1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,840 --> 00:00:11,959
Speaker 2: A shooter with a rifle opened fire from a nearby

3
00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:16,599
Speaker 2: roof onto a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office

4
00:00:16,680 --> 00:00:21,119
Speaker 2: in Dallas today, killing one detainee and injuring two others

5
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 2: before taking his own life. The head of the FBI,

6
00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 2: Cash Patel, released a photo on social media that shows

7
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:31,720
Speaker 2: a bullet found at the scene with the words anti

8
00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:36,159
Speaker 2: ICE written in what appears to be marker. The acting

9
00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:39,560
Speaker 2: Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said, there's been a rise

10
00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:41,559
Speaker 2: in threats against ICE agents.

11
00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:45,320
Speaker 1: All of our officers have an increased presence now with

12
00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:49,040
Speaker 1: security from Federal Protective Services just because, like I said,

13
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:52,280
Speaker 1: assaults in a threats on officer of one thousand percent.

14
00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:55,560
Speaker 2: This was the third shooting this year at a Department

15
00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:59,960
Speaker 2: of Homeland Security facility in Texas. Joining me is Immigrat

16
00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:03,880
Speaker 2: attorney Leon Fresco, a partner at Hound and Knight. Leon

17
00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:07,199
Speaker 2: I says it's officers are facing a more than one

18
00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:13,080
Speaker 2: thousand percent increase in threats and assaults against them. Leon

19
00:01:13,160 --> 00:01:15,520
Speaker 2: I says that it's officers are facing more than a

20
00:01:15,640 --> 00:01:21,640
Speaker 2: thousand percent increase in assaults against them, including vehicles being

21
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:27,120
Speaker 2: used as weapons toward them, and doxing campaigns targeting officers

22
00:01:27,240 --> 00:01:28,240
Speaker 2: and their families.

23
00:01:29,240 --> 00:01:34,640
Speaker 3: These situations are terrible. The violence obviously has to stop

24
00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:37,960
Speaker 3: against the ICE officers that are just there trying to

25
00:01:37,959 --> 00:01:38,640
Speaker 3: do their job.

26
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:40,479
Speaker 4: In this particular.

27
00:01:40,080 --> 00:01:44,760
Speaker 3: Instance, the individuals who ended up actually being shot were detainees,

28
00:01:45,480 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 3: and so it's not clear what the shooter's intent is.

29
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:52,040
Speaker 3: But it's just a tough situation because it seems like,

30
00:01:52,240 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 3: just in general, in every aspect of things, the default becomes,

31
00:01:57,880 --> 00:02:00,800
Speaker 3: if I don't get my way through the police process

32
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:04,640
Speaker 3: or through some other manner, violence is the next mode

33
00:02:05,120 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 3: of settling one's dispute, and everybody involved everywhere needs to

34
00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:14,560
Speaker 3: end that ethos because you see, it's in all facets,

35
00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:19,119
Speaker 3: it denies, it's in the detention facilities, it's in society generally.

36
00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:22,440
Speaker 3: I think everybody on all side just needs to say

37
00:02:22,560 --> 00:02:27,000
Speaker 3: violence is not the next stept of dispute resolution, for instance,

38
00:02:27,040 --> 00:02:31,359
Speaker 3: like litigation. Litigation is another way people used to resolve disputes.

39
00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:34,240
Speaker 3: It's not violent, and that just has to be taken

40
00:02:34,280 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 3: up the table by everyone involved.

41
00:02:36,400 --> 00:02:41,320
Speaker 2: Immigration advocates and others have called out aggressive tactics by

42
00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:46,080
Speaker 2: ICE agents and on Saturday, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed

43
00:02:46,080 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 2: a set of bills meant to check the Trump administration's

44
00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:55,640
Speaker 2: aggressive immigration crackdown in California, including a first in the

45
00:02:55,720 --> 00:02:59,919
Speaker 2: nation measure to prohibit officers from wearing masks and other

46
00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:04,200
Speaker 2: is that limit their access to schools and hospitals. The

47
00:03:04,280 --> 00:03:07,760
Speaker 2: question is whether a state law can be enforced on

48
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:12,520
Speaker 2: federal agents. Is that easily challengeable by the Trump administration?

49
00:03:14,160 --> 00:03:16,920
Speaker 3: Well, absolutely, This is going to set up a preemption

50
00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:23,200
Speaker 3: situation where there's sort of two preemption issues. One that'll

51
00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:26,960
Speaker 3: just be in the court, which is, if this law presented,

52
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:30,400
Speaker 3: does the state government ever have the ability to tell

53
00:03:30,440 --> 00:03:34,000
Speaker 3: the federal government how or where it can enforce federal

54
00:03:34,120 --> 00:03:37,640
Speaker 3: law within the context of a state. So that will

55
00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:41,080
Speaker 3: be an issue that will be squarely and clearly tied

56
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:43,760
Speaker 3: up for the courts, which is different than the sanctuary

57
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 3: city issue, because the sanctuary city issue is about whether

58
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:50,440
Speaker 3: a state or a city can be compelled to enforce

59
00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:53,480
Speaker 3: federal law. That's different than the state or a city

60
00:03:54,080 --> 00:03:57,800
Speaker 3: actually limiting the manner in which the federal government enforces

61
00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 3: its laws. So, for instance, could you amine a state

62
00:04:01,360 --> 00:04:04,720
Speaker 3: or a local government saying in our state, we're not

63
00:04:04,760 --> 00:04:08,400
Speaker 3: going to let the federal government come into somebody's house

64
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:12,040
Speaker 3: who committed federal tax violations. You're not allowed to do it.

65
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:15,760
Speaker 3: You have to follow this other procedure. So where would

66
00:04:15,840 --> 00:04:19,359
Speaker 3: that end? And so you start asking those questions. But

67
00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:22,080
Speaker 3: obviously the concern is a serious one. You want the

68
00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:25,680
Speaker 3: police to identify themselves at all times, or ICE in

69
00:04:25,720 --> 00:04:28,640
Speaker 3: this case, to identify themselves at all times, then not

70
00:04:28,760 --> 00:04:33,640
Speaker 3: have a situation where ICE can can easily be impersonated

71
00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:37,040
Speaker 3: by other bad actors who will aren't Ice. So everybody

72
00:04:37,200 --> 00:04:41,000
Speaker 3: has some interest in coming into a more transparent process

73
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:45,440
Speaker 3: where it's clear that it is actual immigration enforcement officers

74
00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:48,920
Speaker 3: who they are, and that when someone is apprehended, that

75
00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:53,440
Speaker 3: person can be identified and known where they're being housed

76
00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:55,760
Speaker 3: and where they're being stationed so that the attorneys can

77
00:04:55,800 --> 00:04:58,160
Speaker 3: get to them. So all of that is important. So

78
00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:00,880
Speaker 3: the courts one will decide what is the level of

79
00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:02,240
Speaker 3: pre empsion. But the other thing I was going to

80
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:06,200
Speaker 3: say is to the extent that it's not preempted at

81
00:05:06,279 --> 00:05:09,880
Speaker 3: the moment. The next question would be, well, what does

82
00:05:09,920 --> 00:05:13,320
Speaker 3: someone do. Let's say you're at some state university and

83
00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:16,280
Speaker 3: ICE shows up on campus. Do you literally call the

84
00:05:16,400 --> 00:05:20,120
Speaker 3: university police? And what does the university police do? Do

85
00:05:20,240 --> 00:05:24,760
Speaker 3: they actually arrest the ICE agents for violating the rules?

86
00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:27,640
Speaker 3: This is where I think this gets very dicey, and

87
00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:30,440
Speaker 3: I probably would say that that's not going to end

88
00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:33,320
Speaker 3: up happening. That there's going to be state and local

89
00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:36,760
Speaker 3: police that end up getting into confrontations with ICE or

90
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:40,760
Speaker 3: they start trying to arrest ICE agents. But theoretically that

91
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:45,279
Speaker 3: is contemplated under the statute, and so I think sooner

92
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:47,039
Speaker 3: rather than later, this is going to have to be

93
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:49,880
Speaker 3: addressed by the court so that you never even get

94
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:51,960
Speaker 3: close to an unfortunate situation like this.

95
00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:55,640
Speaker 2: And in twenty eighteen, California had passed a law to

96
00:05:55,720 --> 00:06:00,560
Speaker 2: restrict immigration arrest at superior court buildings, but that hasn't

97
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 2: stopped the Trump administration from detaining people at those courts

98
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:07,520
Speaker 2: this year. It's the question of whether there's an ability

99
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:08,600
Speaker 2: to enforce or not.

100
00:06:09,600 --> 00:06:12,080
Speaker 3: Right, That's the point is, whenever you write a law,

101
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:14,080
Speaker 3: that's only half of the game.

102
00:06:14,240 --> 00:06:15,720
Speaker 4: The other half of the game is can.

103
00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:16,760
Speaker 3: You enforce the law?

104
00:06:17,160 --> 00:06:18,680
Speaker 4: And if you cannot enforce.

105
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:21,520
Speaker 3: Whatever law you've written, and that law's meaningless and so

106
00:06:21,640 --> 00:06:24,680
Speaker 3: there's two levels of enforcement. So the first is will

107
00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:27,599
Speaker 3: the courts allow it to be enforced? But the second is,

108
00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:30,320
Speaker 3: even if the courts allow it to be enforced, what

109
00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:34,200
Speaker 3: actual human beings in California are actually going to try

110
00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:37,039
Speaker 3: to enforce this law? And I think until both of

111
00:06:37,040 --> 00:06:39,839
Speaker 3: those issues are addressed, I think you would say it's

112
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:43,000
Speaker 3: highly unlikely that the state would be able to take

113
00:06:43,040 --> 00:06:46,159
Speaker 3: matters into its own hands, as has been attempted here.

114
00:06:47,880 --> 00:06:52,120
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Friday that will

115
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:55,880
Speaker 2: require a one hundred thousand dollars annual fee for H

116
00:06:56,000 --> 00:07:00,320
Speaker 2: one B visas, which enables skilled workers from overseas to

117
00:07:00,440 --> 00:07:05,200
Speaker 2: temporarily work in the United States. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

118
00:07:05,320 --> 00:07:08,040
Speaker 2: said all big companies are on board.

119
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:12,160
Speaker 5: So the whole idea is no more with these big

120
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:16,880
Speaker 5: tech companies or other big companies train foreign workers. They

121
00:07:16,920 --> 00:07:19,000
Speaker 5: have to pay the government one hundred thousand dollars, then

122
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:22,600
Speaker 5: they have to pay the employee. So it's just non economic.

123
00:07:22,800 --> 00:07:26,080
Speaker 5: If you're going to train somebody, you're going to train

124
00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:28,760
Speaker 5: one of the recent graduates from one of the great

125
00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:33,600
Speaker 5: universities across our land. Train Americans. Stop bringing in people

126
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:37,160
Speaker 5: to take our jobs. That's the policy here, one hundred

127
00:07:37,200 --> 00:07:40,280
Speaker 5: thousand dollars a year for H one B visas, and

128
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 5: all of the big companies are on board. We've spoken

129
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:45,280
Speaker 5: to them about the Golden Card.

130
00:07:45,320 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 4: They love us, they love it, they really love it.

131
00:07:47,240 --> 00:07:47,880
Speaker 4: They need it.

132
00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:51,840
Speaker 2: I've been talking to immigration attorney Leon Fresco of Holland

133
00:07:51,840 --> 00:07:55,000
Speaker 2: and Knight. An immigration issue that's gotten a lot of

134
00:07:55,040 --> 00:08:01,040
Speaker 2: attention is President Trump signing a proclamation on frey that

135
00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:04,840
Speaker 2: will require one hundred thousand dollars annual fee for H

136
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:09,080
Speaker 2: one B visas, which allows skilled workers from overseas to

137
00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:13,160
Speaker 2: temporarily work in the United States. I mean, what's the

138
00:08:13,200 --> 00:08:15,960
Speaker 2: fee like now at.

139
00:08:15,760 --> 00:08:19,480
Speaker 3: The moment if an employer wins the lottery, Because that's

140
00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:21,360
Speaker 3: the first step of this is that there are more

141
00:08:21,400 --> 00:08:24,640
Speaker 3: people who want, more businesses that want H one B

142
00:08:24,880 --> 00:08:28,360
Speaker 3: employees than there are slots. And there's eighty five thousand

143
00:08:28,440 --> 00:08:31,880
Speaker 3: slots per year, and there's usually a demand of between

144
00:08:31,920 --> 00:08:35,760
Speaker 3: four hundred and five hundred thousand people that employers want

145
00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:38,319
Speaker 3: to hire for these slots. And that's just on day

146
00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:40,680
Speaker 3: one of the programs. Over the rest of the year,

147
00:08:40,720 --> 00:08:44,040
Speaker 3: there'd be people who would apply, but they can't because

148
00:08:44,040 --> 00:08:45,280
Speaker 3: the slots are all gone.

149
00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:47,199
Speaker 4: But the point is.

150
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:49,640
Speaker 3: That if you then win the lottery and you get

151
00:08:49,679 --> 00:08:51,480
Speaker 3: one of those slots.

152
00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:53,559
Speaker 4: It costs about five thousand.

153
00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:58,719
Speaker 3: Dollars in fees to take that worker into your employee.

154
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:01,960
Speaker 3: So there's fees for the application. There's fees to get

155
00:09:01,960 --> 00:09:05,320
Speaker 3: a decision in fifteen days that most employers use because

156
00:09:05,320 --> 00:09:07,720
Speaker 3: they don't want to wait a year or two to

157
00:09:07,760 --> 00:09:09,839
Speaker 3: get an answer. So they said they get what's called

158
00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:13,760
Speaker 3: premium processing. And there's two other fees. One that's a

159
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:16,640
Speaker 3: fee to fight fraud in the system, so the money

160
00:09:16,960 --> 00:09:21,320
Speaker 3: literally goes toward fraud investigators to make sure that nobody's

161
00:09:21,360 --> 00:09:24,480
Speaker 3: gaming the system. And then there's another fee that actually

162
00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:29,199
Speaker 3: goes toward the Department of Labor to train American workers

163
00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:32,320
Speaker 3: to do high skill jobs. And so all of those

164
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:35,920
Speaker 3: fees aed up to five thousand dollars, and the idea

165
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:40,120
Speaker 3: would be that this proclamation, if enacted, would raise that

166
00:09:40,280 --> 00:09:43,840
Speaker 3: fee to one hundred thousand, but it's not clear where

167
00:09:43,880 --> 00:09:45,760
Speaker 3: that money would go to. It would just go to

168
00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:49,600
Speaker 3: the treasury, and then within the treasury it can be

169
00:09:49,640 --> 00:09:52,640
Speaker 3: allocated just I suppose for deficit reduction.

170
00:09:53,559 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 2: Besides bringing that money into the treasury, what's the underlying

171
00:09:57,720 --> 00:09:59,080
Speaker 2: purpose of this.

172
00:09:59,640 --> 00:10:04,560
Speaker 3: The purpose of that fee is ostensibly to say that

173
00:10:05,120 --> 00:10:07,880
Speaker 3: if an employer is using the H one B program

174
00:10:07,960 --> 00:10:12,480
Speaker 3: not to hire a super skilled, highly talented employee where

175
00:10:12,480 --> 00:10:15,800
Speaker 3: money isn't an object, but as instead trying to hire

176
00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:20,040
Speaker 3: an employee for the purposes of undercutting the wage of

177
00:10:20,080 --> 00:10:23,319
Speaker 3: a US national that it otherwise would have hired. This

178
00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:26,160
Speaker 3: takes that off the table because you would never do this.

179
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:29,280
Speaker 3: You would never pay an extra one hundred thousand dollars

180
00:10:29,679 --> 00:10:33,120
Speaker 3: to undercut the wages of an American. So the only

181
00:10:33,160 --> 00:10:36,360
Speaker 3: reason you would pay one hundred thousand dollars is because

182
00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:38,960
Speaker 3: you were hiring the best of the best, and money

183
00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:42,439
Speaker 3: is no object. You really need this individual.

184
00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:45,720
Speaker 4: The problem is the.

185
00:10:45,000 --> 00:10:49,359
Speaker 3: Language of that proclamation is under the travel ban authority.

186
00:10:49,400 --> 00:10:51,920
Speaker 3: We've talked about this many times on the show. There's

187
00:10:51,920 --> 00:10:55,959
Speaker 3: a statute called IA Immigration Nationality Act, Section two twelve

188
00:10:56,480 --> 00:11:01,440
Speaker 3: that basically gives the president almost unfettered authority to ban

189
00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:05,440
Speaker 3: the entry of anyone the president thinks it's not in

190
00:11:05,480 --> 00:11:08,720
Speaker 3: the interests of the United States to allow their entry.

191
00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:12,720
Speaker 3: But the problem with that statute is it applies to

192
00:11:12,800 --> 00:11:16,760
Speaker 3: banning entry. So the question is if you are a

193
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:21,040
Speaker 3: foreign student who's now attending Harvard or who's attending Stanford

194
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:25,240
Speaker 3: or MIT or cal Tech or something, and you now

195
00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:28,199
Speaker 3: want to after you graduate, get an H one B

196
00:11:28,480 --> 00:11:32,520
Speaker 3: because you've been hired by Nvidia or you've been hired

197
00:11:32,559 --> 00:11:37,840
Speaker 3: by Facebook or Intel or Google or something. You've already

198
00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:40,680
Speaker 3: entered the country, so this doesn't apply to you.

199
00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:41,840
Speaker 4: And so the.

200
00:11:41,920 --> 00:11:45,319
Speaker 3: Question is, does everybody know that here, does the administration

201
00:11:45,559 --> 00:11:48,360
Speaker 3: think that those people are going to have to pay

202
00:11:48,520 --> 00:11:53,120
Speaker 3: the one hundred thousand dollars fee or does it know that, Look,

203
00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:55,600
Speaker 3: those people have entered, so they're not subject to one

204
00:11:55,640 --> 00:12:00,400
Speaker 3: hundred thousand fee. If the people already here, it's understood

205
00:12:00,440 --> 00:12:03,000
Speaker 3: and everybody gets it, and it's clear that if the

206
00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:06,320
Speaker 3: people already here as students in US universities are not

207
00:12:06,720 --> 00:12:09,640
Speaker 3: subject to the one hundred thousand feet then this is

208
00:12:09,679 --> 00:12:13,880
Speaker 3: going to apply to a lot fewer people than what

209
00:12:14,480 --> 00:12:18,680
Speaker 3: I think the people who are initially cheering this proposal

210
00:12:18,760 --> 00:12:22,120
Speaker 3: on on the restriction AST side would have thought it's

211
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:25,120
Speaker 3: going to apply to significantly fewer people and what it

212
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:28,960
Speaker 3: actually will turn out. The most likely scenario is that

213
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:33,040
Speaker 3: this will basically only lead to a de facto ban

214
00:12:33,880 --> 00:12:37,839
Speaker 3: on the ability of what are these famous Indian contractors

215
00:12:38,360 --> 00:12:43,680
Speaker 3: like Whipro, Tata, Infoss, etc. Who hire more people from

216
00:12:43,720 --> 00:12:47,960
Speaker 3: India directly than they do from US universities. Those people

217
00:12:48,000 --> 00:12:50,560
Speaker 3: will end up being effectively banned because they will not

218
00:12:50,920 --> 00:12:54,160
Speaker 3: pay one hundred thousand for those workers. And so if

219
00:12:54,160 --> 00:12:57,600
Speaker 3: this survives litigation, that's probably who's going to be banned here,

220
00:12:58,080 --> 00:12:58,800
Speaker 3: leon does.

221
00:12:58,679 --> 00:13:03,320
Speaker 2: The Trump administration have the authority, the statutory authority to

222
00:13:03,880 --> 00:13:07,680
Speaker 2: impose this one hundred thousand dollars fee because isn't the

223
00:13:07,720 --> 00:13:11,800
Speaker 2: fee supposed to cover the costs of processing the application?

224
00:13:12,760 --> 00:13:15,920
Speaker 3: So this is very interesting because there's a very similar

225
00:13:16,000 --> 00:13:20,320
Speaker 3: type of litigation with regard to asylum, where there's a

226
00:13:20,320 --> 00:13:23,560
Speaker 3: whole set of asylum statutes and then there's another one

227
00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:26,280
Speaker 3: that says, yeah, but you can deny asylum for any

228
00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:29,480
Speaker 3: discretionary reason, and that the courts have been fighting this

229
00:13:29,559 --> 00:13:31,840
Speaker 3: out and they're still fighting it out. Which card Trump's

230
00:13:31,840 --> 00:13:34,520
Speaker 3: the other card? Does the eight trump the joker? Does

231
00:13:34,559 --> 00:13:38,440
Speaker 3: the joker trump the eight? Same situation here, you have

232
00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:43,360
Speaker 3: a large exhaustive set of H one B statutory regime

233
00:13:44,000 --> 00:13:47,959
Speaker 3: that's very clear and that you cannot change by regulation

234
00:13:48,160 --> 00:13:51,200
Speaker 3: or presidential proclamation or anything else. So you would think

235
00:13:51,200 --> 00:13:54,480
Speaker 3: that that would win. But you also have another statute,

236
00:13:54,559 --> 00:13:57,240
Speaker 3: which is the IA two twelve F that says that

237
00:13:57,320 --> 00:14:00,559
Speaker 3: the president can ban anyone that the president wants for

238
00:14:00,840 --> 00:14:05,640
Speaker 3: issues of public interest, and can set any conditions upon entry.

239
00:14:05,320 --> 00:14:07,840
Speaker 4: That the president wants. So the president is.

240
00:14:07,840 --> 00:14:10,360
Speaker 3: Saying, well, here's a condition I'm setting upon entry.

241
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:13,320
Speaker 4: So, for instance, in twenty twenty, twenty twenty.

242
00:14:13,120 --> 00:14:16,280
Speaker 3: One, there actually was a ban on these H one

243
00:14:16,320 --> 00:14:20,040
Speaker 3: be holders under the COVID protocol. Those folks were banned

244
00:14:20,080 --> 00:14:22,400
Speaker 3: and they couldn't come in the country. And so this

245
00:14:22,560 --> 00:14:24,880
Speaker 3: is just the same thing. It's a ban, but rather

246
00:14:24,920 --> 00:14:27,680
Speaker 3: than being a complete and total ban, it's a ban

247
00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:31,200
Speaker 3: which you can circumvent by paying one hundred thousand dollars fee.

248
00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:35,280
Speaker 3: And so when the courts analyze this, which card will

249
00:14:35,320 --> 00:14:39,600
Speaker 3: be the Trump card? Will it be the banning statute

250
00:14:39,840 --> 00:14:42,200
Speaker 3: that says, no matter who you are, if you're any

251
00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:45,960
Speaker 3: foreign national of any kind, the president can set these

252
00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:49,040
Speaker 3: conditions and terms for letting you in the country. Or

253
00:14:49,080 --> 00:14:52,240
Speaker 3: will it be the large H one B statutory scheme

254
00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:56,400
Speaker 3: under the idea that you can't have an exception that

255
00:14:56,560 --> 00:15:00,040
Speaker 3: swallows the entire rule of immigration law so that the

256
00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:04,000
Speaker 3: president can just rewrite the entire immigration code with the

257
00:15:04,080 --> 00:15:08,160
Speaker 3: INA to twelve authority. So that's really the question for

258
00:15:08,240 --> 00:15:11,880
Speaker 3: the course is can the president basically use INA two

259
00:15:11,960 --> 00:15:16,040
Speaker 3: twelve F authority to rewrite the entire immigration code in

260
00:15:16,080 --> 00:15:17,600
Speaker 3: the way the president wants to?

261
00:15:18,320 --> 00:15:19,960
Speaker 4: Or is that overdoing it?

262
00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:23,680
Speaker 3: And when there's a statutory regime like the H one

263
00:15:23,800 --> 00:15:26,520
Speaker 3: B which is very extensive and lays out how many

264
00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:29,520
Speaker 3: days the government has to make a decision, et cetera,

265
00:15:29,560 --> 00:15:33,120
Speaker 3: et cetera, it's very detailed, unlike most statutes, does that

266
00:15:33,240 --> 00:15:34,680
Speaker 3: actually win the debate?

267
00:15:34,800 --> 00:15:36,120
Speaker 4: And we're gonna have to wait and see.

268
00:15:37,080 --> 00:15:40,840
Speaker 2: The President also wants to change the lottery system. Can

269
00:15:40,880 --> 00:15:42,800
Speaker 2: you explain what he's trying.

270
00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:43,160
Speaker 1: To do there?

271
00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:47,000
Speaker 3: Yes, this is very simple. What happens is every March,

272
00:15:47,880 --> 00:15:50,240
Speaker 3: there's four hundred thousand people that want to get an

273
00:15:50,360 --> 00:15:53,400
Speaker 3: H one B visa. There's eighty five thousand slots. They

274
00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:56,160
Speaker 3: have a lottery. It's a blind lottery. Eighty five thousand

275
00:15:56,240 --> 00:15:59,560
Speaker 3: people win three hundred and twenty five thousand loose. They

276
00:15:59,720 --> 00:16:03,520
Speaker 3: want to change that to basically weight the system.

277
00:16:03,600 --> 00:16:05,480
Speaker 4: So what they want to do is they.

278
00:16:05,360 --> 00:16:07,520
Speaker 3: Want to find out what kind of job are you

279
00:16:07,600 --> 00:16:11,000
Speaker 3: coming to do, where are you coming to do the job,

280
00:16:11,280 --> 00:16:13,200
Speaker 3: and how much are you going to be paid? Because

281
00:16:13,200 --> 00:16:17,240
Speaker 3: the Department of Labor has surveys and they'll say, oh,

282
00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:22,480
Speaker 3: the average, the average lawyer in San Francisco makes two

283
00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:26,000
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, but in the

284
00:16:26,120 --> 00:16:29,680
Speaker 3: top twenty five percent, that lawyer will make three hundred

285
00:16:29,720 --> 00:16:32,840
Speaker 3: and fifty thousand, or the bottom twenty five percent that

286
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:35,600
Speaker 3: lawyer will make one hundred thousand, and so they put

287
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:38,560
Speaker 3: those as levels. Level four is the top level, Level

288
00:16:38,560 --> 00:16:40,880
Speaker 3: one is the bottom level. So what they want to

289
00:16:40,880 --> 00:16:44,600
Speaker 3: do is to say, if you will agree upfront that

290
00:16:44,720 --> 00:16:48,040
Speaker 3: you will pay your worker the level four wage for

291
00:16:48,120 --> 00:16:52,800
Speaker 3: that occupation in that location, your worker will get four

292
00:16:53,160 --> 00:16:56,960
Speaker 3: lottery balls essentially instead of one. And if you pay

293
00:16:57,000 --> 00:16:59,800
Speaker 3: the level three ways, your worker will get three lottery

294
00:16:59,800 --> 00:17:03,840
Speaker 3: bus And if you pay the level two wage, your

295
00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:06,800
Speaker 3: worker will get two lottery balls. And if you only

296
00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:09,879
Speaker 3: want to pay the initial level one wage, which is

297
00:17:09,920 --> 00:17:12,920
Speaker 3: the bottom twenty five percent, your worker will get one

298
00:17:13,040 --> 00:17:16,960
Speaker 3: lottery ball. And that's how they'll allocate the lottery with

299
00:17:17,080 --> 00:17:21,080
Speaker 3: the hope and the intention that the eighty five thousand

300
00:17:21,200 --> 00:17:25,160
Speaker 3: plus will be allocated towards the highest paid individuals as

301
00:17:25,160 --> 00:17:29,320
Speaker 3: opposed to just a random allocation. Now that obviously there's

302
00:17:29,359 --> 00:17:32,199
Speaker 3: going to be companies who pay level one wages who

303
00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:34,800
Speaker 3: will try to sue and make the same types of

304
00:17:34,880 --> 00:17:36,840
Speaker 3: arguments here again it's going to be the fifty to

305
00:17:36,880 --> 00:17:42,440
Speaker 3: fifty argument. Is there regulatory authority under and here there's

306
00:17:42,720 --> 00:17:46,160
Speaker 3: another catch all provision in what's called IMA Section two

307
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:49,840
Speaker 3: fourteen that says that in non immigrant visas, which is

308
00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:53,280
Speaker 3: what H one B is, the president by regulation can

309
00:17:53,320 --> 00:17:55,840
Speaker 3: set the terms and conditions. And so that's what the

310
00:17:55,880 --> 00:17:58,880
Speaker 3: president is trying to do here. But there's also, again

311
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:04,159
Speaker 3: as I indicated, pre this very long statutory authority for

312
00:18:04,600 --> 00:18:06,840
Speaker 3: H one B. What you can do what you can't do,

313
00:18:07,520 --> 00:18:10,080
Speaker 3: which every time somebody tries the thinker with it, they

314
00:18:10,119 --> 00:18:13,359
Speaker 3: lose in court. So the question is who wins there?

315
00:18:13,440 --> 00:18:16,959
Speaker 3: Does the president win under the catch all authority or

316
00:18:17,160 --> 00:18:20,840
Speaker 3: does the companies that are going to sue win because

317
00:18:20,880 --> 00:18:22,959
Speaker 3: they say, no, this has to be done by Congress,

318
00:18:23,119 --> 00:18:24,600
Speaker 3: it cannot be done by regulation.

319
00:18:25,080 --> 00:18:29,159
Speaker 2: Let's turn out to what's happening in immigration courts with bonds.

320
00:18:29,600 --> 00:18:33,679
Speaker 2: For decades, immigration judges have granted bonds to immigrants and

321
00:18:33,760 --> 00:18:37,280
Speaker 2: detention who the court determined would show up for future

322
00:18:37,320 --> 00:18:41,320
Speaker 2: hearings and were not public safety threats. But now the

323
00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:45,840
Speaker 2: Trump administration, specifically the Board of Immigration Appeals, which has

324
00:18:45,840 --> 00:18:49,520
Speaker 2: a majority of Trump appointees on it, has made a

325
00:18:49,560 --> 00:18:54,680
Speaker 2: new policy binding on all immigration judges that they can't

326
00:18:54,720 --> 00:19:00,320
Speaker 2: grant bonds to people who cross the border unlawfully. See

327
00:19:00,440 --> 00:19:03,560
Speaker 2: is being challenged in federal court by civil rights and

328
00:19:03,720 --> 00:19:07,800
Speaker 2: immigration advocacy groups. What do you think their chances are?

329
00:19:08,119 --> 00:19:11,919
Speaker 3: So, here's what's complicated about this case. You have a

330
00:19:12,080 --> 00:19:18,640
Speaker 3: situation where previously, if someone was placed in deportation proceedings

331
00:19:18,680 --> 00:19:22,200
Speaker 3: after being here for some amount of time, then they

332
00:19:22,240 --> 00:19:24,520
Speaker 3: could make an argument that they could be released on

333
00:19:24,760 --> 00:19:28,480
Speaker 3: bond while those proceedings were pending. Because the whole point

334
00:19:28,520 --> 00:19:32,480
Speaker 3: of the immigration system is it's not a criminal system,

335
00:19:32,640 --> 00:19:36,840
Speaker 3: it's a civil system, and so typically the law does

336
00:19:36,880 --> 00:19:41,560
Speaker 3: not favor detention for civil anything. It's detension is meant

337
00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:45,840
Speaker 3: for criminal proceedings. And even most criminals when they're going

338
00:19:45,840 --> 00:19:49,440
Speaker 3: through criminal proceedings have bond that they can either apply

339
00:19:49,560 --> 00:19:54,359
Speaker 3: for or not. Now what's complicated here is the law

340
00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:57,320
Speaker 3: was that Again, like I said, everybody used to be

341
00:19:57,359 --> 00:20:01,119
Speaker 3: able to apply for bond, with two exception if you

342
00:20:01,160 --> 00:20:04,720
Speaker 3: had certain criminal convictions. The Supreme Court has said you're

343
00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:08,800
Speaker 3: not eligible for bond, because the statutory authority says you're not.

344
00:20:09,520 --> 00:20:13,560
Speaker 3: And secondly, if you just arrived into the US, meaning

345
00:20:13,800 --> 00:20:16,920
Speaker 3: you were apprehended at the airport, or you were apprehended

346
00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:20,480
Speaker 3: trying to cross the border right at that moment, then

347
00:20:20,520 --> 00:20:23,560
Speaker 3: the idea was, look, we detain you. We keep you

348
00:20:23,600 --> 00:20:26,720
Speaker 3: in detention at least subject to having enough beds. We

349
00:20:26,760 --> 00:20:30,000
Speaker 3: don't reward this effort across the border by letting you out.

350
00:20:30,440 --> 00:20:33,080
Speaker 3: We keep you in detention until we decide if you

351
00:20:33,440 --> 00:20:35,840
Speaker 3: have a case to remain or if you don't have

352
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:38,280
Speaker 3: a case to remain, you get booted out. But the

353
00:20:38,440 --> 00:20:43,600
Speaker 3: question is what happens with people who crossed the border illegally,

354
00:20:44,040 --> 00:20:46,960
Speaker 3: but we didn't realize it until five years later, ten

355
00:20:47,040 --> 00:20:50,800
Speaker 3: years later, et cetera. And so historically those people were

356
00:20:50,840 --> 00:20:54,120
Speaker 3: allowed to get bond hearings because the idea was they

357
00:20:54,119 --> 00:20:57,520
Speaker 3: were already here, they were circulating.

358
00:20:56,840 --> 00:20:57,920
Speaker 4: In the United States.

359
00:20:58,280 --> 00:21:02,280
Speaker 3: They presumably hadn't committed any criminal offenses other than the

360
00:21:02,280 --> 00:21:07,639
Speaker 3: initial offense of crossing illegally. But now the administration is saying, look,

361
00:21:08,520 --> 00:21:11,879
Speaker 3: this original thing that says that if we apprehend you

362
00:21:12,680 --> 00:21:16,040
Speaker 3: crossing the border, we have to keep you detained forever,

363
00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:19,760
Speaker 3: while where the proceedings are pending, there's no bond that

364
00:21:19,840 --> 00:21:22,840
Speaker 3: applies whether it took us one minute or whether it

365
00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:25,159
Speaker 3: took us five years to cut you. So that's the

366
00:21:25,280 --> 00:21:28,879
Speaker 3: change in the interpretation. So this doesn't apply to someone

367
00:21:28,880 --> 00:21:31,400
Speaker 3: who came legally and overstated their visa. They can still

368
00:21:31,400 --> 00:21:34,600
Speaker 3: get a bond during their removal hearing. But this applies

369
00:21:34,640 --> 00:21:39,119
Speaker 3: to the person who crossed illegally and they were never apprehended.

370
00:21:39,640 --> 00:21:41,600
Speaker 3: And so this is really going to come down to

371
00:21:41,840 --> 00:21:46,760
Speaker 3: more I think of a constitutional due process argument rather

372
00:21:46,880 --> 00:21:52,200
Speaker 3: than a statutory argument, because the statute, interestingly, I think

373
00:21:52,240 --> 00:21:55,600
Speaker 3: it's fifty to fifty. But what happened was it was

374
00:21:55,760 --> 00:22:00,000
Speaker 3: always interpreted in the way that you get bond because

375
00:22:00,040 --> 00:22:01,520
Speaker 3: people were worried.

376
00:22:01,160 --> 00:22:03,120
Speaker 4: About the fact that how could someone.

377
00:22:02,840 --> 00:22:07,320
Speaker 3: Have been here five years or ten years and circulating

378
00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:11,120
Speaker 3: amongst the United States, not committing any crimes, etc. And

379
00:22:11,160 --> 00:22:15,200
Speaker 3: then for a civil proceeding you would deny them bond,

380
00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:18,000
Speaker 3: when if this were a criminal proceeding, they would be

381
00:22:18,040 --> 00:22:21,480
Speaker 3: eligible for bond. What would be the constitutional authority to

382
00:22:21,560 --> 00:22:26,400
Speaker 3: keep someone mandatorily detained like that, And so they always

383
00:22:26,400 --> 00:22:30,639
Speaker 3: interpreted the statute in a cautious manner to say, no, no, no,

384
00:22:30,680 --> 00:22:33,000
Speaker 3: give those people a bond hearing, and if they are

385
00:22:33,119 --> 00:22:36,560
Speaker 3: dangerous or if some other reason exist, been fine, you

386
00:22:36,600 --> 00:22:39,000
Speaker 3: can deny them bond. But if they're not dangerous, you

387
00:22:39,080 --> 00:22:40,880
Speaker 3: have to let them out because they had already been

388
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:44,639
Speaker 3: out for such a long time. So ultimately the courts

389
00:22:44,640 --> 00:22:46,439
Speaker 3: are going to have to struggle with not what the

390
00:22:46,520 --> 00:22:52,480
Speaker 3: statute means, because the statute actually probably supports the argument

391
00:22:53,160 --> 00:22:56,919
Speaker 3: that if someone processes the border illegally, whenever they're found,

392
00:22:57,320 --> 00:23:01,879
Speaker 3: you have to detain them, but really the constitutionality of

393
00:23:01,920 --> 00:23:05,520
Speaker 3: that concept, because the issue is that someone's really been

394
00:23:05,520 --> 00:23:09,200
Speaker 3: here for that long. Is it constitutional to have them

395
00:23:09,240 --> 00:23:13,560
Speaker 3: detained with no bonds for a civil proceeding when the

396
00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:18,040
Speaker 3: constitution ab whores any kind of civil detention period, And

397
00:23:18,119 --> 00:23:20,639
Speaker 3: so I think that's going to be the main question here.

398
00:23:21,040 --> 00:23:24,840
Speaker 2: Always a lot of questions and not that many clear

399
00:23:24,960 --> 00:23:29,119
Speaker 2: answers in our immigration law system. Thanks so much, Leon.

400
00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:33,600
Speaker 2: That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight, And that's it

401
00:23:33,680 --> 00:23:36,240
Speaker 2: for this edition. Of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

402
00:23:36,280 --> 00:23:38,760
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

403
00:23:38,800 --> 00:23:42,439
Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

404
00:23:42,640 --> 00:23:47,680
Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

405
00:23:48,080 --> 00:23:50,679
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

406
00:23:50,720 --> 00:23:54,600
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

407
00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:56,359
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg