1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,840
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is taking aim at sanctuary cities, using

2
00:00:03,880 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: four billion dollars in federal grants as its ammunition, but

3
00:00:07,680 --> 00:00:11,040
Speaker 1: mayors in sanctuary cities from New York to Los Angeles

4
00:00:11,039 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 1: say they won't be bullied. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is

5
00:00:14,840 --> 00:00:18,080
Speaker 1: threatened to strip cities of funds if they don't pledge

6
00:00:18,079 --> 00:00:21,439
Speaker 1: they're complying with the law that bars officials from withholding

7
00:00:21,480 --> 00:00:26,320
Speaker 1: information about a person's immigration status from Immigrations and Customs

8
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:31,680
Speaker 1: Enforcement or ICE. I strongly urge our nation states and

9
00:00:31,800 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 1: cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are

10
00:00:36,080 --> 00:00:41,040
Speaker 1: doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws,

11
00:00:41,360 --> 00:00:46,240
Speaker 1: and to rethink these policies. Sessions announcement was a repetition

12
00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:49,280
Speaker 1: of an executive order signed by President Trump five days

13
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:52,640
Speaker 1: after taking office, and of a policy the Justice Department

14
00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:56,440
Speaker 1: announced last July during the Obama administration, joining us our

15
00:00:56,520 --> 00:01:00,080
Speaker 1: David Rifkin, a partner at Baker Hostetler and Leon fres Go,

16
00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:04,040
Speaker 1: a partnered Hollandon Knight and former Deputy A G for

17
00:01:04,120 --> 00:01:08,880
Speaker 1: the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Justice Department. Leon.

18
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:13,360
Speaker 1: Sanctuary cities often adopt rules that prohibit their police officers

19
00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:17,319
Speaker 1: from even asking people about their immigration status, so it

20
00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:20,400
Speaker 1: isn't available to share with the federal government. Are those

21
00:01:20,400 --> 00:01:24,360
Speaker 1: cities in violation of this law? Well, the statute, which

22
00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:27,640
Speaker 1: is a USC thirteen seventy three, says that if you

23
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:31,280
Speaker 1: do not cooperate with a request from the federal government

24
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:35,559
Speaker 1: for information, you are in violation. So the affirmative act

25
00:01:35,959 --> 00:01:39,400
Speaker 1: of not asking about someone's immigration status would not put

26
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:42,520
Speaker 1: you in violation of a USC thirteen seventy three. What

27
00:01:42,600 --> 00:01:45,120
Speaker 1: would put you in violation is if the federal government

28
00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:48,280
Speaker 1: actually made a request for information to you and you

29
00:01:48,400 --> 00:01:52,920
Speaker 1: refuse that request. So so just to be clear, there's

30
00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:56,680
Speaker 1: nothing that these sanctuary cities who are doing that are

31
00:01:56,720 --> 00:02:00,360
Speaker 1: doing wrong or against the law. Correct. No, the the

32
00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:03,520
Speaker 1: actual text of the UFC thirteen seventy three says you

33
00:02:03,560 --> 00:02:07,360
Speaker 1: have to refuse a request for information about immigration status

34
00:02:07,360 --> 00:02:09,880
Speaker 1: from the federal government to be in violation of that.

35
00:02:09,960 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 1: And so what happens most of the time, the way

36
00:02:12,600 --> 00:02:16,240
Speaker 1: this controversy arises is that ice will ask a local

37
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:19,200
Speaker 1: or state jail, can you please give me the information

38
00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:20,960
Speaker 1: of at what time and on what day you're going

39
00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:24,680
Speaker 1: to release x individual? And then the state and locality

40
00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:27,360
Speaker 1: doesn't give that time, and so then now I have

41
00:02:27,480 --> 00:02:29,560
Speaker 1: to go find that person instead of being able to

42
00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:31,880
Speaker 1: locate the person on the date and time of their

43
00:02:31,919 --> 00:02:36,919
Speaker 1: relief from jail. David, the step that the Attorney General

44
00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:40,239
Speaker 1: announced yesterday, I'm a little unclear as to whether it

45
00:02:40,480 --> 00:02:43,760
Speaker 1: is just enforcing a pre existing rule that was actually

46
00:02:43,760 --> 00:02:47,600
Speaker 1: put in place by the Obama administration, or something considerably

47
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:52,400
Speaker 1: broader than that. What's your take. I think it's appearance

48
00:02:52,440 --> 00:02:58,000
Speaker 1: a little unclear. I think that there are sufficient grounds

49
00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:00,560
Speaker 1: and they disagree with my colleague to take view that

50
00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:06,800
Speaker 1: a willful failure to collect this information coupled. Look, we

51
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:10,120
Speaker 1: have to be real here, uh. When a number of

52
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:15,200
Speaker 1: cities and other jurisdictions have conspicuously prohibited the employees from

53
00:03:15,240 --> 00:03:20,280
Speaker 1: collecting this information, justifying it publicly at the time it

54
00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:23,280
Speaker 1: was done so they don't have to provide it to defense,

55
00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:26,519
Speaker 1: it's it's a little uh, it's a little bizarre. And

56
00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:29,000
Speaker 1: I hear that it doesn't violate a statute that requires

57
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:31,840
Speaker 1: sharing of information if you read the statutory language broadly,

58
00:03:32,320 --> 00:03:35,120
Speaker 1: this is certainly a way to avoid or evade at

59
00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:37,160
Speaker 1: point number one, point number two. There's a lot of

60
00:03:37,280 --> 00:03:41,280
Speaker 1: other things sanctuary cities are doing okay relative to not

61
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:45,480
Speaker 1: cooperating with detainers, which channel Sessions mentioned a number of

62
00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:50,880
Speaker 1: whom involved individuals with most horrific uh convictions or at

63
00:03:50,920 --> 00:03:55,480
Speaker 1: least suspicions most horrific conduct. And I don't understand one thing. Look,

64
00:03:56,120 --> 00:03:59,720
Speaker 1: there's clearly because of fiddles and principles, the anti corrosion

65
00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:03,840
Speaker 1: and that comment doing principles. Uh, the federal government cannot

66
00:04:04,000 --> 00:04:08,000
Speaker 1: force states to spend their resources and personnelity enforced federal law,

67
00:04:08,520 --> 00:04:12,440
Speaker 1: and they cannot curse them. Okay, they should have a

68
00:04:12,440 --> 00:04:15,880
Speaker 1: courage of their convictions. They should not seek to obtain

69
00:04:15,920 --> 00:04:20,479
Speaker 1: federal funds uh, and they should stand on on their

70
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:22,400
Speaker 1: belief that they want to be open and they want

71
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:24,680
Speaker 1: to have lots of undocumented aliens. That would be an

72
00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:28,440
Speaker 1: honorable way to proceed doing both, which is continuing to

73
00:04:28,600 --> 00:04:32,360
Speaker 1: sort of uh feed at the federal trough and squeal

74
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 1: then the funds are being denied while affirming their right

75
00:04:35,040 --> 00:04:38,279
Speaker 1: to have a separate immigration policy. David, let's let Leon

76
00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: get in here for a moment. Leon, do you agree

77
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:44,520
Speaker 1: with that? Well, first, I don't agree that there's any

78
00:04:44,640 --> 00:04:48,320
Speaker 1: legal requirement whatsoever for a city to affirmatively do anything.

79
00:04:48,360 --> 00:04:51,520
Speaker 1: The only legal requirement that exists in the statute is

80
00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:54,040
Speaker 1: that a city has to respond to a request for

81
00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:58,080
Speaker 1: information about immigration status that is given by the federal government. Now,

82
00:04:58,120 --> 00:05:00,640
Speaker 1: having said that, there are cities that do refused to

83
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:03,160
Speaker 1: do that, and I do think there's a question of

84
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:05,680
Speaker 1: whether a city should think that that is a proper

85
00:05:06,279 --> 00:05:10,200
Speaker 1: use of it's of its of its resources, given that

86
00:05:10,279 --> 00:05:12,159
Speaker 1: there might be better you know, this might be the

87
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:16,599
Speaker 1: ideal population to focus your removal resources. But having said that,

88
00:05:16,920 --> 00:05:20,000
Speaker 1: the idea of a detainer having for a city or

89
00:05:20,080 --> 00:05:23,400
Speaker 1: local a locality to keep someone in detention, to hold

90
00:05:23,400 --> 00:05:25,920
Speaker 1: them when they would otherwise be released so that ICE

91
00:05:25,960 --> 00:05:28,839
Speaker 1: can come pick them up. The problem is this exposes

92
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:31,680
Speaker 1: cities to lawsuits all the time because many times these

93
00:05:31,680 --> 00:05:34,400
Speaker 1: detainers end up being improperly issued. The person is a

94
00:05:34,520 --> 00:05:37,640
Speaker 1: US citizen, or the person has otherwise some status that

95
00:05:37,640 --> 00:05:40,280
Speaker 1: shouldn't get them detained. And what happens is when that

96
00:05:40,360 --> 00:05:45,800
Speaker 1: locality gets sued for holding the person unlawfully, ICE doesn't

97
00:05:45,839 --> 00:05:48,200
Speaker 1: come in and identify these folks for the cost of

98
00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:51,400
Speaker 1: that detention. And so that's the problem. These cities are

99
00:05:51,440 --> 00:05:55,120
Speaker 1: caught betwixt and between do we listen to ICE and

100
00:05:55,360 --> 00:05:58,680
Speaker 1: potentially have ourselves subject to civil litigation, or do we

101
00:05:58,760 --> 00:06:01,600
Speaker 1: not listen to ICE and be called the sanctuary city.

102
00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:03,719
Speaker 1: And so that part of it is the problem that

103
00:06:03,760 --> 00:06:06,840
Speaker 1: too many people aren't discussing. David, I'm guessing you want

104
00:06:06,839 --> 00:06:10,520
Speaker 1: to respond, we have about a minute. It's disingenuous because

105
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:12,960
Speaker 1: lots and lots of those cities are proudly from the

106
00:06:13,000 --> 00:06:15,520
Speaker 1: intent to define immigration law. And let me ask my

107
00:06:15,560 --> 00:06:18,160
Speaker 1: colleague one simple question. Are you aware of the the

108
00:06:18,279 --> 00:06:23,080
Speaker 1: instances where don't involve uh A lawful aliens at all,

109
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:27,840
Speaker 1: but one jurisdiction is asking another jurisdiction to hold somebody

110
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:31,440
Speaker 1: while they're seeking a warrant. To realize how much law

111
00:06:31,520 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 1: enforcement cooperation transpires into different sphere, We'll live in a

112
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:37,800
Speaker 1: world where you know, an American who's who has been

113
00:06:37,800 --> 00:06:39,760
Speaker 1: accused of rape but for whom a warrant has not

114
00:06:39,800 --> 00:06:42,880
Speaker 1: been obtained, has a better chance of being held temporarily

115
00:06:42,880 --> 00:06:46,000
Speaker 1: and naver jurisdiction and a law for ailien. That's that's absurd,

116
00:06:46,640 --> 00:06:51,599
Speaker 1: that's leon thirty seconds. Rep The difference is that the

117
00:06:51,640 --> 00:06:56,040
Speaker 1: detention there is criminal detention. Here, the detention would be

118
00:06:56,080 --> 00:06:59,600
Speaker 1: for the purpose of removal, and if you can't actually

119
00:06:59,640 --> 00:07:04,080
Speaker 1: remove the human being, then that's atention is considered unlawful.

120
00:07:04,160 --> 00:07:06,039
Speaker 1: And then it's the city that's stuck with the bill

121
00:07:06,120 --> 00:07:08,839
Speaker 1: for the lawsuit. That's the problem. I'm not saying whether

122
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:11,080
Speaker 1: I agree with the policy or not. I'm just saying

123
00:07:11,080 --> 00:07:13,440
Speaker 1: that the law currently doesn't allow the city to get

124
00:07:13,480 --> 00:07:17,040
Speaker 1: indemnified when the federal government makes a mistake. All Right,

125
00:07:17,320 --> 00:07:19,600
Speaker 1: it's a it's a long debate that we're going to

126
00:07:19,640 --> 00:07:22,160
Speaker 1: be having a lot in the future. I want to

127
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:24,640
Speaker 1: thank you both. That's David Riston, a partner at Baker

128
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:28,440
Speaker 1: Hostetler and Leon Fresco. He's a partner at Holland and Night.

129
00:07:28,520 --> 00:07:31,360
Speaker 1: That does it for this edition of Bloomberg Law, thanks

130
00:07:31,400 --> 00:07:35,640
Speaker 1: to our producer David Sutterman and our technical director Mark Sinniss.

131
00:07:35,720 --> 00:07:39,920
Speaker 1: Couching coming up, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey

132
00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:43,080
Speaker 1: Johnson is starting and they will be talking about a

133
00:07:43,160 --> 00:07:47,840
Speaker 1: variety of things, including uh Trump executive orders to cancel

134
00:07:47,880 --> 00:07:48,840
Speaker 1: Obama policies,