hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom." i'm thuy vu. coming up on our program, how will a trump administration affect undocumented immigrants. i'm talk with experts on both sides of the debate. but first, as democrats lick their wounds following the presidential election, there are many questions about where the party goes from here. vermont senator bernie sanders is wasting no time saying democrats need to stand up for the kind of working class voters who abandoned hillary clinton for trump. senator sanders sat down with kqed's scott shafer. >> senator sanders, welcome. >> good to be with you. >> i want to begin with the news. donald trump is off making a victory lap of sorts in the midwest. he stopped at carrier, the air-conditioning manufacturer in

indiana. you have been very critical of that deal to keep those jobs in indiana. you even said it could cost jobs. why are you so critical of that? >> well, i believe that our current trade policies have been a disaster. they have cost us millions of jobs as large profitable corporations like united technologies that owns carrier simply shut down and go to low-wage countries. i think we've got to stop that. unfortunately trump's solution will make a dangerous situation, a bad situation, even worse. during the campaign you'll recall that we, i, donald trump, we're going to be tough with these corporations. we're not just going to throw american workers out. if they move aboard, if they want to bring their products back in, we're going to slap a 35% tariff. they're not going to go anyplace. turns out he changed his mind just a little bit, and his punishment now to united technologies, which made $7 billion in profit last year, is to give them a $7 million tax break. now, the danger of that is there can be a corporation in california that says, hey, why

don't we announce that we're going to china, we're going to mexico, and tell mr. trump, you want us to stay here in this country, you better give us an additional tax break. >> and yet if you're a worker at one of those factories, you're thrilled. >> right. that is right. and we're delighted to see 1,000 jobs stay in the united states. on the other hand, trump told us he was going to save all of those jobs. more than half of them are going to mexico where workers there are going to be paid $3 an hour. so the issue here is how do we formulate trade policies that tell profitable corporations in america, sorry, you're not going to continue your war against the working class of this country. you're not going to continue throwing workers out on the street and move to low-wage countries abroad. trump's solution, at least in terms of carrier, is counterproductive. >> we're coming up, it's going to be a month soon since the election. and democrats, a lot of them are still in denial and wondering how did this happen. i'm wondering as you look back at it now, what are the right and wrong lessons for democrats

to take from the election? >> i think the wrong lesson is to be arguing amongst ourselves. the right lesson is starting to understand that when the democrats have lost the white house to the least popular candidate, i think, in the history of this country -- that's what trump was. when we have lost the senate, we've lost the house, when we've lost two-thirds of governor's chairs, 900 legislative seats over the last eight years, we've got to think what does the party stand for? where should it be going? i think the bottom line is with all the respect to everybody who has worked so hard, is that we have to understand that the middle class of this country has been shrinking. 43 million people are living in poverty. the democratic party has got to be the party of working families, has to have the guts to stand up to the billionaire class and corporate america. >> there's been so much focus before, but after the election as well on these white working class voters in places like

michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin. i'm wondering if you think that the party with a message like stronger together, with an emphasis on undocumented immigrants, black lives matter, transgender issues -- did that leave working class people with the question, what's in this for me? >> i don't think it has to be either/or. i think the democratic party must be the party of diversity, must be the party of social justice, must stand up with latinos and african-americans and the gay community and so forth. that to me is not debatable. on the other hand, it is not either/or. you can take on the billionaire class. you know what most african-americans are? working class people. they want to see the minimum wage go up to $15 an hour. they want pay equity for women. so the issue is not either/or. it's standing for diversity and for economic justice. >> is there anything you think democrats could learn from

donald trump's campaign? >> he's a gutsy guy. that has to be -- that has to be acknowledged. he took on the leadership of his own party, took on democrats obviously, took on the corporate media. i think unfortunately much of what he said was not true. i don't think he meant what he said? >> what do you mean? >> he made all kinds of campaign promises. he said he was going to take on wall street. oh, yeah? well, he just appointed somebody from wall street. he is going to protect social security, medicare, and medicaid. well he just nominated somebody to become head of hhs whose goal has been to cut medicare. so his appointments belie all of the campaign promises he made. >> i talked with people during the campaign, a lot of trump supporters who said, well, you know, he's just saying those things, especially around muslims, for example, and building a wall. he doesn't mean that. but they wanted somebody who would upset the apple cart and somebody who would really bring change, and he was that candidate. >> right, but that's what is so sad that a multibillionaire who

doesn't pay any taxes, who has outsourced his own manufacturing jobs, becomes the anti-establishment. where is the democratic party? how does that happen? which gets back to my view, is the democratic party has got to have the guts, not easy stuff, to take on the billionaire class. the democratic, not donald trump, should be leading our new trade policies to protect american jobs. >> but the party itself is very divided on that. >> it is, and that's why i think what we need and the reason i'm supporting keith ellison to become the new chair of the democratic party, is i think -- >> the minnesota congressman. >> one of the most progressive members of the house. keith understands that we need a new direction and we need a strong grassroots party. >> if when you look back -- people always say do you think you could have won, and of course who knows. >> right. >> but on the other hand, you must think about it. >> oh, once or twice. look, you know, the polling at the end of my campaign had us in

almost every instance -- not every, but almost every instance nationally and state by state doing better against trump than clinton was doing. but, you know, your point, who knows. who knows what the nature of the campaign is. i will tell you, though, i wish very much i had had that opportunity. >> yeah. you, of course, excited young people a lot. and just yesterday there was a campaign analysis meeting with the various folks who worked on both campaigns, trump and clinton. and robby mook, the campaign director for clinton, said the reason they lost was younger voters at the last minute, assuming she was going to win, voted for third-party candidates. is that just like an example of not taking responsibility? >> yeah, i think it is. look, you can give a hundred different reasons. did the fbi play a terrible role at the end of the campaign? absolutely. but, you know, what i think the clinton people have got to recognize is why were they unable to -- why did that happen? why were they unable to excite millions of young people who are

extraordinary, who really want to transform this country? why did their message not get out? why was voter turnout lower than it should have been? clinton did very, very well with the african-american community, but the voter turnout was not as high as it should have been. i mean there are hundreds why, why, why. but our goal now is to go to the future and figure out how we create the democratic party that wins, that effectively represents working class people. >> there's been discussion about russia's involvement in this, whether they helped generate fake news. is that concern overblown, do you think? >> the answer is i don't know. but i think it is a legitimate concern. i mean millions of people believe these outrageous things that float around the internet. we have reason to believe that russia was involved. that is a serious issue. >> here in california, hillary clinton is going to get about, in the end -- and we're still counting ballots -- almost 4 million more votes. we've done in california -- we've enacted a lot of the things you wanted. >> right. >> to do nationally, minimum wage, immigration reform, health

care and so on. what do you see california's role going forward? >> this is a great state, and it is one of the most progressive states in america. and california can play in my view an extraordinarily important role in helping to lead this country in opposition to some of trump's disastrous ideas. california has and must continue to be a leader in climate change, a leader in saying to mr. trump, we're not going to suppress the vote but follow our model of getting more people to participate in the political process. i know the governor in this state. >> have you talked to him by the way? >> i have not talked to him yet. but i'm proud of the diversity of this state, that immigrants helped build this state and make it the great state it is. i know california will help lead the effort against trump's bigotry. so there's just an enormous role for a progressive state, for the largest state in our country to play. >> and yet there's, i think, despair among many democrats, among young people as well

because the courts are -- >> we do not -- we've got to rethink. we've got to think. despair -- i often say this, scott. despair is not an option, all right? because we're fighting for the future of the planet. we are fighting to protect the lives of so many people who are hurting today. you don't have the right to be in despair. what you have the right to do is think about, okay, here we are. all right? yeah, the republicans, a right-wing republican will control the presidency. the republicans control the house and the senate. all right. what is our approach? what do we do? what power dozen we have? >> what's the answer. >> we don't have enough time to go into all the answers. but among other things, you've got progressive democrats controlling the state of cal california, controlling the state of new york, a number of other states. what role does state government play? if millions of people stand together economically and say if corporations are involved in ugly activities, that we're going to boycott their products? is that an option? if banks are doing bad things,

should we go into credit unions for example? we've got to think what our options are. >> leverage what you have. >> exactly. >> do you see any silver linings to this election? >> no. i wish i could tell you -- i mean the only possible silver lining is that millions of people now say, whoa, i've got to get involved in the political process. it's not good enough for me to vote every two years or every four years because what trump -- many of the aspects of trumpism is something that i have got to oppose. maybe that's the silver lining. but he is, again, what i would like to have people think about, yeah, these are tough times. but this is not the first time in american history we've had tough times. you know, if you go through the history of this country, the struggle of workers for dignity, the struggles of the african-american community against slavery, women's rights, gay rights, people came together and ended up doing well, overcoming a lot of discrimination and hatred. that's where we are today, and

we've got to come together, focus, and go forward. >> one last question. kqed has a youth advisory board, and when they heard this week that you were coming in, they were very excited, and they gave us questions to ask. one of the students was asia williams. her question was, what advice do you have for future leaders, young people, teenagers, maybe even too young to vote? what can they do now to prepare themselves for leadership? >> they can do a whole lot. i would look at the question a little bit differently. it's not prepare yourself for leadership so much as to try to understand what's going on in our country, to bring people together. young people have enormous input. politicians, you know, they look and say, oh, my god, i've got these 17-year-old kids out on the street. i better start talking to these kids because they may be voting against me in two years. i think what they have got to do is understand what is going on in our country, understand how you make political change. and how you make political change is not just leadership.

it is bringing people together, large numbers of people. and in that process, good leadership develops. but it's not just one person on top. it is a lot of -- whole lot of people coming together at the grassroots level. >> all right. senator bernie sanders, thank you so much. >> thank you very much. we are going to -- >> now on to immigration. president-elect donald trump says he plans to deport up to 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal records. he's also threatened to cut federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities such as san francisco for refusing to help federal immigration officials. many immigrants and advocates worry that existing policies and programs may now be in jeopardy, but others think a tougher approach is needed to fix what they view as a failing system. joining me now are hoover institution research fellow jeremy carl and angie yunk, supervising attorney at the immigrant legal resource center. welcome to you both. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> angie, what is the reaction you're seeing from immigrants following mr. trump's election? are more seeking legal help?

>> well, i think, yeah, i think a lot of people are asking a lot of questions because their fate is uncertain and they're quite fearful. i mean really there has been a clear target painted on their backs by the incoming administration. and so there are a number of questions not only about just, you know, is there a way for me to stay in the country, but what should i do to protect myself? >> what should they do? what are you telling them? >> first is really they need to look at legal options to stay in the united states. we have studies that show 14.3% of individuals are undocumented actually have a way to legalize and they don't know it either because they've had bad legal advice or because they've never had the opportunity to speak to someone. just the other day, i met a family that was willing to sell their home. the gentleman had been here since the age of 5. at ho, he's been a victim of a crime here in the united states and reported it. people need to do that. number two, is they need to know their rights, to understand how

can they assert them with the local miss or i.c.e. if they are targeted. then finally really have safety plans in place to be ready, especially if they have children, to figure out what they're going to do because they certainly could be deported quickly without any recourse to, you know, figuring out what they're going to do with the family and housing. and then just to keep abreast of the developments as things change. >> jeremy, what do you think of mr. trump's views on deportation? >> well, i think sort of more broadly, i mean first of all i think it's important when we talk about immigrants, sometimes the word illegal gets dropped from there. if you're a legal immigrant or a u.s. citizen like half of immigrants to this country, there's obviously nothing you have to be concerned about. i think that the sort of most aggressive posture toward deportation, the president-elect has made it clear he's going to at least first focus on immigrants who have criminal records here. and i think that's where he's going to spend his time as far

as deportation goes. >> but how do you think crimes should be defined, then? because even under the obama administration, right, there were a lot of deportations. in fact, they hit historic highs at one point. but there were clear definitions in place as to what constituted a crime and who would be at risk of being deported. so that was people who posed a national security threat, gang members, felons. there's a question now as to whether those who are convicted of non-violent crimes maybe and immigration violation or a traffic violation, should they be deported? >> i think the president-elect, in his immigration plan -- and i should stress by the way, i don't have any formal affiliation with the president-elect at all. but i do know a number of folks who will probably be setting his immigration policies with the president-elect. you know, he talked about three different things. one is we have to have a border. if you don't have a border, you don't have a nation. secondly, you have to have rule of law that you respect. and if you don't have that, you don't have a nation. and, third, anything that we do

in immigration is going to be with an eye toward what is good for americans from a jobs perspective, from income perspective, everything like that. i think that, you know, in that context, you know, how we define crimes, does that mean littering? i don't think so. i mean, again, i don't have -- i've never personally asked president-elect trump about that, but i would be very surprised. but, you know, i think there's probably some misdemeanor things that would kind of fall into that bucket. >> fall into the bucket in what sense? in the sense they should not be deported or should be deported? >> i think the general rule -- i think the general idea of what president-elect trump has been saying is we should obey the laws that we have on our books. if we find that you're here illegally for whatever reason, then you need to leave because you shouldn't be here legally. i don't think that the goal is to be sort of onerous about it and go, you know, raids on

people's homes and things like that. but if in the context of a criminal investigation of something that's not just a violation, we find out that somebody doesn't have a legal right to be here, then we should follow the law. >> angie, your thoughts on that. >> i think this just one overall thing is we're talking about like 2 million to 3 million people. we don't even understand where those numbers come of people with criminal records. it's essentially looking like to us a witch hunt of immigrants across the country. we're not talking undocumented immigrants. we're talking about people that have long time lawful permanent residence could naul in here. i think we're going to look at due process concerns. there is concern how are they going to do this. if you look at even the plan for what criminal records means, it basically means anyone who was arrested, not even convicted. so, you know, there's something false that happens in court, then you could do that. that's not really what we stand for as a country with due process. it also includes people that may look like a gang member or drug

traffickers. that's concerning to us when president-elect trump has said that mexicans look like drug traffickers, gang members. so how broad can that go? and i think generally just this process of looking at, you know, somewhat racial profiling, targeting certain people. we already know our system already disproportionately targets latinos. over 90% of the people based in these deportation programs come from latin america even though they don't represent those numbers. so i think there's a big concern about how broad this is. and the lack of discretion, these are human beings. these are people with families. one in two children in the state of california has a foreign-born parent. we have mixed status families. many of these undocumented individuals have u.s. citizen children. some of them have lawful permanent residence family members. so there is going to be harm and impact here, especially in a state that's as rich as california. >> so, jeremy, if we deport up to 3 million people, which is the number that the president-elect has thrown out, how do you address some of those questions that angie has brought

up about families and breaking them up and what happens to california's economy? >> well, i think, you know, there's a couple things i'd say. first of all, there's kind of when you talk about the economy, there's this long time thing and it always fascinates me because a lot of these immigrant advocates end up in bed with the chamber of commerce metaphorically speaking which i find odd. my message to a lot of legal immigrants is what the president-elect's plan is going to do is stop your labor from being undercut by illegal immigrant labor. and a disproportionate number of those illegal immigrants are in fact latino. they are in fact, you know, from other groups that are sort of allegedly being targeted. but let me kind of go back first, i think, because the think the premise of the question is still a little bit. both myself and then i know a lot of the very kind of leading folks giving trump immigration advice are not focused on deportation as the first thing. and i think if we could fix a bunch of the things that we think are broken about the

current system, there are a lot of things we could have on the table about if you've been here since you're 2 and you're lawfully employed and you're -- haven't caused problems, there's all sorts of things we could put on the table. >> what would you fix, then? >> so you have e-verify, and serious penalties for employers who are kind of violating the law, that you stop sanctuary cities from our perspective, that you, you know -- there could be things where you're looking at citizenship status for people who are -- the u.s. is about the only country in the world in which if you are here illegally and you have a child, that child gets legal status. harry reid once even called it crazy. there's a whole host of things like that on the illegal immigration side. those policy things are really much more what we're concerned about fixing from our perspective. and then if the democrats have any willingness to meet us there in a meaningful way, the status of a number of these people, the sort of hard cases, i think it's totally up in the air. it is simply not the focus.

>> would you support amnesty, then, if all those things that you said fall into place somehow, would you support amnesty for say the people under daca who are at risk of being deported? >> first, i can't speak for the white house. my personal view, and the view of a number of people i know, like the federation of american immigration reform and other folks like mark correkri coriane always said that everything can be on the table as far as things like that go as long as we feel like we're fixing some of the fundamental structural flaws that we think are there. and there are other things with the legal immigration system that i think we need to fix too. as a good negotiator, as i think trump certainly is, i don't want to fix myself to any one point at this point. >> sure. >> but i'd say we can address some of those things if we fix the fundamentals. >> let's talk some more about sanctuary cities. we've heard a lot more about them this week. first of all, define what is a sanctuary city, angie. >> so there is no definition,

but there are cities and counties across the country, hundreds of them, that may fall into and have policies that may be called sanctuary cities, and many of those places don't call what policies they have as sanctuary. they adopt them for a number of reasons. some of it is really about, you know, upholding the constitution. a lot of it is about keeping families together. it's about, you know, defending its legal liability, keeping trust in local police. a lot of people have seen that this is really a policy for equal treatment so that you're talking about equal treatment for immigrants and other people, but they can vary in actual policies themselves. they can be, you know, a policy around local law enforcement actually lessening their involvement in deportations, and they have the perfect legal right to do that. or it could be about creating safe spaces within schools and hospitals so that people aren't felt like they're being asked about immigration status to access basic services. >> what can president-elect

trump do when it comes to sanctuary cities? he's already threatened to cut federal funding for those who don't cooperate. what happens in those instances? how much do cities rely on that funding, and could the federal government sue cities for not cooperating? >> well, there's definitely a threat, and there has been a threat to withhold federal funding for this issue. but i think that for us, you know, cities and counties are perfectly within their legal right to not do the federal government's job, and they can refuse to do that. so we think it's really a double standard that the federal government, while they have been continuing to violate the constitution and put liability on counties, that's why a lot of counties have been sufed for the federal government's constitutional violation of people's rights, and they're asking them to continue to do this job at local expense. >> i think that's something we're going to look forward to testing in court and, you know, i think our view is they are gray areas here, right? i think some of them were just outlined, you know, where there are certainly things that fall in. i think there are also areas in which there is clearly a

metaphorical standing in the school house door to kind of, you know, go back to when the south defied immigration orders where cities have made quite clear that they simply have no intention of even cooperating with federal immigration officials. and i'm certainly not expecting them to do the immigration officials' job. one of the things i'd like to do is beef up federal immigration jobs so less of that falls on cities. but we do expect them to cooperate in reasonable ways. there's going to be things that fall into gray areas, but -- >> what do you think about the concept of building a wall with mexico? >> obviously the president-elect has talked about it a lot. whether it's a wall, whether it's a wall in places, or, you know, electronic barriers in others or whatever it is, i think the more important point is -- and any border. it could be canada if we started having a massive problem with illegal immigration from the canadian border. but we have to control, as a sovereign country, as one of the most fundamental things about being a sovereign country, who

comes in, who comes out, and who gets to stay. >> angie, just real quickly. we have a little bit of time remaining. how has this election changed your strategy? it used to be that immigrant advocates wanted a path to legalization. that was a big fight. are you now shifting from that towards something else? >> no. i mean a lot of this is just deepening our work. i think we take an approach as many other people as a holistic approach of inclusive immigrant society. one of it is encouraging more people to become citizens. >> are you now trying more to toe the line, basically hold on to the policies that are currently in place? >> yeah. there's things we've always been doing to encourage people to become citizens and also to like work at the local level like is more important for us than ever is to really kind of look at the local involvement in deportations and how we can kind of mitigate that harm that's created. but we are absolutely defending like the hard-earned work we've done with the deferred action for childhood arrivals. >> we'll have to leave it there.

thank you to you both. nice, interesting, lively discussion. angie yunk with the immigrant legal resource center and also jeremy carl with the hoover institution. and that does it for us. i'm thuy vu. thanks so much for watching. for all of kqed's news coverage, please go to kqednews.org.

the deadly warehouse fire in oakland. cuba bids farewell to fidel castro. and in our signature segment: >> pbs newshour weekend is made possible by: bernard and irene schwartz. judy and josh weston. the cheryl and philip milstein family. the john and helen glessner family trust-- supporting trustworthy journalism that informs and inspires. sue and edgar wachenheim, iii. barbara hope zuckerberg. corporate funding is provided by mutual of america--