andnd according to billit de blasio, there is nothing the federal government can do about it. he isso wrong. there's a reason why the constitutionti takes the choice overst immigration out of the hands and state locals and puts it exclusively in the hands of the federal government. on this point, again, the american immigration council is spot on. quote, the federal government must assert its authority to establish a uniform immigration policy thate it can be held accountable for. in the current environment it is unclear who is setting immigrationn enforcement priorities and who is responsible for their success or

failure. there'ss a couple of points tha some of my panel members raised that i would like to respond to. first, again, i would like to echo what the chief said. the department of justice and the attorney general's committed to working with our state and localse authorities to adopt a common senses approach to solvg the m immigration problem in th country, and contrary to what was said or alleged the attorney general has never suggested that police departments should detain oror rest victims that the poli department should detain or arrest those who report crimes. justice agreesof wholeheartedly with the chief that the constitution implies to all of those in this country. >> so the question is what does the constitution require and what does it permit? it permits the department of justice and f i.c.e. to identif

particular targets for immigration and enforcement priorities. those are here in the country illegally and thosete are peopl who committed crimes and the way i.c.e. communicates that and tracy do that more is through issuing a detainer request and a detainer request does two things and two very important things and first, the detainer asks the jurisdiction to notify i.c.e. ahead of time with enough advanced notice to get there in order to pick somebody up and that is a practice that d.c. does and i'm very glad to hear that that's a practice of the chief because that is crucial and that is important. the second thing that the i.c.e. detainer doess is asks in circumstances where i.c.e. cannot get there with enough time to pick someone up immediately after they'reon deported to hold someone for 48 hour. if all jurisdictions adopted the same approximately sees as d.c.

in the county of montgomery then i think we would be in a much better place. if all jurisdictions said we willns notify you 48 hours ahea of time,on we just don't want t hold that person for more than a minute longer than is required and we would all be in a better place and sadly, that's not the policy of all counties including cook counties and certain california, including counties in washington and, oregon state that don't notifyhi i.c.e. at all. >> the second point i want to point out is the legal authority for detainers, and i think tracy willth talk about this more, bu one thing i want to point out that it says right here eight usc-1226, on a a warrant issuedy alien orney general an may be arrested and detained, pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the uniteded states. there's been a lot of question about whencr the united states s legale authority to detain a criminalin alien. the answer is with an

administrative warrant they'rer allowed to detain somebody pending that decision. now one of my panel members mentionedhe moreno. morenono is a case in the distrt of ilnoe that in fact, held that warrantlessas arrests were improper in that instance. it had nothing to with the administrative warrant. 812 usc 1226 says that on a waushtsne issued by the attorne general an alienen may be arresd and detained. i.c.e. has a new policy again which i imagine tracy will get all of its detainers are accompanied by administrative warrants and that remedies any potential problem and that puts us squarely within 8 usc 1226. thank you. okay. thank you. tracy, we'll turn to you now. >> thank you. thank you, karen. i would likee to first thank th section on civil rights and social justicer for giving me e

opportunity to speak here today as well as the national press club hosting this and my distinguished panel members for monitoring this very important topic. let me i first say that since i creation in the aftermath of the 9/11mi terrorist attacks, the mission of the department of homeland security has been to prevent a terrorism and to enhae the safety and security of americans in the homeland. as a component of the department, i.c.e., u.s. immigration andnd customs enforcement has a similar critical mission and that is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of our immigration, customs and trade laws. now, sanctuaryme cities are generally those jurisdictions

that in some way prohibit through official action or practice their law enforcement officers from cooperating with i.c.e. in the enforcement of the immigration laws, and i would submit to you that rather than promoti promoting public safety they these endanger the public, and i can give you a very real example. in the past, the former immigration and naturalization service which is the predecessor to i.c.e. and i.c.e. had very good workingng relationshipses with state and local law enforcement agencies, and in that context we would cooperate and collaborate with regard to the sharing of information regarding individuals that would be removable ail epps from the united states. that is to say, if there's some indication that an alien is removable, whether on a criminal basis or simplypl removable on

another l basis, we would share information with the law enforcement aemss. so whatat we would have is thes agencies wouldld actually allow i.c.e. and the ins to enter these facilities and interview these individuals to determine if they are, in fact, removable aliens. they would also communicate, phone, call i.c.e. when theye had some reason to believe there was someone in custodyrr arrested for a state criminal offense,av they would t you the know we may have someone in our custody subject to removal, interview them at your leisureep but keep in mind thes are individuals that theat stat and local officials had arrested for state and local crimes. across the spectrum, murder, rape, child exploitation, down to driving while intoxicated and other offenses, assaults and so forth. across the spectrum. so i.c.e., and the i.n.s. in the

earlier days would have an opportunity to engage, to discuss,ge to share information aboutal these come and intervie the individuals and through inner operability we would have someem indication these individuals may be removable fromnd the united states under e immigration nationality act. so fast forward to today. the rise of are sanctuary jurisdictions that will prohibit i.c.e. from entering their jails, they will prohibit their officers andth agents from communicating with i.c.e. about the presence of individuals who may be subject to removal from the united states and again, these s are significantly high risk criminal aliens, so what we have here is i.c.e. is no longer welcome in these jails so they can no longer t affect at rest of thes criminal ail genes who are public safety threats in the security of public

facilities like jails or county descensions or state penitentia penitentiaries. the sheriffs and chiefs of police and theifie wardens of t facilities we used to interact with on a collegial and close basis they've essentially shut offe? our access. so what does that mean for i.c.e.? what it means is that i.c.e. is going to continue to. enforce te immigration laws. we're simply not going away. so that's our mission is to enforce the immigrationat laws, both civil and criminal to protect andnd promote public safety. so thatt forces the i.c.e. agens andd officers out onto the streets toua arrest these individuals and targetet enforcement actions, so let me be clear, i.c.e. does not, as a chief rightlyuc pointed out, i.c.e. does not conduct raids. i.c.e. does not conduct sweeps, or any other indiscriminate form of arrest practice. these individuals are targeted,

because we have some indication that they have in state and localca facilities for a crimin criminal arrest.re however, once they're released in these agencies and jurisdictions don't notify us, we have to target them individually. so ourti agents and officers undertake investigation. we review the file, and we target thesedi individuals, whi means we havee to go out into te neighborhoods, we have to go to their homes, potentially to their businesses, or in other public areas to affect the arrest, as t opposed to the safy and security of a jail facility, which is certainly the most appropriate place,op when these individuals have already been screened, they cannot have an access to a weapon. we, can't flee, so it's an orderly transfer of custody. so again, the chief points out rightly so that we're going to conduct our mission. it just means that we're going to beme out in the neighborhood where people don't want us to be, and in the neighborhoods targeting these individuals at

their d homes, again, at their businesses and out in public areas, so we would prefer this other transferof of custody ands the chief points out we are targeting criminal ail genes. that is our focus. the director of i.c.e. indicated noe aliens are off the table. those who areth simply here unlawfully are subject toe removal from the f united state irrespective of criminal history.th so that means that from an i.c.e. agent or officer or team goesou out to identify individus at their home and they encounter them or if they encounter this em them in a public place, if they also encounter those who are noe criminals but with them and also subject to removal under the immigration nationality itact, theyey will also be apprehended they are here unlawfully for reasons separate and apart from criminality, they are here

unlawfully and that's the president's directive under the executive orderse that we shal take enforcement action against all removable aliens. so the point is, if you don't want those who are not criminals to be arrested, the idea is, don't make usgo go to the homesr in public places or other areas where we have towe affect these arrests to carry out our mission.n. let's have itaf in a safe and secure jail environment, where we can transfer custody, for the officer's safety, for the alien's safety and for public safety. we would encourage greater cooperation and i thank the chief for his, you know, for his cooperation withh i.c.e. and those other jurisdictions that want to cooperate wf i.c.e. we simply want to carry out the mission. it's no different as he pointed out working with dea and fbi and other federal law enforcement agents. we have a mission and the mission iss for publicll safety. i think we all agree that public safety is the critical aspect

here. we simply want to affect these removal of seek these aliens who are in removal under at act in a safe environment so the public is protected and not exposed to unnecessary esrisk. so i'll be happy to take questions and thank you so much. >> thank you, tracy. noww michael, i have the pleasue with this long q list of questis growing over here to punt it to you first. to areov and see how you'll respon to comments. >> we've covered both sides of the spectrum here and my role here and i want to thank the aba invitingnd me to be apart of th commission and also to have a forum like this, where we can really exchange these ideas rather than just sort of talk in an echo chamber. i'dam like to thank doj and i.c. for also participating. my background is i was the

principal legal eyadviser. i was in thtracy's seat in the bushcu administration, frankly when secure communities and this information sharing really was developed, and i think to some extent, it made sense post-9/11 where there was a real concern, security concerns on who was here, what is the status and do we have a handle on immigration enforcement. that was a priority andul how a we going to more effectively enforce immigration laws that have always been on the books? so the idea of having technology work together and being able to share information from the states and local police departments, fbi and u.s. visit, which was now capturing all sorts of information on individuals who were in the country and immigration, immigrant statusid was a good ia that made sense. i think to some extent it created something thatt we realy didn't anticipate. one of the panelists mentioned the numbers and how we were

identifying sodu many more individuals who were in state andlo local jails now automatically as having maybe they had, they were here unlawfully, they may have been removed previously, what have you, and now he had access and we had that information, and we really struggled and worked with state and locals very closely to come up with now what are we going toy do with that? how are wee going to rationally implement that process and frankly d.c. andnd montgomery county during those years were great friends working with how can we do that? now, one of the concerns, and i think this is what tracy and chad were mentioning, with the whole sanctuary talk, is, is the pendulum going to go so far the other way that state and locals are going to say we're going to shut off any information sharing whatsoever? i recall when i was in that position, that was a huge concern. are individuals who are either national security concern, criminal, gang member, what have

you, are they going to be released and we're not going to know about kit? so it's that real information sharing. now on the he rflipside, there real issues about what's our authority? is it state and local? can we hold this person behind the time we're going to release them? those are real issues and that's where coordination, communication between stateun a locals needs to be increased, rather than just drawing these bright lines, because i think that's not the solution here. from my private practice hat there's some of the frustrations that i've seen, frankly, with the system is, now that we're identifying individuals more id efficiently, now that we're placing moreg people than ever into this immigration court process, that's not working. and so we have, i have clients waiting for a court date for years and years and years. some of these folks are being detained by d i.c.e., not for

years and years and years. we've been able to, we're gettingye quicker court dates o that, but even in the non-detained docket people go on and live their life, there are sympathetic stories out there. these folks have families that are u.s.he citizens. they need their day in court. both sides everybody recognizes these folks have to be provided with a timely hearing where apr judge can i dider is there reli they need to be removed and i.c.e. needs to be able to make their decisions prioritizing those folks in light of the e onresources.ht but if the system is so broken we're not even getting court dates for, you know, individual calendars are not being set for four years from a master calendar, there's just something wrong, andfo so i thi we have to -- we're talking of the e front end system. are individuals who are being identified by state and locals going to be turned overr to i.c.e., and get the process started? but we've got to remember that there's a a long process, and w need to make sure that that is

also w working. so that's all the comments i wanted to make and i think the roundtable discussion is really the interesting part aanyway. >> okay. thank you, michael. thanks very much. i'm going tol. start sort of on your lastt point right there, about the immigration court backlogs and you know, often year's ladelay, even for a mast calendarer hearing, but even ife think about it in the detained context,t, the lengthy amount o time it can make to amerits, what is your solution for that not in an abstract context but abwe're talking about detainers, communications with federal authorities and more people coming into thent system. i imagine part of your point the immigration system is getting clogged with cases where some may bee serious criminal offenders, some may not butrs a the end of the day, people across a variety of contexts are

having a delay in having their case heard. whether it'sl a criminal deportation d criminal convicti deportation or a asylum seeker, whatever, more cases coming in means a delay getting to the ultimateue hearing. question of detainers and cooperation play into that fromha your point of view? >> the sooner that i.c.e. can now aboutw an individual, know when they're going to be released and be able to decide is this a priority and those priorities, as the chief said those priorities changed. it's broader now than the past several years.s. there's a rational basis for that. i think it would be helpful if, you know, the attorneys got involved in this case earlier everyone to make a decision is there relief available, is there

some way we could speed this process along? can weul vet through some of the issues? so we can more efficiently resolve whether this person should be granted relief, maybe not continue with the case if for whatever rp there's not aa valid case theredi or meets the discretionary requirements now pop orr if they are removed if there's ae way to move that ca along in thet system. research, it's not going to happen without ncresources but resources do make a difference and i've seen -- a lot of this is anecdotw anecdotal. several new immigration judges placed in various locations and i've heard anecdotally at least hey, in miami we're starting to see individual s cases being scheduled and merits hearing being scheduled much quicker than they were inea the past the years ago. that's a good thing.ok you sometimes look at the

numbers there's never an answer. we're so in the hole. ans unless we get three more judges or move to30 expedited removal across the board we're not going this.t through we've seen that even a smaller number of ijs being dedicated in select locations can have a huge impact. >> okay. now that's going to put me to you, tracy, and maybe to chad.me on the backlog question, and the call for sort of attorney early involvement, earlyo look at priorities. who do we really want to remove. at least my understanding of current executive orders and something you mention 234d your remarksnd is that everybody is priority iff they come to the attention of i.c.e. if they fall within theo net within a targed actionic or by accident in the context of apprehending someone else. so how do you respond then to thee suggestion that there has o be prioritization, resources have to come into play when

we're talking about all the people who may be subject to detainers or about whom i.c.e. may receive notification? >> thank you, karen. eessentiallyial eessentially, you know, the president's executive orders are clear that those who are subject to removal from the united we said earlier, still on the table. the point i'm making is that we no longer going to categorically take out of the enforcementen realm classes of aliens that meet certain categories, and publish those se categories. whatat we're saying is that und theng immigration nationality a, aliens whons are here unlawfull who are nuunlawfully present unr section me212 of the i.n.a. and those who come here and overstayed and are otherwise subject to deportation generally

under section 237 of the act are now subject to removal. so we will internally determine our priorities and utilize our the best way that we can first, as i indicated earlier one of our clearest missions is public safety. we are going to target criminal aliens first, in addition to those whona would threaten the national security. they may or may not be criminals. there may be some intelligence on those individuals but nonetheless, we arecr going to target those who are threats to national security and those who are threats to public safety. so within those parameters, we are going to go after those clearly whoeg have the most egregious criminal offenses, because they're the ones that are moresi easily identified through the process, when the chiefs, police officers

apprehend somebody, you know, on a felony charge, there's a reason why we have grades of criminal offenses. tell knif el knofelonies and misdemean misdemeanors. the ones with the significant threat to public safety, we target those felons and those to w.h.o. commit assaults, generally misdemeanor offenses but nevertheless offenses so these person, andic thoseerr are situations where what we want to do is prioritize our resources, and our assets to target those individuals that we can make the most, ease the greatest s impact on public safy as quickly as possible. are goingthat mean we to not target those who are, you know, driven without awi licens or those who have, you know, a dui arrest or something like that? no. we will, ifho we encounter thos individuals, we will take action against them, because they are subject to removal from the united states. you know, to michael's point,

yes, there is a massive backlog, and so we have to be mindful of that back jg lon we want to place somebody a t relatively l priority alien in w proceedsing that will extend for many years and so forth that may or may not result in removal order, they have some sort of relief from removal,l, typically criminal aliens have fewer opportunities for relief, that is certainly so for aggravated felons, under section 101 of the act but also certain other egregious offenders, so weth are going to arget those that have the greatest impact that will make americans safer and that, you know, align with the idea that you know, again, we are not indiscriminately roundingg peope up, checking their documentation. if we encounter them and typically in the context of a criminal or a civil enforcement action, that's when we will apprehendir them and move forwa with theirpr removal. we doo prioritize but we do hav, you know, we are not going to

tell the american public, here's a schedule of offenses. if you fall within them, we will you.et ifwe you fall without them, we will not.t. weu. don't do that, because aga, there may be circumstances that warrant an arrest of an individual, and seeking removal of them, that they don't quite fit, fall within certain parameters. >> one quick follow-up on that.u do i understand correctly when you're talking about targeting for enforcement that that means actually arrest and issuance of an nta or are you also talking about actuallytr pursuing the ce inls removal proceedings after that phase? >> yes. well, i mean, when we arrest, make a civil arrest obviously our purpose is to seek the alien's removalfr from the unit states. but keep in mind, an arrest of ann alien who has been previouy removed may lend itself to a criminal prosecution for illegal re-entry, and there are other bases for criminal prosecution.

but generally speaking, if we are enforcing the civil immigration laws, yes, we are targeting the individuals for removal froms, the united state either through the -- which will result either in the issuance of a notice to appear or some other charging document that will initial of initiate their removal proceedings, that is to say sometimes will are administrative under section 238 of the act administrative removal proceeding that does not require aju proceeding before a immigration judge. whatever statutory authorities we have, we're going to take full, we're going to take all of our, utilize all of our authorities to nashiate removal and affect the removal through whatever proceeding is available. >> if i could make a point to the backlog. >> yes. general's taken a lot of steps to help reduce the backlog. we realize it's a problem. we realize it's a real problem. everybody deserves their day in court. what are we doing?>>re streamlining the

immigration judge hiring do process. previously itre took one year t fill one position. we're trying to shorten that amount of time, because we have open slots, ande we need to ge people in there. replacing newlo judges in high priority areas,n again trying hire new judges. we'reew conducting removal proceedings in jail. this is key, because at our b.o.p. facilities where an illegal immigrant is in the facility we can conduct the removal proceedings while this person is serving their time. as soon as their time is done the person can be removed from the country. we'd love tome work with state b locals and do something very similar inn state and local detention facilities. so if someone is serving their time as opposed to then getting out, having to go into and i.c.e. detention center, where we'lle initiate removal proceeding, allow usou to bring our immigration judges in, and conduct a hearing while in the jail, that would help streamline the process. we're alsog doing video conferencing hearings. a place where o weng can use judges all over th

country to hear cases in particularly high priority er areas. maybe we can't get a judge from michigan to go to the southern border but we can put up a camera so an immigration judge inro michigan can hear all of t cases. we areo he actively trying to h backlog for the purpose thatt michael mentioned to give people their day in court. >> chad, i wanted to, while you floor,he i wanted to ask a couple of definitional questions. >> sure. >> whenwa you say, and i think u mentioned right nowen about illegal aliens having their hearings while they're in proceedings. what do you mean when you say that? if the --yo do you mean people o have criminal convictions or undocumented people? because i think you're talking about people whoho haven't had removall proceedings yet. sore i'm trying to understand t reference to illegal aliens. >>ce right, thank you for askin that. and so>> wheneverha we're condug these removal proceedings, you're right. these are people who are suspected to be removable from the country either under 8surks,

c 12.27 or some other provision of thehe immigration laws. some ofe these are people who committed other criminale offenses in the united states. that's why they're in b.o.p. custody or state and local custody and obviously those people are a priority fore the administration. but that sort of, you know, what i meant when i said that. >> okay, thanks. had one other question similarly when you were talking about the detainers, and sorry, i don't have the exact language now but it was something about criminal aliens, detainers in the context of criminal aliens, but i think when you were discussing it, some of it was pre-adjudicati pre-adjudication, people who may have come into the system on a criminal charge. >> right. >> when you were saying criminal aliens did youth mean to say people charged with crimes or adjudicated or even had come into the system and maybe had charges dismissed?

>> so we would say people who have been both charged and convicted with crimes. >> okay. i'm going to take a break to look for my next question, and invite anybody else on the panel w who'd like to respond to any of these points before we get off of these topics all together. >> if you don't mind i'll echo chad's comments as it relates to criminal aliens. we look at criminal aliens as those charged with a criminal offense, those convicted of a criminal offense. at the end of the day, again, if they were, if they are removable from the united states by virtue of their illegal presence here, then they are, then we will seek their removal and if we encounter them through our interacting with them through the criminal justice process, that is to say, engaging with them through the jails or in the prisons, then we will, if we you know, public threat, we will take action against them, not

withstanding the lack of a criminal conviction. so for example, there are statistics that suggest that those who drink and drive, who engage in that type of conduct many times before they're actuallyd arrested. so the fact that someone's arrested for driving while intoxicated or dui and they are not convicted does not suggest that they are not a public safety threat. so we look at those aliens who are subject to removal, but also as a public safety threat, when we take enforcement action against them. now, there are many, many aliens who already have criminal convictions that are separately removable onss those bases, but nevertheless, under the immigration nationality act section 212 if they're here unlawfully we can take that action against them and we giaue their public safety threat at that time.e now, mind you, there are aliens who are here on lawful status,

so clearly a lawful permanent resident, right, who is arrested for driving while intoxicated or otherwise that individual is not subject to removal from the united states. we dowo not take enforcement action against those individuals because that would require a separate basis for removeability but generally speaking those who are here unlawfully have no status, and we determine that they are a public safety threat. we will take enforcement action against them as i alluded to earlier. >> karen, i il just want to jump in on one thing. some number of those cases, especially if this person has been here for a significant number of time, may have united states born children, what have you, they may have some relief. >> yes. >> if we can get that case into the system, and moved through the system, and also potentially an i.c.e. attorney, who'sas on an individual case b case basis can make some decisions about whether or not this is a good case for that sort of relief, and we can get

it to a judge quickly, then that person doesn't stay in limbo potentially detained for some extra period of time or what have you, and then we can regularize, whatever the status is, but under the current law that person now can reside here legally. so if the back end is not working, then it's just, clogs everything up and this person is now really just walking around with no ability to work and other, you know, negative consequences. >> i'm not sure, but it sounds like you may be speaking primarily about cancellation of where the only opportunity for that form of relief is before an i.g. >> correct. >> unlike some of the other forms of relief that may be available administratively if the person is not in proceedings. >> or adjustment. >> yes, right. >> right, and so if we can get that person relief before being placed in removal intelligence. other options that you have to look at this wholistically. it's not just one piece of the immigration system. >> okay. it looks like we have a couple

of comments here. >> rnyes, i think my deepest concern is the steps that are going to be taken by the department of justice, since we're talking about procedural protections in immigration cases where it doesn't really look like they're streamlining but more like railroading people through a process where you're taking away immigration procedural protections. for example, people do have relief, i think there's an understanding out there, might be eligible for a visa, that there will not be any continuances that arepe granted for people who might be eligible for a visa, married to a u.s. citizen, ath victim of a crime. those people will not be able to pursue immigration relief because, because you know, i think the department of justice has o changed their position on how they're going to allow those cases to proceed. so on one end, streamlining a case, but at the same time taking away some of the remedies that used to be available to

attorneysow is a really tough pl to swallow for advocates who have been working with communities for decades trying toen ensure that families stay together. that's i think one comment i have. the second comment that i have i think m is that it's worrisome me that people who are, you know, where there's no finding, there's no kind of dangerousness, let's say. that's like a poor term to use, but the people who are charged with crimes are now being cast as being convicted of one. and i think that is not an issue actually. that's an issue of rhetoric. because how we fall down on that question is really going to impact the rights of the people and those proceedings, because as you know, you know, most immigrationar relief is discretionary. it is in the hands of the immigration court. it is often in the hands of the trial attorney who can agree or not, right, to decide whether they're going to join in, on

relief, and you know, as for the many years that all of us are practiced, it is just, these are difficult laws. they are really harsh laws that have been on the books for 20 years, and have, frankly, allowed 400,000 people to be deported every year. so the question to me is, as we talk about deportations and immigration cases, do you want to expand the 400,000 per year evenhi higher? is that the goal? is it a numbers game or is it game to actually protect the rights of the people who are in proceedings at w the time. because i'm not sure where we're falling on that. >> i'm happy to respond. unless you're responding. a question and then maybe you can respondnd to both. >> i think this question follows. following onde her question, th idea that being arrested for a crime or being charged with a crime is considered the same as

having s a conviction, they're seen as threats to public safety for the arrest. i wonder if that would incentivize certain police who want to play a larger role in deportations to arrest people who look or sound like imfwrants to get them into the system, to arrest and charge them in a crime, knowing if there's no conviction i.c.e. will still be initiatingy deportations agains that person as a public safety threat. >> let me call on tom if i may and then back down to tracy and chad. >> a false arrest is a false arrest. and no matter what your motivation is. there are large segments of our communities or actually i shouldn't say large. there areth segments of our community that believe police are motivated by race, by

ethnicity, immigration status. the fact is there are checks and balance balances in our criminal justice system that will hopefully keep those kinds of t arrests from progressing through the criminal justice system, and if this -- i don't believe this is a huge issue. does ite happen? it happens occasionally, but it's the same notion that unfortunately much of the american public has been convinced by the t press and social media that there's an epidemic of police violence in this country. there is not. there's less use of historically. police use less force today than ever before in law enforcement history, but because of what b , you know, you only need a few

knuckleheaded policemen doing knuckleheaded things around this country to convince folks that it's a big problem. it is not an issue i police police are invecentivized to arrest someone based on the way they look or they might be undocumented. enough real crime we deal with and stay busy enough with, keeping the public safe. i don't think that that is as big a concern as other folks might think. >> i think if i understood and i don't mean to speak for michelle, butou the point was taking your point the justice system will weed out the bad arrests from the criminal perspective. the problem is people are surfaced to i.c.e. potentially and face removal proceedings and

not in your jurisdiction, where people weigh carefully, right, whether arrests should be made and are t rigorously trained an try to follow carefully the proper laws, that there are other jurisdictions in the country where people are not as careful about what they do from a criminal perspective, and the real, that people are far more adversely affected or can be by removal proceedings than by whatever the criminal issue is for even if the arrest is ultimately dismissed. is that what you are trying to get at? >> yes. >> okay, so tracy, and then i want to shift gears a bit to betsy and to tom. >> great, thank you. lett me just first respond to te comment as it relates to, is it aa numbers game, are we trying o get deportations to a certain level? that's absolutely not the a cas. this is all about public safety. we are simply identifying threats to public safety in removing them from the united states. and so if the laws seem harsh,

then it's only because these laws were enacted basically pare of the illegal immigration and reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996, during theth clinton administration. for 20 years these laws have been on the books, and so the laws plainly state that aliens present in the united states without inspection or admission are subject too removal from th united states. nothing more is necessary. so do we -- as i indicated earlier, we don't do sweeps. we don't do raids. we encounter individuals during the course of targeting enforcement actions. so you know, there doesn't have to be an arrest or even a conviction. the facttfa that someone is her and we are made aware of it through operations, then we can take enforcement action against them, ande congress clearly stated that was the case. and congress also built in these mechanisms as michael pointed out for relief.

adjustment of status, cancellation of removal. under section 212 of the act, their mere presence subjected to removal that is sufficient.re we need not say more. again, we don't have the resources. we're not going out simply randomly checking people for their papers, but the point is, congress built in the relief valve by allowing adjustment of status, and other forms of relief to these individuals who are arrested and we are seeking theirr removal. in the immigration context, we are first prosecutors. we initiate removal proceedings and once the alien is eligible for relief, then we shift our roles and then we litigate whether the alien is eligible for relief. so congress said, under certain circumstances if you've been here ten years and meet good moral character qualifications and you don't have certain offenses, you can stay, but congress didn't put into the law you know, if you just, if there's no other basis for removal, you can just stay here,

or that criminal basis for removal is required. no,re congress said these individuals are subject to removal. here is your relief valve. if you qualify, then you're eligible. congress has made that decision for us.to we don't need to engage in a second-guessing of them. so the point here is that we are simply enforcing the laws on the books for 20 years. there's nothing new. we go back to where the enforcement was prior to the last eight years so we're simply getting back to the enforcement aspect of this, but i also note and i could not agree with the chief more, he nailed it right on thehe head. you know, there is no indication that the enforcement of imgration laws is going to result inof any more racial profiling than any other aspect of law enforcement? if that were the case you'd see it in the context of drugs or violent crime for any other management of other law

enforcement agencies. why is it the people who cooperate with i.c.e., chiefs, police officers orof deputies would be any more disposed to racial profiling enforcingof immigration laws than any other laws? many of the aliens that are in federal custody in the bureau of countriesones are doing hard time for drug trafficking offenses. offenses. you think the dea or other criminal investigative agencies would be more targeting toward these individuals than others, but it's clearly not the case.no there's no indication they're more disposed to racial profiling than any other context. they have their careers. they have an internaln review process. they can be prosecuted and i know the chief probably is aware, i don't know if there's ongoing investigations notot wi his agency but he's made aware of situations where that is arising, arises because the individuals have the ability to allege their claims. they go through the process,

through litigation. so that'she going to be there a there are going to be some bad apples but by and large there's no more indication racial profiling goes on in enforcement of immigration laws. >> i want to go back to betsy and tom and go to our promised q&a here. betsy 'tom from your jurisdictions and awareness of what's going on in other city, count countyid abstate level jurisdicti jurisdictions, how do local entities decide about sanctuary cityci policies at all? is it an executive division, a legislative decision? litigation decision? how doans come to grapple with and actually decide on this question?k >> thank you, karen. ium can't speak for cities acro thers country but the district

columbia has may mayor's order and legislation regarding sanctuary cities and a communicative function that is an ongoing one from the mayor, and how does she and how do other officials interact with our communities, but i think you couldou see from michelle's and mine and tom's that jurisdictions arounds the country interpret differently what it means to be ary sanctua city, andhe i hope that the department of justice and homeland security won't cut off grants to cities that are community or policing, and for domestic violence, and foran homeland security, andth other kinds of grants, when cities are taking a very different approach case by caset to understanding what maks their cities safer, and we came to our decision many years ago ande d.c.'s crime rates have

been, you inknow, trending downward by and large, and we feel like we're safer when feel like they have access to government services and when they feel like they can come out a and send their kids school in safetyt and when they feel like they can report crimes to police. i think it was a misunderstanding about us, i don't know if you wereht thinki i said that you were arresting people who weref victims of crie but i do think there's, if people are very afraid that an interaction with the police will turn into an immigration proceeding, they'll be much less likely to report a crime, because like in the domestic violence context, it's very common that say ape woman's bean up and she reports it the perpetrator may say she hit me first and if she gets in the system she's vulnerable. we're thinkinge we're safer and strongerec together with this

legal architecture of mayor's orders and departmental orders at mpd and doc and legislation, and it's very nuanced and complicated in a way that goes well beyond this term sanctuary city. >> thank you. we'rery running short on time. you mentioned in montgomery county all the entities don't even agree on whether the county is or rick santorum' a sanctuary jurisdiction. can you say who should decide? >> i canon do it briefly. there are only relatively few jurisdictions around the country where the mayorr stands up and says we are a sanctuary jurisdiction or thelu city counl will pass some resolution. it's actually very few, but they get a lot of attention. when it'st chicago, new york o an francisco, it gets attention. the vast majority of jurisdictions guide, what guides their policy is legal decisions. theil fact that we will not hol

someone beyond the time when they would normally be released based, even if we have an i.c.e. detainer is not a political decision f about this is what w could. it's the legal guidance from the fourth circuit, from our own attorneys and webt my attorney says you should not hold this person, we are liable if you do, what i -- i have to follow my attorney's advice. it is a legal decision, no the a political one. >> one point i want to come back to parametha. you alluded to the california decision about the fundingti restriction and the constitutionality of in the executive order. an you take just a minute on what happened there and then we'll go to audience questions. >> sure. [ phone ringing ] i'm so sorry. >> just a minute. >> well, through an executive order that was issued by the trump administration, and

actually the attorney general, there was essentially a threat that was made that there would be a a behowithholding of funds designated as smpgt wear cities. the cities arel violating a federal statute, 18 usc 1373, that addresses how police departments communicate with i.c.e. you know, so first of all,rl ma sanctuary, most, nearly all of them i think, almost all don't violate these policies, don't violate the statutes, and second, iff you did actually t to make this happen, if you did try to take away federal funding it would violate the constitution. and it would violate the constitution because the supreme court has repeatedly ruled through a number of decisions, one around one called prints, is about how information should be shared amongst gun owners and registration requirements for gungh owners, d

throughus sebelius, which was involving the aca decision, that the federal government really can't commandeer state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. lastfr month a u.s. district cot in san francisco grantedjunctiot wear city function executive order and it conlewded the eo, thens executive order, likely constitutes unconstitutional commandeering, because it coe e coercedra state and local governments to enforce federal law and n violation of several supreme court precedents under the tenth amendment, the ones that i just mentioned, and i kind of wanted to maybe end by reading, you know, this and is the decision from the court, it's very short. they said at hearing the government council explained that the order is an example of the president's views of the bully pulpit, and even if read narrowly to have no legal effect

serves the purpose of highlighting the focus on immigration enforcement. while the president ishi entitl toor highlight his enforcement priorities, an executive order carries the force of law, and i think, you know, the reason why this judgege felt compelled to respond wasas the actual immine threat that this executive order posed,co which was that it coul force, coerce localities into either clawing back money that was owed to them. >> and i anticipate that the speaker also want to address that point, and so i didn't say to the audience, but i said too them that i'm going o come back to each of them at the end for a closing remark, so i invite youto to hold onto that point, if you do want to address that, when i come back to you. so for the audience, we have the remaining time for questions and answers, andor i'd like to remi people, seek to be recognized. identify yourself by name, and organization, and then ask your

question, and i want to encourage people not speeches, not comments, please, but true questions for the panel. so i'll start right here in the front middle. >> hi, i'm lisa with the state and local legal center. my question is for para meda and chad. i wonderan if there are any cou decisions that say that in administrative warrants signed by someone who works for i.c.e. is, meet the requirements of the fourth amendment. >> i think this issue hasn't really beenen decided, and thers several courts that have questionedhe the validity of the administrative warrants, that are supplementing the detainer form, and have not yet decided whether they will meet the probable cause requirements.ee

>> chad? >> i would just say that i don't think that there's necessarily any case law directly on point on that specific question. that case, that issue just got teed up in texas, where the state ofd texas passed sb4 whic would require austin to honor immigration detainers, travis county. travispp county i think tends t oppose that policy, and one of the arguments i anticipate that they will raise is the fourth amendment argument. texas filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment that it is a warrant, ea detainer accompanied by h administrative warrant is compatible with the fourth amendment. i don't think we've gotten an answer on that yet. you know, there is this case, united states v. watson, supreme court 1976 talking about warrantless criminal arrests with respect to probable cause. you know, the basis there i think there are some principles question draw off on that. essentially when you have

probable cause, police have probable cause, you can probably peek so this more than i can, we had a practice police can detain on probableth cause the person committed a crime. if we deal with a crime that is disfavored among theoe federal government or among the population doesn't change that legal analysis, and so it doesn't answer your question, you know. the answer to your question there is nothing right on point. i suspect we'll get there, but i think we have some helpful precedence to draw off of. >> next question over here on my left. yes, ma'am? >> hi. i'm tia from people power d.c. we have been asking the director ofof the department of correctis in d.c.vi to review and make alterations in the recent directive, the guides, the way immigrant inmates are handled in doc facilities. the people as you mentioned, michelle, the people in those facilities are not the convicted felons. they generally are in those

facilities for up to 21 days, sometimes a year, according to director booth. my question really is for parameta and michelle. we are pressing for the requirement that there be a court order to accompany requests for information about when an inmate would be released, specific information on the sentencing of that inmate, access to the inmate for interview, and our understanding is requesting a court order does not in any way violate section 1373. >> parametha or michelle? >> yes, those are two separate trains. n wouldn't be a violation of 1373 by requesting a magistrate's decision to have somebody interviewed. i would also probably pose there areit miranda considerations th come out with, you know, interviews of inmates in

detention for purposes of moving into removable proceedings or even a federal prosecution. >> this would not cut off communication, it would be a prerequisite for communication. >> can i get a show of hands how many people have questions, so i can decide how to allocate the time? okay. quick, quick, let me go here and try to be concise in the question and s i'll ask the pan toto try to be concise, in the answer so we can take as many of these as possible. >> so there's a pending legislation in congress stop dangerousbi sanctuary cities trying to extend liability protection if you comply with a detainer, it makes yource law enforcement officers, federal immigration officers or federal agents, isn't that commandeering, and would that be not subject to the tenth amendment, if that legislation gets passed? >> who'd like to take that one?

>> you want to take it? >> i just respond so one thing, about the itcommandeering point. it came up in the united states v. prince, the case that parameta mentioned. when the federal government requires a state to do soi in something. the brady handgun bre vention act required local or state officials to conduct background checks. another supreme court case united statesui v. dole. in that case we e conditioned, e federal government conditioned requiring a stateer to do something with attaching federal grants. in that specific instance it was we'll give you transportation highway funds if you raise your drinking age to 21. the court wasng clear, there's commandeering problem when thec state has a choice whether to comply.or not there might be a coercive problem, themu nifb says you mentioned, too much money attached, 10% of a state's annual funds, you might getet io a coerciveness analysis but not

commandeering analysis. the state has the chase to take or not take the money. the question is is it so much money the state has no choice but to act or enough the state informed decision. >> i'll take a pause. meredith do we have a hard stop at 11:00? >> do we need to answer his question? >> totally. one of you want to answer it? >> theret are many provisions i that bill that try to conflate immigration, civil immigration enforcement with policing, and yes,s, i think it would pose, i would raiseem serious constitutional problems. >> okay, panelists, start i'm going to, what pare down toad 30-second closin comment and call on wendy. >> wendy wayne, on the aba commission on immigration. i wanted to ask, many people that we're seeing being arrested by i.c.e. in and around courthouses have pending cases, and that andnt there may be

undocumented with a pending criminal case. oncey they're arrested by i.c.e they're held in can he tension. they are not brought back into state criminal court, so that case never gets resolved. some of those cases the prosecutor wants to dismiss them, the state may not be able to prosecute it. so courts are unable then to resolve there cases. the victims don't have closure on the cases, and it also prevents thecu individuals who e taken into i.c.e. custody, because they have a pending case, even if they're eligible for some relief, they, it will likely be denied because they have an open case or if they're deported, they won't be able to lawfully return to the united states, because they have a pending criminal case. and for some of those cases, those cases would be dismissed or the individuals found not guilty. that impacts significantly state, i guess i'mi gu looking a quick response for if states are feeling like this is really interfering with

their prosecution, what response you have. >> i'll take that question for you. i couldn't disagree more. ihe would say that, when the loi i.c.e. officials are aware that there is a pending matter, if they work very closely with the d.a.'s's offices and the law enforcement officers to ensure if there is a pending criminal matter, that they can get them writted over back to state custody working with them through their state court, state judiciary to get them writted back into state custody for the proceedings if we have an opportunity. we don't simply take them and remove them. we don't allow the victims to have closure in their cases and we don't allow the criminal prosecutions to go forward, so if we can do it at all possible, then we will work with them to get them back over into their custody so they can complete thosete pending criminal matter that are before the state courts. they really have no interest in whisking someonet out of the united states so they don't

stand trial.as i can assure you that i'm well aware of situations where we have worked very cooperatively with theo d.a.'s offices to ensure those individuals stick around for their t trials, particularly if they're significant w family matters. there may be times when for example the state doesn't really want to pursue the charge. now if we take them into our custody, a lot of times i can tell you the state and locals of it.sh their hands we don't have to deal with it, to be deported. we'll save the state and county some money, but we often, we ask them toha pursue the state and criminal charges because it's important, because that may be the onlyty basis for removeabily that we can establish against that individual, is having a criminal conviction. so i would just tell you that my understanding is that we work with them. i don't know the situations you're talking about, i'm happy to talk offline with you about those because i don't want to leave that issue linering but that's my understanding. >> thank you, tracy. sorry, we have to wrap up because we have to vacate the room, so i'm going to ask everybody for a 30-minute

closing thought, if you care to offer one. >> 30 second. >> sorry, 30-second. that would really be all day. but i t want to invite the panelists who do not have to rush out in a hurry to step outside and invite those of you who have questions we l didn't reach who would like to speak with one or more of the panelists if they're available to continue that conversation outside. so michelle, and i'm sorry, we really need to be on literally 30 seconds. >> so several people have mentioned today's panel was kind of a little trip down memory lane, and it brought back a lot of thoughtsy from the early 2000s, mid 2000s when i first started working on the issues and the post-9/11 policies were really focused on getting state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws and coming outer of that period, we saw a lot of studies indicating thatng hispanics were being arrested for minor traffic violations at much higher rates after security communities was

initiated, for example. other reports of people being arrested for pretextural reasons to get them into the jail. we saw many horrific reports of people who died because they didn't want to call an ambulance, for example, and i just hope that we can learn from the lessons of the past, as we start this newth era, and this w conversation. >> parameha, super quick, please. are you sure? okay. then you can take a whole minute. >> you know, i think this time is going to be -- it's an important, critical time and it's really going to, thehall challenging times of being able to figure out whos we are as a country, how we address issues of immigration, policing, how we address our constitutional safeguards, how we addresson ou

dueig process protections are o the line. it is too easy to say the rhetoric doesn't matter and that it d doesn't impact the decisio that are being made on the ground. the fact is that, many of us who have been doing this work know that it does, and have seen a disturbing rise in rhetoric, and also the impact that it has on our communities. i would say that when it comes to the courts, we need to come back and decide where we think police power should go, and i think that right now, local communities and local and states have made good decisions on sanctuary cities and sanctuary policies. they've made it in support of the communities that reside within them, and that to attack them, is think head-on by executive orders by threatening stripping of federal funding, or creating additional penalties is, frankly, not a good way to

go for our country and will not actually heal some of the divisions that people say exist in the united states.. >> thank you paromita. betsy? >> >> it is a very scary time for many people and you lawyers play a very important role when it comesa to immigration. we don't have a right to counsel in immigration proceedings, but by engaging in community groups, you can provide some security to immigrants who live in our midst. there are many people who are here who are supposedly illegal, but they may have a claim to stay if they're helped by a lawyer to get various visas that provide more security. there are many people who are green cardholders who have never converted too citizenship for financial reasons or others, and with the help of counsel like you, u you can bring them more security so that, if they are arrested or find themselves i'm meshed in the criminal justice

system, they won't find themselves deported so thank you. >> tom. >> public safety is based on the trust and confidence of the people we serve. for local police department is no different than theve missionf the federal law enforcement agency. i believe we can find the right balance where everybody's interests are served. it is notby served by local pole being the immigration police, and any influence or pressure to engage in immigration enforcement by local police is the wrongng direction to go. however, again, i believe we can find the right balance between local and federal law enforcement agencies. so i think we can support each other in our mission. the u federal government -- not that they need me to tell them how to do their job, but they need too understand if they wan

the trust and confidence of people they serve, they need to be transparent in what they do. if their focus is on criminals and folks that are a danger to public safety, they will have the support and confidence of the publicp they serve. if they're picking up folks that are here because they came from a god awful situation in their countryd of origin, they have made a life for themselves in this country and haven't broken one law other than perhaps the one they broke when they entered into the country, i think you start to erode the trust and confidence ofop the people we serve because why are you using your resources to focus on that individual when there's plenty of folks that i'm dealing with, the gang bankers doing armed robberies and plenty of other folks that are committing crimes that i will work every day of the week with and my federal colleagues tohe get them out of our community, to make our community safer. we've got to focus the priorities in a way that gets

that trust and confidence from the public. >> thank you. chad. >> thank you very much. there's one point where i could not agree with perametha more, that rhetoric matters. i call out as helpful the rhetoric that suggests if you're a victim of a crime or domesticr violence, if you go to the state police, that the attorney general wants you deported, that's not true. i calll out the rhetoric that says local police and i.c.e. agents byet enforcing our immigration laws areg engaged i pretext or racial profiling. again, hand is unhelpful. we can find common ground on this. the common n ground is if you'r in the country illegally, you have no right to be here. in situations where you have been charged or convicted of a very serious crime, the federal government is going to use its resources. the department of justice is going to use its resources to ensure that threat to public safety is no longer present so

allh of us can be safe. the attorney general is committed to working with state and local police, committed to hearing their concerns and working with everybody to make our nation safer. thank you. >> tracy. >> thank you soo much. again, thank you foror allowinge to be here today on this very important topic. let me just, if i could, dispel the myth that judicial warrants are required to effect a civil arrest. that has never been the case. the supreme court has long held that arrests in public places aree sufficient based on probabe cause. so theto extent to which we hav administrative warrants which are set forth in the statute, title 8, section 1357 establish probable cause.a the administrative warrants in and ofca themselves are no lessf a warrant becausee they're not issued by a judicial officer because i'm not aware of a provision in the federal rules of criminal procedure that allows a magistrate judge to issue a warrant in a civil immigration case. those are simply for criminal

matters. so congress has set up this system under its plenary power to legislate on immigration, setting forth the individuals and the procedures that issue these warrants, that establish probable cause and now the i.c.e. detainers have probable cause because attached are a warrant of removal or warrant of arrestst establishing the basis for probable cause. those are just as valid a bases under the constitution of any other use of the fourth amendment pursuant to arrest for a civil matter. i want everyone to know here, we are effecting arrests consistent with the law, with the constitution, based on the statutory framework that congress set up for these types of enforcement actions under the civil enforcement actions, under the immigration nationality act. i'm going to let you goat with that, that these are consistent with law. they are pursuant to law and they are no less lawful because there's not a judicial warrant.

>> thank you, tracy. michael, your closing thoughts. >> i'll be very quick and book end what michelle said. this was a trip down memory lane with how a lot of these laws and policies came into place post 9/11. i agree with the chief and chad and the others that no one wants to see detainee deaths, no one wants to target individuals because of immigration, nationality, et cetera. but i'm also realistic enough to know that as we ramp up enforcement, we have to be mindful of those issues and make sure as part of our procedures we have somebody looking at make sure that we're not doing things that are unintended. there aren't unintended consequences. when we see those, we can head that off.ndnd i think it protects the government, protects the individuals who are going to be targeted and it's the way we have tot proceed. >> thank you, michael. meredith, we have a written request for one more question.

are we able to take it, or are we totally out of time? all right. maria. >> -- i had a lot of questions. i'll stick to one. it would be for you, chad. you said obviously -- all of you made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal task. so i was wondering with the laws that are going through the hill now, like the one on the judiciarymm committee, one of t billss would allow states to mae up theirir own immigration lawso that, if wee already have a tangled up system, having 50 differentof laws would probably make it a lot tougher for all of you here. i was wondering what sort of guidance or what sort of behind-the-scenes work are you doing at doj with people on the hill too make sure they don't

make theak system -- the system that's already bad to make it worse for all of you involved in immigration enforcement. >>ll i'm not familiar with actually the specific bill you're talking about. i'm not familiar with that. i haven't personally been involved in that. ie will say that everything th we do, we want to macon assistant with the law. so c the supreme court held and think the constitution recognizes and we've all recognized that having a patchwork of contradictory immigration laws is not helpful and won'te create the clarity need and create who is going to be accountable. so again, while i can't comment on that specific piece of legislation, i would again reiterate what the american immigration council said on arizona. thatar in the current environme it is unclear who is responsible for setting immigration enforcement priorities and who is responsible forwa their succs

or failure. we want to change that. we want to make it clear the department ofhs justice is responsible, isdhs is responsib for setting immigration authorities and where states and local jurisdictions feel they can deviate from those priorities, that createsnf this patchwork of conflicting mandates that is unhelpful. >> i want to end on that note. i want to first of all thank everyone for your patience with us inat running a few minutes or time and to our hosts at the press club for allowing us a few extra minutes in the room. iht want to thank the commissio on immigration and the section on civil rights and tell me now -- i'm going to forget the name. civil rights and social justice. i knew i would forget that before the day was over. anyway, thank both of those entities for co-sponsoring this important program. it's complicated issue,

difficult to resolve them with satisfaction on both sidessa of the issue, but i think one thing we canan all agree on is that we've had a really stellar group of peoplee presenting to us and sharing the view. sond thanks to the audience, thanks to all of you. we'll move outside for those who want to linger for a few minutes. here is a look at our prime time schedule on c-span

networks. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, testimony from former cia director john brennan on the investigation into possible russian influence in the 2016 elections. on c-span2, the director of the omb, nick mulvaney briefs reporters on president trump's proposed budget for 2018. on c-span three, a house hearing on the border adjustment fax and u.s. economic growth. next, nina olson, the national taxpayer advocate discusses ways the irs is fighting fraud and taxpayer id theft. she also looked at ways to improve irs responsiveness to taxpayer needs. speaking in front of a house ways and means subcommittee, this is an hour. >> subcommittee will come to order. welcome to the ways and means oversight subcommittee hearing on irs reforms, lessons learned from the national taxpayer advocate.