Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: As we have said multiple times, our border enforcement plan works.
Speaker 2: It is deterrence, a diplomacy and enforcement. We have seen
Speaker 2: that plan working on lawful border crossing have come down
Speaker 2: to the lowest that we have seen in the past
Speaker 2: two years.
Speaker 1: The Biden Administration's new enforcement plan to reduce illegal crossings
Speaker 1: on the US Mexico border does seem to be working,
Speaker 1: just as White House Press Secretary Kareem Jean Pierre said. However,
Speaker 1: that success played no part in a federal judge's decision
Speaker 1: on Tuesday to block the rule that denies asylum to
Speaker 1: migrants who arrive at the border without first applying online
Speaker 1: or seeking protection in a country they passed through. The
Speaker 1: Biden administration immediately appealed the judge's order, which is on
Speaker 1: hold for two weeks. Joining me is immigration law expert
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco, partner at Holland and Knight. How big a
Speaker 1: blow is Judge Tiger's decision to the Biden administration and
Speaker 1: its efforts to control the border.
Speaker 3: Well. If the decision is allowed to stand, it would
Speaker 3: be a significant blow to the Biden administration's ability to
Speaker 3: control the border, because right now the Biden administration is
Speaker 3: using what's called a carrots and six approach along the border,
Speaker 3: which is to say, here are the carrots. Either come
Speaker 3: in legally through one of our parole programs, or at
Speaker 3: least apply it to the ports of entry with an
Speaker 3: appointment at one of our ports so that we know
Speaker 3: you're coming and complain on it. But don't just walk
Speaker 3: in between the ports through the border illegally where we
Speaker 3: don't know how many people are coming on what date,
Speaker 3: We can't plan for it, and it creates chaos. And
Speaker 3: what it's saying is is if you do do that,
Speaker 3: we're going to ban you from getting asylum and place
Speaker 3: you in the expedited removal process. So most people so
Speaker 3: far have acted in accordance with this charts and stay
Speaker 3: approach and use the carrots space approach because they know
Speaker 3: that the sticks are there. If the sticks aren't taken away,
Speaker 3: it's unclear whether the benefits of the cats will still
Speaker 3: be sufficient to dissuade people from coming across the border illegally,
Speaker 3: and so if the decision is allowed to stand, it
Speaker 3: will be a big problem for the Biden administration. As
Speaker 3: soon as the weather becomes a little less hot on
Speaker 3: the southern border.
Speaker 1: The judge said that the rules were not lawful because
Speaker 1: they imposed conditions on asylum seekers that Congress did not intend.
Speaker 3: How So, there's actually two congressional statues and they're in
Speaker 3: one hundred percent tension with one another. There's a congressional
Speaker 3: statue which is pretty clear and is the one the
Speaker 3: judge is relying upon, which says that it doesn't matter
Speaker 3: whether you crossed legally or illegally, anybody inside the United
Speaker 3: States is eligible to apply for asylum. It is essentially
Speaker 3: written as clear as day that the fact that you
Speaker 3: crossed illegally cannot be held against you for applying for asylum.
Speaker 3: So people might think, well, that means case closed. You
Speaker 3: shouldn't be able to have an administration ban asylum for
Speaker 3: people who crossed illegally. But by the same token, there's
Speaker 3: another statute that Congress also wrote, which says that the
Speaker 3: administration can, as a matter of discretion, pick any factor
Speaker 3: that it wants to add to the list of reasons
Speaker 3: why you can be denied a sylum and it doesn't
Speaker 3: limit it in any way. And so hence, both the
Speaker 3: Trump administration and the Biden administration have said, well, we're
Speaker 3: going to use the factor that you've crossed illegally after
Speaker 3: being told not to do it, and in the Biden
Speaker 3: administration's case, after being given numerous legal alternatives of how
Speaker 3: to do it. So the point is, if you're choosing
Speaker 3: to brazenly cross illegally anyway, when there's a legal way
Speaker 3: to do it, we should be able to use this
Speaker 3: as a discretionary factor to deny you asylum. And so
Speaker 3: that was the Biden administration's argument. The judge here ruled, well,
Speaker 3: it's not exactly clear that everybody's going to be able
Speaker 3: to have an access point to asylum, and so because
Speaker 3: of that, then we are going to say that the
Speaker 3: statue where Congress says that you can't block asylum based
Speaker 3: on illegal entry is the one that's the winner here,
Speaker 3: and I'm going to prevent the Biden administration from having
Speaker 3: this stick that says don't cross illegally.
Speaker 1: The judge wrote that while they wait for an adjudication,
Speaker 1: applicants for asylum must remain in Mexico, where migrants are
Speaker 1: generally at heightened risk of violence by both state and
Speaker 1: non state actors. Is that true, Well.
Speaker 3: It depends how long it's going to take and under
Speaker 3: what conditions the person is waiting. It is true that
Speaker 3: the longer a person is waiting in Mexico and the
Speaker 3: less resources that the person has, this means it is
Speaker 3: more likely that something bad is going to happen to
Speaker 3: them in Mexico while they're waiting, which can include having
Speaker 3: just random street crime where the person's resources are taken
Speaker 3: away from this. That is very common in Mexico and
Speaker 3: is likely to occur to anybody who's just sitting around
Speaker 3: there waiting for months. So that's the question. It's sort
Speaker 3: of a really effectual question, which is the Biden administration
Speaker 3: tries to say, no, one's going to be lingering in
Speaker 3: Mexico waiting for an appointment at the port of entry,
Speaker 3: because we have sufficient number of appointments through our CBP
Speaker 3: one app and through the parole program. But the plane
Speaker 3: has said no, there are still people waiting and they're
Speaker 3: subject to danger. And so because they shouldn't be expected
Speaker 3: to have to wait and have to subject themselves to
Speaker 3: this danger, then again we're going to choose the part
Speaker 3: where Congress says you don't have to wait outside the
Speaker 3: United States. You can come in and apply for asylum,
Speaker 3: as opposed to saying that this is a permissible discretionary
Speaker 3: factor for an administration to use the ban people from
Speaker 3: seeking a silo, which is, hey, there's a legal way
Speaker 3: that we just created, use that. The only reason you
Speaker 3: would use the illegal way is because you're trying to
Speaker 3: cause problem for the US government. So the judge doesn't
Speaker 3: believe that. The judge believe someone using the illegal way
Speaker 3: might be just trying to protect their safety because they
Speaker 3: don't have a sufficiently quick pathway to avoid having to
Speaker 3: sit there in Mexico and potentially risk being in some
Speaker 3: way harmed by gang members or others.
Speaker 1: So leon is this Biden program similar to the Trump
Speaker 1: Remain in Mexico program?
Speaker 3: Well, it isn't it is. In this sense, Trump did
Speaker 3: not have a mechanism in play like the CBP one
Speaker 3: app and the parole program that was designed to legalize
Speaker 3: the flow so that they could make the argument that
Speaker 3: it would be a permissible discritiontionary reason to ban people
Speaker 3: from asylum that they were crossing across the border illegally.
Speaker 3: Meaning Trump just said stay out, and I'm allowed to
Speaker 3: tell people to stay out, and if they don't want
Speaker 3: to stay out and do it through Vexico. I'm allowed
Speaker 3: to ban them from seeking asylum. So he was making
Speaker 3: the A versus b one versus two binary analysis, and
Speaker 3: I banned some poken, I got banned people from asylum.
Speaker 3: He was trying to make that very binary analysis, whereas
Speaker 3: the Biden administration was saying, no, no, no, this is
Speaker 3: not a binary analysis. The reason ours is different is
Speaker 3: because every person can legally access our asylum system, and
Speaker 3: the only reason they would cross illegally is to cause
Speaker 3: problems for our US government. And if they're doing that intentionally,
Speaker 3: they should face the punishment of being banned from being
Speaker 3: able to speak a sylum. So that's the difference the
Speaker 3: Biden administration was trying to make. And the Biden administration
Speaker 3: reasoning was not viewed as credible by the Federal court
Speaker 3: judge here.
Speaker 1: So the Biden administration immediately appealed. The appeal will go
Speaker 1: to the Ninth Circuit, where would you say it may
Speaker 1: not farewell well.
Speaker 3: The Ninth Circuit is now a fifty to fifty court.
Speaker 3: It used to be considered a liberal court because it was.
Speaker 3: But President Trump actually was quite successful in putting in
Speaker 3: judges in the Ninth Circuit. So now it's a fifty
Speaker 3: to fifty court, it's a court with many judges, and
Speaker 3: so you could easily get three Trump appointees on a panel,
Speaker 3: or you could get three Biden appointees on a panel
Speaker 3: now or three Obama appointees on a panel. So you
Speaker 3: have no idea what kind of panel you're going to
Speaker 3: be able to get. And so from that standpoint, that's
Speaker 3: what's going to be complicated in terms of predicting the outcome.
Speaker 3: But I will say this, the Trump administration had in
Speaker 3: this litigation, been able to make some headway in the
Speaker 3: Ninth Circuit. They were able to get this decision from
Speaker 3: the same judge as Tigaer overturned, and it was working
Speaker 3: its way up to the Supreme Court before the Trump
Speaker 3: administration ended. I don't know how this case would have
Speaker 3: been resolved, but what I imagine what happened here is
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court is probably going to allow the
Speaker 3: Biden administration to have this policy. If I had to
Speaker 3: make a prediction, you know, I would say that that
Speaker 3: the Biden administration is going to be allowed to keep
Speaker 3: this policy in place by the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, explain why you think
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court would allow it to remain in place.
Speaker 3: First of all, what we've now seen for the last
Speaker 3: three years of the Biden administration is that the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court has been very deferential to the administration period writ large,
Speaker 3: with regards to issues of immigration, and it's setting that
Speaker 3: up not just for Biden, because I don't think they're
Speaker 3: particularly fond of Biden, let's say, but just because they
Speaker 3: want this to be the norm for immigration rid lards
Speaker 3: moving forward, to return it to what had been the
Speaker 3: traditional one hundred years of jurisprudence before the period let's
Speaker 3: say between nineteen ninety and twenty sixteen, where there was
Speaker 3: a lot of activism in this area of immigration in
Speaker 3: the judiciary. Now they're trying to resort back to the
Speaker 3: don't sue because the administration has a lot more authority
Speaker 3: than you think. And I think that will be the
Speaker 3: case here where I think the Supreme Court will be
Speaker 3: sympathetic to all of the legal options that the Biden
Speaker 3: administration is offering people in order to come here legally,
Speaker 3: which is the parole program for the CDP one app
Speaker 3: and saying to people if you want to come across
Speaker 3: the border without using any offeasset mechanisms. Then you are
Speaker 3: going to have to risk that you will be denied asylum.
Speaker 3: And by the way, there isn't even then a complete
Speaker 3: ban on asylum. If you could prove that your life
Speaker 3: or safety were in danger in Mexico and that's why
Speaker 3: you had to cross it, it's an imminent manner, then
Speaker 3: you can even overcome this ban. So it's not even
Speaker 3: a one hundred percent fan in that situation. And so
Speaker 3: for that reason, I think the Supreme Court is going
Speaker 3: to have sympathy about it. And for the same reason
Speaker 3: they actually upheld the Trump travel ban back in the day,
Speaker 3: they will use that same logic here and uphold the
Speaker 3: Biden transit ban visa via pilumce Leon.
Speaker 1: Let's turn now to the fight between the state of
Speaker 1: Texas and the Biden administration over migrants crossing the border,
Speaker 1: which is escalating and is now visually represented by a
Speaker 1: thousand foot stretch of bright orange, wrecking ball sized tethered
Speaker 1: buoys in the middle of the Rio Grande, the river
Speaker 1: that serves as the border between the United States and Mexico.
Speaker 1: Texas Governor Greg Abbott defended the state's right to install
Speaker 1: the barrier, issuing his own demand on Fox News.
Speaker 3: All about administration has to do is to enforce the
Speaker 3: laws already on the books to prevent people from crossing
Speaker 3: between the ports of entry.
Speaker 1: Texas will see you in court, mister, President Abbott wrote
Speaker 1: in a letter. White House Press Secretary Kareem Jean Pierre
Speaker 1: called it another political stunt.
Speaker 2: Let the Department of Justice speak to this. They've been
Speaker 2: very clear last week that they also will see Governor
Speaker 2: Abbott in court for his unlawful actions. We've been very
Speaker 2: clear about that.
Speaker 1: And so the administration sued Texas over the buoys, certainly
Speaker 1: not its first lawsuit against the state. I've been talking
Speaker 1: to Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight and
Speaker 1: former director of the Justice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation.
Speaker 1: Leon tell us about these booys that the federal government
Speaker 1: is suing over.
Speaker 3: Well. The federal government is complaining about the floating barrier,
Speaker 3: which are about a string of buoys that are between
Speaker 3: about four and six feet a diameter. The orange looking buoys,
Speaker 3: which may streatch for at least one thousand feet between
Speaker 3: the Eagle Path International Bridge and about a couple miles
Speaker 3: south there, and they include some infrastructure designs to anchor
Speaker 3: it or fix it in the middle of the Rio
Speaker 3: Grand River separating Mexico and the United States there near
Speaker 3: ego paths, And the idea is that these floating barriers
Speaker 3: that people won't be able to walk across the river
Speaker 3: in order to get to the United States and evade
Speaker 3: the border patrol so that they can get their bodies
Speaker 3: inside the United States and avoid the bands that the
Speaker 3: Biden administration is trying to do, where they're trying to
Speaker 3: basically push people back into Mexico and get them to
Speaker 3: use the CBP one app so that they don't have
Speaker 3: to do the whole expedited removal process for these people.
Speaker 1: And what is the claim in this lawsuit? You know
Speaker 1: what law do? They say Texas has broken?
Speaker 3: Well, so what's very interesting is this is sort of
Speaker 3: pretty obscure stuff for the immigration world. I'm sure for
Speaker 3: the environmental and natural resources world, this is a very
Speaker 3: common thing. But obviously, if you're a normal immigration lawyer,
Speaker 3: you don't necessarily deal with everyday the Rivers an Harbor's Act.
Speaker 3: But the law that's in play is called the Rivers
Speaker 3: and Harbor's Appropriation Act. Of eighteen ninety nine, which unlike
Speaker 3: the Immigration Code, which is in Title eight of the
Speaker 3: US Code, this is entitled thirty three of the Code,
Speaker 3: and basically what it says in plain English is, look,
Speaker 3: there's navigable waters all around the United States, and the
Speaker 3: whole point of these is that they're connecting interstates and
Speaker 3: foreign state commerce. And if you want to build barriers
Speaker 3: that prevent people from using these waterways, then you have
Speaker 3: to get the Army Corps of Engineer's approval to do this.
Speaker 3: You can't just be taking matters into your own hands
Speaker 3: and whatever you want with the waterways of the United States.
Speaker 3: That's the province of the federal government, and so it's
Speaker 3: the position of the Department of Justice, the Environment and
Speaker 3: the Natural Resources Division. And they told this to the
Speaker 3: State of Texas before the laws that was filed. Look,
Speaker 3: you have to get approval and a permit from the
Speaker 3: Army Corps of Engineers. You didn't get it. You have
Speaker 3: to take this down. And Texas said, we won't take
Speaker 3: this down. We have sovereign authority to protect our border.
Speaker 3: And so now this loss has been filed in Austin,
Speaker 3: Texas in the federal court seeking injunctive release in the
Speaker 3: form of a court order saying, Hey, Texas, take down
Speaker 3: these bullies, these barriers, and you'll have to pay to
Speaker 3: do this.
Speaker 1: Governor Abbott was anticipating this lawsuit. He sent the President
Speaker 1: a letter on Monday defending Texas's right to install the barrier. So,
Speaker 1: as you said, he said that Texas has the sovereign
Speaker 1: authority to defend its border, and they've been using the
Speaker 1: Texas Disaster Act as the legal bedrock for some of
Speaker 1: these measures.
Speaker 3: Right, they believe that they have basically a natural disaster
Speaker 3: that's going on on the border, which, by the way,
Speaker 3: what's complicated about this is that the border numbers are
Speaker 3: way down. All of the questions of what was going
Speaker 3: to happen after Tayle forty two was listed have been
Speaker 3: answered in quite a positive way by the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: But nevertheless, the governor of Texas, Governor abbit is taking
Speaker 3: the position that he's in a state of emergency, and
Speaker 3: that state of emergency permits him under his authority to
Speaker 3: deter the people coming into the United States because he
Speaker 3: has the authority to do that. Now he's being sued
Speaker 3: by private actors and now the Department of Justice saying
Speaker 3: that the Texas disaster as of nineteen seventy five doesn't
Speaker 3: give the authority defined here a lawful immigration was not
Speaker 3: within the definition of disaster and was not intended to
Speaker 3: be classified as such. So you know, it was meant
Speaker 3: to basically protect human life and allow Texas to take
Speaker 3: measures to do that, but not for the purposes of
Speaker 3: basically using immigration as a quarte unquote disaster.
Speaker 1: Does it sound like he has an arguable case.
Speaker 3: Here's basically how this will work. It's one of these
Speaker 3: things where had the case been brought in certain divisions
Speaker 3: in Texas, probably Texas would have won. In the district
Speaker 3: court in Austin. It's a little bit more likely that
Speaker 3: the DOJ is going to get an injunction here. The
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit, depending on the panel, may say that State
Speaker 3: of Texas can do it or it can't do it,
Speaker 3: depending on which panel they get. I can see panels
Speaker 3: going either way. But I do think once you get
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has been getting
Speaker 3: more and more frustrated with these state efforts to co
Speaker 3: opt immigration law and essentially to say, look, we're tired
Speaker 3: of what the Biden administration is doing. We're going to
Speaker 3: take matters in our own hands. And if they didn't
Speaker 3: like some of the other stuff, like to remain in
Speaker 3: Mexico stuff and the Title forty two stuff and the
Speaker 3: prosecutorial discretion stuff. I think that putting barriers in an
Speaker 3: international waterway with Mexico is probably going to be deemed
Speaker 3: to be a bridge too far. So to speak for
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court, I don't think they're going to be
Speaker 3: recessive to allowing Texas to do this because what is
Speaker 3: basically the limiting principles then on what Texas can do
Speaker 3: with the Rio grand And that's going to be the problem.
Speaker 1: Mesco asked the Biden administration to remove the boys and
Speaker 1: razor wire, saying it violates treaties. Does that play any
Speaker 1: part in the Biden administration's lawsuit against Texas.
Speaker 3: Well, it's not in the lawsuits. The lawsuit is just
Speaker 3: talking about the principle that you need a permit from
Speaker 3: the Army Corps of Engineers. But the larger question of
Speaker 3: why you need a permit from the Army Corps of
Speaker 3: Engineers is because Congress realized there the events like this,
Speaker 3: and again, the Rio brand is covered by the famous
Speaker 3: Treaty of Wataloupe Hidalgo and that's the water that is
Speaker 3: part of both nations, and it's one of these things
Speaker 3: that's a very sensitive issue about Mexico and the United
Speaker 3: States having sort of joint sovereignty over that river. And
Speaker 3: for that reason, that's just not something that the State
Speaker 3: of Texas can just get in. Again, you would be
Speaker 3: the point, what is the limiting principles about what Texas
Speaker 3: can do there? Can they put in huge seal things
Speaker 3: that are causing to injure people there? What is the
Speaker 3: limit of what they can they put bombs in the river?
Speaker 3: And so there's all these kinds of questions about where
Speaker 3: the line is and why that's happening. And I don't
Speaker 3: think again, the Supreme Court is going to be very
Speaker 3: sacious if this case gets to the Supreme Court about
Speaker 3: what Texas is doing with regards to the Rio brand.
Speaker 3: And this is all part of a larger operation that
Speaker 3: they have to cause, Operation Long Star that also has
Speaker 3: to do with the bossing of people and have to
Speaker 3: do with sort of this draconian tactics when Texas law
Speaker 3: enforcement meet people up at the border to try to
Speaker 3: push them back into Mexico. And so this is just
Speaker 3: a larger operation basically designed to create havoc on the
Speaker 3: southern borders.
Speaker 1: And part of that operation includes that razor wire strung
Speaker 1: across private property without permission, bulldozers changing the terrain. The
Speaker 1: Texas Military Department cleared out kine, which should called invasive,
Speaker 1: and change the landscape affecting the river's flow. So why
Speaker 1: hasn't the Biden administration acted on those things as well?
Speaker 3: I think the question is I think they thought that
Speaker 3: perhaps Texas would make its points and move on, but
Speaker 3: now they're seeing they're actually going to have to litigate
Speaker 3: these things. I think depending on how this one goes,
Speaker 3: you'll see more of this, And so I do think
Speaker 3: you're gonna see more of this. I do think this
Speaker 3: was just the first set, the one that's the largest problem,
Speaker 3: and I do think guilty others. I don't think they
Speaker 3: wanted to do a bunch of these lawsuits all at once,
Speaker 3: but there are certainly others that have to do with
Speaker 3: a trusting federal agent, from being a both to process
Speaker 3: people and perhaps other environmental violations that they're causing that
Speaker 3: you could see other lawsuits getting filed. But again, I
Speaker 3: think that the larger problem is the Department of Justice
Speaker 3: doesn't want to have ten twenty lawsuits against the State
Speaker 3: of Texas. So Texas is properly, if you think about it,
Speaker 3: in the political sphere, flooding the zone with as many
Speaker 3: different things as they can do and then trying to
Speaker 3: have the Department of Justice basically either sue them on
Speaker 3: all of them or have the or just keep the
Speaker 3: fight perpetuating, which is really the only interest of Texas
Speaker 3: here at the end is to just have this fight
Speaker 3: go on ad Infinaida.
Speaker 1: Apparently, there is some blowback over the tactics, including from
Speaker 1: within Texas, and especially in light of that state troopers
Speaker 1: account of razor wire leaving asylum seekers bloodied, officers deny
Speaker 1: migrants water in a one hundred degree heat.
Speaker 3: I do think he's getting a lot more criticism about it,
Speaker 3: that is true, from private folks, from people in the
Speaker 3: Department of Public Safety, from people in the Mexican government,
Speaker 3: and there's people that are starting to speak out against this.
Speaker 3: But I think at the end of the day, the
Speaker 3: political issue of immigration is just so hot right now
Speaker 3: that I don't see a long term abandonment of this issue.
Speaker 3: But I do think it will be very interesting to
Speaker 3: see long term, the outcome of the parole case, which
Speaker 3: is sort of the lynchpin of the entire Biden administration
Speaker 3: border policy, if that's allowed to continue, it's going to
Speaker 3: be very hard. The numbers are what they are, they're
Speaker 3: weight down for the Governor of Texas to keep saying
Speaker 3: there's a crisis compared to what compared to which month,
Speaker 3: and it's going to be very hard to say. But
Speaker 3: if the parole program goes away, then and then the weather,
Speaker 3: which is the other big thing, changes from the record
Speaker 3: heat that we have now to the falls, I do
Speaker 3: think you'll start to see the numbers starts to go
Speaker 3: off pretty dramatically, and then that's where you'll start to
Speaker 3: see more of viztforst rather than less.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration has been talking about how the numbers
Speaker 1: at the border are so low. Do we know if
Speaker 1: it's the parole program or is it the heat.
Speaker 3: I think it's a combination of three things. It's the
Speaker 3: combination of the record heat, no doubt, one hundred and
Speaker 3: fifteen degrees on the border right now is absolutely unbearable
Speaker 3: for anybody to try to make these very difficult tricks
Speaker 3: all the way through the southern border. It's life threatening.
Speaker 3: People know that. But then you take that and compare
Speaker 3: it to the option of a CBP one app where
Speaker 3: you can make this same claim without having to do
Speaker 3: all of that. You just show up at the app
Speaker 3: appointment at the Board of Entry, or you can get
Speaker 3: parole for the parole program, or you know that if
Speaker 3: you do cross the border illegally, you have to do
Speaker 3: the record heat and you'll be put in this expedited
Speaker 3: removal programs and you might not be able to qualify
Speaker 3: for asylum anyway. All those things are being weighed at
Speaker 3: a point where we're now talking about for the first
Speaker 3: time in a long time, first time since I would
Speaker 3: say twenty fifteen. That doesn't count the COVID months where
Speaker 3: we're legitimately at eighty ninety thousand people per month, which
Speaker 3: is a lot less than the two hundred thousand a
Speaker 3: month we were seeing just you know recently, and so
Speaker 3: we have some pretty dramatic reduction here.
Speaker 1: There's certainly a lot of legal action about the southern
Speaker 1: border lately. Thanks so much for being on the show, Leon,
Speaker 1: As always, I appreciate your immigration expertise. That's Leon Fresco,
Speaker 1: a partner at Holland and Knight, and that's it for
Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And
Speaker 1: remember to to to The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg