Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Less than two weeks after the mass shooting in San Jose,
Speaker 1: a federal judge overturned California's longtime ban on assault weapons.
Speaker 1: Condemnation of the decision was swift from the governor to
Speaker 1: the Mayor of San Jose, Sam Locardo. It's hard to
Speaker 1: escape the conclusion that a nation with more than three
Speaker 1: million guns, uh, the solution is not more guns. The
Speaker 1: language used by Judge Roger Benitez comparing an a R
Speaker 1: fifteen rifle to a Swiss army knife quote good for
Speaker 1: both home and battle, drew outrage from gun safety advocates
Speaker 1: and victims of gun violence. Chris Brown is the president
Speaker 1: of Brady United Against Gun Violence. It's so shocking to
Speaker 1: have this judge say that is like a Swiss army knife.
Speaker 1: A Swiss army knife doesn't kill hundreds of people within
Speaker 1: ten seconds. That's what this weapon does. Joining me his
Speaker 1: Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler, a professor at u c
Speaker 1: l A Law School, Adam explain the ruling for US well.
Speaker 1: The ruling in Miller versus Banta held that California's restriction
Speaker 1: on military style assault weapons was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: The judge compared the a R fifteen rifle to the
Speaker 1: Swiss army knife, good for both home and battle. What's
Speaker 1: behind this comparison, Well, perhaps the most surprising thing about
Speaker 1: the opinion was the judge's equating of a military style
Speaker 1: assault rifle to a Swiss army knife. Of course, a
Speaker 1: military style assault rifle is far more dangerous than a
Speaker 1: Swiss army knife. But the point that the judge is
Speaker 1: making is that like a Swiss army knife, many people
Speaker 1: will have this kind of device and it's perfectly lawful,
Speaker 1: and they don't do anything wrong with it. And indeed
Speaker 1: he makes the point in the opinion that knives kill
Speaker 1: more people in California than assault rifles every year. The
Speaker 1: way he wrote the decision, do you think it was
Speaker 1: designed to shock? I don't know if it was designed
Speaker 1: to shock, but it's certainly designed to get the attention
Speaker 1: of the courts of appeals. And the judge was very
Speaker 1: careful to detail what was the basis of his ruling,
Speaker 1: What are the facts that he accepted, Who are the
Speaker 1: witnesses and experts that he found most persuasive and what
Speaker 1: was the data that he thought was most influential and
Speaker 1: that will impart influence the Court of Appeals when they
Speaker 1: hear this appeal in this case, because they'll be limited
Speaker 1: in some ways by the facts as the lower court
Speaker 1: found them. What was the state's argument, Well, the state
Speaker 1: argued that these military style assault weapons are not constitutionally
Speaker 1: protected by the Second Amendment, that they're not commonly used
Speaker 1: for self defense, and that they have special dangers kind
Speaker 1: of like a machine gun even though they're not machine guns,
Speaker 1: but like a machine gun in that they present special,
Speaker 1: unusual dangers in a five our arms. But the judge
Speaker 1: rejected those arguments, finding that military style of rifles were
Speaker 1: really no different from other types of rifles, and that
Speaker 1: prohibiting access to these weapons, which are not associated with
Speaker 1: a lot of criminal misuse or criminal violence relative to
Speaker 1: other firearms, was unconstitutional. As I've said before, I don't
Speaker 1: know much about guns, but isn't this the style of
Speaker 1: gun that's been used in mass shootings? This style of
Speaker 1: gun has been used in many high profile mass shootings,
Speaker 1: which is partly why the gun safety movement has been
Speaker 1: trying to ban these weapons. However, it is important to
Speaker 1: recognize that in more than half of mass shootings people
Speaker 1: use handguns, and it's not clear that the use of
Speaker 1: military style assault rifle really is going to change mass shooting.
Speaker 1: You can do the same kind of damage in the
Speaker 1: kind of close rain confines of most mass shootings with
Speaker 1: a handgun or other type of rifle. Similar assault weapons
Speaker 1: bands have they been upheld by other federal district courts
Speaker 1: or appellate courts. We have seen other states bands on
Speaker 1: military style assault rifles be subject to judicial review. Most
Speaker 1: courts have upheld those laws, finding that while these military
Speaker 1: style weapons are in common use and thus probably protected
Speaker 1: by the Second Amendment, at least at first glance, the
Speaker 1: courts have generally said that the government has sufficiently strong
Speaker 1: reasons to limit access to these weapons because of their
Speaker 1: special dangers. Judge Benitez, however, in California, did not buy
Speaker 1: into the argument that these firearms posed special dangers, and
Speaker 1: that's why he compared them to Swiss army knights. And
Speaker 1: it's a minority of states that have these assault weapons bands,
Speaker 1: that's right. There's only a handful of the fifty states
Speaker 1: have these military style assault rifle bands. There have been
Speaker 1: efforts to ban them at the federal level, include including
Speaker 1: a ten year period in which they were banned at
Speaker 1: the federal level. But gun safety advocates have not been
Speaker 1: able to get the these laws adopted in other states,
Speaker 1: and I think no matter how many states adopt them,
Speaker 1: these laws are likely to run into some hostile treatment
Speaker 1: when this issue gets to the United States Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: And some of the talk after this opinion has been, well,
Speaker 1: gun rights advocates are becoming emboldened by the federal judiciary
Speaker 1: that's become more conservative and the Supreme Court that's become
Speaker 1: more conservative. Well, there's no doubt about that that the
Speaker 1: Court has become more conservative. The federal courts generally have
Speaker 1: become more conservative. In fact, Judge Benitez, who's got kind
Speaker 1: of a long history of striking down California gun regulations,
Speaker 1: has often been overturned on appeal in the Ninth Circuit,
Speaker 1: but recently he's had some of his opinions upheld on appeal,
Speaker 1: in part because the Ninth Circuit has become more conservative.
Speaker 1: But I do think that the appointment of three justices
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court by President Trump, all of whom
Speaker 1: have strong pro gun records, suggests that restrictions on military
Speaker 1: style assault rifles are likely to run a foul of
Speaker 1: the new Supreme Court. The state says it will appeal
Speaker 1: benitez Is ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The state is
Speaker 1: also appealing the judges seventeen ruling against the states nearly
Speaker 1: two decade old ban on the sales and purchases of
Speaker 1: magazines including more than ten bullets. That decision was upheld
Speaker 1: in August by a three judge panel, but the Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuits set in March that an eleven member panel will
Speaker 1: rehear the case. The state is also appealing benita as
Speaker 1: a decision in April of blocking a team California law
Speaker 1: for acquiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition. So Adam
Speaker 1: explain why all these gun cases came before this same judge. Well,
Speaker 1: gun rights groups have done some forum shopping and have
Speaker 1: been pursuing litigation in Judge Benitez's court. They've been trying
Speaker 1: to get Judge Benitez to be the one who rules
Speaker 1: on their cases. It's a smart strategy for litigation because
Speaker 1: they know that the district court, the trial court, will
Speaker 1: control the interpretation of the facts on the ground credibility
Speaker 1: of witnesses, what evidence is appropriate and probative um, and
Speaker 1: the courts of Appeals are often limited in their ability
Speaker 1: to really control the record of a lawsuit. So UH
Speaker 1: that this is part of a concerted effort by California
Speaker 1: gun rights groups and UH, so far it's looking to
Speaker 1: prove pretty successful when it reaches the Ninth Circuit. I
Speaker 1: know that one of his rulings was upheld on appeal
Speaker 1: by a three judge panel and it's going to the
Speaker 1: full circuit. So when this reaches the Ninth Circuit, what
Speaker 1: are the chances now that the circuit has changed a
Speaker 1: bit after President Trump's appointees. Well, it's very hard to
Speaker 1: predict what's going to come out of the Ninth Circuit.
Speaker 1: It used to be that the Ninth Circuit was a
Speaker 1: very reliable progressive or liberal circuit where on issues like guns,
Speaker 1: you could count on the Court of Appeals to overturn
Speaker 1: a decision like the one we had from Judge Benitez
Speaker 1: on assault weapons. But because of the Trump appointees on
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit, it's a much more balanced bench than
Speaker 1: it once was, and you never know who's going to
Speaker 1: be appointed either for the three judge panel that will
Speaker 1: hear the appeal or even the eleven member on bomb
Speaker 1: panel that might hear an appeal or re hearing of
Speaker 1: whatever that three judge panel decides. It used to be
Speaker 1: that they were reliably liberal, but now it's a much
Speaker 1: more balanced bench. Our gun rights food is becoming bolder
Speaker 1: in court because of the more conservative federal judiciary. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that gun rights advocates have become more bold
Speaker 1: in their lawsuits in the federal courts. Truth be told,
Speaker 1: for the last fifteen years, they've really been aggressively pursuing
Speaker 1: litigation to challenge gun control laws. Really ever since the
Speaker 1: Heller decision back in two thousand and eight. The difference
Speaker 1: is is now gun rights advocates are more hopeful than
Speaker 1: ever that they'll win in those court cases because the
Speaker 1: courts have become more conservative, and the Supreme Court in particular,
Speaker 1: has new members that seem likely to strike down gun
Speaker 1: control laws in favor of a broad and expansive reading
Speaker 1: of the Second Amount. Tell us about the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: It's going to issue its first major decision on Second
Speaker 1: Amendment in two decades next term. Tell us what's before
Speaker 1: the court. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a
Speaker 1: challenge out of New York where it is impermissible to
Speaker 1: carry a concealed weapon unless you get a permit, and
Speaker 1: it's very, very difficult to get a permit. Uh. And
Speaker 1: this kind of discretionary permitting policy that New York and
Speaker 1: about ten other states used UM is going to go
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court and the Court's going to deside
Speaker 1: whether you have a right to carry a gun outside
Speaker 1: the home, and if so, well what kind of permitting
Speaker 1: process can states impose before you are allowed to carry
Speaker 1: that firearm? And the composition of the court has changed,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, is that the reason why they're finally
Speaker 1: taking up a GUD rights case like this. There is
Speaker 1: no doubt that the changes in the Supreme Court explain
Speaker 1: why the Court has taken Second Amendment cases both last
Speaker 1: term and this term. The last term, the Court took
Speaker 1: a second Amendment case, but it turned out to be
Speaker 1: moot and so they didn't ultimately issue a ruling um.
Speaker 1: But there's no doubt that the addition of new justices
Speaker 1: has changed calculus on the Supreme Court UM, with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsich,
Speaker 1: and Kavanaugh all saying that it's time for the Court
Speaker 1: to take more Second Amendment cases and to put more
Speaker 1: teeth into the Second Amendment. Now with the addition of
Speaker 1: Justice Sparret, it seems like that group of justices finally
Speaker 1: has their majority. Has that ruled on Second Amendment cases? Yes,
Speaker 1: Justice Sparret, when she was a lower court judge, issued
Speaker 1: of very controversial ruling where she was actually the dissenting
Speaker 1: judge of the court upheld a ban on felons possessing firearms.
Speaker 1: And Justice Barrett when a lower court judge dissented from
Speaker 1: that ruling, arguing that the lifetime ban on felon's possessing
Speaker 1: firearms was overbroad and should be restricted and limited. And
Speaker 1: do you see any progress being made for legislation on
Speaker 1: gun control? The prospects for gun control at the federal
Speaker 1: level do not seem good. It doesn't seem like any
Speaker 1: proposal for gun regulation would surmount the sixty vote hurdle
Speaker 1: that you need to pass legislation through the Senate. So
Speaker 1: so long as the filibuster remains in place, I think
Speaker 1: the possibility of significant federal gun safety regulation is unlikely.
Speaker 1: And what can President Biden do through executive order? How
Speaker 1: much can you do through executive order? Biden can do
Speaker 1: some things by executive order, but much right so. Executive
Speaker 1: orders give the president the ability to um carve out
Speaker 1: an interpretation of existing federal statutes. But the n r
Speaker 1: A has written America's gun laws very carefully to restrict
Speaker 1: the ability of the president um to find that kind
Speaker 1: of wiggle room. He's going to make some efforts, for instance,
Speaker 1: to crack down on ghost guns. These are guns that
Speaker 1: are homemade that don't have serial numbers. And he might
Speaker 1: be able to do some things on restricting importation of
Speaker 1: military style assault weapons, but many of them are manufactured
Speaker 1: domestically and a ban on imports won't have a significant
Speaker 1: impact on the gun debate in America. The n r
Speaker 1: A has has a lot of different problems and is
Speaker 1: facing lawsuits. Does that have any effect on the gun lobby?
Speaker 1: The n r A has never been weaker than it
Speaker 1: is right now. It's facing a real existential crisis. The
Speaker 1: New York Attorney General is probably trying to put the
Speaker 1: n r A out of business, uh and so far
Speaker 1: looks like the Attorney General is doing a pretty good
Speaker 1: job of it, and the n r A is uh
Speaker 1: not mounting a very vigorous defense that's persuasive. There does
Speaker 1: seem to be a long history of mismanagement of the
Speaker 1: n r A and some corruption inside. However, that's not
Speaker 1: going to affect the gun debate that much. Gun rights
Speaker 1: have never been stronger in America. The Republican Party is
Speaker 1: dead set against any new gun control laws. There's a
Speaker 1: strong new conservative majority on the Supreme Court that seems
Speaker 1: ready to expand gun rights, and so the n r
Speaker 1: A is facing untold challenges. But the gun rights movement
Speaker 1: remains very strong in America. Thanks Adam. That's Professor Adam
Speaker 1: Winkler of u c. L A Law School. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Coourt is ruled that the government can block immigrants with
Speaker 1: temporary protected status from applying for green cards if they
Speaker 1: enter the country unlawfully. It was the unanimous decision by
Speaker 1: the Court, the third such decision on immigration matters in
Speaker 1: as many weeks. Joining me is immigration expert Leon Fresco,
Speaker 1: a partnered Hollandon Knight. Leon explained what TPS is and
Speaker 1: the facts in the case. Temporary protective status is the
Speaker 1: status that the federal government has because the Congress conferreted
Speaker 1: onto the President many decades ago as part of the
Speaker 1: Immigration and Nationality Act. And what that status says is
Speaker 1: during times of very major difficulty in a country, such
Speaker 1: as a natural disaster or dangerous condition of a military conflict,
Speaker 1: or even a pandemic which is necessary for COVID, that
Speaker 1: the government can actually confer something called temporary protective status.
Speaker 1: Let's say, until whatever a crisis is happening in your
Speaker 1: country is over, you can stay here without being deported,
Speaker 1: and you can work here. The crisis are created in
Speaker 1: this case is because many people who've had temporary protective
Speaker 1: status have had for twenty or thirty years because the
Speaker 1: government searched to feel bad. It never ends the temporary
Speaker 1: license that says, oh, people have had children, they've had
Speaker 1: roots in the United States. Now those children are American citizens.
Speaker 1: Don't make them go home. People have this luck status
Speaker 1: for neck came such as a man in this case
Speaker 1: of a Sense of Sages who came in n and
Speaker 1: actually got semper and protective status based on earthquoints that
Speaker 1: happened in a Provador in two thousand and one. When
Speaker 1: we're talking about twenty years later. Was he able to
Speaker 1: get a green card on the basis of his granting
Speaker 1: of temporary protective status, because you can't get a green
Speaker 1: card from the side the United States, from an employer
Speaker 1: unless you have been or even from your clout, unless
Speaker 1: you were someone who answered legally and then overstate and
Speaker 1: then got CPS. But if you ainting illegally, you can't
Speaker 1: that temporary protective status. That was the understanding until people
Speaker 1: started doing and saying, well, maybe I can because temporary
Speaker 1: protective status. The Staton says, we're gonna treat you as
Speaker 1: if you had a non immigrant visa. And so every
Speaker 1: person with a non immigrant visa or someone who went
Speaker 1: to an airport and was added into the country, so
Speaker 1: they're they're presenting like I wasn'tmitted into the country. That
Speaker 1: was the theory of the case, and that case was
Speaker 1: very successful in many circuits, but it was not successful
Speaker 1: in the Third Circuit, and so there was an appeal
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court about who's right is it the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit or in the Third Circuit, And so that's
Speaker 1: what the decision was based on, saying that the Third
Speaker 1: Circuit was Justice Elena Kagan wrote the decision, and she
Speaker 1: always writes very clearly, and she said that there are
Speaker 1: two tracks, so explain the decision. So there are two
Speaker 1: tracks in this thing. There is who is someone who
Speaker 1: is a non immigrant to the United States and who
Speaker 1: is someone who was admitted to the United States. And
Speaker 1: so what admitted to the United States is that the
Speaker 1: reason your human body is in the United States is
Speaker 1: because you either enter through an airport, a landport of entry,
Speaker 1: or a seaport of entry. You presented a passport to
Speaker 1: a person with a blue uniform that says Customs and
Speaker 1: Border Protection. That person with a blue uniform swiped your
Speaker 1: passports and simpus. That's called an addition. And so you
Speaker 1: need to be admitted into the country in order to
Speaker 1: get a green car. And then there's a separate concept
Speaker 1: called having nonimmigrant status, and that is many people come
Speaker 1: to America have non immigrant status. They are students, they
Speaker 1: are workers, they are visitors, they are religious workers, there's
Speaker 1: all kinds of people have done immigrant status. And what
Speaker 1: the PPS statue says is during the period that you
Speaker 1: have temporary protective status, you will be treated like one
Speaker 1: of these people who have amount immigrant visa. And so
Speaker 1: the question is does best sentence means that you will
Speaker 1: be treated like that for the purpose of you can't
Speaker 1: be deported or does it mean you will be treated
Speaker 1: like that for the purpose of you can't be deported?
Speaker 1: And also when all of those people what we talked about,
Speaker 1: the students, the visitors, and the workers enter the country,
Speaker 1: they did go through an airport and get their visa.
Speaker 1: Fam So we're gonna expend the legal fiction to you
Speaker 1: that you went to the airport and that you're the faan.
Speaker 1: And what Justice Kagan and the nine in Justice and
Speaker 1: said was, no, we're not going to say that legal fiction.
Speaker 1: We're gonna say that this just means the bare minimum
Speaker 1: it means, which is that you're treated as being legally here,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't mean that you care legally. So this
Speaker 1: is another unanimous decision. There have been three immigration decisions
Speaker 1: in three weeks. They've all been unanimous. How do you
Speaker 1: account for that? This is a very impressive have run
Speaker 1: that there have been three basically major confessions by the
Speaker 1: liberal justices of these immigration matters. And I think there's
Speaker 1: a couple of things going on here. Number One, I
Speaker 1: think there's definitely trying to trade for some of the
Speaker 1: bigger cases that they think are coming down the pipe
Speaker 1: where they know they're going to need the help of
Speaker 1: Justice Horseheads or Justice Pony Barrett or Justice Roberts, and
Speaker 1: they're saying, let's show our magnanimity to our conservative collegues
Speaker 1: in cases where you can limit the damage and reach
Speaker 1: these decisions, hoping that let's say, in a case come
Speaker 1: from DOCTA, they'll be with us whether DOCCA is legal
Speaker 1: or not, or some of these asylum cases, and they
Speaker 1: go about they'll be on our side. So I think
Speaker 1: there's a little bit of that horse trading going on.
Speaker 1: But I also think that, for instance, in a case
Speaker 1: like Fanchase, this can actually be fixed very easily by
Speaker 1: the administration, so sort of a low cast year to
Speaker 1: the conservative side, which is all the administration has to
Speaker 1: do to fix this problem is to give every single
Speaker 1: person with CPS a document called that advanced parole which
Speaker 1: allows them to travel outside of the United States while
Speaker 1: they are on the CPS SATUS. And what that advanced
Speaker 1: parole actually does is it allows for the person to
Speaker 1: lead and re enter and w they reaverer legally, they
Speaker 1: solved the problem that they couldn't solve previously before this state.
Speaker 1: So I think you will eventually see the administration announce
Speaker 1: those advanced paroles which are perfectly legal, and this case
Speaker 1: will then have very limited practical meaning at that point.
Speaker 1: If you look at the reasoning in this case, does
Speaker 1: this affect Dreamers in any way? The reasoning so it
Speaker 1: doesn't affect dreamers because the Dreamers don't have the CPS
Speaker 1: sat uns. But what it does sort of fortend this
Speaker 1: needs vote for Dreamers and TPS individuals to be able
Speaker 1: to get this document I get discuss called an advance
Speaker 1: for all as the only basis that they're gonna be
Speaker 1: able to use to get a green card meaning doctor
Speaker 1: is viewed as legal and PPS egregal. But now you
Speaker 1: can get a green card CPS on its own unless
Speaker 1: you pay you illegality. What all of those people are
Speaker 1: gonna have to do is get a document from U S,
Speaker 1: c I S that allows them to travel abroad and
Speaker 1: then return. And only when they do that, that's when
Speaker 1: they're can apply for a freesta. Let's turn for a
Speaker 1: moment to the Vice President's trip to Central America. She
Speaker 1: warned Central Americans not to migrate to the US. Do
Speaker 1: not come, Do not come. If you come to our border,
Speaker 1: you will be turned back. Is that in fact the
Speaker 1: case are they being turned back at the border. So
Speaker 1: there are three groups of people who are arriving at
Speaker 1: the United States, and depending on which group you're in,
Speaker 1: your outcome is different. So if you are a single adult,
Speaker 1: those in new adults are currently being excluded from the
Speaker 1: United States. They're just switched back there, not even letting
Speaker 1: nobody puss to under an authority called Tindle forty two,
Speaker 1: which is a CEC authority that says during communicable disease crises,
Speaker 1: you could just be pushed back without any further analysis.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening to single adults. For unaccompanied miners. On
Speaker 1: the other perspective, every unaccompanied miners being allowed to come
Speaker 1: into the United States and make a claim for either
Speaker 1: asylum or special immigrant juvenile status. And that's where you're
Speaker 1: seeing these convention centers in California and u And I'm
Speaker 1: exactly fighting the existence of these convention centers, but you're
Speaker 1: seeing them all along the southern border for housing children
Speaker 1: until you can put them with an adult pomper and
Speaker 1: then you can go through their case. And then there's
Speaker 1: a third group that the hybrid group that's called family units.
Speaker 1: So that's adult with kids, and it seems like at
Speaker 1: the moment, about six to seventy percent of those family
Speaker 1: the units are being allowed to enter to make their
Speaker 1: claim for asylum, and then another thirty per centers are
Speaker 1: being excluded under Title forty two. And so the outcome
Speaker 1: of you will be returned even exactly what's happening on
Speaker 1: the border right now, unless you are a single adult.
Speaker 1: One of the point I will make is that this
Speaker 1: rhetoric is very short of counter productive and complicated. In
Speaker 1: this set. The Bising administration, unlike the Trump administration, sort
Speaker 1: of has this moral problem where they don't want to
Speaker 1: make a decision about what constitutes central American migration. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration was very comfortable pay that they believed one
Speaker 1: of the central American migration was economic migration, and none
Speaker 1: of them were genuine refugees speaking to come into avoid persecution.
Speaker 1: That is not a sentiment of the Buiding administration believes.
Speaker 1: But the problem is if you use rhetorics don't come
Speaker 1: to America because you'll be turned away. That's not what
Speaker 1: you would say if you thought that there were some
Speaker 1: group within the larger groups that are legitimate refugees. Because
Speaker 1: you would never say, for instance, to people in the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: they don't come, you'll be turned away, because that's not
Speaker 1: the lage, of course and any way, that wouldn't to
Speaker 1: turn anyone anyway because of your only choice in bed
Speaker 1: of course, you're going to come into the country. And
Speaker 1: so the point of that rhetoric is almost the reason
Speaker 1: why it's creating controversy under democratic but is because when
Speaker 1: you say things like don't come, you won't be allowed in,
Speaker 1: you're saying basically the same thing as the Trump administration
Speaker 1: that at least the large majority of not the entire
Speaker 1: bucket of people in Central America are not refugees. And
Speaker 1: so that's why you're seeing this push. What I want
Speaker 1: to ask about, So, as you mentioned, AOC representative, Alexandria
Speaker 1: Ocasio Cortez was very critical of Kamala Harris's remarks. Do
Speaker 1: integration advocates want everyone who comes to the borders to
Speaker 1: be allowed in? What are they looking for exactly? I
Speaker 1: think there are different groups. I think there are some
Speaker 1: people that are out on that extree. Let's say, look
Speaker 1: at the end of the at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: people don't remember that the United States, for the first
Speaker 1: count that it had not nothing. There was no immigration code,
Speaker 1: so you could just come to the United States and
Speaker 1: be here, and the United States they collapse or by
Speaker 1: during that period, and so there's no reason why you
Speaker 1: couldn't continue that. And that that is actually not just
Speaker 1: a liberal viewpoint that is held by alpha libertarian from
Speaker 1: place of like the Cato Institute and upper places like that,
Speaker 1: where that's one group of people. And so you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's perfected perfect the opinion out there,
Speaker 1: but that that is a group. There's another group that
Speaker 1: I would say, maybe he is another six that says no,
Speaker 1: not everybody, but people should have basic opportunity to be
Speaker 1: able to apply for asylum and they're realistically refugees, you
Speaker 1: should be able to give them a fair process at
Speaker 1: determents that that we're not actually pushing back a refugee
Speaker 1: that would then have something very bad happen to them
Speaker 1: because we mistakenly push them back. So that's another group.
Speaker 1: And then obviously you have the perspective of the Trump folks,
Speaker 1: which were that this group from Central America with laws
Speaker 1: was economics based migration, and so the idea was don't
Speaker 1: let any of them in and and and try to
Speaker 1: take away all of the basis by which they might
Speaker 1: prove they are a refugee. And that's perhaps was also
Speaker 1: you know us as these extree from that perspective because
Speaker 1: there were legitimate refugees within that group, and so it's
Speaker 1: just a matter of how you get that dollars right, um,
Speaker 1: deterring economic base migration because the point is that all
Speaker 1: migration that you can migration to offense through channels that
Speaker 1: exist in the system, albeit that those channels are not
Speaker 1: exactly easy to access, nor are they available in many cases,
Speaker 1: but still you must access that you should just show
Speaker 1: up at the border illegally. But when there are genuine,
Speaker 1: real refugees to allow people to make those claims so
Speaker 1: that they can actually fairly be protected and they need
Speaker 1: that protection. The idea is they're going to try to
Speaker 1: address the root causes of immigration by helping these countries.
Speaker 1: Has that worked before? Well, this is what's complicated, and
Speaker 1: I've been saying this and people pretty much uh, and
Speaker 1: to ignore this because it just makes its time hopeless.
Speaker 1: But an important thing to really consider, which when you
Speaker 1: take the growth domestic products for capita of the three
Speaker 1: mains and the immigration countries in Central America, Gatemala, darth
Speaker 1: and no savodors. We're talking about a three to four
Speaker 1: thousand dollar per person GW semestic products. And even if
Speaker 1: you compare that to Mexico, which has about a nine
Speaker 1: to ten thousand dollars for tappitt products, you then look
Speaker 1: at the fact that at the moment it's haven't been
Speaker 1: true for the last few years, but it's true. Right
Speaker 1: at the comment, we are seeing a certain of migration
Speaker 1: also from Mexico, and that's partly because COVID has done
Speaker 1: from damage in Mexico, and it's also because obviously there's
Speaker 1: a worker shortage here in the United States where a
Speaker 1: lot of workers are being needed for things like home
Speaker 1: construction and other things of that nature. And so what
Speaker 1: you're saying is, Okay, let's say I get four billion
Speaker 1: dollars to a place, and let's say all of that
Speaker 1: four billions you constructively, that's still not gonna get you
Speaker 1: anywhere near swippling the size of the economies of Guatemala,
Speaker 1: Al Favador and Honduras. And so people just has to
Speaker 1: be realistic about this, which is, you know, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be always a comparison between what life is like in
Speaker 1: the United States and what life is like in Guatemalaham,
Speaker 1: Durus and al Pavadore. And so there's always going to
Speaker 1: be a push factor to get people or a pull
Speaker 1: proctor to get people to am going into the United States.
Speaker 1: What what needs to happen is all of that needs
Speaker 1: to be needed realistically and to say, fine, some of
Speaker 1: this root caused investments matters because because you to make
Speaker 1: a plate say I'm not talking about economically vibrant, but
Speaker 1: say state actually does solve some of the push factors
Speaker 1: that lead people to leave and to migrate to the
Speaker 1: United States. But I think that's the best you're gonna
Speaker 1: be able to do. If you think that you'd ever
Speaker 1: be able to make the three Central American countries completely
Speaker 1: oblivious to the attractiveness of the United States most a venture,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's worked pursuing because the United States
Speaker 1: is attractive against almost every country in the world vise
Speaker 1: of the economic opportunity, and because that will certainly always
Speaker 1: be the case and in Central America as well. Thanks
Speaker 1: for being on the show. Leon, that's Leon Fresco of
Speaker 1: Hollanden Night. And that's it for this edition of the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
Speaker 1: legal moves on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg