WEBVTT - Judges Blast Trump Immigration Actions 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.000 --> 0:00:13.560 Federal court rulings this weekend on immigration enforcement handed the 0:00:13.560 --> 0:00:17.880 Trump administration a win and a loss, despite the fact 0:00:17.920 --> 0:00:23.079 that the federal judges in both cases excoriated the administration's 0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:27.319 enforcement actions. A Texas federal judge ordered the release of 0:00:27.360 --> 0:00:30.120 a five year old and his father who were detained 0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:33.320 in Minnesota and sent to a detention center, but a 0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:38.559 Minneapolis federal judge refused to halt the immigration enforcement surge 0:00:38.640 --> 0:00:42.720 in Minnesota. My guest is immigration law expert lyon Fresco, 0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:46.239 a partner at Holda Knight Leon. There seems to be 0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:50.800 a change in tone from the Trump administration. President Trump 0:00:50.880 --> 0:00:55.080 instructed to the Homeland Security Secretary not to intervene in 0:00:55.160 --> 0:01:00.600 protests or unrested democratic led cities unless local officials formally 0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:06.600 request assistance. DHS Secretary Christi nom said today that every 0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:10.320 immigration officer on the ground will be issued body worn 0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:14.360 cameras immediately. And of course last week we had borders 0:01:14.400 --> 0:01:17.720 our Tom Homan saying that mistakes had been made. 0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:21.200 I think there are two different philosophies, and I think 0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:23.920 we're going to have for the remainder of this administration 0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:27.880 a struggle back and forth between these two different philosophies, 0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:35.000 and one is rooted in practical law enforcement and legal doctrine, 0:01:35.120 --> 0:01:37.880 which is what Tom Holman wants, which is to say, 0:01:38.360 --> 0:01:41.839 we have whatever number, whether it's eleven million, twelve million, 0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:45.280 twenty million, whatever number of people we have here without status, 0:01:45.640 --> 0:01:48.080 if we're really going to focus our resources on a 0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:52.280 specific subset of people, focus on people who are criminals 0:01:52.640 --> 0:01:57.640 and people with removal orders, and don't focus on the 0:01:57.840 --> 0:02:01.360 larger population, because this make the job of ICE much 0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:04.880 more difficult in the sense that it creates these inflammatory 0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:08.320 conditions that we're seeing across the country. Number one, but 0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:13.160 number two, the agents are trained for detention and removal. 0:02:13.480 --> 0:02:18.280 They're not trained for these local police tactics, regardless of 0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:21.679 whether it's to border patrol or whether it's ICE. They're 0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:25.480 not trained for that. They're trained for apprehension of a 0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:29.320 particular person who's a foreign national, either in their home 0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:32.360 or the workplace, or the court, bringing them to detention 0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:35.560 and removing them from the country. And the border patrol 0:02:36.000 --> 0:02:39.799 is trained to guard the border. They're not trained to 0:02:39.840 --> 0:02:42.120 interact with us. It is entered and try to make 0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:45.360 determinations as to who's here legally and who isn't in 0:02:45.440 --> 0:02:49.000 a conflagration in a city. So that's one group. The 0:02:49.120 --> 0:02:53.359 second group the philosophies are partly focused on this concept 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:57.000 of quotas and arrest numbers at all costs, but really 0:02:57.040 --> 0:03:02.000 what they're trying to accomplish is to create deterrents such 0:03:02.080 --> 0:03:07.480 that the conditions in the United States are so anxiety 0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:11.520 producing that people make the determination that it's better for 0:03:11.600 --> 0:03:15.240 them to self deport and to take the offer that 0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:18.720 the US government is giving them to self deport rather 0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:21.839 than to remain in the United States and hope they 0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:25.720 can figure out a way to outlast this current administration. 0:03:26.200 --> 0:03:28.960 And those are the two theories, and those theories go 0:03:29.760 --> 0:03:33.440 back and forth depending on who is in charge at 0:03:33.480 --> 0:03:37.080 a particular moment and whose theory is being accepted at 0:03:37.080 --> 0:03:41.400 a particular moment. And the point is one is going 0:03:41.440 --> 0:03:46.240 to yield probably more numbers than the other, but at 0:03:46.240 --> 0:03:50.160 different times. Meaning if there's a lot of court injunctions 0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:54.320 and a lot of city conflagrations, maybe you might have 0:03:54.440 --> 0:04:00.520 yielded more numbers just having this blanket immigration deportation frenzy, 0:04:00.960 --> 0:04:03.360 But at the end you won't really, because you'll get 0:04:03.400 --> 0:04:06.280 a lot of stops and starts there. Whereas it's like 0:04:06.320 --> 0:04:09.040 the tortoise and the hair, if you do things the 0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:12.720 right way, in a slow and steady fashion. Yes it 0:04:12.800 --> 0:04:16.680 isn't this mass deportation of millions of people, but you 0:04:16.760 --> 0:04:20.360 get less injunctions, you get less orders overturning your work, 0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:24.479 and you actually get deportations. And so this is what 0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.599 Tom Holman has known. But to say that this is 0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:31.120 going to be the state of affairs for any extended 0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:34.359 period of time is foolish because this has changed many 0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:38.040 times and will continue to change many times during this administration. 0:04:38.520 --> 0:04:42.160 A recent case that's gotten a lot of attention is 0:04:42.320 --> 0:04:45.359 the five year old and his father who were detained 0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:49.680 in Minnesota and sent to a detention center in Texas. 0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:52.240 In ordering the release of the five year old and 0:04:52.240 --> 0:04:57.520 his father, Texas Judge Fred Bury accused the government of cruelty, 0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:01.080 saying the case had its genesis quote in the ill 0:05:01.160 --> 0:05:07.680 conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas 0:05:08.200 --> 0:05:11.840 apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. 0:05:12.240 --> 0:05:14.440 So here's what happened. So you have a father whose 0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:18.600 name is Adrian Conejo Arias and his son Liam. And 0:05:19.080 --> 0:05:23.279 basically what is conceded here is that there's a detention 0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:26.120 of the father in a way where the father is 0:05:26.160 --> 0:05:29.320 separated from the child, and the detention of that father 0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:33.240 relied on an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, and 0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:38.039 was part of a broader enforcement regime driven by the 0:05:38.080 --> 0:05:41.920 deportation numbers that the administration felt that it needed to have, 0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:44.800 and not because there was an actual reason to detain 0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:47.360 this person. Why do we say that, because this person 0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:50.680 was in the middle of the asylum process and did 0:05:50.680 --> 0:05:54.200 not have any criminal issues. So the point is, usually 0:05:54.200 --> 0:05:57.040 when that happens, they let you play out the asylum 0:05:57.080 --> 0:05:59.720 process and if you win, good, you win, and you're 0:05:59.760 --> 0:06:02.920 on your way to lawful permanent residency. But if you lose, 0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:06.240 that's when they detain you and move you into the 0:06:06.279 --> 0:06:10.960 deportation process. They very very rarely. Something usually has to happen, 0:06:11.000 --> 0:06:13.680 like an arrest or some sort of very bad thing 0:06:14.240 --> 0:06:16.839 to just pick someone up who's in the middle of 0:06:16.880 --> 0:06:20.360 the asylum process and just put them in detention, especially 0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:24.680 when there's children involved. But that's what happens here. They 0:06:24.760 --> 0:06:28.520 separate the child from the father for a moment, they 0:06:28.560 --> 0:06:31.320 try to give the child to the mother. The mother 0:06:31.440 --> 0:06:35.839 is terrified of Ice and is basically not allowing Ice 0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:38.200 to give the mother the child because she's worried if 0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:41.520 Ice opens the door, she's going to be apprehended. So 0:06:41.600 --> 0:06:44.040 the child and the father are taken to the Dilly 0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:49.240 Family Immigration Processing Center in Texas. And usually the way 0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:52.320 that works is when families come in the United States, 0:06:52.360 --> 0:06:55.760 that's where families are detained and then they're led out 0:06:56.720 --> 0:07:01.599 because there's immigration decisions that don't let children be in 0:07:01.720 --> 0:07:05.400 immigration detention for longer than two weeks, So usually it 0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:07.960 works that way. But in this way, they were trying 0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:11.040 to put the child and the father in detention, hoping 0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:13.800 they could get them on their way out. The problem is, 0:07:13.840 --> 0:07:16.360 of course, there's a pending asylum case, so you can't 0:07:16.680 --> 0:07:18.960 do anything. All you can do is just detain them 0:07:19.200 --> 0:07:22.800 for the purpose of having a new arrest number and 0:07:22.880 --> 0:07:26.560 a new detention bed occupation number, but not to actually 0:07:26.600 --> 0:07:30.080 accomplish a removal. So what happened? So these individuals file 0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:33.480 a habeas petition saying why have you detained them in 0:07:33.520 --> 0:07:36.760 the middle of the asylum process. What's the point of this? 0:07:37.440 --> 0:07:40.760 And even though that's technically something that needs to be 0:07:40.840 --> 0:07:45.160 done as part of an immigration bond hearing, the immigration 0:07:45.320 --> 0:07:49.240 courts are currently not considering those cases because there's an opinion, 0:07:49.280 --> 0:07:53.680 that's an administrative opinion that granted courts have refused to 0:07:53.800 --> 0:07:57.680 accept hundreds of times now because many people have filed habeas's, 0:07:58.080 --> 0:08:00.640 hundreds and hundreds of them all around the country, and 0:08:00.680 --> 0:08:03.400 almost all of those habeases are successful, saying that this 0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:07.640 blanket detention that's not being even considered for bond hearing 0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:12.080 is unconstitutional and violates the statute. And so that's basically 0:08:12.080 --> 0:08:14.760 what this court says. It says, hey, there's not a 0:08:14.800 --> 0:08:17.040 reason not to let these people out of the bond. 0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:22.960 And the arrest itself lacked constitutionally sufficient process because again 0:08:23.000 --> 0:08:26.520 it relied on administrative warrants instead of judicial warrants and 0:08:26.800 --> 0:08:30.640 was part of this broader enforcement regime driven by daily 0:08:30.720 --> 0:08:36.680 deportation quotas, not individualized probable cause determination. And then that's 0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:41.719 when the judge started talking about eighteen oh seven cases 0:08:41.760 --> 0:08:46.400 and the Magna Carta and Blackstone and biblical references and 0:08:46.480 --> 0:08:50.320 the Declaration of Independence, and basically, in a very very 0:08:50.320 --> 0:08:56.600 scathing fashion, criticizing this administration, and so that's that's why 0:08:56.640 --> 0:08:59.920 the release was ordered. There, This judge was very up 0:09:00.360 --> 0:09:03.880 at the government and the release was ordered. Now, ultimately 0:09:04.679 --> 0:09:07.600 there's going to be a grappling here, not in this 0:09:07.640 --> 0:09:12.080 particular case, i'd imagine, but ultimately where the Supreme Court's 0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:14.480 going to have to figure out can these habeas petitions 0:09:14.520 --> 0:09:17.280 be listened to? Did the government do the wrong thing 0:09:17.320 --> 0:09:21.559 with this blanket detention no bond order that it's issued, 0:09:21.920 --> 0:09:23.960 And that's all going to have to shake itself out. 0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:28.839 Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has disputed the claim that 0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:34.000 the father had properly followed the legal asylum process. 0:09:34.360 --> 0:09:37.280 There's a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly 0:09:37.320 --> 0:09:38.760 applied for asylum. 0:09:38.520 --> 0:09:41.520 And said the Justice Department is going to appeal the 0:09:41.640 --> 0:09:42.440 judge's ruling. 0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:46.000 Well, I think at the end of the day, if 0:09:46.040 --> 0:09:48.920 they want to appeal this case, they're going to be 0:09:49.400 --> 0:09:53.520 appealing it within the context of the legal issues being 0:09:53.559 --> 0:09:56.839 what they are. And again we've talked about this several times. 0:09:56.840 --> 0:10:00.760 Its concept of sometimes the statutes are quite ri and 0:10:00.880 --> 0:10:04.199 here they might prevail in the fact that the statutes 0:10:04.200 --> 0:10:07.920 themselves may foreclose habeas in this context and say that 0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:12.319 the bond situation has to happen within the removal preceding process. 0:10:12.880 --> 0:10:15.520 So it is all possible, but it's just not a 0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:18.679 very sympathetic fact pattern because you have this five year 0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:22.880 old child in immigration detention, and I understand that there's 0:10:22.920 --> 0:10:26.840 definitely factual disputes about what happened during the detention and 0:10:26.960 --> 0:10:31.280 also what happened with regard to him perfecting his asylum claim. 0:10:31.760 --> 0:10:34.960 But nevertheless, I just don't know that this is where 0:10:34.960 --> 0:10:37.360 they want to plant their flag as this being the 0:10:37.400 --> 0:10:40.199 case that ends up in the Supreme Court and having 0:10:40.240 --> 0:10:43.320 them decide whether a habeas is proper, because I think 0:10:43.559 --> 0:10:46.040 most people would say maybe this was the exact case 0:10:46.040 --> 0:10:49.000 you'd want a habeas in. They probably want the habeas 0:10:49.080 --> 0:10:52.160 in a much less sympathetic context to the foreign national. 0:10:52.360 --> 0:10:54.439 But we'll have to wait and see maybe they will 0:10:54.480 --> 0:10:55.640 pick this, or. 0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:59.880 Maybe they'll reconsider after some thought. Stay with me. Leon. 0:11:00.160 --> 0:11:03.599 Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, a Minnesota 0:11:03.720 --> 0:11:09.840 judge criticizes the Trump administration's immigration enforcement but refuses to 0:11:09.880 --> 0:11:13.120 stop it. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. 0:11:14.800 --> 0:11:18.920 A Minneapolis federal judge has ruled that she won't stop 0:11:19.040 --> 0:11:23.320 the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities 0:11:23.800 --> 0:11:27.920 as a lawsuit over it proceeds. Judge Catherine Menendez on 0:11:28.040 --> 0:11:32.720 Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in the lawsuit file 0:11:32.840 --> 0:11:36.440 this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the 0:11:36.480 --> 0:11:40.160 mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. I've been talking to 0:11:40.240 --> 0:11:44.640 immigration attorney Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. So there 0:11:44.720 --> 0:11:52.000 was another scathing opinion by a judge in Minneapolis, Judge Menendez, 0:11:52.520 --> 0:11:56.439 and she acknowledged that Minnesota and the cities have made 0:11:56.480 --> 0:12:00.800 a strong showing that Operation Metro ser has had and 0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:05.320 will continue to have profound and even heartbreaking consequences, and 0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:09.200 also found evidence that ICE and Border Patrol agents have 0:12:09.320 --> 0:12:13.640 engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other 0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:19.120 harmful actions. But still she wouldn't stop the federal immigration operation. 0:12:19.720 --> 0:12:23.120 Correct. What happened was you had the State of Minnesota, 0:12:23.240 --> 0:12:26.520 the City of Minneapolis, and the City of Saint Paul's 0:12:26.640 --> 0:12:30.680 suing to halt what was called Operation Metro Surge, which 0:12:30.679 --> 0:12:34.000 is the large scale immigration enforcement operation that was going 0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:37.720 on in Minnesota, and they were arguing that the Tenth 0:12:37.720 --> 0:12:41.600 Amendment was violated due to anti commandeering, meaning that their 0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:46.840 forces were being commandeered by the federal government without their consent, 0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:52.199 also violating principles of equal state sovereignty, and also functioning 0:12:52.240 --> 0:12:57.119 as political retaliation because they chose to be a sanctuary jurisdiction, 0:12:57.520 --> 0:12:59.360 which in this case just meant that they didn't want 0:12:59.400 --> 0:13:03.000 to cooperate with ICE to do arrest. They said, you know, 0:13:03.040 --> 0:13:05.479 the ICE is on its own. We don't have to cooperate, 0:13:05.920 --> 0:13:08.960 and so we will not. And so what the judge 0:13:08.960 --> 0:13:11.040 said is, as you said, there were a lot of 0:13:11.040 --> 0:13:14.560 things that bothered the judge with regard to racial profiling 0:13:14.640 --> 0:13:17.960 and the way immigration enforcement was being done, and she 0:13:18.040 --> 0:13:22.000 didn't decide whether that operation was lawful overall, and she 0:13:22.280 --> 0:13:26.280 certainly did not endorse the wisdom, fairness, or morality of 0:13:26.320 --> 0:13:28.760 the operation. And she did, of course, like we said, 0:13:29.080 --> 0:13:33.360 cited the racial profiling, excessive force, and unlawful arrest. But 0:13:33.559 --> 0:13:38.320 what she decided was whether an injunction would be tenable 0:13:38.480 --> 0:13:42.840 under this tenth Amendment and equal sovereignty theory. And ultimately, 0:13:42.880 --> 0:13:46.600 what the court said is that the plaintiffs failed to 0:13:46.640 --> 0:13:51.120 show a likelihood of success under existing Supreme Court president 0:13:51.240 --> 0:13:55.280 because the law is very narrow and undeveloped, and basically, 0:13:55.320 --> 0:13:59.040 the Court didn't have a workable legal standard for determining 0:13:59.320 --> 0:14:03.760 how many Fed agencies too many when aggressive enforcement crosses 0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:08.960 the line from lawful pressure into unconstitutional coercion. And so 0:14:09.040 --> 0:14:12.079 even though she said it wasn't legally frivolous, she didn't 0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:15.440 see how she could have an extraordinary remedy where a 0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:19.720 judge would halt a federal law enforcement operation. And I 0:14:19.760 --> 0:14:22.680 think here there are two key points. I think it's 0:14:22.720 --> 0:14:25.960 probably not lost on the judge that tom Holman did 0:14:25.960 --> 0:14:30.040 say what he said. Perhaps the judge was concerned about 0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:34.760 after tom Holman said what he said, getting involved and 0:14:35.320 --> 0:14:38.640 not basically letting this process play out. Perhaps if the 0:14:38.680 --> 0:14:41.920 process continued to play out in a way that was 0:14:42.000 --> 0:14:45.360 more escalatory, you might have seen a different decision. But 0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:49.760 I think that the tom Homan discussions about dialing it down, 0:14:49.880 --> 0:14:53.240 I think were very helpful Number one, and I think 0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:56.360 number two, at the end of the day, the judge 0:14:57.000 --> 0:15:03.040 was also concerned about how there would be this basically 0:15:03.200 --> 0:15:07.960 day to day governance of the federal government in one 0:15:08.000 --> 0:15:11.480 of these contexts, and so I think the judge basically said, 0:15:12.000 --> 0:15:15.040 let's see what Tom Holman is going to be doing 0:15:15.080 --> 0:15:18.280 in Minneapolis, and then we can come back and revisit this, 0:15:18.440 --> 0:15:21.560 but for now, this is not the time perhaps to 0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:23.320 issue this injunction. 0:15:24.480 --> 0:15:29.600 So now, in the category of another day, another immigration lawsuit, 0:15:30.280 --> 0:15:34.760 the Trump administration is being sued over that ban on 0:15:35.120 --> 0:15:40.000 immigration from seventy five countries, where the State Department suspended 0:15:40.040 --> 0:15:44.560 the approval of visas from seventy five countries. More than 0:15:44.600 --> 0:15:48.280 eighty five percent of the countries are non European with 0:15:48.480 --> 0:15:53.880 significant non white populations. Tell us about this new lawsuit. 0:15:54.040 --> 0:15:58.160 There's organizational plainefs and also there's individual plainifs, including US 0:15:58.160 --> 0:16:01.920 citizens traina petition for their family members, and also highly 0:16:01.960 --> 0:16:06.320 skilled employment based immigrant visa applications meaning people coming here 0:16:06.360 --> 0:16:09.680 to do very important things that aren't banned because they're 0:16:09.680 --> 0:16:13.240 from the seventy five countries. And there's a few documents. 0:16:13.280 --> 0:16:16.960 There's a blanket visa band cable that was issued on 0:16:17.560 --> 0:16:20.800 January fourteenth of twenty twenty six, and there was a 0:16:20.880 --> 0:16:25.760 councular processing cable. And what they're saying is these cables 0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:28.600 that basically say that the reason there's a seventy five 0:16:28.680 --> 0:16:32.720 country ban is because they're worried that the people from 0:16:32.800 --> 0:16:34.600 these seventy five countries are going to come in and 0:16:34.720 --> 0:16:39.520 use welfare benefits. That this violates the entire statutory scheme 0:16:39.560 --> 0:16:42.680 of the Immigration and Nationality Act for a couple of reasons. 0:16:42.800 --> 0:16:46.560 Number One, there's literally this is the weirdest thing. And 0:16:46.640 --> 0:16:48.560 I hate using this word literally, but here it is 0:16:48.600 --> 0:16:50.920 the appropriate use of the word. There is literally a 0:16:50.960 --> 0:16:55.400 provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that says that 0:16:55.480 --> 0:16:59.440 you can't discriminate when you're giving out green cards based 0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:02.360 on the country that someone's from. It actually says it 0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:08.960 right there in writing. And that's interesting because that's usually 0:17:09.119 --> 0:17:12.520 within the context of what the administration is not supposed 0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:14.800 to do. Is it's not supposed to say, give the 0:17:14.800 --> 0:17:17.600 green cards to this country as opposed to another. It's 0:17:17.600 --> 0:17:21.160 supposed to be first come, first served, within the confined 0:17:21.200 --> 0:17:24.160 of after you get more than seven percent from any 0:17:24.200 --> 0:17:27.560 one country your cat. That's fine, that's a different part 0:17:27.600 --> 0:17:29.480 of the statue. But other than that, it's supposed to 0:17:29.560 --> 0:17:32.200 be first come, first serve. So they're saying, look, there's 0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:34.600 a clear statue that says you can't do this. The 0:17:34.680 --> 0:17:38.640 problem is there's another statue which says that the president 0:17:38.720 --> 0:17:42.280 can ban whoever the president wants if the president thinks 0:17:42.320 --> 0:17:45.440 that's in the national interests of the country. And that's 0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:48.240 already been given some difference in the Trump versus Hawaii 0:17:48.359 --> 0:17:51.800 case from the first administration. So again you have these 0:17:51.880 --> 0:17:56.040 dueling statutes. Which statute will win. Will it be the 0:17:56.800 --> 0:18:02.080 travel ban statute or will it be the statute that 0:18:02.119 --> 0:18:05.000 says you can't discriminate based on who you give green 0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:07.879 cards to. Now what was interesting is that same argument 0:18:08.040 --> 0:18:11.640 was made in the travel ban case but was rejected. 0:18:11.760 --> 0:18:15.359 But interestingly, the reason it was rejected was because the 0:18:15.400 --> 0:18:18.760 travel ban case back then was not a ban on 0:18:18.800 --> 0:18:20.639 green cards. It was a ban on all kinds of 0:18:20.640 --> 0:18:25.320 other visas, visitor visa, student visas, other kinds of temporary visas. 0:18:25.480 --> 0:18:28.760 But it actually wasn't a ban on green cards. And 0:18:28.840 --> 0:18:31.840 so this is going to be very interesting is does 0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:35.240 this ban that's an actual ban on green cards violate 0:18:35.280 --> 0:18:38.639 the statutory language which says you can't discriminate in the 0:18:38.680 --> 0:18:42.320 allocation of green cards based on what country someone is from. 0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:45.439 So that's number one, and then number two, the fact 0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:49.400 that the underlying fear is that the people coming will 0:18:49.400 --> 0:18:52.720 be public charges, so to speak, meaning that they will 0:18:52.760 --> 0:18:56.800 rely on the federal government and the taxpayers for money. 0:18:57.440 --> 0:19:01.000 The point there is, look Congress created a statutory scheme 0:19:01.040 --> 0:19:03.480 for this. They said that when that's true, there has 0:19:03.520 --> 0:19:06.320 to be a sponsor who is a US citizen or 0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:09.040 a lawful permanent resident, and that person has to make 0:19:09.440 --> 0:19:12.879 a certain amount of money. And in that situation, if 0:19:13.359 --> 0:19:16.760 welfare benefits are obtained, then it's this sponsor who has 0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:19.320 to pay them back. They've agreed to do this, But 0:19:19.400 --> 0:19:22.239 that's the scheme, And the point is you can't come 0:19:22.320 --> 0:19:25.280 up with another scheme now because you don't like the 0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:27.920 existing scheme. So that's the point of the argument. 0:19:28.440 --> 0:19:31.480 And how often do sponsors have to pay back welfare 0:19:31.520 --> 0:19:33.640 benefits in practice? 0:19:34.080 --> 0:19:36.000 I can't even think of a case. I don't know 0:19:36.040 --> 0:19:38.080 of a case. I really don't know if a case 0:19:38.160 --> 0:19:41.280 exists where a sponsor has ever been asked to pay 0:19:41.359 --> 0:19:44.760 back the money that someone has obtained from public benefit. 0:19:44.840 --> 0:19:47.880 So it's a very interesting question in terms of why 0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:51.320 that's not happened. But that's the scheme. So we're going 0:19:51.400 --> 0:19:54.439 to see who wins within this context. Will they be 0:19:54.560 --> 0:19:58.920 correct that between the statutory language that says you can't 0:19:58.920 --> 0:20:03.800 discriminate on a particular country and the statutory language that 0:20:03.840 --> 0:20:07.280 says this is how you address this public charge concern 0:20:07.800 --> 0:20:10.720 that that framework means you can't have the kind of 0:20:10.800 --> 0:20:15.000 ban that the president issued, or will the President be 0:20:15.119 --> 0:20:20.000 able to again succeed relying on his blanket banning authority 0:20:20.359 --> 0:20:23.680 that allows him to basically ban any foreign national from 0:20:23.680 --> 0:20:26.520 the United States for any reason, as long as he 0:20:26.600 --> 0:20:28.679 thinks it's in the interests of the United States. So 0:20:29.080 --> 0:20:31.840 that's the question, and this is going to be yet 0:20:31.880 --> 0:20:35.080 another instance where these dueling statutes are going to have 0:20:35.119 --> 0:20:35.879 to be analyzed. 0:20:36.280 --> 0:20:40.080 So a senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, 0:20:40.160 --> 0:20:45.000 which brought this along with other legal organizations, said that 0:20:45.400 --> 0:20:49.600 the regions and countries where immigration is banned under the 0:20:49.720 --> 0:20:54.040 new policy boor an eerie resemblance to quota as enforced 0:20:54.040 --> 0:20:57.879 by nineteen twenty statutes that were abolished during the Civil 0:20:58.040 --> 0:21:01.879 Rights era, and that this was a freechext to limit 0:21:02.000 --> 0:21:06.480 legal immigration and to reinstate those old racial quotas. 0:21:07.560 --> 0:21:11.320 Correct the quotas that existed basically at that time only 0:21:11.320 --> 0:21:13.679 allowed people from Europe to come to the United States 0:21:13.680 --> 0:21:16.960 and not people from Asia or Africa, or South America 0:21:17.080 --> 0:21:20.560 or the Caribbean or anywhere else. And that's the language 0:21:20.560 --> 0:21:22.439 that I told you about, the language which said you 0:21:22.480 --> 0:21:27.000 can't discriminate on the basis of national origin anymore. That 0:21:27.119 --> 0:21:29.480 has to be a first come, first serve allocation of 0:21:29.520 --> 0:21:33.199 green card. That's the language that ended the quotas. So 0:21:33.520 --> 0:21:36.639 the quotas existed until the nineteen sixties, and then in 0:21:36.680 --> 0:21:40.320 the nineteen sixties that language was put in which eliminated 0:21:40.320 --> 0:21:44.320 the quotas. And so the question is what happens now. 0:21:44.400 --> 0:21:49.880 Can the President, through his travel ban authority, which doesn't 0:21:49.960 --> 0:21:52.639 just allow him to ban travel, but allows him to 0:21:52.640 --> 0:21:55.280 ban any any entry of any kind by any non 0:21:55.440 --> 0:21:58.720 US citizen, can he use this at such an expansive 0:21:58.760 --> 0:22:03.640 way to basic redo the quotas of the pre nineteen 0:22:03.720 --> 0:22:07.000 sixties era, or will the courts put some limitation on 0:22:07.080 --> 0:22:09.440 the president? And that is going to be a very 0:22:09.480 --> 0:22:10.320 interesting question. 0:22:10.840 --> 0:22:14.439 Another interesting ruling was the Ninth Circuit saying that the 0:22:14.560 --> 0:22:19.440 DHS Secretary didn't have the authority to vacate TPS status 0:22:19.480 --> 0:22:24.240 for Venezuela and Haiti tell us why, Because TPS status 0:22:24.320 --> 0:22:28.040 is something that's supposed to be temporary, so why can't 0:22:28.040 --> 0:22:29.680 she Yeah, this has been. 0:22:29.600 --> 0:22:33.040 A complicated case because this case has gone back and 0:22:33.080 --> 0:22:37.840 forth several times where there's been preliminary injunctions where the 0:22:37.880 --> 0:22:41.240 court lower courts have said, hey, we know there's temporary 0:22:41.320 --> 0:22:44.040 protected status. What temporary protected status is, by the way, 0:22:44.560 --> 0:22:48.159 is a statutory provision that says that the president if 0:22:48.200 --> 0:22:51.880 they think there's some sort of natural disaster or some 0:22:51.920 --> 0:22:56.320 sort of pandemic or something else in a particular country, 0:22:57.040 --> 0:23:01.440 that in that situation, the president can say for eighteen months, hey, 0:23:01.600 --> 0:23:03.480 people who are stuck here in the US are not 0:23:03.600 --> 0:23:08.159 here illegally, they're temporarily protected. And then what's happened is 0:23:08.200 --> 0:23:11.320 every eighteen months that gets renewed, renewed, renewed. And so 0:23:11.400 --> 0:23:14.760 then this question was, Okay, what happened when those eighteen 0:23:14.800 --> 0:23:18.800 months expired for Venezuela in eighty Is President Trump in 0:23:18.880 --> 0:23:22.320 some way bound to do something other than let them expire? 0:23:22.800 --> 0:23:26.720 And so there was a lawsuit saying that the Secretary 0:23:26.760 --> 0:23:31.480 of Onland Security Christinome, exceeded her statutory authority in vacating 0:23:31.960 --> 0:23:37.560 and terminating the temporary protected status. And there's been injunction 0:23:37.680 --> 0:23:39.680 saying they had to come back, and then the Supreme 0:23:39.720 --> 0:23:43.080 Court has said it doesn't have to come back. And 0:23:43.119 --> 0:23:46.600 so one of the things that's complicated is Secretary No 0:23:46.800 --> 0:23:49.919 didn't just let it expire, and she done that. She 0:23:50.000 --> 0:23:52.600 might have actually had a better case, but she tried 0:23:52.640 --> 0:23:57.120 to vacate the existing temporary protected status, and so by 0:23:57.160 --> 0:24:00.520 doing that, the Court said that she exceeded her statutory 0:24:00.640 --> 0:24:05.560 authority to vacate this, and then by doing that is 0:24:05.600 --> 0:24:10.320 sort of basically using that as a mechanism to extend 0:24:10.800 --> 0:24:14.520 temporary protected status as much as possible. I don't think 0:24:14.600 --> 0:24:17.359 here the Supreme Court is ultimately going to have a 0:24:17.400 --> 0:24:21.920 lot of sympathy, especially when the time actually expires and 0:24:22.200 --> 0:24:25.720 there really is no temporary protected status left because the 0:24:25.800 --> 0:24:29.439 time has expired. And basically I don't think the Supreme 0:24:29.440 --> 0:24:33.600 Court will say that there's any judge that can require 0:24:33.680 --> 0:24:37.840 a president to renew temporary protected status. So I think 0:24:38.280 --> 0:24:40.560 ultimately this is going to end up being much ado 0:24:40.640 --> 0:24:43.560 about nothing. But the Ninth Circuit is trying its best 0:24:43.880 --> 0:24:49.199 to keep the Venezuelan and Haitian population protected from deportation. 0:24:49.440 --> 0:24:51.439 But I don't think in the long run this is 0:24:51.440 --> 0:24:52.439 going to be successful. 0:24:52.720 --> 0:24:55.720 Texas has its own H one divisa policy. 0:24:56.000 --> 0:24:58.000 So here's what happens. So let's go through this because 0:24:58.040 --> 0:25:00.919