1
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,200 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: He's never been held account on an innocent man who

3
00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 1: held up the Bible and said he's never apologized to

4
00:00:14,760 --> 00:00:19,240
Speaker 1: God because he's never done anything wrong. He doesn't understand accountability,

5
00:00:19,560 --> 00:00:23,480
Speaker 1: and right now Alvin Bragg has finally put that into

6
00:00:23,480 --> 00:00:28,360
Speaker 1: his lap. Michael Cohen, former fixer for Donald Trump, will

7
00:00:28,400 --> 00:00:31,720
Speaker 1: now be the star witness against him. Trump became the

8
00:00:31,800 --> 00:00:35,880
Speaker 1: first former US president to be indicted on Thursday. That's

9
00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:39,120
Speaker 1: when a Manhattan grand jury decided there was enough evidence

10
00:00:39,320 --> 00:00:42,040
Speaker 1: to go ahead with a criminal case against him for

11
00:00:42,159 --> 00:00:45,479
Speaker 1: directing hush money payments to a porn star during his

12
00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:49,120
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen campaign. In a statement, Trump said he was

13
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:53,720
Speaker 1: completely innocent, joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz

14
00:00:53,800 --> 00:00:57,920
Speaker 1: a partner. Mcarter in English, Bob, the charges are under sealed,

15
00:00:58,040 --> 00:01:00,280
Speaker 1: but it appears the case will be based on a

16
00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:06,120
Speaker 1: novel legal theory involving elevating the misdemeanor of falsifying business

17
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,559
Speaker 1: records to a felony. Tell us how that will work

18
00:01:10,360 --> 00:01:14,600
Speaker 1: for prosecutors to turn falsifying business records into a felony

19
00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:17,559
Speaker 1: rather than the misdemeanor. They're going to have to show

20
00:01:17,640 --> 00:01:20,440
Speaker 1: mister Trump's intent to defraud. So I think we can

21
00:01:20,440 --> 00:01:24,560
Speaker 1: expect prosecutors to turn this case all about the cover up.

22
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:29,279
Speaker 1: Any successful prosecution will require evidence establishing that mister Trump

23
00:01:29,520 --> 00:01:32,959
Speaker 1: try to hide the retainment to mister Khane through false

24
00:01:33,000 --> 00:01:35,600
Speaker 1: book entry, and prosecutors will have to prove that mister

25
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:39,320
Speaker 1: Trump made or caused the false entry with an intensive defraud.

26
00:01:39,600 --> 00:01:42,400
Speaker 1: Then prosecutors are going to have to tie that intensive

27
00:01:42,400 --> 00:01:46,640
Speaker 1: defraud to commit or conceal a second crime. In this case,

28
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:48,920
Speaker 1: it's going to be a violation of election law. And

29
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:52,440
Speaker 1: that's really where it gets tricky for prosecutors because in

30
00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:55,840
Speaker 1: orders to see successful here, they have to connect the

31
00:01:55,920 --> 00:01:59,080
Speaker 1: hush mundy cover up, a potential violation of state law

32
00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:02,560
Speaker 1: to a state federal election. That's a legal theory that,

33
00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:05,280
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, has never been before a state judge

34
00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:08,320
Speaker 1: in New York and New York state prosecutors, to my knowledge,

35
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:11,799
Speaker 1: have never before filed an election law case involving a

36
00:02:11,840 --> 00:02:15,239
Speaker 1: federal campaign. So that is going to be the part

37
00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:17,520
Speaker 1: of the legal case that I think is going to

38
00:02:17,560 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 1: be attacked heavily by the Trump defense team. And that's

39
00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:24,440
Speaker 1: really where this case may rise or fall. The facts

40
00:02:24,480 --> 00:02:28,239
Speaker 1: are largely undisputed. The intended something prosecutors are going to

41
00:02:28,320 --> 00:02:31,400
Speaker 1: have to focus on. But the legal theory is novel,

42
00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:34,360
Speaker 1: and whenever you have a novel legal theory, there's always

43
00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 1: the risk that a trialog judge or an appellate judge

44
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:39,800
Speaker 1: will throw it out saying that is not simply what

45
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:43,000
Speaker 1: the law says, Bob, is there a problem with a

46
00:02:43,000 --> 00:02:48,440
Speaker 1: Manhattan DA prosecuting a federal election charge? Whether may or

47
00:02:48,480 --> 00:02:50,560
Speaker 1: may not be a problem with it. We just don't know,

48
00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:53,919
Speaker 1: because it's a novel theory that's never been tested before,

49
00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:57,079
Speaker 1: and for prosecutors that is a bit of a problem.

50
00:02:57,280 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 1: As a prosecutor, you really don't want to be making

51
00:03:00,520 --> 00:03:04,440
Speaker 1: new law. Prosecutors like to paint cases black and white.

52
00:03:04,639 --> 00:03:07,800
Speaker 1: They like to show clear cut violations of the law,

53
00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 1: something that a jury can look at and clearly understand

54
00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:15,040
Speaker 1: was right or wrong. And in this case, while the

55
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:19,160
Speaker 1: facts of the case are straightforward, and while they are sellacious,

56
00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:22,600
Speaker 1: and while a lot of jurors may find the allegations

57
00:03:22,600 --> 00:03:27,120
Speaker 1: against mister Trump distasteful, the question is doesn't amount to

58
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:30,280
Speaker 1: a violation of the criminal law in the state of

59
00:03:30,360 --> 00:03:34,040
Speaker 1: New York. And in order to make this a felony violation,

60
00:03:34,160 --> 00:03:37,600
Speaker 1: which is what prosecutors are doing here, they have to

61
00:03:37,600 --> 00:03:41,440
Speaker 1: show that not only were the books and records misleading,

62
00:03:41,760 --> 00:03:44,120
Speaker 1: they have to show that mister Trump knew about it,

63
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:47,160
Speaker 1: and that he intended to defraud, and that the purpose

64
00:03:47,200 --> 00:03:50,360
Speaker 1: of this was campaign oriented, that it was not done

65
00:03:50,440 --> 00:03:54,560
Speaker 1: simply to save his family from embarrassment, to save himself

66
00:03:54,560 --> 00:03:58,560
Speaker 1: from embarrassments, but was done directly to influence the campaign.

67
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:01,760
Speaker 1: So that leads to one of Trump's possible defenses, which

68
00:04:01,760 --> 00:04:05,640
Speaker 1: his attorneys have raised, that Trump wasn't concealing the hush

69
00:04:05,680 --> 00:04:09,280
Speaker 1: money payment because of the campaign, but rather because he

70
00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:13,600
Speaker 1: was trying to save his wife and family from embarrassment. Yes,

71
00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:17,640
Speaker 1: I think we can expect a series of issues raised

72
00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:19,559
Speaker 1: by the defense. I think we're going to see issues

73
00:04:19,600 --> 00:04:24,280
Speaker 1: of prosecutorial misconduct thrown out there. Select a prosecution reliance

74
00:04:24,360 --> 00:04:27,520
Speaker 1: on professional advice, That argument would go that he was

75
00:04:27,560 --> 00:04:30,239
Speaker 1: relying on the advice of Michael Cohne, his former lawyer

76
00:04:30,279 --> 00:04:33,760
Speaker 1: who has now become a prosecution star witness, to say

77
00:04:33,839 --> 00:04:36,600
Speaker 1: that mister cohn said these payments were fine, and he

78
00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:39,400
Speaker 1: was the one that actually made the payments. But central

79
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:42,400
Speaker 1: to it is really the question of whether or not

80
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,880
Speaker 1: these payments can be tied directly to the campaign, And

81
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:48,400
Speaker 1: mister Trump is going to say, I wanted to save

82
00:04:48,760 --> 00:04:52,359
Speaker 1: my wife, Milania from the embarrassment of these allegations. Again,

83
00:04:52,440 --> 00:04:55,720
Speaker 1: he continues to deny the affair, but he's going to

84
00:04:55,800 --> 00:04:58,919
Speaker 1: point out that even the allegations themselves would be something

85
00:04:58,960 --> 00:05:01,680
Speaker 1: that would be embarrassed to him and his family, and

86
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:04,320
Speaker 1: that's why he made these payments. And as a result,

87
00:05:04,720 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 1: it does not affect the campaign. It was not done

88
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:10,719
Speaker 1: for purposes of benefiting the campaign, and that would deny

89
00:05:10,839 --> 00:05:15,719
Speaker 1: prosecutors that critical link between the falsification of business records,

90
00:05:15,760 --> 00:05:18,840
Speaker 1: which should be fairly easy for them to prove with

91
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:22,520
Speaker 1: the campaign, which is what will turn this misdemeanor charge

92
00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:26,280
Speaker 1: into a potential felony. I think we can definitely expect

93
00:05:26,320 --> 00:05:30,560
Speaker 1: a motion based on selective prosecution, because because Trump has

94
00:05:30,600 --> 00:05:34,880
Speaker 1: been saying he's being targeted by a democratic DA, those

95
00:05:34,880 --> 00:05:38,560
Speaker 1: are motions that I think we could absolutely expect. I

96
00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:42,280
Speaker 1: think those motions are really more for public consumption than

97
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:46,800
Speaker 1: for legal consumption. They're not likely to prevail, particularly in

98
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:49,800
Speaker 1: a court in New York State. This is the first

99
00:05:49,839 --> 00:05:53,279
Speaker 1: time a former president has ever been prosecuted, So he's

100
00:05:53,320 --> 00:05:56,719
Speaker 1: going to argue that being done for political reasons. And

101
00:05:56,880 --> 00:05:58,640
Speaker 1: one of the issues that I think we can expect

102
00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:00,720
Speaker 1: him to raise is the fact that he's now a

103
00:06:00,839 --> 00:06:04,120
Speaker 1: declared candidate for president, and he's going to try to

104
00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:07,640
Speaker 1: argue that this is being done in order to prevent

105
00:06:07,760 --> 00:06:11,640
Speaker 1: him from being elected to the presidency in twenty twenty four.

106
00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:15,400
Speaker 1: That's something that may resonate with the public at large.

107
00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:18,280
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to resonate directly with a judge.

108
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:20,360
Speaker 1: I think a judge is going to be looking at

109
00:06:20,400 --> 00:06:23,840
Speaker 1: these other legal issues. Whether or not the prosecutors in

110
00:06:23,920 --> 00:06:26,000
Speaker 1: New York actually have made out a case under New

111
00:06:26,080 --> 00:06:30,040
Speaker 1: York law. That's something that the defense will also focus on,

112
00:06:30,120 --> 00:06:32,719
Speaker 1: and frankly, that's the issue that I think they may

113
00:06:32,760 --> 00:06:36,920
Speaker 1: have a greater possibility of succeeding them. Let's talk timing.

114
00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:41,919
Speaker 1: Trump's attorneys have already said they're going to file motions aggressively.

115
00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:46,599
Speaker 1: How long do you think before this would get to trial. Well, Joe,

116
00:06:46,720 --> 00:06:49,920
Speaker 1: that's a really interesting question because this is just the

117
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:53,120
Speaker 1: beginning of this case, and I think we are going

118
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:56,160
Speaker 1: to see a flurry of motion filed by the Trump's

119
00:06:56,160 --> 00:06:59,400
Speaker 1: defense team, all of which take time because prosecutors have

120
00:06:59,440 --> 00:07:01,919
Speaker 1: to respond to it in writing, there's got to be

121
00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:04,120
Speaker 1: argument on it, and a judge ultimately has to make

122
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:06,560
Speaker 1: a decision. And I think we're going to see the

123
00:07:06,760 --> 00:07:10,400
Speaker 1: Trump defense seem trying to delay this trial as long

124
00:07:10,480 --> 00:07:14,560
Speaker 1: as possible. There won't be a perp walk. But tell

125
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:19,560
Speaker 1: us what will happen on Tuesday when Trump turns himself in. Well,

126
00:07:19,560 --> 00:07:21,880
Speaker 1: what's going to happen, as the practical matters here is

127
00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:25,960
Speaker 1: that Secret Service agents will actually escort mister Trump to

128
00:07:26,160 --> 00:07:30,320
Speaker 1: the Manhattan PA's office, where he will have his fingerprints taken.

129
00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:33,560
Speaker 1: They'll have a mug shot taken, they will swap his

130
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:36,760
Speaker 1: cheek to get a mandatory sample for the New York

131
00:07:36,920 --> 00:07:41,240
Speaker 1: DNA database. They will get what's called pedigree information, which

132
00:07:41,280 --> 00:07:44,600
Speaker 1: will be his background data, birse, all that type of

133
00:07:44,640 --> 00:07:48,240
Speaker 1: information that they routinely collect against anybody who's charged with

134
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:50,440
Speaker 1: a crime. So in the one sense, he will be

135
00:07:50,480 --> 00:07:53,760
Speaker 1: treated as any other defendant would. On the other hand,

136
00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:56,480
Speaker 1: just by the nature of who he is, on the

137
00:07:56,520 --> 00:07:59,120
Speaker 1: fact that he is a former president, there will be

138
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:02,520
Speaker 1: special precautions that are taken. I think all of this

139
00:08:02,560 --> 00:08:05,120
Speaker 1: will be done very much out of the public eye,

140
00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:08,880
Speaker 1: so that they won't be horde of media following him

141
00:08:08,920 --> 00:08:11,640
Speaker 1: around while all this is going on. But you, nonetheless,

142
00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:14,160
Speaker 1: we'll still have to show up and go through that

143
00:08:14,280 --> 00:08:17,680
Speaker 1: processing as any other defendant, and it will be a

144
00:08:17,800 --> 00:08:21,360
Speaker 1: first in American history to see a former president goes

145
00:08:21,520 --> 00:08:27,320
Speaker 1: through the processing as any other criminal defendant would. And finally, Bob,

146
00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:30,240
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of talk about this case not

147
00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:33,840
Speaker 1: being as consequential as the Georgia case or the Special

148
00:08:33,880 --> 00:08:38,440
Speaker 1: Counsels cases. Explain why the Manhattan da didn't have to

149
00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:43,439
Speaker 1: consider what other prosecutors were doing. Sure, well, the Manhattan

150
00:08:43,480 --> 00:08:46,720
Speaker 1: DA's office has the ability to present evidence to a

151
00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:49,720
Speaker 1: grand jeury in New York and they will decide ultimately

152
00:08:50,000 --> 00:08:52,720
Speaker 1: whether to return an indictment here. That's exactly what they've

153
00:08:52,760 --> 00:08:56,160
Speaker 1: done in this case is now moving towards trial. The

154
00:08:56,200 --> 00:09:00,400
Speaker 1: parallel investigations that are going on in Georgia, the federal

155
00:09:00,440 --> 00:09:03,840
Speaker 1: investigation that's being handled by the Special Council in connection

156
00:09:03,920 --> 00:09:07,840
Speaker 1: with the generous sixth Insurrection, those will all move along

157
00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:12,160
Speaker 1: independent of this process, and those prosecutors will make their

158
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:15,880
Speaker 1: own decisions about if and when to present charges to

159
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:19,720
Speaker 1: grand juries. Ultimately, there is the possibility that mister Trump

160
00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:23,400
Speaker 1: could be facing criminal charges on multiple fronts at the

161
00:09:23,480 --> 00:09:27,800
Speaker 1: same time. And that's the situation where prosecutors and judges,

162
00:09:27,880 --> 00:09:30,600
Speaker 1: whether they are in Georgia, whether they are in Washington, DC,

163
00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:33,040
Speaker 1: whether they are in New York, will all have to

164
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:37,520
Speaker 1: decide how to coordinate these cases moving forwards. And of

165
00:09:37,559 --> 00:09:41,000
Speaker 1: course from the defense side, they will be arguing that

166
00:09:41,040 --> 00:09:45,760
Speaker 1: they cannot be defending three cases simultaneously, and so prosecutors

167
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:48,200
Speaker 1: will have to decide which case is going to move

168
00:09:48,240 --> 00:09:52,000
Speaker 1: forward when. And that's something that has never happened before,

169
00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:55,440
Speaker 1: and there's really no clear answer exactly as to how

170
00:09:55,480 --> 00:09:58,640
Speaker 1: those cases will proceed if more than one diictment is

171
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:02,440
Speaker 1: ultimately brought against mister Trump. Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints

172
00:10:02,520 --> 00:10:06,520
Speaker 1: of McCarter and English. At the center of the Supreme

173
00:10:06,520 --> 00:10:10,760
Speaker 1: Court's case was Hellaman Hanson, a man convicted of duping

174
00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:15,720
Speaker 1: hundreds of undocumented immigrants into paying him extensive fees by

175
00:10:15,880 --> 00:10:20,880
Speaker 1: falsely promising they could become citizens through his adult adoption program.

176
00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:25,760
Speaker 1: The Ninth Circuit wiped out Hanson's convictions for encouraging illegal

177
00:10:25,800 --> 00:10:29,800
Speaker 1: immigration not because he was guilty, but because the Ninth

178
00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:34,959
Speaker 1: Circuit found the law was unconstitutionally overbroad and criminalized speech

179
00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:38,080
Speaker 1: protected by the First Amendment. The law has been on

180
00:10:38,120 --> 00:10:42,119
Speaker 1: the books since nineteen fifty two. Joining me is immigration

181
00:10:42,200 --> 00:10:45,840
Speaker 1: law expertly On Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight Leon,

182
00:10:45,960 --> 00:10:49,520
Speaker 1: tell us a little more about this law. The lawd

183
00:10:49,640 --> 00:10:55,000
Speaker 1: issue is basically a large patrol which, basically added core

184
00:10:55,400 --> 00:10:58,720
Speaker 1: is trying to prevent people who are here inside the

185
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:05,520
Speaker 1: United States from participating in some scheme to help undocumented

186
00:11:05,679 --> 00:11:09,600
Speaker 1: people either arrived in the United States or live in

187
00:11:09,640 --> 00:11:13,120
Speaker 1: the United States. And basically what it's meant to do

188
00:11:13,280 --> 00:11:17,920
Speaker 1: is to discourage people who live in America in some

189
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:21,680
Speaker 1: way engaging or helping in adding to the problem of

190
00:11:21,679 --> 00:11:26,000
Speaker 1: illegal immigration in America. The problem is that statute is

191
00:11:26,000 --> 00:11:29,400
Speaker 1: so broad that it says that it makes it a

192
00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:34,040
Speaker 1: crime to induce people to remain in the United States,

193
00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:37,520
Speaker 1: not just induce people to come to the United States,

194
00:11:37,559 --> 00:11:41,400
Speaker 1: but to induce people to remain in the United States.

195
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:44,559
Speaker 1: And so in this case that was before the Supreme Court,

196
00:11:45,040 --> 00:11:48,960
Speaker 1: even though the issue wasn't really about that, it was

197
00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:52,600
Speaker 1: about a person who was charging for a scam to

198
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:56,800
Speaker 1: help people stay in the United States using an adoption scheme,

199
00:11:57,320 --> 00:12:00,520
Speaker 1: and that team really wasn't going to work. The Ninth

200
00:12:00,520 --> 00:12:02,960
Speaker 1: Circuit said, well, wait a second, while we're taking a

201
00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:06,000
Speaker 1: look at this statute. This seems to really be an

202
00:12:06,040 --> 00:12:10,280
Speaker 1: overbroad statue here, because why is there a statute that

203
00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:16,880
Speaker 1: criminally punishes people for quote unquote inducing people without status

204
00:12:16,880 --> 00:12:18,880
Speaker 1: to stay in the United States? What does that mean?

205
00:12:18,960 --> 00:12:21,600
Speaker 1: Does it mean that if you run a soup kitchen

206
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:25,200
Speaker 1: and you let undocumented people in and now they say

207
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:28,160
Speaker 1: in America because they're not starving to this, that you're

208
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:32,800
Speaker 1: guilty of this. Does it mean if you tell your grandmother,

209
00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:35,920
Speaker 1: who's a document the police, say I love you, you're

210
00:12:35,960 --> 00:12:38,640
Speaker 1: inducing her to say and now you're guilty of this?

211
00:12:39,120 --> 00:12:41,839
Speaker 1: And so there was a lot of examples given of

212
00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:45,839
Speaker 1: things that this would conceivably punish. And that's why the

213
00:12:45,960 --> 00:12:49,840
Speaker 1: Ninth Circum said the statue was overbroad, violated the first

214
00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:53,320
Speaker 1: submitment and so if you couldn't actually use this inducement

215
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,600
Speaker 1: statue in order to prosecute people, and that's what the

216
00:12:56,600 --> 00:12:59,800
Speaker 1: Supreme Court was looking at today, is that true? The

217
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:03,880
Speaker 1: statute is overbroad and violates the First Amendment or Canadas

218
00:13:03,920 --> 00:13:08,719
Speaker 1: statue be interpreted in a manner where violate. I mean,

219
00:13:08,760 --> 00:13:12,000
Speaker 1: what's funny about this case or ironic is that the

220
00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:15,400
Speaker 1: defendant here is the kind of defendant the law was

221
00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:18,600
Speaker 1: intended to stop. He was convicted of during hundreds of

222
00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:23,160
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants into paying him excessive fees by promising a

223
00:13:23,280 --> 00:13:27,240
Speaker 1: pathway to citizenship through an adult adoption program, so a

224
00:13:27,360 --> 00:13:30,920
Speaker 1: totally bogus program. This is the guy that the law

225
00:13:31,000 --> 00:13:35,880
Speaker 1: was intended to stop. Correct, there's no dispute that the

226
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:40,720
Speaker 1: law can criminalize what this individual did. The dispute in

227
00:13:40,760 --> 00:13:44,640
Speaker 1: this particular case is that the jury instruction in this

228
00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:48,120
Speaker 1: individual's case were written in a way where if you

229
00:13:48,200 --> 00:13:53,280
Speaker 1: apply those jury instructions to anybody, even the person who said, Grandma,

230
00:13:53,360 --> 00:13:56,160
Speaker 1: please say in America, I will miss you and I'll

231
00:13:56,200 --> 00:13:59,880
Speaker 1: be very depressed if you leave. Theoretically that person is

232
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:03,120
Speaker 1: and do things their grandmother to stay in America when

233
00:14:03,160 --> 00:14:07,000
Speaker 1: she was otherwise wanting to leave and was technically then

234
00:14:07,080 --> 00:14:10,480
Speaker 1: in violation off the statute. And so the question is

235
00:14:10,800 --> 00:14:12,560
Speaker 1: what do you do in a case like this. This

236
00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:15,160
Speaker 1: is what the Supreme Court was grappling with, where what

237
00:14:15,240 --> 00:14:18,400
Speaker 1: a person did was clearly by any way you would

238
00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:22,120
Speaker 1: interpret the statute be legal, but the way the jury

239
00:14:22,120 --> 00:14:25,880
Speaker 1: instructions were written, it would capture a lot of conducts

240
00:14:25,880 --> 00:14:29,360
Speaker 1: that might not be deemed criminally culpable. And so the

241
00:14:29,400 --> 00:14:31,920
Speaker 1: court spent a lot of time today asking, well, have

242
00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:35,320
Speaker 1: there ever been cases like this where the ones like

243
00:14:35,400 --> 00:14:38,600
Speaker 1: we're warning people, hey, these are the kinds of cases

244
00:14:38,640 --> 00:14:42,600
Speaker 1: that could actually be criminalized. And there was one case

245
00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:46,560
Speaker 1: in a distrecord in Massachusetts that had this type of thing,

246
00:14:46,960 --> 00:14:49,560
Speaker 1: but that was one and the statue was written in

247
00:14:49,640 --> 00:14:53,000
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty two. So the point that the government was

248
00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:55,840
Speaker 1: trying to make is if you pick one case, one

249
00:14:55,880 --> 00:15:01,840
Speaker 1: prosecution of questionable merits in the last eighty years, that

250
00:15:01,880 --> 00:15:04,800
Speaker 1: it should be proof that the statute isn't being interpreted

251
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:09,600
Speaker 1: over broadly, and thus it shouldn't be stricken down. Whereas,

252
00:15:09,640 --> 00:15:12,760
Speaker 1: definitely the three liberal justices I didn't really see a

253
00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:16,960
Speaker 1: lot of support in this in the conservative justice realm, thought,

254
00:15:17,000 --> 00:15:20,320
Speaker 1: wait a second, here's what's really bothering us with distatute

255
00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:24,000
Speaker 1: is that at the end of the day, being in

256
00:15:24,040 --> 00:15:27,840
Speaker 1: America without status is not a crime at all. You know,

257
00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:31,720
Speaker 1: maybe entering illegally is a crime. So when you entered

258
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:35,320
Speaker 1: illegally across the border, you committed a misdemeanor, but just

259
00:15:35,520 --> 00:15:38,800
Speaker 1: being here it's not a crime. Overstaying your visa is

260
00:15:38,800 --> 00:15:41,040
Speaker 1: not a crime. And so why would it be a

261
00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:45,120
Speaker 1: crime punishable by five years in prison to tell your

262
00:15:45,160 --> 00:15:48,760
Speaker 1: grandmother police say in America, I miss you when but

263
00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:52,200
Speaker 1: your grandmother is doing it's not actually a crime. And

264
00:15:52,360 --> 00:15:55,560
Speaker 1: so that's the real issue that they were grappling with here,

265
00:15:55,920 --> 00:16:00,280
Speaker 1: whether that would constitute a First Amendment violation. What were

266
00:16:00,280 --> 00:16:03,280
Speaker 1: the concerns of the conservative justices or where they seem

267
00:16:03,320 --> 00:16:06,480
Speaker 1: to be the Conservative justice is actually in this case

268
00:16:06,520 --> 00:16:10,680
Speaker 1: seems to show very little enthusiasm of really engaging in

269
00:16:10,800 --> 00:16:13,960
Speaker 1: the way they usually do in immigration case because I

270
00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:16,560
Speaker 1: think just because they just had an allow our arguments

271
00:16:17,080 --> 00:16:22,160
Speaker 1: massive scientific issues that's been very confusing to everybody's evolved

272
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:24,960
Speaker 1: and so sort of the energy was passed from this

273
00:16:25,160 --> 00:16:28,640
Speaker 1: or largument and so really I think the conservative justice

274
00:16:28,760 --> 00:16:32,640
Speaker 1: is really just trying to staying at the point of saying, look,

275
00:16:33,240 --> 00:16:37,720
Speaker 1: if there hasn't been questionable prosecutions in the last eighty years,

276
00:16:37,920 --> 00:16:43,240
Speaker 1: number one and number two, if you can limit this

277
00:16:43,480 --> 00:16:46,960
Speaker 1: statute to basically what is known as aiding and abetting,

278
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:50,840
Speaker 1: meaning that what's really meant here is if you're aiding

279
00:16:51,320 --> 00:16:55,360
Speaker 1: an undocumented person in a seam, that's really what the

280
00:16:55,400 --> 00:16:58,480
Speaker 1: inducement thing is talking about, not just you know, giving

281
00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:03,280
Speaker 1: charity or telling your grandmother to say in America, if

282
00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:06,240
Speaker 1: you're really aiding and abetting them in a scheme, that

283
00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:09,720
Speaker 1: statutes can be limited to that effect. That's basically the

284
00:17:09,760 --> 00:17:12,120
Speaker 1: point that justices were making, But they were making them

285
00:17:12,440 --> 00:17:14,840
Speaker 1: with maybe one or two questions. They weren't having the

286
00:17:15,000 --> 00:17:19,840
Speaker 1: usual back and forth argument with the liberal side of

287
00:17:19,880 --> 00:17:22,760
Speaker 1: the court. So it leads me to believe that I

288
00:17:22,800 --> 00:17:24,879
Speaker 1: think the minds were made up pretty much, And it

289
00:17:24,960 --> 00:17:27,040
Speaker 1: seems like it's going to be a six three decision

290
00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:31,879
Speaker 1: in favor of allowing the statutes to remain, albeit with

291
00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:36,600
Speaker 1: aiding and abetting requirement. That makes it clearer that the

292
00:17:36,680 --> 00:17:41,560
Speaker 1: statute can't be interpreted to prosecute anybody just inducing somebody

293
00:17:41,600 --> 00:17:43,919
Speaker 1: to say, but it has to be aiding and evetting

294
00:17:44,000 --> 00:17:46,560
Speaker 1: some sort of scheme. So it'll be very interesting to

295
00:17:46,600 --> 00:17:48,919
Speaker 1: see what the guidance is. But I didn't get the

296
00:17:49,000 --> 00:17:52,920
Speaker 1: sense that the conservative justices wanted to say that this

297
00:17:53,040 --> 00:17:56,879
Speaker 1: statue was unconstitutional. Well, it seems like they mostly took

298
00:17:56,880 --> 00:18:01,120
Speaker 1: the case to reverse the Ninth Circuit anyway, correct, I mean,

299
00:18:01,160 --> 00:18:03,320
Speaker 1: I think that's why they would have taken this case.

300
00:18:03,960 --> 00:18:07,120
Speaker 1: And there didn't seem to be any of the six

301
00:18:07,240 --> 00:18:10,960
Speaker 1: Conservative justices that were grappling with this in any way.

302
00:18:11,840 --> 00:18:14,280
Speaker 1: And just as the Leado basically said, look, if you

303
00:18:14,359 --> 00:18:18,720
Speaker 1: think that undocumented immigration is a problem that the government

304
00:18:18,720 --> 00:18:23,960
Speaker 1: needs to address, then why isn't inducing undocumented immigration a crime?

305
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:27,080
Speaker 1: So he was sort of the most forceful on the

306
00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 1: side of we really do need this stattoo and the

307
00:18:31,600 --> 00:18:36,480
Speaker 1: other five Conservative justices I think basically didn't really make

308
00:18:36,520 --> 00:18:38,760
Speaker 1: a fuss one way or the other, and we're just

309
00:18:38,920 --> 00:18:43,160
Speaker 1: asking perfunctory questions. But it didn't seem like they were

310
00:18:43,240 --> 00:18:47,240
Speaker 1: seriously thinking that they would maintain the Ninth Circus decision.

311
00:18:47,359 --> 00:18:52,200
Speaker 1: Here President Joe Biden Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced

312
00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:55,280
Speaker 1: a plan to close a loophole to an immigration agreement

313
00:18:55,480 --> 00:18:59,080
Speaker 1: that's allowed thousands of asylum seeking immigrants to move between

314
00:18:59,080 --> 00:19:02,120
Speaker 1: the two countries along a back road linking New York

315
00:19:02,200 --> 00:19:05,480
Speaker 1: State to the Canadian province of Quebec. I've been talking

316
00:19:05,520 --> 00:19:08,920
Speaker 1: to immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partnered Hollandon Knight.

317
00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:14,320
Speaker 1: Maybe should start by explaining what the Safe Third Country

318
00:19:14,320 --> 00:19:19,240
Speaker 1: Agreement is. Sure, so, the Safe Third Country Agreement is

319
00:19:19,240 --> 00:19:24,040
Speaker 1: a concept that exists worldwide, but exists specifically with Canada

320
00:19:24,119 --> 00:19:26,679
Speaker 1: and with the United States. We both have laws that

321
00:19:26,800 --> 00:19:30,680
Speaker 1: talk about this concept. And the concept is that while

322
00:19:31,240 --> 00:19:35,320
Speaker 1: nations that our western nations want to be welcoming towards

323
00:19:35,600 --> 00:19:39,680
Speaker 1: true refugees and asylum seekers, what we don't want is

324
00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:42,520
Speaker 1: to have a situation where people are gaining the system.

325
00:19:42,760 --> 00:19:45,639
Speaker 1: And so the idea is, if you get to a

326
00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:51,119
Speaker 1: country where you can realistically incredibly seek asylum, you should

327
00:19:51,119 --> 00:19:54,400
Speaker 1: seek it there and stop trying to go to your

328
00:19:54,480 --> 00:19:58,280
Speaker 1: most preferred country. Because the idea of asylum is to

329
00:19:58,359 --> 00:20:03,240
Speaker 1: seek refuge from the possibility of persecution in your home country.

330
00:20:03,600 --> 00:20:07,280
Speaker 1: It's not immigration in the sense of here is the

331
00:20:07,440 --> 00:20:10,440
Speaker 1: ideal nation I want to go through. And so why

332
00:20:10,520 --> 00:20:16,120
Speaker 1: that matters in the US Canada context is because many times,

333
00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:19,800
Speaker 1: although the situation has exacerbated over the last year, but

334
00:20:19,920 --> 00:20:22,560
Speaker 1: this has been an issue over the last twenty years.

335
00:20:22,760 --> 00:20:26,240
Speaker 1: People will come to the United States and either they

336
00:20:26,240 --> 00:20:30,000
Speaker 1: will lose their asylum case here and then decide to

337
00:20:30,080 --> 00:20:33,040
Speaker 1: try their luck in Canada, or they will say, look,

338
00:20:33,080 --> 00:20:35,119
Speaker 1: there's no chance I'm going to get asylum here in

339
00:20:35,119 --> 00:20:37,720
Speaker 1: the United States, so let me just go to Canada

340
00:20:38,080 --> 00:20:41,320
Speaker 1: and ask for asylum. Sometimes it happens the other way,

341
00:20:41,480 --> 00:20:44,119
Speaker 1: where people will actually because they can get to be

342
00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:47,960
Speaker 1: got to go into Canada, will fly into Canada. Or

343
00:20:48,040 --> 00:20:51,320
Speaker 1: sometimes Mexicans don't even need visas to go to Canada,

344
00:20:51,680 --> 00:20:54,840
Speaker 1: so they'll fly into Canada. And then because the northern

345
00:20:54,880 --> 00:20:58,480
Speaker 1: border is not really fortified in any way, it's four

346
00:20:58,520 --> 00:21:02,560
Speaker 1: thousand miles long and it has maybe one tenth of

347
00:21:02,600 --> 00:21:06,040
Speaker 1: the border patrol of the two thousand miles Mexican border.

348
00:21:06,720 --> 00:21:09,639
Speaker 1: But you see, if Mexicans will just walk right into

349
00:21:09,680 --> 00:21:14,719
Speaker 1: the US through the Canadian southern border, the US northern border,

350
00:21:15,160 --> 00:21:18,880
Speaker 1: and so the idea was, well, now a trade might

351
00:21:18,880 --> 00:21:22,199
Speaker 1: be needed to be made, because even though for the

352
00:21:22,280 --> 00:21:25,879
Speaker 1: last few years we've had this state third Country Agreement

353
00:21:26,400 --> 00:21:31,239
Speaker 1: which says that if you enter the United States and

354
00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:33,919
Speaker 1: you then appear at a port of entry on the

355
00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:37,439
Speaker 1: Canadian US border, you can't get asylum in Canada. You

356
00:21:37,480 --> 00:21:39,280
Speaker 1: have to go back and ask for it in the

357
00:21:39,359 --> 00:21:43,160
Speaker 1: United States. That was not true if you entered illegally

358
00:21:43,640 --> 00:21:46,280
Speaker 1: into Canada. You could kind of have a loophole around

359
00:21:46,320 --> 00:21:49,119
Speaker 1: this where you went in between the ports of entry

360
00:21:49,520 --> 00:21:51,840
Speaker 1: and not at a port of entry. But what people

361
00:21:51,880 --> 00:21:54,800
Speaker 1: were doing as this was growing over the last year,

362
00:21:55,160 --> 00:21:59,400
Speaker 1: and it was primarily Haitian immigrants because they speak French

363
00:21:59,800 --> 00:22:03,520
Speaker 1: and they were trying to go to Quebec where friends

364
00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:08,080
Speaker 1: have more prevalently spoken. And also the idea that Canada

365
00:22:08,160 --> 00:22:11,480
Speaker 1: it's easier to win asylum than the United States. They

366
00:22:11,520 --> 00:22:15,680
Speaker 1: were all entering through an unofficial port of entry, which

367
00:22:15,720 --> 00:22:18,919
Speaker 1: was really just a crossing that was easy to cross

368
00:22:18,960 --> 00:22:22,040
Speaker 1: the state. But the idea was that they could present

369
00:22:22,119 --> 00:22:25,639
Speaker 1: themselves there and then they would be eligible to apply

370
00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:29,679
Speaker 1: for asylum. So what's the latest agreement between Canada and

371
00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:32,520
Speaker 1: the US. So what the US and Canada have done

372
00:22:32,840 --> 00:22:37,000
Speaker 1: is they now excluded that ability to go in between

373
00:22:37,040 --> 00:22:39,600
Speaker 1: the ports of entry and have a loophole to the

374
00:22:39,680 --> 00:22:42,320
Speaker 1: state third country agreement. But what they're saying now is

375
00:22:42,720 --> 00:22:46,320
Speaker 1: wherever you land, whether it's Canada or America, you have

376
00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:50,080
Speaker 1: to apply for asylum there. You will be banned from

377
00:22:50,080 --> 00:22:53,080
Speaker 1: applying for asylum in the second country. A sort of

378
00:22:53,160 --> 00:22:56,760
Speaker 1: practical question is Canada was after a change in this

379
00:22:57,240 --> 00:23:01,320
Speaker 1: third country agreement. Why didn't they just close that unofficial

380
00:23:01,400 --> 00:23:06,600
Speaker 1: crossing themselves. They did not feel as if they had

381
00:23:06,640 --> 00:23:11,439
Speaker 1: a legal provision within their domestic law that prevented them

382
00:23:11,880 --> 00:23:16,040
Speaker 1: from excluding asylum seekers who had come in between their

383
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:18,920
Speaker 1: ports of entry, and they did not want to get

384
00:23:19,000 --> 00:23:24,000
Speaker 1: into a situation where they passed a new law diminishing asylum.

385
00:23:24,040 --> 00:23:27,119
Speaker 1: They thought that was politically unsenable. What they wanted to

386
00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:30,560
Speaker 1: do is work within their existing legal framework that had

387
00:23:30,640 --> 00:23:34,439
Speaker 1: this State third Country agreement. And because of that, what

388
00:23:34,560 --> 00:23:37,600
Speaker 1: they did was they expanded what the State third Country

389
00:23:37,640 --> 00:23:41,479
Speaker 1: Agreement provided for, and so they were able to do

390
00:23:41,520 --> 00:23:43,960
Speaker 1: this in a way where they were able to save

391
00:23:44,080 --> 00:23:47,560
Speaker 1: face and say, you see, we're not at all trying

392
00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:51,040
Speaker 1: to lower our commitments to refugees. What we're trying to

393
00:23:51,080 --> 00:23:53,520
Speaker 1: do is just have an orderly process. So if you

394
00:23:53,600 --> 00:23:56,240
Speaker 1: go to the US first, no reason you shouldn't apply

395
00:23:56,280 --> 00:23:58,679
Speaker 1: to the US. If you go to Canada first, no

396
00:23:58,800 --> 00:24:02,160
Speaker 1: reason you shouldn't apply in Canada. I understand that Canada,

397
00:24:02,160 --> 00:24:06,720
Speaker 1: I'm particularly Quebec, have been having problems with migrants, But

398
00:24:07,119 --> 00:24:10,240
Speaker 1: does the United States have a problem with migrants coming

399
00:24:10,560 --> 00:24:13,640
Speaker 1: from Canada? Not a lot But what will happen occasionally

400
00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:16,800
Speaker 1: is one, there are certain groups of Mexicans that don't

401
00:24:16,800 --> 00:24:20,399
Speaker 1: need eisas to go to Canada. So what will happen

402
00:24:20,520 --> 00:24:24,080
Speaker 1: is that group of Mexicans may decide that it's actually

403
00:24:24,119 --> 00:24:27,400
Speaker 1: easier and safer to apply to Canada and just let's say,

404
00:24:27,480 --> 00:24:29,760
Speaker 1: take a boat to the United States across one of

405
00:24:29,760 --> 00:24:32,480
Speaker 1: our great lakes or do something like that and ask

406
00:24:32,480 --> 00:24:35,000
Speaker 1: for asylum, or not even ask for anything, just come

407
00:24:35,080 --> 00:24:38,399
Speaker 1: illegally to the United States. They may decide that's a

408
00:24:38,440 --> 00:24:40,720
Speaker 1: better way to do it. And so there's a little

409
00:24:40,760 --> 00:24:43,480
Speaker 1: bit of that. And so this say third Country Agreement,

410
00:24:43,480 --> 00:24:45,960
Speaker 1: in order to make it reciprocal, we said that those

411
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:48,879
Speaker 1: people couldn't apply for asylum in the US, not that

412
00:24:49,000 --> 00:24:52,160
Speaker 1: that happens a lot. But the other thing that occasionally

413
00:24:52,200 --> 00:24:55,840
Speaker 1: will happen is Canada is at least perceived that's not

414
00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:58,399
Speaker 1: really that true anymore. It used to be more true

415
00:24:58,400 --> 00:25:01,639
Speaker 1: than now as having a little bit easier paths or

416
00:25:01,760 --> 00:25:05,320
Speaker 1: getting a visa than the United States. And so the

417
00:25:05,400 --> 00:25:07,760
Speaker 1: idea was you could be from any country, any of

418
00:25:07,760 --> 00:25:10,400
Speaker 1: the two hundred countries in the world, and you could

419
00:25:10,440 --> 00:25:13,119
Speaker 1: get a bees gonna go to Canada. And the idea was,

420
00:25:13,160 --> 00:25:16,000
Speaker 1: you didn't actually want to apply for asylum there because

421
00:25:16,000 --> 00:25:18,720
Speaker 1: obviously it's too cold or whatever. You want to come

422
00:25:18,760 --> 00:25:21,640
Speaker 1: live in the United States, and so you use Canada

423
00:25:21,720 --> 00:25:25,639
Speaker 1: as your entry point into the hemisphere and then you

424
00:25:25,680 --> 00:25:28,120
Speaker 1: actually just cross into the United States and it's there

425
00:25:28,160 --> 00:25:31,160
Speaker 1: where you apply for asylum. And so now this agreement

426
00:25:31,160 --> 00:25:34,200
Speaker 1: makes it clear that that also will not be permitted.

427
00:25:34,480 --> 00:25:37,239
Speaker 1: Everybody knows that the Canadians are nicer than we are.

428
00:25:37,359 --> 00:25:40,919
Speaker 1: Leon you know that it's just that it's too cold,

429
00:25:41,000 --> 00:25:45,080
Speaker 1: that's the problem. Tell me why Canada agreed to accept

430
00:25:45,119 --> 00:25:50,680
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand more migrants in compensation for the closure. I mean,

431
00:25:50,800 --> 00:25:54,439
Speaker 1: it just struck me as odd requiring another country to

432
00:25:54,520 --> 00:25:59,320
Speaker 1: accept more migrants. The idea was that right now a

433
00:25:59,359 --> 00:26:01,800
Speaker 1: lot of them that are being caused both in the

434
00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:05,320
Speaker 1: US and in Canada are because of too much pressure

435
00:26:05,760 --> 00:26:09,040
Speaker 1: in the southern border with regards to UN documents and migration.

436
00:26:09,280 --> 00:26:12,119
Speaker 1: But what the US that is. Look, justin Trudeau, we

437
00:26:12,160 --> 00:26:15,040
Speaker 1: know you have a political problem in Quebec with people

438
00:26:15,040 --> 00:26:17,720
Speaker 1: who are very angry at you because you're not doing

439
00:26:17,760 --> 00:26:20,800
Speaker 1: anything to close this little loophole. And both if you

440
00:26:20,840 --> 00:26:22,720
Speaker 1: want to close this to the loophole, you will help

441
00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:27,480
Speaker 1: us reduce the pressure along the southern border by taking

442
00:26:27,560 --> 00:26:31,160
Speaker 1: fifty thousand migrants a month and actually bringing them into Canada.

443
00:26:31,640 --> 00:26:35,520
Speaker 1: And so in that way, the idea is one, it

444
00:26:35,720 --> 00:26:40,280
Speaker 1: sort of helps everybody by reducing the illegal pressure on

445
00:26:40,400 --> 00:26:43,840
Speaker 1: both the Canadian border and the US border. But two,

446
00:26:44,400 --> 00:26:47,919
Speaker 1: it's something that the US can say they extracted given

447
00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:49,960
Speaker 1: that they were going to have to take all of

448
00:26:49,960 --> 00:26:52,840
Speaker 1: these people that would otherwise have gone into Canada. Now

449
00:26:52,880 --> 00:26:55,480
Speaker 1: they have to go into the US. So the idea is,

450
00:26:55,560 --> 00:27:00,560
Speaker 1: maybe we can actually trade that number by making Canada

451
00:27:00,680 --> 00:27:04,040
Speaker 1: take a similar number legally in the Canada. And there's

452
00:27:04,040 --> 00:27:07,840
Speaker 1: an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada challenging the

453
00:27:07,880 --> 00:27:12,639
Speaker 1: constitutionality of the safe third Country Agreement. Yes, and so

454
00:27:13,320 --> 00:27:16,600
Speaker 1: that's going to obviously be under Canadian law. Say third

455
00:27:16,600 --> 00:27:20,879
Speaker 1: Country agreement is recognized under the Refugee Convention as something

456
00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:24,480
Speaker 1: that countries can do. The question is whether it's a

457
00:27:24,680 --> 00:27:28,560
Speaker 1: realistic option. The problem that the folks challenge exists in

458
00:27:28,600 --> 00:27:30,720
Speaker 1: Canada are going to have is it's going to be

459
00:27:30,800 --> 00:27:33,600
Speaker 1: very hard to say that asylum is not available in

460
00:27:33,680 --> 00:27:37,760
Speaker 1: the United States. But what they're pinning their argument on.

461
00:27:37,840 --> 00:27:40,679
Speaker 1: It is quite fascinating, which is how long our immigration

462
00:27:40,760 --> 00:27:44,159
Speaker 1: courts are taking and how backlog they are. And so

463
00:27:44,240 --> 00:27:46,560
Speaker 1: if our courts are taking six to seven a year

464
00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:51,080
Speaker 1: to adjudicate asylum plane, maybe you can make an argument

465
00:27:51,119 --> 00:27:53,880
Speaker 1: that asylum that's not available as the United States. That's

466
00:27:54,000 --> 00:27:56,600
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco of Honda Night, and that's it for this

467
00:27:56,760 --> 00:27:59,440
Speaker 1: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

468
00:27:59,480 --> 00:28:02,760
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news honor Bloomberg Law podcasts. You

469
00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:06,760
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

470
00:28:07,040 --> 00:28:11,280
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

471
00:28:11,359 --> 00:28:14,280
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

472
00:28:14,320 --> 00:28:17,840
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

473
00:28:17,920 --> 00:28:19,119
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg