tv Immigration Laws CSPAN July 11, 2017 1:39am-2:53am EDT
officials discussed the matter as well as similar legislation across the country. >> -- i hope you also have your buttons and will wear them for us to spread the word about not only this very bad legislation but also arming ourselves with the information we need to unite ourselves to fighting legislation like this anywhere, in any state, in any city, anywhere in this country. because only working together would we be able to stop this kind of scapegoating and rhetoric. so today we're going to focus again on the racial profiling bill, and that's what i call it. others call it the show me your papers bill. but it doesn't matter what we call it. because we know what it is. it's targeting our communities. so whether it is like what started in california under pete wilson, with their proposition, or whether it's the arizona
sb-1070, or it's ours, sb-4, it is bad. call it what you want, but it is bad. so for me, i mentioned to you in the opening remarks that we made at the beginning of this conference on thursday. the one thing that we have already seen in houston has been the drop in reporting of crimes. remember what i said. already our police chief has frowned that reporting of rape among hispanics is down 42.8%. the reporting of violent crimes is down by 13%. and that's just out of the fear of what the president is doing nationally. and knowing that sb-4 may come because sb-4 does not take effect until september unless we stop it. and that's what we're going to focus on here today. on your program you saw that nina morales -- perales was
supposed to be here from maldev. machlt aldev has been at the forefront of all litigation. sb-1070, sb-4. maldev will be there again and i know she's preparing for litigation. the hearing is on monday. i know i plan to be there and a lot of my colleagues from texas do also. in her place is selena and moreno, and she will be speaking in behalf of maldev. of course we know texas is not alone. arizona has been through this. steve gallardo is here today, former senator, to talk about the arizona experience. we have a state senator from california who will talk about their experience. then we have experts to talk about this from the professor to a litigator. so you'll see that our panel is going to look at different perspectives to make sure that
we all understand exactly what we're facing and how you might see it in your own community and how to fight back. leading the conversation is professor victor de francisco from university of texas. victoria is a contributor to msnbc, pbs, and cnn. as well as a regular political analyst for telemundo. victoria teach in the department of mexican american latino studies and is a fellow at the center for politics and governance at lbj school of public affairs. she's been named one of the top 12 scholar in the country by "diverse" magazine. now this panel is going to be ready to go. y'all make sure that you've got questions ready in case we have time. we're going to try to make sure that we allow for a little bit about that. but please remember, this can impact all of us. i always say that it may start with that traffic stop because you don't have at taillight.
but it could lead to a detainment and ultimate deportation that will lead to a broken family. and then all that will lead to broken faith in our system and a part of our community. so let's all work together. let's listen. let's get ready. and above everything else, let's unite and fight back. professor?
>> thank you, senator garcia. and thank you all for being here today. professionally i've been looking at the issue of immigration for well over a decade. but for most of us in this room, immigration isn't just another policy issue. it's something deeply personal. it's something that affects us in terms of our parents, of our grandparents, of our children, of our siblings. and you add on to that what has happened in the last couple of years. of immigration policy becoming even more personal. even more localized. when we look at arizona's sb-1070, when we look at texas' sb-4, this isn't something that happens beyond us. this is something that happens in our communities. in this panel, we are going to take a deep dive into what these laws mean. and what these laws mean for us on a day-to-day basis, how we live our lives, what decisions we make in terms of whether or not we're going to run an errand
or not because we're scared that we might get pulled over. and second, what are the political implications? what's the long game here? where are we going to be as a community, as latinos? in two years in five years in ten years, as a result of these laws? i'm a teacher. and so i can't help but give a mini lecture when i have a microphone. so i'm going to take two minutes of your time. because i think it's really important to understand the larger context of the history of immigration and immigration policy in this country. this country is almost 250 years old. and we need to understand where what is happening right now, happening in texas in particular, factors into that. and so it's interesting that for about the first 100 years of this country, we had a completely open-arms policy when it came to immigration.
but then in the late 1800s, we started to see that policy start to constrict. what we call the closing door of immigration. and i think this is a really important date for us to remember when we think about immigration. 1882. 1882 was when the u.s. congress passed the chinese exclusion act. and what happened there is it set a precedent in our country for looking to exclude persons based on their race and their ethnicity. and the door to immigration has been closing ever since. but more particularly, it's always been targeted toward one group or another. and i joke in a sense, latinos can't really take it personally because at one time or another, the ancestors of nearly all americans were targeted. italians, jewish folks, irish. now it's latinos.
the other important thing that we need to keep in mind when we are talking about immigration is that it is a federal level issue. squarely something that should be in the purview of washington, d.c. but as we all know here, our immigration system has been broken for a long time and limping along. and what has happened then is that our states have taken up the baton in trying to figure out, for better or for worse what to do about immigration. we saw in the mid-1990s california take its first stab at trying to deal with issues related to immigration. there was a lull. and then in 2010, we saw a number of states spearheaded by arizona put into place restrictionist immigration laws. today we see texas doing the same. so understanding that, yes, this is happening on the local level,
but it is bigger, is part of a much bigger constellation of federal-level laws that have not worked for us, and that while we work to change what is going on in our local levels, we can't lose our eye on what is going on in d.c. with that i am going to turn it over to our expert panel which we are lucky to have this morning. let me briefly introduce each of them and then we're going to start the conversation. to my immediate left is texas state representative rafael allencia, chair of the mexican american legal caucus. his dallas district is just a little bit off of where we stand today. next we have harris county sheriff ed gonzalez. miss elena moreno, a staff attorney at malda. mr. gabriel sandoval, partner of a law firm coke focusing on
issues related to immigration at the local level, also former senior counsel in the office of civil rights in the obama administration. next we have supervisor steve gallardo from maricopa county, arizona. and last but not least, california state senator ricardo lada. if we could welcome them all with a round of applause, please. let me start with representative achia. you have been in the trenches the past couple of months. if you can give us a sense of the genesis of sb 4, beginning with the legislative session in january and how it moved through the texas legislature to end up being signed by governor greg abbott just recently. >> yes. so thank you for the question. if i can contextualize it for everybody, at the outset of the session, in the governor's state of the state speech, he declared
quote-unquote sanctuary cities an emergency item. that ensured that the bill was going to speed through the process, receive preferable -- yes, preference in terms of treatment, vis-a-vis other bills. and that's exactly what happened. the next can americmexican amere caucus worked really, really hard to either slow the bill down, appeal to the speaker of the house that this bill would get out of control on the house side, which it ultimately did. but the wheels of the legislative process were greased for this bill. it spent very, very little time in any procedural committee, unlike any other bills. and despite the fact that in the committee hearing there were over 600 people who testified against the bill, and less than 10 people who testified in favor of the bill, it was shot out of committee and to the house floor
very, very quickly. now the senate passed a papers please bill in the house out of committee, included provisions that only would trigger the asking of citizenship status or lawful presence if there was an arrest. which in our view minimized the impact -- there's still a bad bill and the pretext for the bill was still bad, but it minimized the damage to our community, which was the goal of many of us, right? we said, hey, if something is going to pass, we want it to impact as few people as possible, regardless of the motivations which i think were impermissible and unlawful reasons for the bill. every member of the legislative caucus who as committee chair sent a letter to, said please don't bring this to the floor. an immigration bill on the texas house floor in this political climate where you have a
president who calls latinos rapists and criminals is going to get out of control. it was represented to us his leadership team would hold and it would not get out of control. but in fact the minute it hit the house floor, the bill was attacked from the right to make it papers please again. and the -- really the members, the gop members of the house, headed for the hills. and ultimately voted for the most egregious form of the bill possible. once that occurred the senate which had passed that egregious form concured with the house and it went straight to the governor who bragged that he was getting his signing and ready to go. there was going to be a massive action against the governor at the governor's mansion. that day that he was slated to sign it. so he signed it on a sunday night, in private, via facebook live. as opposed to standing in front of the media, standing in front of members of the public. and that's really how this thing went. there was a lot of other
intrigue and context that i could give you but i don't want it to be too inside baseball. the reality is that the governor declared this an emergency item despite the virtually 100% of i.c.e. detainers are complied with in the state of texas. i'm not speaking as to whether that is good or bad policy but the study we did showed 99.78% of i.c.e. detainers are complied with. so it was clearly not an emergency per se. but what it was is an attempt by the governor and by members of the legislature to put a brown face on an item and use in my view, impermissibly use race to push a politically motivated legislative agenda. when the governor in a state of the state pointed to the most important case that he could show, he pointed to a latino immigrant, undocumented immigrant, who had murdered a woman in texas and said, this is exhibit a. for why we need this. well, in fact, that exhibit a had been in i.c.e. custody three
times, had been deported three times, and regrettably because of our broken immigration system had murdered someone. but the sanctuary cities or papers please bills would not have stopped that case, yet it was willie horton-esque. for those too young to remember, willie horton was a black man used kind of as a political pawn to attack someone. this bill was built on a foundation of lies and really sort of racist pretexts. and i think that's what made it most egregious in a state that is 40% latino. >> so i think it's very important to highlight just how much effort was put into trying to stop sb-4, first in the senate, in the house putting forward every effort they could. as you said, the larger political context, not just here in texas but nationally, was too much of a wave to fight against. so this is where i think we move to a different strategy.
this is the judicial, the legal strategy. and once we saw the writing on the wall, we knew that this was going to pass and be signed by governor abbott, we knew it was a foregone conclusion that this was going to be fought out in the courts. so if you can talk to us about the court challenge that was brought almost immediately and how you see that challenge in the short to medium-term playing out. >> sure. well, first of all, i'll say thank you to chairman an chia and everybody in the legislature. our allies at maldev, over 1,000 people came out to speak against sb-4.our allies at maldev, over0 people came out to speak against sb-4. we came up short but we are taking the fight monday to federal court in san antonio to block the law before it ever takes effect on september 1st when it's scheduled to. maldev is proud to represent san antonio, behar county, san antonio city councilman ray
saldana, and three amazing organizational plaintiffs, lupe, workers defense, and fatcha. along with other plaintiff groups we are going to court to tell the judge this will have irreparable harm to our community, to the jurisdictions in the state of texas, and this law is unconstitutional and cannot stand. and, you know, chairman anchia mentioned the way that the governor signed the bill into law. well, the very next day, the governor actually took a playbook -- a page out of the book of governor pete wilson in california, but he didn't finish reading until the end. because when prop 187 was passed in california, governor wilson also sued maldev, just as governor abbott did the very next day after sb-4 was signed. and what both governors were trying to do was intimidate our community from standing up in court against this bill.
and i know that we draw tremendous strength and inspiration from our clients, particularly those that are the most vulnerable. they are certainly not intimidated, and neither are we. we look forward to our -- the courtroom fight on monday where nina perales, who could not be here, she will be presenting argument and live witnesses for the court on monday. >> okay, that's a good excuse for why nina's not here, we'll let it slide. sheriff gonzalez, as a law enforcement officer you were on the ground, you are seeing firsthand the effects of a law such as sb-4. as we say, it's where the rubber meets the road. so can you talk to us about what you have seen, and nina, the justification was that sb-4 was not anti-latino, was not anti-immigrant, but it was about public safety and it was about making texas safer. so are we safer?
are we not safer? >> in my opinion, this law will make us less safe. i represent harris county which is primarily in the greater houston area. it's the third-largest in the country and the largest here in the state. and as a law enforcement officer, to me, it's imperative that we work with all communities, especially the immigrant community, to make sure that we're getting information, to make sure we're solving crimes, violent crimes, and that we're also making sure that they come forward to report that there's a trust factor there. to me, this diminishes that. this is what i try to advocate at the state level. and with our allies, also stating the case. but our voices were ignored bit governor, in my opinion, and those that passed this. because i think that it's important for them to understand that in our diverse communities, there's already a sense of fear to begin with. there's already an underreporting of cases of family violence and sexual assault and this just makes it worse. we've heard anecdotally where
some individual, some women, have said, i should have never called on my husband because now he may get deported, even though he's beating me, for example. we've heard cases like that. we've heard children that say, now when mommy and daddy are late picking me up from school, i'm worried they've been deported. and so i'm grateful for those law enforcement professionals, especially in large urban areas that understand diverse communities, that have stood up and have advocated against this. but again, those voices were not heard. we need people to feel comfortable to come forward and they can't when we have this kind of law. that's i've been in office in this role since january. soon after taking office i ended 287-g in my community because i knew this type of law, again, brings negative connotations and there's a fear that's associated with it. so instead of us going forward now, we're going backwards, it seems.
i think it's very offensive that as an elected official i could run the risk of being arrested and removed from office by not complying with this. i was elected by the people to serve and represent and determine what the best priorities -- [ applause ] what the law enforcement priorities should be for my jurisdiction. i'm on the ground. i know what happens in local control. i was elected to represent my constituents and to determine what we should be addressing. to me that should be violent crime. this type of law with the fer hurts everyone. if there was a latino who was a witness to a crime they'll be afraid to come forward and report those crimes. helps i'm unable to go after the perpetrator. or the latino community could be targeted because those predators will know, they're not going to come forward because they're going to be afraid. it also could lead to racial profiling as well, because now with any lawful stop, they could be subject to immigration. if we wanted to be immigration
officers, we would have signed up to work in immigration, you know? and so, again, it's just, you know, very unfortunate and right now texas is at ground zero. >> thank you, sheriff. gabriel, you come at this issue from a very eclectic background. so you were in d.c. with the obama administration in the civil rights division of the education department. but then back in the '90s, which means a long time ago, but you were in the trenches with maldev in the stop 187. and now you're working with local communities to figure out how to best address the fear that has consumed our communities at the national level, also at the local. so if you can talk to me about the most effective education policy approaches for policymakers in this room to take back with them when they're talking to their constituents or they're talking to their community members about the fears that they have about immigration? >> sure.
so i am a partner at a law firm in california that represents the majority of school districts and community colleges. and after the election of president trump, we had a lot of questions and concerns that were related to how to support and protect and document its students. and it was our effort to have convenience across the state of california to brief our clients and also the public about what are the laws that are still in effect? unfortunately, when you hear pronouncements by the white house or members of the administration, that leads to a lot of confusion and a lot of fear that's palpable. so our main course of business was to ensure that the publica new what is, in fact, still the law. so we reminded individuals that playa v. doe is still the law of the land. what does that mean? that means any individual cannot be denied basic immigration
status to attend a public or secondary school under the equal cause of the 14th amendment. and it's still law of the land. and so i want to ensure everybody across the country understands that. we still also have federal anti-discrimination laws that are still in effect. individuals should not be harassed. they should not be bullied. they should not be discriminated against. we wanted to ensure individuals knew that that is still the law of the land and we should ensure that individuals who feel they've been discriminated against or harassed, they should know what the policies and procedures are at the school district, at the community college district, at the university, so those matters are addressed. we also heard concerns about the prospect of i.c.e. coming to campus. and so there are a lot of entities throughout the state of california that are putting together protocols to ensure that individuals feel safe or understand that if i.c.e. were to come knocking on the door at our school sites, at our campuses, there's a protocol in
place that they understand that there are limitations and they need to work in concert with their president's office, with their council, to ensure that not only civil rights laws are not being violated but our constitutional protections. we also wanted to ensure that we still have privacy rights. so under the family educational rights and privacy act, individual student records are still protected under certain conditions. and so this is incredibly important. it's about communicating what is the law. what still is in force. because unfortunately sometimes individuals feel the mere fact that they are teaching our students, doing what they're supposed to do, is in violation of the law. this is creating confusion. and it is our responsibility as leaders in the community to ensure that there is constant, realtime communication with individuals across this nation to let them know, we are still fighting for rights that still exist, whether they're
constitutional and in the courtroom, or whether it has to deal with civil rights. that is what we've been doing across the state on ongoing basis, working with organizations like maldev, like the aclu, like the national immigration law center, and leaders like senator lada. >> thank you. i think in this climate of fear, misinformation just tends to multiply itself. so it's hard enough to already grasp, then you add on the fear component. thank you. supervisor gallardo. fellow arizonan. a special place in my heart. seven years. we're seven years out from arizona's sb-1070 which we know came on the heels of the tea party government. and really held the banner for this larger trend in localized anti-immigrant laws that we've seen. so can you talk to us about the good, the bad, and the ugly that has resulted in the past couple of years since sb-1070 was
signed into law? >> well, let me start off by saying this. and if the governor of texas and the lieutenant governor who continues to want to try to push a bathroom bill, if they do not think that there's an economic boycott right around the corner, they're fooling themselves. they're living in never neverland. my suggestion to my fellow texans is to be aggressive. the author of senate bill 1070 was removed from office a year and a half later. we made it a point -- [ applause ] he was target number one. he represented the most reddest legislative district in the state of arizona. and we made it a point that we were going to make an example of this individual. we knew we wouldn't be able to beat him with another democratic candidate. so we found another republican
candidate who was sympathetic to our needs. we invested millions of dollars. and we removed that senator from elected office. i would -- [ applause ] texas, don't wait for the courts. don't wait for the courts. there's a lot of positions you can take in order to push back. otherwise, they will continue. one of the things, and it goes back to 2004. we had our -- our own senate bill or proposition 187, it was prop 200. and we waited to see what the courts did. later on they came up with proposition 300. they target our students, our dreamers. then we had proposition 100, 101, employer sanctions, we did english only three times in arizona. and then ultimately proposition or senate bill 1070.
you got to push back, you got to be aggressive, you got to be bold and brave. one of my favorite congressmen is from arizona, from tucson. congressman bachulijava. who bravely after senate bill 1070 was passed went on cnn and said, it is time to boycott the state of arizona. let me just put this out here. since that, we have not had any anti-immigrant or anti-latino legislation introduced or passed out of the arizona legislature over the last seven years. and a lot of that -- [ applause ] [ applause ] a lot of that was because of the actions we took as a community. to get more engaged. we created a program to be more aggressive in our elections.
we started building relationships with allies we've never had before. i'm a progressive liberal gay labor senator. and i had no interest [ applause ] back then i had no interest in meeting with a lot of groups. particularly some of the business groups. it pushes me to say, wait a minute, we need to build alliances with these groups. my question is where is the business community on senate bill 4? where are they? it is their elected members -- let's be honest, folks. let's be honest. it's republicans that are pushing these types of bills. and who are the strongest supporters of many of the republican elected officials? it's the chamber, it's the business community. why aren't they stepping up and saying, wait a minute. knock it off. why not after senate bill 1070 -- we had 60 ce os in the state of arizona send a letter to the republican caucus telling them to knock it off.
knock it off. not only are you damaging the reputation of arizona. you are hurting our economy. we lost nearly $250 million in tourism. i think it's a lot more. it has created a black cloud over the state of arizona. that is going to take us forever to get out from underneath. so we have to engage with some allies. we need to reach out to folks we've never reached out before. to get them on bar -- on our team. to be able to tell those handful of republicans that want to continue to push this that we are not going to stand for it. we're not going to accept it. and we will push back. let it be from an economic standpoint or a political standpoint, but you've got to make a point. and i would encourage texas to not just wait for the courts. be aggressive. go after those sponsors. you don't have to challenge them
with a democrat. challenge them with a republican. but get them out of office. make an example of them. >> thank you, supervisor. thank you for highlighting that this is a battle that has to be fought on many fronts, and that also politics makes for strange bed fellows. and to embrace that. senator lada. prop 187, many thought for a while there it was going to be the exception that confirmed the rule that states weren't going to get involved. now we see that they have, in fact. so with the time that has passed since prop 187, we have seen pretty drastic changes in california demographically, also politically. can you talk to us about how prop 187 affected latinos politically, but also the larger
dynamic in california since then? >> right, thank you. you know, first i'd just like to say on behalf of california latino caucus, to say that we stand in solidarity with our colleagues in texas. and we -- we're watching closely what is happening here. and offer any help we can from california. you know -- prop 187 is very bittersweet for us. because i don't think gabriel and i would be here, sitting, fit wasn't for prop 187. it really politicized a large group of us that we were all white. we were like, oh my god, we're american. all of a sudden, no, you're not like us. really, having two parent that is lived in this country as undocumented immigrants in l.a., really put a face to just the vitriol that is racism, that is profiling.
and so a couple of things have happened in california since 187. you have a much more informed electorate in the latino community. but that doesn't mean that there isn't still anxiety and fear. given the new administration. but something that's very critical in california was that a proposition was passed to create an independent redistricting commission. that really took the redistricting power out of the politicians in sacramento and into this board. and a lot of us were very concerned with that. of course. we were sitting -- i was a member of the house at the time. but what had happened -- what it made is really created fair districts where now they became much more competitive. and even in the republican districts, in california, i don't think there's one single legislative district that doesn't have over 30% latinos. and so it's helped really make more moderate republicans.
and even some of our democratic colleagues much more confident that not only would they get re-elected but that these are the right issues we need to tackle. so california has completely embraced immigration law. and we've taken it upon ourselves to write our legislation regardless of what happens at the federal level. so we're moving our sanctuary state bill. we're moving bills to protect our data bases in which we provide services, health care, education, so on. so we're not going to wait for the federal government for absolutely anything. but you know, that's saying and coming from a place of being the fifth-largest economy in the world and being california. but we know that we have the responsibility to engage in policy in arizona, in texas, and help be any service to our colleagues that are going through what we've gone through 20 years ago.
we need to be unapologetic of who we are as a community. and be unapologetic about -- [ applause ] about the fact that some of us urundocumented and there should be no same in that. and that this goes beyond any border, any state border. we have to be able to engage fully in other states that are seeing this. >> thank you. what i want to highlight is the battle front of redistricting. it's something we may not immediately think of. but we're coming up on another census and another redistricting. so we know that in texas, we have had a lot of gerrymandering. 2010, probably the high point. so another battle front would be in getting fairer districts, not as highly gerrymandered. >> can i weigh in on that quickly? it provides further context for
sb-4. the week before sb-4 came to the floor, a sixth federal court decision came down finding intentional discrimination by the state of texas in either photo i.d. legislation or redistricting. and to put it in further stark relief, we are still in illegal maps today that were originally drawn in 2011 and 2013. and the courts didn't say, oh, just discriminatory effect against la la teteenies, no, discriminatory intent. democratic appointed judges, republican appointed judges, in three different courts in washington, d.c., san antonio, core pulse. when you think about where we are on sb-4 you have to see it against that discriminatory intent that six federal court decisions have found. and that's really, really important. so as latinos we're being impacted not only by sb 4 but by
gerrymandered lines that disenfranchised us across the state. >> real quickly, just on top of that, i think we can't take for granted and assume that latinos, our community, understand what senate bill 4 is all about. i can almost guarantee you, you have latino families -- third, fourth generation latinos, voters that are going to look at it or hear or read it in the paper and say, that doesn't affect me. i'm a third, fourth generation latino. why do i care? the fact is, you cannot implement senate bill 4 without racially profiling. you can't. if anyone thinks it is only our immigrant brothers and sisters that are targeted, i'm sorry, we had in the state of arizona, we saw it with our sheriff where he was pulling over anyone who looked brown, regardless. so it is going to be the third, fourth generation latinos who are going to be pulled over,
they're going to be obtained, they're going to be questioned, they're going to have their rights violated. and that is the message that we need to send to the entire community. inform them what senate bill 4 is all about. it's not just attacking the immigrant. it's attacking everybody. you cannot implement it without racially profiling. >> now -- so i -- taking off from arizona's experience, and you mentioned this earlier, supervisor. where is the business community? so representative anchia, we know there was a battle within the republican party. it wasn't just democrats and republicans. within the republican party. so talk to us. how the chamber of commerce influence was able to shrink away and we saw the more conservative forces take over? >> in 2011, a papers please bill passed both the senate and house in the state of texas. same time they were doing the intentionally discriminatory gerrymandering and photo i.d. bills.
the difference was that the business community showed up at the end of the session and into two special sessions that were called by governor perry and said, this has got to stop. you had the largest home builders in the state, you had perry homes out of houston, you had the largest -- the ceo of the largest grocery store chain in the state that said, no, we aren't doing this. you know what? it died a very, very quiet death. this time around the big difference was is that the business community was unable to fight a two-front war. and i've been very, very critical of the business community in texas because they were so focused on the bathroom bill that while discriminatory and horrible and symbolically very negative for the state of texas impacts, just to be very clear, a much smaller cohort of people than sb-4. i mean, if we just want to look at scope of magnitude, sb-4 impacts conceivably 40% of the population. but they were unable to do it. they were successful so far on the bathroom bill. we're going in for special session on the 18th of july.
and we're going to continue fighting hard with the business community against the bathroom bill. but they just couldn't fight a two-front war. on sb-4 they completely collapsed. they were ineffective. and some of them, like the texas farm bureau, you think the farm bureau, farmers need immigrant labor in the state? they actually put a card in for the papers please bill on the senate side. and that is inexcusable and unforgivable. >> so we would be remiss if we didn't talk about the politics and the political chess game here. because it was no coincidence in arizona that then-governor jan brewer was losing, and she latched on to this immigrant proposition in 2010. same thing in california. governor pete wilson. and you go back to the 1800s. you go back to the early 1900s. and any time you had a politician, an elected official, that was floundering, they would look to immigration as a lifeboat. because it conjures up so much
emotion and so much passion. and i think we saw a lot of that here in texas as well with governor abbott feeling a lot of heat from his right flank. so we can't divorce the issue of political calculus and the political chess game from that. steve, i see you want to jump in? >> no, i -- i mean, the business community, you got to hold them accountable as well. i mean, the fact is they're reaping the benefits of undocumented labor. they are. let's be honest. they're making money. so hold them accountable. and i think that's where organizations in texas, national organizations, need to look at texas and say, there's an economic-type effort is needed here. i mean, this is what got the business community's attention in arizona is when we had the economic boycott. we lost millions of dollars in touris is
tourism. naleo did a similar hands-off on arizona. you've got to send that message. and business communities listen to their pocketbooks. when you hit them in their pocketbooks, that's when they wake up. and they will send a letter to the republican caucus saying, knock it off. similar to what they did in arizona. 60 ceos sent a letter just a year after senate bill 1070 and told the legislature to knock it off. you're hurting arizona, you're hurting our economy, you're damaging our reputation in arizona, knock it off, you've got to support your business community. >> to the point on using the immigration issue, it's very easy, right, to do that. because immigrants regardless of what point, generation, are vulnerable folks. this is why it's critical for us to be unapologetic about owning our immigrant story. now more than ever. and not -- even in your own
social circles being very up front about the issue. because this is why politicians use it. because they, you know -- latinos, we're very, you know -- we don't like to talk politics, we don't like to talk about our own stories. even within our own parents. talking about their immigration story. this is why we need to take a playbook from our lgbt community that, you know, we are very up front of who we are. and we know that if you meet somebody who's openly gay, that's going to change your perspective, because we're your neighbors, we're your colleagues, we're your co-workers. we as latinos need to not excuse anybody from talking ill about immigrants or about latinos. we tend to shy away from these conversations but we need to be more up front and unapologetic about who we are. when you understand our story
you understand we're your neighbors just like anybody else. we care about jobs, we care about the economy. when i landed here, our attorney general just put texas on our no-patronize list. and the governor called me last night. what are you doing in texas? and i said, at the moment i'm learning how to two-step. and i failed miserably. but i think it behooves to have our other states also be able to weigh in. the fact is now nobody from our state legislature or -- will be able to attend conferences here in texas or mississippi and alabama, i believe, the three states that were put. but you know, this is a coordinated effort for us to push back as well. and to be able to demonstrate that we are making an economic engine. that latinos do contribute to the economy. and be able to dem degenerate that by hurting folks
temporarily where it matters the most, which is their pocketbook. also understanding we have a judicial perspective. we have to support our legislative colleagues here in texas. empower them to continue to push at every level of government here. because i'll tell you, there is light at the end of this actual. california was that place before. and to see how far we've come now to be able to, you know, demonstrate that you can have the most-inclusive immigration policies, the sky's not going to end, you're going to continue to be an economic powerhouse in the world. and by demonstrating that inclusive policies work. and they incorps everyone and everyone continues to be able to have part of this american dream. because let's not let one election, let's not let one bill, determine who we are as americans and who we are as latinos. so we need to continue to push and support every effort to defeat this in texas and anywhere where it rears its ugly head. >> and there are a lot of
lessons to be learned. so let's look to arizona. let's look to california. but i really think that your point about looking to the lgbtq playbook is incredible important. look at how other communities who have been repressed have followed suit. i want to turn to the topic of what's going on on the ground level. here i want to talk to gabe and sheriff gonzalez. so sheriff, you hope for the best and you prepare for the worst. so let's assume that september 1 rolls around and that sb-4 goes into effect. what can law enforcement departments across the state do to mitigate the effects of sb-4 in the community? >> yeah, i think one of the things we can do is to continue to reinforce that, although i agree with the supervisor that racial profiling is still going to creep up in this, you know, because of, you know, latino
community being targeted with this, that we reinforce that racial profiling is not allowed. and also to create a policy where i make sure that the deputies document why they're asking and to identify their probable cause and make sure that they're documenting in a report what their purpose was. what was your probable cause for asking, what steps did they take, so i can have documentation on what they're doing so i can then better understand and see who's really out there, you know, playing i.c.e. agent when, again, they should be focused on other police priorities. so i think that's one area that several major law enforcement sheriffs and chiefs have talked about. >> can i highlight something? >> sure. >> just to riff off the sheriff. so for the first time in texas history, you have spanish surname sheriffs elected throughout the state. in austin, in harris county, houston. you have a valdez here in
dallas. and of course throughout the valley, el paso. and isn't it a coincidence that this papers please bill also creates a provision that allows the state government and the attorney general to remove democratically elected spanish surname sheriffs sheriffs from office if they fail to comply with this papers please bill. and i don't think it's any coincidence. spanish surname, latino sheriffs that are democratically elected in these urban areas that were one time strong holds, and they're getting elected. so now, boom, all of a sudden we see a bill that can remove all of them. >> and to add to that, we are seeing a difference between the major urban law enforcement
leaders and the rural ones. we have more diverse communities. houston is recognized as the most ethically and diverse community in the country. l.a. times actually had an article in may talking about this. but they talk about safety, yet at any point -- i was the only county part of me taking office that was involved with 287 -- so the only sheriff in the state out of 2554 counties, nobody else had it. and they could have signed up any point prior to this. at any point they could have signed up. and now new administration, all these things happening all these municipalities are trying to
sign- sign onto it. i don't think that's really the interest here. >> i want to add that that is exactly what they're talking about, that's a violation of the voting rights act of 1965. and that is one of the things we'll be arguing monday in court. because these are folks that are duly elected often by latino majority districts. and part of what the voting rights act does is it's supposed to protect the candidate of their choice. when latinos elect somebody, that is the very purpose. so you cannot then thwart the will of the voters. >> leana brings up a very important point that the attack is being waged on multiple fronts and hence we're going to
have to fight it on multiple fronts. but going back to this theme of fear that is pervasive, what are the tools and information that super intendants, folks who work in the administration of community colleges can take back with them especially in light of the threats? there have been a lot of threats of funding being removed from the federal government, educational dollars. so what can you tell these administrators? >> sure. so there are a lot of tools. and fortunately, california, we have a lot of individuals working together. we have from the governor to the attorney general, muschr non-profit civil rights structure there. so they're working together. i think as a preliminary thought is what can we do together as members to work in a conservative way assist other communities who don't have that type of leadership who are
pro-immigrant and understand immigrants have been part of the history since day one? but what we're doing in california, i think what's important is to reach out to stakeholders in the community. we are advising and encouraging our school districts and our community colleges, they are hubs of the community, to work in concert with organizations like malda, with organizations like coalition of human rights of los angeles to develop not only opportunities to provide legal services but also to ensure that the undocumented immigrants and students and their families find that they are supported by administrators. so what have they been doing? they have been passing policies, and when i i say they, the school district oftuant colleges, that emphasize they're
going to continue to do what they've been hired to do, and that's educate students. two, they're not going to be focusing on individuals that are problematic. there are immigration consultitants. so we make sure they're reminded of that. there are also school districts in community colleges who identify one person who remains constantly aware of what policies are taking place at the federal level and at the state level. bauds our community now more than ever needs realtime information. we know, for example, that mayor eric garseti is working in concert to invest funlding for individuals who may be facing immigration proceedings. you are supporting them, and you
do this through public announce mgs. there are some communities, for example, that maybe don't want to do a board resolution. but the key part is they understand that there is a supervissuper intendant or a president that are there to help them out. and that can be done through a let eroor through public announcements. right now we need to make sure we are aligned to protect our undocumented students and families. so whether it's board resolution, changing policies, having someone who is charged to provide them with support and provide them with realtime information. because as i mentioned before when i first spoke, there's a lot of confusion out there. >> representative, i'm sure you want to jump in. >> yeah, this bill is so bad
there's a quote, unquote, campus provision in this bill that allows any employee on any campus to report that campus to the attorney general. so if that campus has, quot quote-unquote, a pattern or practice, an employee on that campus can make a petition to the attorney general to sanction that campus and have it declared a sanctuary campus. this is something that governor abbot insisted on. we were demanding it be taken out because so many of our what we call texas dream act students are on public campuses. they were so mean-spirited that they wanted to put those kids in fear by including this provision in it. and i find that so offensive on so many levels. and that's why this governor needs to be called out. [ applause ]
>> and i've got to highlight here that texas was the first state, even before california, texas was the first state to grant instate tuition to undocumented students. but how things have changed in the last couple of years, dave. >> let me add that sanctuary cities and sanctuary campuses have bebeen a threat by the federal government that they will be defunded. there has been action taken by municipalities in the state of california to put that to a stop. we know the city of san francisco as well as the city of santa clara brought a lawsuit seeking a particular executive order. so right now a particular provision of the executive order that was issued by the trum administration seeking to defund so-called shank chaer
jurisdiction is so far at a stop. what's important about that is the following. one, is there's been a lot of school districts and other administrators from community colleges questions whether they would be defunded if they were to support undocumented immigrants. and it's clear to focus and highlight on that issue. but it's also important to understand that there are a lault of barrier said that the drug administration has over come to ensure that their will will take place. the case laws against that particular point of view. and what i mean by that, there are tenth amendment protections that state that states and localities cannot be commanded by the federal government to take on which is part of a federal regulatory scheme or immigration enforcement. two whereby the ruseept of federal funds have to be related to the purpose. in this case, for example, educating our students are
ampthetical to enforcement of immigration laws. so fearful district administrators and alike should have some common relief to that. the third thing is there has been some clar tags recently by the attorney general that states the fundings that they're only going to go after are those that are issued by the department of homeland security or the department of justice and not by the department of education. so that is something that's incredibly important to ensure that individuals feel at ease, that they continue to do what, again, their responsibilities are under existing law. and there are good organizations like other municipalities in the court room. because we don't have a king in office. we have a president of the united states that needs to be checked and balanced.
>> steve, let me get something in first. are we comparing apples and oranges when we talk about the legal battles of sb-1070 and we look at what happened with sb-1070 and proclam 87 and we constructed in a way that we would pass all these hurdles. what are we seeing? >> in some way sb-4 is far wurgs than sb-1070 in the sense of state over reach. it goes into the higher education realm. so we represent the texas center of higher education because their free speech rights are violated. so now you're a professor in a classroom and you want to speak
out and have a political debate in the classroom, let's say a political science professor and you want to speak out against sb-4, for example, under sb-4 you can make liable your university. so what it does, it makes universities less likely to hire folks that are speaking out. so there's a real threat in terms of constitutional rights not just in the sense we've been talking about, racial profiling, first amendment rights of professors, of city council folks. so in that sense, i think it goes far beyond. even though the papers please provisions are a little bit different, sb-4 is just such an enormous state over reach. >> steve. >> no, i think sb-4, though, there's some unintended consequences. it's the k-12 system as well.
right after 1070 was passed ven though it had nothing to do with our own high schools and, students left our school district like you wouldn't believe. we lost 1,000 kids over night. we closed down schools, laid off teachers. the fact is parents are scared. they don't understand it. they keep their kids from going to school or they decide to move to a more friendler state. we lost so many families to california, nevada, new mexico. they just left arizona. so when you start talking about the impact, yes the impact to our higher ed, cannot forget our k-12 schools where parents, families trust us with their kids. they're not going to allow their child to go to school if they
believe they might be in danger some way. so you might see an impact. it'll be interesting to know if student enrollment drosses at all because of senate bill 4. >> what i'd like to do is ask each of you to take about two minutes and give texas your advice. >> i'm a little bit caffeinated and maybe you go to someone else because my advice might not be pg-13. >> yeah, we're live streaming, so please pg-13. >> i think one of the things that mobilize folks in california and arizona is really the hate rhetoric around 1070, and you really saw thought in texas all throughout the legislative session and then
culminating on the last day with representative matt runauldy, who many of you have probably seen in the newspaper, said that our community doesn't love our country, called i.c.e. on the folks that were in the house gallery, and really did what we fear most about sb-4 and saw a grume of brown people and said they're all undocumented, i'm going to call i.c.e. on them. so don't get mad, get even. that's my advice. >> don't get mad, get even. >> thank you. i hope that this is just another reminder that elections truly do matter, and it's important that we look at who represents us at all levels. and i think that hopefully we could use this as an opportunity to really galvanize the latino community, to really take note
of who's advocating for them, who's not and how issues that are debated not only locally but at the state level nationally have a tremendous impact on all of us. and i hope we could see that because i think it could really impact our state and local communities, and beyond just the economic impacts, the drain on our work force, leading to other jurisdictions that are more friendler to the immigrant community. so instead of us growing and really embracing our diverse communities, you know, we could really hurt our local economies in that way. but i really hope communities can come together, work around these issues and really step up, get people elected to office and advocate for all communities, diverse communities, immigrant communities. i think that's really important for us to learn. >> thank you. >> i've been working on these issues since the '80s are. and one thing we all know is
this an ongoing struggle. and we need to come noorgt in a more consistent way. we also understand there are a lot of individuals who want to seek office. it's our role, i think, to ensure they understand the importance of civil rights compliance, constitutional protections, that they too become equal partners walking shoulder to shoulder with each of us to protect our community. and then hold our elected officials accountable and individuals that support them accountable. shed lithe on why are they enacting certain actions that are affecting our community in a real way. this is something that's ongoing, and it's also important the role that malda tones to play and other organizations and we need to continue to invest in their efforts as well. this is a continued frt that is ongoing. and that's something i understand and appreciate, but we all understand and appreciate. we all have a role to play.
whether it's a school board individual or an individual elected in office or a business person, what way are you moving the agenda forward to make sure no student is discriminated against. i think that's important. >> texas, the entire country is watching. everyone is watching to see what happens next. my only suggestion is to be bold, be aggressive. push back as hard as you can. because however this gets resolved, chances are it doesn't work out correctly or the way we like, you can for sure bet it will pop up in other states. everyone is watching. build those alliances. work with other segments of society that you can join forces together. right after 1070 i went to my guy and lesbian brothers and
sisters and i told them you might as well kml and join in this night because it won't be long before they come after you. because i guarantee you if it's not the lgbtq, the latino community, it's going oo be theinate chb american community. we've got to fight back. texas we're all watching. we're with you. whatever we can do to help, we're there. >> you know i would say to all the texans and our legislators who are fighting this movement, know you are on the right side of history. you cannot be deterred. you are doing what is absolutely correct. and it is difficult. and, you know, when we were seeing on tv everyone who turned out to the texas capitol, you
bow what i saw there, i saw future governors, future senators, future members of congress. let's take this opportunity that's going to have ramifications for this state for, you know, for kingdom come. let's take the opportunity to mobilize, to organize and to diversify our movement. and to be able to use this as a tool to provide more leadership in our community. to demonstrate outlet of this effort they're going to regret the day they even put that bill into that session, into that legislature. because you are now mobilizing an entire community that is not going to forget. like the latino community affcalifornia has not forgotten governor wilson and proc 187. and to now understanding california wasn't part of this country's founding -- when this
counttry was founded, california was not part of it. but now california is the keeper of this, is telling where texas can really enforce its future now. and understanding this is a movement sb-4 has created. this is a movement that's not going to go anywhere. and we're going to use this and mobilize texas and the latino community in texas. >> so don't get mad, get even. elections matter. we all have a role to play. you build alliances, and you get bold, you get aggressive, you push back. and it's going to be difficult, but in the end we're in the right. thank you all for all of your insights today and thank you for attending the panel. [ applause ]
c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> cia director mike pompeo will assess national security threats and his vision for the cia. hosted by public and private sector members of the intelligence community. live tuesday night 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. and wednesday morning the senate jugs dishiary committee will hold a confirmation hearing for christopher ray, dominated to be
the next fbi director and replacing james comely who was fired earlier this year. >> next a review of the major cases from the recent supreme court term and a preview of the travel ban case the court will take up next term, which begins in october. from the heritage foundation, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> we of course welcome those who are joining aus on our heritage.org website as well as c-span. and of course those watching outside of heritage you're welcome top send questions and comments to us at speaker.heritage.org throughout our programming.
immediately following the first panel our second group will be led by liz belizabeth slatary w serves as legal foalo. please join me now in welcomic john malcolm. john. >> thank you, and welcome everybody to heritage for our annual event. this was not exactly the biggest blockbuster term. but nevertheless there were a few cases of interest and a few cases the court has decided to hear next term for interest. so i'm delighted we have a distinguished panel to discuss this. and a few preliminary thoughts on a couple of the cases for next year. so to my right he