Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump's efforts to send troops into democratic led
Speaker 2: cities is facing its biggest legal tests yet, with a
Speaker 2: trial this week over his power to deploy the National
Speaker 2: Guard to Portland, Oregon to counter protests. And of course
Speaker 2: there is the deployment to Chicago, which is in a
Speaker 2: holding mode right now before the Supreme Court. My guest
Speaker 2: is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland
Speaker 2: and Knight. There are lawsuits challenging Trump's deployments in Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland,
Speaker 2: and DC making their way through the courts. Have any
Speaker 2: of them so far answered the question of whether he
Speaker 2: legally invoked Section twelve four h six of Title ten
Speaker 2: to bring state National Guard troops under federal cos well.
Speaker 1: The closest cases that have done this are the two
Speaker 1: to one panel decision in the Portland case, where the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of President Trump.
Speaker 1: And they said that the way a court analyzes this,
Speaker 1: they're allowed to analyze it. So at least they got
Speaker 1: that far. They didn't say that the courts can't analyze it,
Speaker 1: but they said they have to use a highly deferential
Speaker 1: test and that the standard of review was quote, whether
Speaker 1: there was a colorable assessment of the facts in law
Speaker 1: within a range of honest judgment, which is a highly
Speaker 1: deferential standard that basically said, if the President had any
Speaker 1: sort of decent argument for saying that the Guard needed
Speaker 1: to be deployed in order to either enforce federal law
Speaker 1: or prevent rebellion circumstances, that would be enough. The dissenting
Speaker 1: judge said, no, no, no, this is just like a normal
Speaker 1: factual question where you have a hearing or a trial
Speaker 1: and you come to the factual decision like any trial,
Speaker 1: was there a murder, yes or no, it's not any
Speaker 1: difference that's given you have a trial, and in this case,
Speaker 1: whoever wins under a preponderance of the evidence standard would win.
Speaker 1: And the dissenting judge said that there wasn't enough evidence
Speaker 1: that there was actually any sort of rebellion or other
Speaker 1: issues in Portland. And so now this two to one
Speaker 1: decision is now going to go to on bank review.
Speaker 1: The Chief Judge said for the court, without needing anybody
Speaker 1: to ask, the Chief Judge, there should be on bank review.
Speaker 1: And now there's going to be on bank review to
Speaker 1: determine whether that two to one decision would apply. In Chicago,
Speaker 1: we have a similar situation where the City of Chicago
Speaker 1: and the State of Illinois also sued, arguing that the
Speaker 1: deployment of the National Guard in the Chicago areas also
Speaker 1: violated the Statute and the Tenth Amendment and the posse
Speaker 1: comitatis law, which prevents federal troops from enforcing civil laws.
Speaker 1: And the judge in that case issued a temporary restraining order.
Speaker 1: The Seventh Circuit upheld the ruling, and the President Trump
Speaker 1: asked the Supreme Court to lift the tro And now
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court in that case has asked for additional
Speaker 1: briefing to try to determine whether these words regular forces
Speaker 1: in the Statute means military forces, and then how that
Speaker 1: interpretation affects the president's authority to federalize the Guard. And
Speaker 1: so at the moment, that's where we are on these things.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly what the president can do, what
Speaker 1: the standard of review is, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So let's go to the Supreme Court for a second.
Speaker 2: And you know that's because the Trump administration filed an
Speaker 2: emergency petition to allow them to deploy the troops to Chicago.
Speaker 2: So nine days past before the justices issued this order
Speaker 2: requesting more information. And this has been a court that's
Speaker 2: been very quick to answer Trump's emergency requests, usually in
Speaker 2: his favor. What does it tell you that with this request,
Speaker 2: they're asking about the specific wording of the law, which
Speaker 2: says a president may deploy the guard when he is
Speaker 2: quote unable with the regular forces to execute the laws
Speaker 2: of the United States.
Speaker 1: What is interesting is they're trying to figure out because
Speaker 1: there's two different types of I would say armed personnel
Speaker 1: that's discussed. One is regular forces. So who are these
Speaker 1: regular forces that the president is allowed to use? And
Speaker 1: then when those quote unquote regular forces fail, then the
Speaker 1: president is allowed to call in federal service members and
Speaker 1: units of the National Guard of any state. So the
Speaker 1: question is does regular forces mean that the president can
Speaker 1: already send in military troops. That's a little bit complicated
Speaker 1: because of it is then who are these federal service
Speaker 1: members that the president is then allowed to send in
Speaker 1: plus the units of the National Guard of any state.
Speaker 1: So that's the question. Does it mean US military forces
Speaker 1: or does it mean people like FBI, you know, Homeland
Speaker 1: security investigation and things of that nature, so sort of
Speaker 1: federal police power force type people, but not actual US
Speaker 1: military troops. I think it would make a lot less
Speaker 1: sense if regular forces didn't just mean FBI ice HSI,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing, the sort of people who enforce
Speaker 1: the federal law, the ATF that kind of group as
Speaker 1: opposed to the military. Because of it also meant the military.
Speaker 1: Then who are these quote unquote federal service members that
Speaker 1: can be called into service if the quote unquote regular
Speaker 1: forces are not able to execute the law. So that's
Speaker 1: what I think it means, but we'll have to wait
Speaker 1: and see what the Supreme Court says. It means.
Speaker 2: They don't seem to be in a hurry to decide
Speaker 2: because the briefing schedule puts the briefings up until November seventeenth,
Speaker 2: and then they have to decide. So that means what
Speaker 2: three weeks or so where there won't be any deployment
Speaker 2: of troops, correct.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is one of the most complicated and
Speaker 1: important consequential questions probably that the Supreme Court has had
Speaker 1: in the last couple of decades, because it really does
Speaker 1: get to the heart of what a president can and
Speaker 1: can't do. With regard to using the military in the
Speaker 1: normal streets of the big cities of America. So this
Speaker 1: is not something to trivialize or to issue any kind
Speaker 1: of quick ruling on. And I think if there was
Speaker 1: an actual place in America right now that was ungovernable
Speaker 1: and where people couldn't go to work and there were
Speaker 1: barricades everywhere and nobody could go to school, maybe there
Speaker 1: would be urgency here. But that's not really the urgency
Speaker 1: anyone is talking about. There's not a city in America
Speaker 1: where no one can go to work, or go to school,
Speaker 1: or get treated in a hospital or any of those
Speaker 1: major things. At all of these cities. Sports events are
Speaker 1: still going on, Concerts are still going on, all of
Speaker 1: these things, and so it's hard to say there's an
Speaker 1: interrection going on. In a true national emergency where none
Speaker 1: of those things were going on, maybe we'd have a
Speaker 1: faster ruling. But I think the Court understands here it's
Speaker 1: better to get it right.
Speaker 2: But is a Supreme Court to look at the facts
Speaker 2: or are they going to look at the law and
Speaker 2: interpret that.
Speaker 1: Well, no, I'm saying they're looking at these facts unofficially
Speaker 1: to determine how fast they're going in the speed of
Speaker 1: the case. But I think what they're going to look
Speaker 1: at for the decision in the case is the level
Speaker 1: of defference that the President's determination gets. And then based
Speaker 1: on the level of defference, they may remand for a
Speaker 1: trial or hearing based on that level of difference, or
Speaker 1: they may decide they have enough evidence to move forward
Speaker 1: with that level of difference and decide, here's what the
Speaker 1: facts dictate. Based on the level of difference, we decide.
Speaker 1: So it could go either of those two ways, but
Speaker 1: we'll just have to wait for the Supreme Court to say.
Speaker 1: And plus that may end up being different in Chicago
Speaker 1: versus in Portland or in Los Angeles. They may decide
Speaker 1: that there is a bigger crisis in one location than
Speaker 1: in another, and so in one location they can deploy
Speaker 1: the federal troops, and in another location they cannot because
Speaker 1: it doesn't rise to whatever new standard they decided to
Speaker 1: apply in this case.
Speaker 2: Let's turned out to Greg Bavino, the chief of the
Speaker 2: Border Patrol's El Centro sector in California, who's been very
Speaker 2: high profile in the Trump Administration's crackdowns on immigration in
Speaker 2: sanctuary cities. He's been three decades with the Border Patrol,
Speaker 2: and he's emerged as the face of the Trump administration's
Speaker 2: most aggressive operations against migrants in these democratic led cities.
Speaker 1: Well, he comes from the Border Patrol, from the US
Speaker 1: Customs of Border Protection. He doesn't come from ICE, which
Speaker 1: is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division that actually is
Speaker 1: in charge with the detention, apprehension, and removal of people
Speaker 1: who are here illegally. That's who does it. It's nice.
Speaker 1: The Border Patrol has a different mission. They have two
Speaker 1: different parts. They have one that protects the United States
Speaker 1: from people trying to cross in between ports of entry,
Speaker 1: and they have a second mission of guarding ports of
Speaker 1: entry themselves so that people don't get through the ports
Speaker 1: of entry who shouldn't get through. And this is the
Speaker 1: area of the Border Patrol where mister Baveno comes from.
Speaker 1: And this has happened in the past because what happens
Speaker 1: is that within the Department of Homeland Security they get
Speaker 1: the impression that the people who come through the Border
Speaker 1: Patrol have a more police oriented view of the world
Speaker 1: because that's what they're doing. They're actually walking around looking
Speaker 1: for crime, so to speak. If they see someone cross
Speaker 1: the border, then they're going to apprehend them the same
Speaker 1: way a police officer if they see someone robbing a store,
Speaker 1: they will apprehend them. Whereas ICE traditionally doesn't have that
Speaker 1: ethos of operating as roving cops on a beat. They
Speaker 1: have more of a here's a list of people we
Speaker 1: are passed with deporting today, and now we need to
Speaker 1: either go pick them up at work, or pick them
Speaker 1: up in the courthouse, or pick them up at home,
Speaker 1: and it's a much more targeted planned day. That's how
Speaker 1: ICE likes to operate, is within the targeted planned day
Speaker 1: for operational concerns. And this has developed over thirty years.
Speaker 1: This is not something that's happened over a day or two.
Speaker 1: Because what happens is when ICE starts operating in the
Speaker 1: same way local police would start operating, which is just
Speaker 1: look around and try to find crime, then what you're
Speaker 1: doing is looking around and trying to find people who
Speaker 1: are there illegally. So just their existence in America is
Speaker 1: the crime. And whether you like this policy or don't
Speaker 1: like the policy, I'm not even saying anything about the policy.
Speaker 1: I would just hope that the listeners of your broadcast
Speaker 1: would agree that whether you like it or not when
Speaker 1: that gets implemented. When ICE gets deployed in the same
Speaker 1: way local police would be deployed, it creates tension on
Speaker 1: both sides of the equation, where the people who don't
Speaker 1: like ICE deployed in that manner start protesting, start barricading ICE,
Speaker 1: start hiding people in their houses, and start doing everything
Speaker 1: they can to resist ICE operating in that manner. And
Speaker 1: this isn't even new either. You can find stories about
Speaker 1: this every day for the last thirty years. It's just
Speaker 1: that when you do it at a higher scale, you
Speaker 1: get more of it. Or if you don't do this,
Speaker 1: then you have the people who say, well, we're not
Speaker 1: getting enough arrests, And it's true, you're not going to
Speaker 1: get enough arrests if you don't have these roving enforcement
Speaker 1: arrests that happened where you could just grab thirty people
Speaker 1: at one place at one location just because you think
Speaker 1: it looks suspicious there. Yes, that will increase the number
Speaker 1: of arrests, but that also increases the level of tension
Speaker 1: that you're tightening in that area when you do that.
Speaker 1: And again I'm not thinking that, I mean you should
Speaker 1: do it or you shouldn't do it, but that's why
Speaker 1: the Trump administration has moved a lot of the ICE
Speaker 1: agents who are leading these various local locations out of
Speaker 1: their positions and is trying to bring in border patrol
Speaker 1: people like mister Bovino, because it's saying we need to
Speaker 1: change the ethos of ICE and turn it into a
Speaker 1: police like unit that's roving around looking for crime, so
Speaker 1: to speak. But in this case, again, the crime is
Speaker 1: just the existence of the human being in America, which
Speaker 1: is what makes it complicated. So you're not observing someone
Speaker 1: stealing something, or you're not observing someone injuring somebody. You're
Speaker 1: just observing someone standing there and you're asking yourself, is
Speaker 1: this person that's standing there standing there illegally and you
Speaker 1: don't know they might be, they might not be. But
Speaker 1: the act of asking, over and over and over again
Speaker 1: creates a level of tension that's completely different than any
Speaker 1: other kind of police operation creates. And that's why I,
Speaker 1: as I explained previously, I prefers the ethos of saying, look,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, this person Joe Smith is on a list,
Speaker 1: they committed a crime or they were ordered deported in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, and they've managed to stay here
Speaker 1: seventeen years. Why do you think that you should defend
Speaker 1: this person. That's a much easier law enforcement role to defend,
Speaker 1: and that's why they like that as opposed to these
Speaker 1: roving operations.
Speaker 2: Coming up next, the governor of Illinois makes a Halloween
Speaker 2: request to ice. A group of journalists, news advocacy organizations,
Speaker 2: and protesters are suing the government, claiming that federal agents
Speaker 2: aggressive tactics in Chicago violated their rights. The case has
Speaker 2: grown into something of a referendum on the repeated use
Speaker 2: of force by federal agents in the Trump administration crackdown
Speaker 2: on illegal immigration. I've been talking to immigration lawyer Leon
Speaker 2: Fresco of Honda Night Soully on in that Chicago case.
Speaker 2: Federal Judge Sarah Ellis has issued some orders, including requiring
Speaker 2: agents to wear visible identification and issue warnings before using
Speaker 2: weapons like tear gas or pepper spray. And she's expressed
Speaker 2: alarm over videos and photographs that show the agents confronting
Speaker 2: protesters and deploying teargas at a weekend Halloween event. We've
Speaker 2: been talking about Greg Bavino, the Border Patrol chief, and
Speaker 2: she had him on the stand for about an hour
Speaker 2: the other day, asking him about the enforcement tactics, and
Speaker 2: she ordered him to come back every day to report
Speaker 2: to her. But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals paused
Speaker 2: that order.
Speaker 1: Why well, the Seventh Circuit issued a vary shit decision
Speaker 1: putting it on hold. But we can infer from that
Speaker 1: that they agreed with the government's argument that the problem is,
Speaker 1: and you have to look at this from a practical perspective,
Speaker 1: not just from a well, what's the problem with one
Speaker 1: hour of coming in and speaking to the judge every day?
Speaker 1: But the truth is, if you're doing that, if you're
Speaker 1: speaking to the judge every day for one hour, you're
Speaker 1: legitimately preparing to give that testimony. Because no one just
Speaker 1: sends a witness in to speak to a federal judge
Speaker 1: without preparation for the testimony, giving them facts, giving them
Speaker 1: everything that's happening that day. So basically, you will have
Speaker 1: turned the head of the law enforcement operation into a
Speaker 1: professional witness. This person wouldn't actually be able to do
Speaker 1: any other work all day. Their entire day would be
Speaker 1: devoted to learning the facts that they were going to
Speaker 1: give the judge that day, preparing the testimony, and then
Speaker 1: testifying that That would be an entire day of work,
Speaker 1: and the federal government said, that's that been a thing
Speaker 1: that's ever existed where we've ever had a federal judge
Speaker 1: turn a US law enforcement official into a federal witness
Speaker 1: that has to come every day and just do that
Speaker 1: and not actually do the job they're supposed to do.
Speaker 1: And they point out the federal government correctly that even
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs didn't ask for this, This was just something
Speaker 1: the judge did out of frustration with the federal government.
Speaker 1: So the plaintiffs didn't ask for it, because I doubt
Speaker 1: they would have even imagined the world where such relief
Speaker 1: could have ever been granted. But the judge was so
Speaker 1: frustrated that the judge granted the relief. And so I
Speaker 1: do think it was very helpful to the federal government
Speaker 1: to make an argument that, hey, if the plaintiffs don't
Speaker 1: want something, why is the judge ordering it.
Speaker 2: Still in place? Is her order that Bevino wear a
Speaker 2: body camera and the government has to turn over all
Speaker 2: reports documenting when agents used force against members of the
Speaker 2: public and also the body camera video by tomorrow.
Speaker 1: So correct, all of the sort of what I would
Speaker 1: call transparency requirements and the use of force are all
Speaker 1: still in effect, and we will wait and see what
Speaker 1: both the Seventh Circuit says in principle at the end
Speaker 1: of this and maybe what the Supreme Court says, and
Speaker 1: if that is hell to be in effect, and that
Speaker 1: could be something that could actually apply to all of
Speaker 1: the ICE agents nationwide, is that they have to have
Speaker 1: this sort of use of force transparency that didn't exist previously,
Speaker 1: and they'll have to wear body cameras, they'll have to
Speaker 1: identify themselves. They can't wear masks, and that would be
Speaker 1: a dramatic change from the operating events in a lot
Speaker 1: of places right now.
Speaker 2: They all wear masks except for Bevino. He doesn't wear
Speaker 2: a mask.
Speaker 1: He seems to be very confident in this, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt about that.
Speaker 2: Apparently the Trump administration really likes him. Is there a
Speaker 2: shake up? Then? Is the Trump administration trying to rely
Speaker 2: more on the border patrol, which you know a lot
Speaker 2: of these aggressive actions that we see are border patrol,
Speaker 2: not ICE.
Speaker 1: Correct, That's what's exactly happening, is the way ICE operates. Yes,
Speaker 1: they're headquartered in DC. Yes they're part of Homeland Security. Yes,
Speaker 1: they're part of the federal government and controlled by the President,
Speaker 1: but they have all these local field offices, and in
Speaker 1: the end, each local field office basically operates as its
Speaker 1: own satellite that has its own policies, And so it matters.
Speaker 1: If you have a field office director who is much
Speaker 1: more oriented toward a aggressive enforcement posture, you're going to
Speaker 1: have more aggressive enforcement in that field office area. Then
Speaker 1: if you have a field office director who's not focused
Speaker 1: as much on an aggressive enforcement posture. And so in
Speaker 1: about six or seven cities, the administration has decided to
Speaker 1: replace the field office directors that were there from ICE,
Speaker 1: move them to DC, and replace them with people who
Speaker 1: are coming from the Border Patrol to again have this
Speaker 1: sort of focus on roving enforcement that we were talking
Speaker 1: about earlier, where instead of looking for a set number
Speaker 1: of people each day that ICE had determined based on
Speaker 1: investigations the previous day or the previous week, it would
Speaker 1: actually say, no, we're going to go to a more
Speaker 1: aggressive posture and start questioning people on the streets about
Speaker 1: whether they have a right to be in the United States.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard the answer yet, but the governor of
Speaker 2: Illinois asked ICE not to do any enforcement actions on
Speaker 2: Halloween weekend.
Speaker 1: I think that's the type of thing where the way
Speaker 1: that usually gets resolved is there isn't an answer given
Speaker 1: that capitulates to the governor's request, But it's just obviously
Speaker 1: done in a way where Ice knows that they don't
Speaker 1: want another conflagration happening during Halloween. They detain somebody who
Speaker 1: shouldn't have been detained, and now everybody's in that sort
Speaker 1: of Halloween frantic mode and riots start happening, and all
Speaker 1: kinds of craziness occurs. And so I do think you're
Speaker 1: not gonna see an answer that says, Okay, Governor Pritzker,
Speaker 1: we agree with you. We're not going to enforce the
Speaker 1: law on Halloween. All of these enforcement officers, everybody has
Speaker 1: to remember our human beings.
Speaker 2: Well, don't you think that Bevino. I mean, the point is,
Speaker 2: and why the Trump administration likes him, is to put
Speaker 2: fear into the hearts of immigrants so that they self deport.
Speaker 2: I mean, the videos are pretty brutal.
Speaker 1: Well, the point is this, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: putting aside again any personal opinions anybody has, whoever leads
Speaker 1: the operation still relies upon people who live in those communities,
Speaker 1: who work in those communities, and an inertia gets created
Speaker 1: in all of this despite what people think, where that
Speaker 1: inertia only allows certain amounts of limitations of conduct to occur.
Speaker 1: And that's why you've seen the administration get frustrated and
Speaker 1: they say, look, we were at we wanted three thousand
Speaker 1: arrests a day, we were at two thousand. We thought
Speaker 1: we were going to get there. Now we're back at
Speaker 1: one thousand. What is happening? What's going on? And all
Speaker 1: of this ignores that all of this enforcement needs to
Speaker 1: be done by human beings who have morale issues, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, aren't getting paid right now because the
Speaker 1: government is shut down, and are worried about are they
Speaker 1: going to be able to keep their house, Are they
Speaker 1: going to be able to make their car payments? Are
Speaker 1: they going to be able to pay their medical bills?
Speaker 1: The last thing they're worried about is I want to
Speaker 1: start creating a massive riot on Halloween. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's a high priority for these poor agents who aren't
Speaker 1: getting paid right now. And so I just think, regardless
Speaker 1: of who the leaders are, and regardless even of the
Speaker 1: message given, there is a certain amount of inertia that
Speaker 1: exists there where people you can only take them so far.
Speaker 1: And yes, people want to enforce the immigration law, and
Speaker 1: the people there at Ice strongly believe in the importance
Speaker 1: of enforcing the immigration law. But there's an operational reality
Speaker 1: there that they face every day and that they've seen
Speaker 1: over the course of years that when you push things
Speaker 1: too far, they know that then it becomes very difficult
Speaker 1: to unwind that. And so they're just trying to get
Speaker 1: an equilibrium where they can enforce the law as strictly
Speaker 1: as they can while still maintaining other forms of order
Speaker 1: in the society.
Speaker 2: On another issue, Vice President JD. Vance yesterday advocated a
Speaker 2: slow down in legal immigration. We have to get the
Speaker 2: overall numbers way way down, but he didn't offer a
Speaker 2: firm number.
Speaker 1: I think people need to have a realistic understanding of this.
Speaker 1: And this is something because I teach immigration law at
Speaker 1: various law schools and that's my first class each semester.
Speaker 1: As I tell people and I explain, and I say,
Speaker 1: look in America right now, we have three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty million people. And each year, unless it's a year
Speaker 1: like a COVID year where everything is out of control
Speaker 1: and it's not a normal year, if you are just
Speaker 1: running the course of things, you would notice each year
Speaker 1: if you go to the Department of Homeland Security immigration statistics,
Speaker 1: that one million or so. It fluctuates between about eight
Speaker 1: hundred thousand and one point two million, but let's just
Speaker 1: say one million for the purposes of this people a
Speaker 1: year are given a green card, meaning the right to
Speaker 1: permanently reside in the United States each year, and that
Speaker 1: comes from a number of places. It comes from US
Speaker 1: citizens marrying foreign nationals. That's the largest group by far,
Speaker 1: that's about four hundred thousand people per year. It comes
Speaker 1: from US citizens bringing in their parents who are foreign nationals,
Speaker 1: and that happen. Happens because when people either marry a
Speaker 1: US citizen and then they become a citizen one day,
Speaker 1: or an employer sponsors them, which is a much smaller number,
Speaker 1: but they then become a citizen one day, they can
Speaker 1: then bring their parents. So that's another group. So those
Speaker 1: parents and then any minor essentially step children. That So
Speaker 1: let's say you marry a foreign national, if you're a
Speaker 1: US citizen and that person had a child who was
Speaker 1: under eighteen, that person can qualify also for a lawful
Speaker 1: permanent resident status. So that group right there just that
Speaker 1: group each year is about six hundred thousand people per year,
Speaker 1: like clockwork, And so the question is will you get
Speaker 1: rid of any of those individuals? And then between people
Speaker 1: who come for high skilled work, which is about one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty thousand a year, plus another group which
Speaker 1: is refugees, which the Trump administration has already zeroed out,
Speaker 1: so that's gone, but it used to be about one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand a year, and then assiles, which are people
Speaker 1: who we didn't know were coming but showed up at
Speaker 1: our doorstep. That was about one hundred thousand a year.
Speaker 1: Now that's been zero about two So the Trump administration
Speaker 1: can actually say it's cut two hundred thousand or so
Speaker 1: already from that one million that you're gonna see next
Speaker 1: year because you're not gonna have refugees or assilies. So
Speaker 1: they can say that, but then there's a debate, Okay,
Speaker 1: what about those other eight hundred thousand. Is that too
Speaker 1: much or too little? And I think that's a debate
Speaker 1: that people are having. But honestly, if you're if you
Speaker 1: unless you're gonna say that a US citizen is not
Speaker 1: allowed to marry a foreign national and live with them
Speaker 1: here in America, most of your legal immigration is still
Speaker 1: gonna be high because that number is the bulk of
Speaker 1: what our immigration is each year. Is a US citizen
Speaker 1: marrying a foreign national.
Speaker 2: And first Lady Milania Trump brought her parents into the
Speaker 2: United States from Slovenia and they were able to get
Speaker 2: US citizenship through what's known as family based immigration, something
Speaker 2: Trump himself has criticized and dubbed chain migration. So he's
Speaker 2: a pleasure. Leon, Thanks so much. That's Leon Fresco of
Speaker 2: Holland and Knight. And that's it for this edition of
Speaker 2: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
Speaker 2: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to
Speaker 2: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
Speaker 2: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg