hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom." i i'm thuy vu. her first year on the job after being brought in to reform a police department mired in scandal. also a look at the immigration moves including several moves by the trump administration to tighten immigration policies. on thursday during a meeting in the oval office, president trump reportedly referred to puerto rico and haiti as a, quote, shithole. democratic senator dick durbin was there. >> senatas senator graham made presentation, the president interrupted him several times with questions and in the course of his comments, said things which were hate-filled, vile,

and racist. >> this comes on the heels of other immigration news. in california, state attorney general javier becerra praised the decision by a federal judge in san francisco to stop the trump administration from ending daca, the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. becerra had sued the administration for ending daca. the program has helped about 800,000 undocumented people who had entered the u.s. as minors. becerra also took aim at the department of homeland security's decision to end temporary protected status for undocumented immigrants from el salvador, calling it, quote, backwards and reckless. attorney general javier becerra, thank you for joining us. >> thuy, thank you for having me. >> this week president trump questioned why the u.s. should accept immigrants from haiti and countries in africa referring to them as quote, shithole countries. the president has issued a vague denial about that. what is your take on this? >> this is what happens when you

can't trust a president with his words. donald trump said what he said and no one believes he didn't say it. the unfortunate part is donald trump has so devalued the meaning of words and quite honestly, he has denigrated the word of the president. and at this stage, we all now believe that he said these things. it's not surprising for many of us that his attitude is one that is essentially racist. it makes it difficult. but as i keep telling folks, look, you know who he is. you know his beliefs. worry about what he does now. that's the more important thing. that's why when california acts, we act based on his deeds, not his words. >> and you have acted on the issue of daca. those comments came during a meeting about daca, the program that would protect immigrants brought here illegally as children by their parents. on tuesday, a federal judge in sacramento sided with you and other plaintiffs, including uc president janet napolitano, in your lawsuit to prevent the

trump administration from ending daca while legal challenges are taking place. at this point, how would you assess the current legal landscape for daca and trying to preserve it? >> well, i've said it all along. daca was legal when it was enacted. daca is legal today, and the president should stop trying to change the law by breaking the law. and that's why the courts have told the president that his repeal of daca is now on hold, and we're going to litigate this to the end. we now have been told by the judge that he believes there's a strong likelihood that we will prevail in the litigation. i would simply tell congress do not accept a bad deal. we just heard a court say that the president's actions were likely illegal. why would you accept bad things on immigration, bad deals on something else simply to try to get daca? the leverage is now with those who are supporters of daca to make sure that we don't let others load up an agreement with

bad immigration items and provisions. >> the administration has said it will appeal that decision. are you confident that you will ultimately prevail? >> i believe that the appellate courts, the supreme court will find what the district court did. and that is that the actions of this administration went beyond the law. so i'm gaining confidence every day that our litigation, our lawsuit to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers will prevail. >> do you think democrats should continue to press for a clean bipartisan bill to give d.r.e.a.m.ers a path to citizenship without any attachments to things like funding for a border wall or cracking down on the visa lottery program? how productive is that effort, though, given that congress is currently controlled by republicans? >> forgive me. i'm going to give you an answer that some democrats may not like. i don't understand why democrats continue to act like they have to bail out republicans for doing these crazy things.

republicans just passed a tax break bill that gives the wealthiest americans and corporations $1.8 trillion worth of tax breaks. now republicans are claiming that they have to cut services and programs for veterans, for school kids, for elderly because there's no money. why would democrats sign off on a budget that cuts those services while republicans created the deficit hole that makes them say they have to make cuts? why we would have to negotiate a deal for the daca d.r.e.a.m.ers that has bad immigration policy in it makes no sense, especially now that we were able to win an injunction stopping the president from canceling daca. now the leverage is with us. why democrats would bargain away their leverage, i don't understand, and i would hope my colleagues in the congress on

the democratic side would recognize we've got some clout. but more importantly, we've got to stand up for people, people who are veterans, seniors, people who want to go to kwl college. it's time to stand up for these folks and demand we get a budget that's good for them, not just give away tax breaks for the wealthiest. >> i also wanted to ask you about tps, the trump administration moved to end protections for immigrants from el salvador under the temporary protected status program this week. last november it made a similar decision, ending tps for haitians. at this point, are you planning to take any action against this crackdown on tps? >> as with daca, we're going to take a look at what our options would be. you're talking about people who have been here decades, and in some cases -- in most cases, in fact, longer than the daca recipients themselves. and so these are people who have proven that while they had an opportunity to be here in

america, they were great citizens. they were great contributors. and why all of a sudden you would tell them you're going to throw the key out and throw them out as well, once again, it makes you understand donald trump's thinking and why he would have said the vulgar things he said about so many of these immigrants and their countries. >> on the issue of marijuana, u.s. attorney general jeff sessions has indicated his office will step up enforcement of federal laws against marijuana, and that would affect states like california where voters just legalized recreational pot. are you planning to do anything to challenge this? what are the legal avenues you're pursuing at this point? >> well, california use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and recreational purposes is now legal. i'm going to enforce that law. we're not going back to the 20th century. this is 2018 now, and for us in

california, we made a decision. we're going to regulate. we're not going to criminalize marijuana. if someone wants to tell us differently, they have to show us how and why. i know the federal government has a law that says that marijuana is a controlled substance which is against the law. i can't stop them. i can't change that law. but i can tell them that in california, we don't arrest people for following the law and for doing things the right way. so if you're licensed to sell marijuana, if you do things the right way in your use of it, in california, our law enforcement is not going to go after looking for you. >> all right. attorney general javier becerra, we appreciate your time. thank you for being here. >> thank you. now for a deeper dive into this week's immigration news. the trump administration announced the government would terminate residency permits for 200,000 salvadorens. federal emgrags agents raided 711 stores across the country looking for undocumented immigrants and managers who employ them.

on capitol hill, there were talks on how to protect 800,000 so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers brought to the u.s. illegally as children. joining me now to discuss these developments are daca recipient robert nunez, also legal program director laura sanchez, and santa clara university professor of law. welcome to you. >> thank you. >> robert, i wanted to start with you. you came here when you were just 4 years old, brought here illegally. and you're now 23. you've been in this country for quite a while. >> right. >> and you're a daca recipient. how are you feeling about all the latest developments? >> well, i was pleasantly surprised by the news of the federal judge. i think a lot of the times as d.r.e.a.m.ers, we feel that the law in the place we call home is not on our side, and this was one instance where there's an advocate at least trying to put the law on our side. and i do think it has the potential of helping some of us, depending on how it plays out, but there's also a lot of

concern and a lot of confusion amongst daca recipients. so we're really just waiting to see how a lot of this plays out. >> given that there is still so much confusion, what are you doing about your status for now? >> for now, i mean, as daca recipients, we're going to school. we have work to do. we're trying to just live our regular lives but keeping in mind that looming deadline in march. it's something that lingers in the back of your mind, but there's not much we can do. just wait on these developments and advocate of course. >> professor, we just heard from state attorney general javier becerra talk about the daca ruling. hes feels there are strong grounds for keeping the program in place. do you agree with that? >> there are certainly strong policy grounds for keeping the program in place. whether this particular district court ruling will stay in place is a different question.

the government -- the federal government has indicated that there's going to appeal the ruling to the ninth circuit court of appeals. it certainly has been a friendly court to immigrant interests in the past and not a very friendly court to the actions of donald trump. but from there, there is the possibility that this could go to the supreme court, and their prospects for this ruling being upheld get much murkier. >> why do you say that? >> one, the makeup of the court generally leans conservative. two, a case -- not a case on daca but a case on president obama's other program, deferred action for parents of americans, the 2014 program, previously went in front of the court and currently is no longer a program because the fifth circuit and then the united states supreme court chose not to overrule the lower court ruling that dismantled that program. just reading those tea leaves, it suggests this litigation is

going to still have some way to go, and the judge's ruling may not have -- may not survive the supreme court. that is not to say there is no basis for it. the reasoning was -- the reasoning underlying the opinion is that the government did not give sufficient reasoning for its denial of the program, and on that very narrow ground, it is a possibility that this could be upheld. >> and laura sanchez, in the meantime, what are you telling daca recipients who are coming to you seeking legal help? >> we're telling everyone, first, that it is a victory, so it's a step in the right direction. but we do have to wait and see. as previously stated, we feel that it will be appealed, so we have to see how this will play out in the courts. >> do you think there are potential risks if they do reapply while things are still so murky? >> i think at this point the biggest risk potentially would be losing economic, would be losing the actual filing fees because they might be rejected.

putting them at any more risk than they already are, the government is already aware of where daca recipients live because that's part of the original application process. they're already known -- >> they're already in the system. >> yes. >> robert, this week, president trump rejected a bipartisan deal on daca. what type of legislation would you like to see come out of congress? >> i think -- so daca, even if daca passes, it's a very temporary solution. it's a lot like tps. tps was a promise made to a lot of people who built lives, built homes, had children. that's a promise that's been given to us for two years but it's temporary, and then it goes away. so we want something permanent, something that has a pathway to citizenship, and we also want to make sure it's clean because we don't want to criminalize our parents. our parents are, as i say, the original d.r.e.a.m.ers, and other immigrants, tps, other recipients that don't qualify

for daca, we want to make sure there's a pathway for all of us, and we want to make sure it's permanent. >> professor, you specialize in constitutional and immigration law. you've studied this for a long time. is that realistic what he's saying? he would like to see a clean daca legislation, but is it realistic given the political climate, given that we have a republican president right now and a republican-controlled congress? >> there's certainly been a lot of rhetoric at the white house and on capitol hill about d.r.e.a.m.ers and wanting to have a clean bill. that said, i don't think either party in the past has demonstrated the political will to actually put up a clean bill and that's because d.r.e.a.m.ers and this particular group is a very valuable legislative bargaining chip. you can see it right now with the white house using a d.r.e.a.m. act bill as leverage to get wall funding. democrats in the past have been unable to pass a clean act even when they've controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. so it's not easy.

>> let's talk about tps as well. the trump administration is also cracking down on tps. the temporary protected status program for immigrants from places like el salvador, honduras, haiti. what are you telling your tps clients in light of what has happened this week? >> we're recommending everyone to come into our office and get screened. many people would qualify for other immigration options, and so one of the first things we're telling people is let's skecree and see what are your next steps. a lot of tps families and daca families are mixed status families. in one household you can have united states citizens, daca recipient and tps recipients. i think in the sense of moving forward, the advocacy for tps, daca, those that don't have any protection, we need to take into account this broader community. >> on the other hand when congress passed the tps program in 1990, it was intended as something short term for people

who were escaping armed conflicts, national disasters, other extraordinary circumstances in their ohm count -- home countries. if we allow it, doesn't that defeat the purpose of a temporary program? >> we need to look at how it's beenimplemented. these are people that have been in this program from 1999, 2000. they've bought houses. they've made investments tiinto country. though temporary exists in the title, in actuality how it's implemented is anything but temporary. these are actually permanent residents of this country. >> are there lessons, then, from way the way daca was implemented that apply to tps and exploring ways that potential challenges could be filed against what's happening with tps? >> sure. i mean all of these are administrative programs created by the executive. they're authorized by statute, and we generally think that when one executive creates one of these programs, that another

executive who doesn't share those same priorities might change them. that said, one of the things pointing to here is all of these programs create at some level reliant interests. people start to shape their lives around those programs, the existence of daca, the ability to work in the united states, the ability not to be moved back to a place that's in civil or disaster turmoil. those are very practical on the ground effects and the law recognizes that to some extent. in fact, when you look at the district court's ruling here, it is saying that people have built lives around this, and because of that, the government just can't decide willy-nilly to take these things away. and so those same types of arguments can be made in the tps setting as well. >> 30 seconds, laura. >> one thing to point out with tps, we should also take into account our government's involvement in these other countries. the united states has a long history in foreign policy involvement in el salvador and haiti and honduras. we should take into account.

i think the current comments in the news suggest these governments are the at the place they are because of themselves. in reality, it's because of united states intervention. >> we will have to leave it there. laura sanchez, robert nunez, professor, thank you all. just about a year ago, the city of oakland got a new police chief, anne kirkpatrick took the helm of a department that was it turmoil. there were ongoing investigations into widespread sexual misconduct by officers. the city was under federal court oversight in the wake of the ryders case. that case involved officers falsifying police reports. >> chief, thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> this week, you alone with oakland mayor libby schaaf announced the crime rate is down in the city for the fifth year in a row. the violent crime rate dropped 23% to levels not seen in more than a decade. what do you think are the

reasons for that? >> we have taken a very holistic team approach, a full-court press on violent crime. we do use a particular strategy known as operation cease-fire. it focuses on giving people who are caught up in gun violence first and foremost an opportunity to get out of the lifestyle. and we actually know who our people are in our community who pick up guns. we bring them in, and we give them these opportunities to have wrap-around services and a way out of the lifestyle that they've chosen for themselves. that's the first approach, the first leg. but it's also a very focused enforcement approach. so a very strong enforcement approach of those who pick up guns. >> that is a great milestone as you approach your second year in office. you also took the top job last year after a period of intense turmoil in oakland, including the resignations of three police chiefs in nine days amid sexual misconduct allegations involving

dozens of officers and a teenage girl who went by the name of celeste. in an interview about the scandal. mayor libby schaaf had this to say. she likened the police department to a frat house. >> i have talked a lot this week about what i believe is a toxic, macho culture. and that's why it's important we not just look at our recruiting and screening practices, not just at who is becoming a police officer, but the culture once they're in the department. a culture of not coming forward and reporting misconduct. that is something that i'm very serious about getting underneath and reforming. >> so where does that toxic, macho culture stand now? is there more transparency in coming forward? >> first, let me be real clear. oakland police department is not a frat house. it is a house that i'm very proud to open the doors to anyone who would like to come and see it. we are very proud of our house

today. we believe that we have made tremendous progress. now -- >> did you you needed to clean house, and have you done something to do that? >> we own the misconduct. we own that. we don't shy away from that. that occurred. that has been dealt with. those people who were involved in that and the misconduct are no longer with us or those who are still in the department have been dealt with. but i want to share something with the community that they would not know. 90% of those officers who are honest, good, honorable officers were just as much put out by that misconduct. >> what are the specific changes that you've made in the department to make sure that people will come forward the next time that they notice wrongdoing in the department, that this does not ever occur in the city of oakland again? >> first of all, we do have policies. so we do have a policy today

that says that if there is misconduct, an officer or professional staff member is mandated to bring that misconduct forward. if they do not report the conduct, there are consequences, discipline consequences associated with that. so there are policies that back it, but most importantly is creating a culture where officers and professional staff don't allow the misconduct to even breed in the first place. >> how would you describe the oakland police department's relationship now with the community? as you know, there was a lot of public mistrust after the ryders case about 15 years ago and then the celeste sexual misconduct case. >> first of all, you have to apologize for and truly embrace the errors. there is no question that we do. and so that's a first step toward healing. being transparent about where we made the mistakes in dealing with ms. guap.

i have had an opportunity to meet her myself, to tell her that i am sorry. and so then you start -- we ran into each other. she approached me. >> she did in. >> and i had not met her before. what a wonderful opportunity to just be able to -- >> what did she say? >> she was very kind to me. so, you know, she just wanted to introduce herself to me, and it was just a wonderful opportunity to have that face to face encounter. healing is possible. trust can be restored, and so we are -- >> can i ask what you said to her? >> i told her i was sorry. i said, this is my opportunity to tell you myself that i was sorry for what had occurred and that i was very pleased to hear that she was doing well, and that i encouraged her in that new life and to be -- to know that i cared. >> i also want to ask you about oakland's sanctuary city policy.

there's been a lot of controversy over a raid in august last year where the oakland police department provided traffic control for a homeland security investigation. federal agents arrested a man who was not charged with a crime but yet faced deportation. was that a violation of oakland's sanctuary city policy, do you think? >> no. the policy -- and i understand and certainly embrace sanctuary policy. that's not even a question. i support that. the issue by our resolution allowed for the police department to be a part of an event that was associated with anything criminal, an underlying criminal matter. in this case, it was a federal search warrant, a criminal search warrant for human trafficking. but we did not assist in the implementation of the warrant. we simply provided shutting the scene down for the safety. and so it is our position that we were within the resolution. >> i also want to bring up a

stanford study that was released last year. it studied body camera footage, and it showed that oakland police officers tend to speak list respectfully to african-americans than to white drivers who are stopped. so are there cultural issues within the department that are challenging for you in terms of how officers do their jobs and also for recruiting purposes? >> well, let's put it this way, though. but oakland is the city and the police department that is willing to open ourselves up to even being examined so that we can be the best. so on the one hand, is it painful to look at in a mirror? yes. but the difference between us and any other police department in this country in many ways, we are at least willing to look. and if we are willing to look and see our flaws, then we can fix them. >> oakland is still under federal court oversight from the ryders case about 15 years ago. where is the department now in terms of completing the outstanding tasks that are

required by the court? there are like 51 reforms that were asked of you. >> we were in compliance on 49 of them. we have two of them that are still outstanding. our most current report that just will be filed today with the court shows and has articulated by the federal monitoring team that we are making great progress. >> which two remain? >> discipline. consistency in the discipline. and then the other one is what we call the stop data. so you referenced a little bit of the stanford study. we are looking at every single stop that we make with the public and the basis behind those stops. we want constitutional policing, but we also want to leave as little of a footprint as possible that would be viewed as a footprint of harm. >> chief anne kirkpatrick of oakland, thank you so much. >> i pleappreciate it. and that will do it for us. you can find more of our coverage at kqed.org/newsroom. i'm thuy vu. thank you for joining us.

captioning sponsored by wnet >> sreenivasan: on this edition for sunday, january 14: the president's derogatory comments about immigrant nations continue to reverberate. as the federal government resumes processing renewal applications from so-called" dreamers." and in our signature segment, oregon tries to find the middle ground on gun legislation. next on pbs newshour weekend. >> "pbs newshour weekend" is made possible by: bernard and irene schwartz. the cheryl and philip milstein family. sue and edgar wachenheim, iii. dr. p. roy vagelos and diana t. vagelos. the j.p.b. foundation. the anderson family fund. rosalind p. walter, in memory barbara hope zuckerberg. corporate funding is prode