WEBVTT - Sessions Promises Backlash Against Sanctuary Cities (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.840
<v Speaker 1>The Trump administration is taking aim at sanctuary cities, using

0:00:03.880 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>four billion dollars in federal grants as its ammunition, but

0:00:07.680 --> 0:00:11.040
<v Speaker 1>mayors in sanctuary cities from New York to Los Angeles

0:00:11.039 --> 0:00:14.800
<v Speaker 1>say they won't be bullied. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is

0:00:14.840 --> 0:00:18.080
<v Speaker 1>threatened to strip cities of funds if they don't pledge

0:00:18.079 --> 0:00:21.439
<v Speaker 1>they're complying with the law that bars officials from withholding

0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:26.320
<v Speaker 1>information about a person's immigration status from Immigrations and Customs

0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:31.680
<v Speaker 1>Enforcement or ICE. I strongly urge our nation states and

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:36.000
<v Speaker 1>cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are

0:00:36.080 --> 0:00:41.040
<v Speaker 1>doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws,

0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:46.240
<v Speaker 1>and to rethink these policies. Sessions announcement was a repetition

0:00:46.280 --> 0:00:49.280
<v Speaker 1>of an executive order signed by President Trump five days

0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:52.640
<v Speaker 1>after taking office, and of a policy the Justice Department

0:00:52.640 --> 0:00:56.440
<v Speaker 1>announced last July during the Obama administration, joining us our

0:00:56.520 --> 0:01:00.080
<v Speaker 1>David Rifkin, a partner at Baker Hostetler and Leon fres Go,

0:01:00.160 --> 0:01:04.040
<v Speaker 1>a partnered Hollandon Knight and former Deputy A G for

0:01:04.120 --> 0:01:08.880
<v Speaker 1>the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Justice Department. Leon.

0:01:09.080 --> 0:01:13.360
<v Speaker 1>Sanctuary cities often adopt rules that prohibit their police officers

0:01:13.440 --> 0:01:17.319
<v Speaker 1>from even asking people about their immigration status, so it

0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:20.400
<v Speaker 1>isn't available to share with the federal government. Are those

0:01:20.400 --> 0:01:24.360
<v Speaker 1>cities in violation of this law? Well, the statute, which

0:01:24.400 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>is a USC thirteen seventy three, says that if you

0:01:27.800 --> 0:01:31.280
<v Speaker 1>do not cooperate with a request from the federal government

0:01:32.080 --> 0:01:35.559
<v Speaker 1>for information, you are in violation. So the affirmative act

0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:39.400
<v Speaker 1>of not asking about someone's immigration status would not put

0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:42.520
<v Speaker 1>you in violation of a USC thirteen seventy three. What

0:01:42.600 --> 0:01:45.120
<v Speaker 1>would put you in violation is if the federal government

0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:48.280
<v Speaker 1>actually made a request for information to you and you

0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:52.920
<v Speaker 1>refuse that request. So so just to be clear, there's

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 1>nothing that these sanctuary cities who are doing that are

0:01:56.720 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 1>doing wrong or against the law. Correct. No, the the

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 1>actual text of the UFC thirteen seventy three says you

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:07.360
<v Speaker 1>have to refuse a request for information about immigration status

0:02:07.360 --> 0:02:09.880
<v Speaker 1>from the federal government to be in violation of that.

0:02:09.960 --> 0:02:12.400
<v Speaker 1>And so what happens most of the time, the way

0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:16.240
<v Speaker 1>this controversy arises is that ice will ask a local

0:02:16.360 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 1>or state jail, can you please give me the information

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:20.960
<v Speaker 1>of at what time and on what day you're going

0:02:21.040 --> 0:02:24.680
<v Speaker 1>to release x individual? And then the state and locality

0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:27.360
<v Speaker 1>doesn't give that time, and so then now I have

0:02:27.480 --> 0:02:29.560
<v Speaker 1>to go find that person instead of being able to

0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:31.880
<v Speaker 1>locate the person on the date and time of their

0:02:31.919 --> 0:02:36.919
<v Speaker 1>relief from jail. David, the step that the Attorney General

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:40.239
<v Speaker 1>announced yesterday, I'm a little unclear as to whether it

0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:43.760
<v Speaker 1>is just enforcing a pre existing rule that was actually

0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:47.600
<v Speaker 1>put in place by the Obama administration, or something considerably

0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:52.400
<v Speaker 1>broader than that. What's your take. I think it's appearance

0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:58.000
<v Speaker 1>a little unclear. I think that there are sufficient grounds

0:02:58.000 --> 0:03:00.560
<v Speaker 1>and they disagree with my colleague to take view that

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:06.800
<v Speaker 1>a willful failure to collect this information coupled. Look, we

0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:10.120
<v Speaker 1>have to be real here, uh. When a number of

0:03:10.160 --> 0:03:15.200
<v Speaker 1>cities and other jurisdictions have conspicuously prohibited the employees from

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:20.280
<v Speaker 1>collecting this information, justifying it publicly at the time it

0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:23.280
<v Speaker 1>was done so they don't have to provide it to defense,

0:03:23.800 --> 0:03:26.519
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a little uh, it's a little bizarre. And

0:03:26.639 --> 0:03:29.000
<v Speaker 1>I hear that it doesn't violate a statute that requires

0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:31.840
<v Speaker 1>sharing of information if you read the statutory language broadly,

0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:35.120
<v Speaker 1>this is certainly a way to avoid or evade at

0:03:35.160 --> 0:03:37.160
<v Speaker 1>point number one, point number two. There's a lot of

0:03:37.280 --> 0:03:41.280
<v Speaker 1>other things sanctuary cities are doing okay relative to not

0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:45.480
<v Speaker 1>cooperating with detainers, which channel Sessions mentioned a number of

0:03:45.480 --> 0:03:50.880
<v Speaker 1>whom involved individuals with most horrific uh convictions or at

0:03:50.920 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 1>least suspicions most horrific conduct. And I don't understand one thing. Look,

0:03:56.120 --> 0:03:59.720
<v Speaker 1>there's clearly because of fiddles and principles, the anti corrosion

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:03.840
<v Speaker 1>and that comment doing principles. Uh, the federal government cannot

0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:08.000
<v Speaker 1>force states to spend their resources and personnelity enforced federal law,

0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 1>and they cannot curse them. Okay, they should have a

0:04:12.440 --> 0:04:15.880
<v Speaker 1>courage of their convictions. They should not seek to obtain

0:04:15.920 --> 0:04:20.479
<v Speaker 1>federal funds uh, and they should stand on on their

0:04:20.520 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>belief that they want to be open and they want

0:04:22.400 --> 0:04:24.680
<v Speaker 1>to have lots of undocumented aliens. That would be an

0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:28.440
<v Speaker 1>honorable way to proceed doing both, which is continuing to

0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:32.360
<v Speaker 1>sort of uh feed at the federal trough and squeal

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.000
<v Speaker 1>then the funds are being denied while affirming their right

0:04:35.040 --> 0:04:38.279
<v Speaker 1>to have a separate immigration policy. David, let's let Leon

0:04:38.720 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>get in here for a moment. Leon, do you agree

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:44.520
<v Speaker 1>with that? Well, first, I don't agree that there's any

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 1>legal requirement whatsoever for a city to affirmatively do anything.

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:51.520
<v Speaker 1>The only legal requirement that exists in the statute is

0:04:51.520 --> 0:04:54.040
<v Speaker 1>that a city has to respond to a request for

0:04:54.080 --> 0:04:58.080
<v Speaker 1>information about immigration status that is given by the federal government. Now,

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:00.640
<v Speaker 1>having said that, there are cities that do refused to

0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:03.160
<v Speaker 1>do that, and I do think there's a question of

0:05:03.240 --> 0:05:05.680
<v Speaker 1>whether a city should think that that is a proper

0:05:06.279 --> 0:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>use of it's of its of its resources, given that

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:12.159
<v Speaker 1>there might be better you know, this might be the

0:05:12.240 --> 0:05:16.599
<v Speaker 1>ideal population to focus your removal resources. But having said that,

0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:20.000
<v Speaker 1>the idea of a detainer having for a city or

0:05:20.080 --> 0:05:23.400
<v Speaker 1>local a locality to keep someone in detention, to hold

0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:25.920
<v Speaker 1>them when they would otherwise be released so that ICE

0:05:25.960 --> 0:05:28.839
<v Speaker 1>can come pick them up. The problem is this exposes

0:05:28.880 --> 0:05:31.680
<v Speaker 1>cities to lawsuits all the time because many times these

0:05:31.680 --> 0:05:34.400
<v Speaker 1>detainers end up being improperly issued. The person is a

0:05:34.520 --> 0:05:37.640
<v Speaker 1>US citizen, or the person has otherwise some status that

0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:40.280
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't get them detained. And what happens is when that

0:05:40.360 --> 0:05:45.800
<v Speaker 1>locality gets sued for holding the person unlawfully, ICE doesn't

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:48.200
<v Speaker 1>come in and identify these folks for the cost of

0:05:48.240 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 1>that detention. And so that's the problem. These cities are

0:05:51.440 --> 0:05:55.120
<v Speaker 1>caught betwixt and between do we listen to ICE and

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:58.680
<v Speaker 1>potentially have ourselves subject to civil litigation, or do we

0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:01.600
<v Speaker 1>not listen to ICE and be called the sanctuary city.

0:06:01.800 --> 0:06:03.719
<v Speaker 1>And so that part of it is the problem that

0:06:03.760 --> 0:06:06.840
<v Speaker 1>too many people aren't discussing. David, I'm guessing you want

0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 1>to respond, we have about a minute. It's disingenuous because

0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:12.960
<v Speaker 1>lots and lots of those cities are proudly from the

0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:15.520
<v Speaker 1>intent to define immigration law. And let me ask my

0:06:15.560 --> 0:06:18.160
<v Speaker 1>colleague one simple question. Are you aware of the the

0:06:18.279 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>instances where don't involve uh A lawful aliens at all,

0:06:23.120 --> 0:06:27.840
<v Speaker 1>but one jurisdiction is asking another jurisdiction to hold somebody

0:06:27.839 --> 0:06:31.440
<v Speaker 1>while they're seeking a warrant. To realize how much law

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:35.000
<v Speaker 1>enforcement cooperation transpires into different sphere, We'll live in a

0:06:35.040 --> 0:06:37.800
<v Speaker 1>world where you know, an American who's who has been

0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:39.760
<v Speaker 1>accused of rape but for whom a warrant has not

0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:42.880
<v Speaker 1>been obtained, has a better chance of being held temporarily

0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:46.000
<v Speaker 1>and naver jurisdiction and a law for ailien. That's that's absurd,

0:06:46.640 --> 0:06:51.599
<v Speaker 1>that's leon thirty seconds. Rep The difference is that the

0:06:51.640 --> 0:06:56.040
<v Speaker 1>detention there is criminal detention. Here, the detention would be

0:06:56.080 --> 0:06:59.600
<v Speaker 1>for the purpose of removal, and if you can't actually

0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:04.080
<v Speaker 1>remove the human being, then that's atention is considered unlawful.

0:07:04.160 --> 0:07:06.039
<v Speaker 1>And then it's the city that's stuck with the bill

0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:08.839
<v Speaker 1>for the lawsuit. That's the problem. I'm not saying whether

0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:11.080
<v Speaker 1>I agree with the policy or not. I'm just saying

0:07:11.080 --> 0:07:13.440
<v Speaker 1>that the law currently doesn't allow the city to get

0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:17.040
<v Speaker 1>indemnified when the federal government makes a mistake. All Right,

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:19.600
<v Speaker 1>it's a it's a long debate that we're going to

0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:22.160
<v Speaker 1>be having a lot in the future. I want to

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:24.640
<v Speaker 1>thank you both. That's David Riston, a partner at Baker

0:07:24.720 --> 0:07:28.440
<v Speaker 1>Hostetler and Leon Fresco. He's a partner at Holland and Night.

0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:31.360
<v Speaker 1>That does it for this edition of Bloomberg Law, thanks

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:35.640
<v Speaker 1>to our producer David Sutterman and our technical director Mark Sinniss.

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:39.920
<v Speaker 1>Couching coming up, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey

0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Johnson is starting and they will be talking about a

0:07:43.160 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>variety of things, including uh Trump executive orders to cancel

0:07:47.880 --> 0:07:48.840
<v Speaker 1>Obama policies,