c-span shop.org is c-span's online store, a collection of products. browse to see what is new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations, and you can order the congressional directory with contact information. go to c-span shop.org. announcer: we are back. >> university of houston law center , he is with us this morning to discuss the immigration policy and the failed attempt to end the last presidents remain in mexico policy. good morning. first of all, tell us what the immigration law clinic is at the university of houston and what you do there. guest: i will be happy to. we are a law clinic, our primary

goal is two fold, to teach students to be ethical and competent attorneys, and in addition we serve the community. we help immigrants with all types of family-based cases and also humanitarian cases. host: what exactly happened with the supreme court decision, a lot of this news got lost because of what was going on in afghanistan, but it was a pretty major decision this week. take us through exactly what the supreme court said. guest: i think i will take a step back because such a complicated issue, immigration is one of the most complicated issues. judge pozen are on the seventh circuit said it was the most complicated field of law behind

tax law. immigration, this policy is called the migrant protection protocol, and also called remain in mexico, and this was started back in 2019 from the trump administration, and basically what it did was required certain people to wait outside the u.s. for the duration of their immigration court proceeding. the important thing to think about with respect to this program is it was soundly criticized as not only inefficient for adjudicating this cases, but also as really creating a human rights abuse, a crisis, because what was happening, 70,000 people or return to mexico, and it was

devastating. we represented some in the clinic, and they had no shelters, no access to food, basic needs, no access to counsel. so it is been a very dire predicament for these people. there was seemingly no regard for the human rights issues. the other thing i would point out about the mpp is that it really is kind of a non sequitur because in march 2020, title 42 was invoked because of the covid-19 pandemic, so what that did, it was used to expel about 940,000 people. so think about that, almost one million people have been expelled, and that is different. expulsion is different from

deportation and different from waiting in mexico. once title 42 was used in 2020 and because he did not need mpp anymore, the trump administration just expelled those people so they were not even given a fair day and a court, any judicial process. so fast-forward to judge has mark, the district judge relating to the texas lawsuit against the biden administration, biden earlier this year rolled out plans to cancel or resend the mpp program and that would challenge -- that was challenged by texas. a sickly what the judge said was the biden administration did not follow the correct procedures under the administrative procedure act and therefore is

prohibited in enjoying the cancellation of the program and basically send it back to the agency to give better reasons, saying it was arbitrary and capricious. that was appealed immediately and then found its way to the supreme court, and the supreme court quickly found that the program agreed with the district judge and found that the program must be reinstated. obviously this is a devastating decision for a lot of people. the other thing that people have been writing about is that basically what the federal judges doing in this case is making himself the person in charge of foreign policy. there is a long tradition that the courts are not supposed to determine how we deal with other

countries, and by requiring the biden administration to have this program, that requires bilateral negotiation and agreements with mexico. it seems like that would the a no-brainer, that the court should not have the ability to tinker with the foreign policy of the united states. that is another reason to criticize the decision. host: who exactly does this affect now that this program has been order to continue? who is affected by it, and is there way for the biden administration to actually -- the court did not say that program must run forever. they just said you have to give vetter reasons. is the administration moving towards giving those reasons to the judge? guest: that is a very important point, and the way that this could play out -- let me back up

and say again about title 42, if it is going to be continue to be used, which might understand it is used every day, that is going to really be the issue. people are not getting a fair day in court no matter what happens with mpp. mpp really should not be used. there were exceptions, they were supposed to be exceptions for certain people, people who were unaccompanied minors, people who met certain vulnerable populations, transgender cases for example, and people who were in expedited removal. i think that hits the nail on the head, which is the biden administration now has to do a very thorough job of presenting

reasons to the federal court that would spell out exactly why the program is not effective, white it is not efficient and why it is not legal most importantly. i would point out a panel has already found the application of the subsection of the immigration nationally act does not support the application of mpp to asylum-seekers. it was never legal the way it was being implemented by the trump administration was not lawful. that is what the biden administration should emphasize to the courts. host: we have mentioned during this segment that this requires agreement from mexico to actually work. do have any idea what the mexican government thinks about this court saying this program

must continue? guest: it is interesting that the mexican government, and this has not been widely reported, but it actually pushed back against mpp and did say, through some of the negotiations, that they refused to accept family units back. they have made sort of exceptions and they have been pushing back. this may create an opportunity for the mexican government to push back even more, so i think that is right. host: with this program, the remain in mexico program, does the u.s. have this with any other country decides sicko, or is this specifically aimed at immigrants and asylum seekers coming through mexico? guest: the subsection

specifically uses the word contiguous territory mso that is correct, either mexico or canada , people coming through, and it is not necessarily mexican nationals were talking about, but talking about anybody passing through that border. that is been one of the paramount reasons for the criticism because it is being applied to people who are being thrust back into mexico. they might not even speak spanish or be from mexico. they have been subjected to kidnapping, extortion, rape, violence, and i cannot emphasize enough the lack of care and adequate protection these people have been subjected to under

this program. host: let me remind our viewers they can take part of this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. keep in mind you can always text us at (202)748-8003 and we are always reading on social media and on twitter and on facebook. we know that it was the state of texas and other border states that brought this action against the biden administration. it is going to be the impact of the supreme court decision on those border states? guest: the border states specifically texas, especially texas, had been very litigious in the sense that they have

taken it upon themselves the role of plaintiff. what they are trying to do is create a litigation strategy to force the biden administration he -- administration to do certain things, not just in the mpp context, but there was another case recently in the southern district of texas relating to the policies of prosecutorial discretion. that decision also was adverse to the biden administration, saying that he couldn't provide certain priorities. that decision was stated by the fifth circuit and my understanding is that will be stayed for the duration. that has left a pertinent -- or it will be an issue.

host: lets let some of our viewers get involved. we will start with paul from new york, new york, on the independent line. good morning. caller: hi. i wanted to ask about the statement you made that some of them have no access to shelter and food. that would suggest there has been starvation. if that is the case, could you elaborate on that? also, when he saved the conditions in mexico were unacceptable, there are 128 million mexicans. it seems almost insulting to suggest that the conditions are so horrendous that really no one should be living there. could you elaborate? guest: sure. i think with the public has to

understand is these people are not going back to hotels, not going back to mexico city. they are not going back to shelters like you might understand shelters in the social services we have here. they have been going back -- and i know this because some of them are my clients and we have heard reports of this. they are going back to basically places that do not have much or any support, they do not have access to jobs, so how they -- how are they going to buy food or essentials? i think that listener misunderstands my point. i'm not saying mexico is not supporting, it is that mexico does not have the infrastructure. i think that mexican government would admit that. host: this is anthony calling

from ohio on the democratic line. good morning. guest: good morning. i want to make a couple of points. there is a legal way for them to come to the united states and there is an illegal way to come to the united states. and i was in germany, if you cross that wall, you were shot. here, if you approach nor read and you cross that line, you are shot. if they come up to our border and they cross it illegally, they should be shot. they are committing a crime. if they want to come legally, i am all for it. that is all i have to say. guest: i hear the sentiment, and i understand the thrust of that argument, but i think we have to understand what mpp is for, for people who are approaching ports

of entry trying to get asylum for the most part. they are not people generally who are caught tried to illegally enter. they are trying to apply for admission. the point under the subsection is that under the ina there is a provision for people seeking asylum and there is a process for them to get what is called reasonable fear interviews. they are not getting those interviews, and the point is they are being taken back to mexico to dire conditions. i don't think that is what we want as a country. i don't think we want to be known as a country that puts people in harm's way and creates a situation that is basically a humanitarian crisis. host: doing know if the

administration is going to challenge in court again the decision that forces them to continue this program, or did they plan to sit back and let this issue lie? guest: my understanding is they do not plan to sit back and be complacent. because of the supreme court decision that is now before the fifth circuit, on appeal, i anticipate that the department of justice will prosecute that appeal, but eventually it will go back in front of the district judge. as you pointed out, they will make arguments about why it is not arbitrary to cancel the program. host: eventually we expect that decision by that judge will be appealed again, and the court of appeals decision will be appealed again. how long before we see this

before the supreme court again? guest: you are asking about the future litigation and the trajectory, and you are right, it could percolate up to the supreme court, but something else, this can also be dealt with through a legislative process. the biden administration has attempted to the budget reconciliation, and is another issue on your audience's mind, but, and from reports i have received, there is a budget up 3.5 trillion, and at that some billion would put forth a pathway for that sedition -- city ship -- citizen ship, and

-- another group is farmworkers, essential workers, etc., so if people are able to apply legally to get into the united states through some sort of reform, it could move out some of the policies under the trump administration. host: we have been going through a pandemic and in the united states, and frankly the world has been going through it. how has that impacted immigration into the united states and those seeking asylum? guest: the main way is to create incredible burdens on both legal immigration and people who are subject to trying to enter at the border. i have already talked about title 42. we had a client who was subject

to title 42 from a country where he was subject to political persecution. he was expelled without any judicial or ability to administrative credible fear interview and then he was tortured back in that country, documented torture. it is had devastating consequences, and texas and some of the other plaintiffs have made outlandish statements without evidence that immigrants are the ones ringing covid-19. i would challenge that and say it is happening is the immigrants or the migrants are getting covid-19 in the detention centers, where the actual issue is created. there is no evidence and hard data to suggest that the immigrants should be demonized for that reason. host: not to the phone lines and

talk to diane calling from desoto, kansas, on the republican line. caller: good morning. the first caller stole my point of view almost word for word. i have been to mexico, and most people have been to mexico on vacation or visiting, whatever, through my whole life. it is a big country. it has opportunities for people who want to work there. yet these immigrants, they do not want that. they want with the u.s. has, which are social benefits which cost a lot of money, and millions of the same benefits are not available to the u.s. taxpayers that the immigrants get by nature of having a child

in the u.s. and they get benefits for the whole family. my sincere belief is that the reason that we are getting all of these immigrants is that president biden opened the borders enclosed the wall expansion and is looking to basically look forward to having these as all democrat voters after asylum is granted or citizenship is granted. then it is a political ploy. guest: i will be happy to respond. certainly i understand the sentiment, and from the perspective of somebody who has vacationed in mexico, i can see that. a couple of assumptions that i would point out, the assumption

is if you are in mexico you can get a job and live in mexico and the mexican authorities are welcoming to these migrants. that is not the case. the mexican authorities do not have infrastructure to grant asylum to a large group of people, number one. number two, you need a work permit just like here to work, you need that in mexico. number three, the public has to understand, and i have worked with a lot of these people. i have talked to many migrants, and i can tell you the main reason that a lot of them are coming, and some are for economic reasons, but the main reason i have seen is legitimate, valid persecution based claims. you have to understand the state

of some of these countries in central america. their kids are being beaten, raped, persecuted on the way to school. they do not feel safe. they have no choice but to come to the united states. i am not saying this because i have heard it or because i read about it. from my own experience representing these immigrants, a lot of them have valid persecution based claims, and i don't think we as the united states wants to be remembered for turning people away. host: this is john from liverpool, new york, on the democrat line. guest: i have no problem turning these people away. there is a legal and in a legal way to do this. i am looking right through you,

pal, this is all of the money. i am paying you. these people do not have any money to pay you. this is a big money grab. you are profiting from open borders. i am a democrat and i have always voted democrat, but if they continue this garbage, and the amnesty lie. these people are coming here for a better life, and they are telling you they are persecuted come and you are buying it because it is to your financial benefit. it is all about money. you are grabbing money from the american taxpayer to support these people. i am ashamed of you. guest: ok. my response to that, this is interesting. there is a misunderstanding about immigration, this dichotomy between a legal way

and an illegal way. let me say as far as asylum-seekers, you have to understand, and may be caller doesn't understand, there's something called the convention against torture and the refugee act of 1980 and there is a doctrine, which is well entrenched in our laws and our domestic international obligations. this is not happening in a vacuum, not something that creative immigration attorneys are making up. this is required by law. again, unless you have worked with immigrants and spent time representing these people and unless you can tell me you have experience with these people, i don't think you have a basis to criticize. host: one of our social media followers has a question, this

person says does the u.s. patent mexico through this program? and then how can we encourage mexico to close its border? guest: that is a good question. i think the issue is and it has been brought up a few times about how do we incentivize mexico and other countries to stop people? and then it becomes a question of sort of ad infinitum, where you are stopping people at various borders before they get to the united states. as we know, mexico is pretty poor. they do not have the infrastructure. my understanding as far as payment, i don't think the united states does pay with respect to the mpp program, and that is part of the argument

that the mexican authorities are using about how this is an unfair program because you are basically dumping people into the mexican population and not allowing them to have social services. i think that is a fair point and important to note. host: this is bill from mobile, alabama, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that we don't need these people here. we don't want them here, and they come in here with covid and nobody seems to care. the communists in washington, d.c., they want to state in power and be as stupid as they are now. ridiculous. guest: let me point out what we

have done as a country and how we have in the past welcomed people in the past and we have been a country that is sensitive to humanitarian issues. think about act in 1959, the cuban exodus, first eisenhower and then jfk letting about 250,000 cuban nationals because of the situation. think about h w bush in the 1990's, the chinese student protection act, about 300,000 chinese graduate students and undergraduates. think about after world war ii and some of the things that we should have done better in terms of welcoming refugees. think about afghanistan right now in the situation with

afghani translators and interpreters. most of the callers are very xenophobic and i understand where they are coming from, but i think that is not really the kind of country that we want to be, the beacon of light that we want to be. host: what are the requirements to actually apply for asylum from those -- for those coming in to the southern border? what are the criteria for allowing them to seek asylum in the united states? guest: that is a great question. i think people do not understand how difficult it is to get asylum. i think asylum, some of the judges are denying upwards of 90% of asylum cases.

it is really a pretty high bar. what you have to have is past persecution, a connection to one of the five grounds, race, religion, nationality, a social group, and then you have to show that you would be persecuted to go back. you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution. these are not easy cases. they are difficult. they are cases where people sometimes fight for years. i have a case right now which is pending for many years. people are frustrated with the backlog and with the lack of movement in terms of legislation. i will point out, for some of your viewers, remember who has been a champ and of legal

immigration in the past? ronald reagan, if you remember, 1986 amnesty, that was all ronald reagan. we have a duty and a humanitarian obligation to help people. i am a citizen. many of you are citizens. i get that you want to create a country that helps u.s. citizens, but many have legalization, a pathway to citizenship, the statistics show that program, that is actually a boon for the economy and actually very good for people to get on the tax rolls. it is very good for our investment and very good for not just immigrants but for all of us in the united states. host: this is tom from

connecticut on the independent line. caller: the ronald reagan deal was a one-time deal, and it was promised that would never happen again by the democrats, but they broke the deal. it is not hundreds of thousands. it is millions crossing the border and there seems to be a lot of sympathy from washington, but they do not seem to have sympathy for the people who are receiving these people. i suggest that we -- maybe washington can provide buses to take them to washington d.c. and see how to deal with them. host: go ahead and respond. guest: it wasn't really a question. i think it was a suggestion.

i think the way to respond, there is a great organization called immigrants last, and it has a list of different proposals, and these are probably technical immigration related statutory proposals, but we have what is called the 3 and 10 year bar, and that means if somebody leaves the united states they are barred for a period of time, and allow for people to adjust status lawfully. a lot of people are barred because of unlawful presence, a situation where we have more waivers. i get the frustration from my fellow americans, but think of it this way, we do not have the legal resources to support told me people -- 12 million people so we will have to create can

sums to legalize some, and many people in the united states can be a boon to our economy, and we need to make efforts to solve the problem. we cannot stick our heads in the sand and say we just don't want anymore people. that is not going to happen, so we need to be intelligent about it and look at organizations and have comprehensive reform. host: this is david from turkey, new mexico, on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to know if mr. hoffman would be willing to give his address so americans can go -- i imagine he lives in a gated community, where we can get in, if he would leave the gate open, and if not be guaranteed that we would not be shot or persecuted

if we go on to his property, and i would admire him or any of these others that say we have to bet millions here, if they would sell their properties and take everything out of there account and all of these goody-goody to shoes and then go help them in their country, the world would be a better place and we would not have this conversation. us having to give up, and if you look in certain neighborhoods, they say they are being persecuted, being beaten and raped and all, has he looked at chicago and even here in albuquerque, and that does not count for any sympathy? we have to say please come over, don't worry about what the americans are complaining about. they are just anti-people. guest: there is a

misunderstanding that people who help immigrants or democrats who push for comprehensive immigration reform are just looking for open borders, and that is the premise of this discussion. i'm not advocating for open borders. i am advocating for a legal process that allows people to be adjudicated fairly and with due process. due process is part of our constitution and it applies to you and me and to people who are here in the united states, that is all that is matters. host: this is linda from staten island, new york, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i hear you said something about three chilean dollars -- three chilean dollars for your immigration -- $3 trillion for

your proposal. guest: that is actually the budget -- the overall budget and it is not my proposal, but just to correct you, a portion of that would be used for legalization. guest: i understand. but legalization is just an abstract term. you want to see $3 trillion for housing, where are you going to invest that, what part of the landscape are you going to apply? we are facing eviction. how do you visualize this? this is a big number. i don't see any real investment

as far as these communities are concerned. guest: i think what the caller is talking about is a ajit reconciliation, and -- budget reconciliation, and i can only speak to immigration, and the fact that as i said before, within the reconciliation, which is moving forward, there are options or alternatives available for specific groups. people who have, dreamers, farmworkers, essential workers. host: we would like to thank geoffrey hoffman for being with us this morning and talking to us through the supreme court decision to stop the current administration from ending the

remain in mexico policy. thank you >> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on the air and discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, a senior fellow and atlantic council president discuss the situation in afghanistan, and the biden administration's foreign policy challenges. watch sunday morning, and be sure to join in with phone calls, facebook comments, texan tweets. >> by a partyline vote of 220-212, the house took the first step in the budget reconciliation process by approving the senate passed $3.5 trillion budget resolution that congressional committees will use to draft legislation. the