tv ICE Director Sarah Saldana Remarks CSPAN November 27, 2015 11:40pm-1:21am EST
i am proud to be in law enforcement. i'm still in my first year as director. told that i'm the first latina to head a federal law enforcement agency ever. [applause] that is very nice. largest law enforcement agency within the department of homeland security and the second-largest in the entire federal system behind the fbi. we need to honor the trailblazers. one of them is quite keen
peace officers association. her career began two decades earlier. she was with the sheriff's department. women were not considered suitable for patrol duties. they might be distracted by putting on their lipstick. she change that. she took on the role of leadership. these people are true trailblazers. i just give a tip of the hat to them. as many of you know, i am from
texas. we have a lot to brag about. we have the largest state capital in the united states in austin. we have the greatest speed limit, 85 miles per hour. between austin and san antonio. who werewo presidents born in texas, neither of whom is named bush. lyndon johnson and dwight eisenhower. we have an extraordinary obesity rate. 30%.
we emit twice as many greenhouse gases as any other state. i think they mean vehicles. [laughter] we're all in the legal field. we have some interesting laws. it is illegal to put graffiti on another person's count. it is illegal to person from a corpse. you can be arrested for milking someone else's cattle. let me get to the more serious task. to talk to you about my agency. i am so proud of our agency.
we've got some very important things we're working on. the priority enforcement program. why are you removing certain people and not removing others? is it possible to remove 11 million people? as the united states attorney, this is just common sense. we cannot remove 11 million people. the congressional budget office has estimated how many officers would take to do that.
what we are doing is just smart management. we are focusing on those people who are threats to the safety of the american public. who represent a security risk. we're looking at all kinds of ways people are trying to enter the country. we are not focusing on one nationality. lots of people want to get here. reasons.hem nefarious we are very watchful of that. the priority enforcement program is in effect. this is smart.
are officers have been trained that this is the directions administrations going to go into. not to pick up people randomly. another top priority that we have been charged with is counterterrorism. there are real threats out there. the secretary has to listen to these threats and decide whether to warn the public. it is a decision he has to make every day. the arm of this agency that handles this is homeland
security investigations. sean gallagher is here who is in charge of removal. people who are vital to our effort. [applause] they are representative of extraordinary dedication commit. top-quality people. do is wee things we investigate visa overstays. there are students who come in, we want to diversity. that says have a visa
you need to leave within six months after graduation, you need to do that. people need to understand that. you know the history the boston bombers. these overstays. something that our organization. the responsibility of making sure if there is anyone out there who wants to know more about what we do they are leaders in your community. they can come and speak to various groups and civic organizations.
our employees are also in 47 countries overseas. extraordinary women and men that are out there working every day. international crime. there was a dutch national involved in this operation who was arrested. 87ual abuse at the 87 -- of ors.rs children are exploited and abused. 50 perpetrators have been arrested worldwide.
human rights. violent war crimes. genocide in torture all over the globe. we are involved in those investigations. celebrated the mass than 7000 people that happened in bosnia-herzegovina. two counts of visa fraud. thathing you will learn is anytime the fbi has an investigation of terrorism, we have this broad authority with respect to immigration visas.
if we can find a hope within our we will join in with the fbi on that investigation. he was sentenced to 63 months in prison. prosecutors were waiting for him. it is important that you hear about all this. it informs you how your tax hours of being spent. enforcement and homeland security have to work together. from our efforts to protect ,hildren, to counterterrorism to dismantling drug networks.
[applause] fernandez: welcome to boston. i think you guys are in for a treat. we have a great panel. penny bradshaw please step appeared. on --chacon,ck please come. we did have an immigration .napshot drawn up a flyer that gives us some basic facts. some of the flyers are located here on this table.
we will have a debate with pertinent questions. with regards to the history and employment. we will give you guys the chance to meet with us directly about any questions that you might have concerning our immigration system. hopefully 10 or 15 minutes prior to the conclusion of the program. i would like to start with ms.
bradshaw. bradshaw: i practice labor and employment law. i work out of winston-salem, north carolina. employers get more visas and green cards for their foreign workers. as we consider the topic of immigration reform, we should look at what broken in the existing system. as we talk about some of the challenges we need to keep in about 8t there are million undocumented workers here in the united states. the starting point is to get a
work visa in the united states, you must have a sponsoring employer. you can't come from another country and seek a job in settle here. it doesn't work that way. even with a sponsoring employer, is very difficult to get a work visa. there are quotas on how many people can get these leases. visas. h1b is for people in the professions. there were 200 and 33,000 applications filed. the immigration service does a lottery for these visas. the rest are sent back
unprocessed. you have about one in three chance of getting that talented foreign worker that you have identified. alreadys they are working for that employer on a card.l work hard -- we are leaving it to chance. we have people who pursue their degrees here that we don't allow them to stay. program for2a agricultural workers.
the h2b program is only for seasonal jobs. hisomeone wants to wrap up second shift in his therecturing facility, are no work visas for folks like that. have so manyy we undocumented workers is because there is not currently an option for those folks to live and work in this country. there are other challenges to.
the l1 visa is for short-term assignments. specialized knowledge workers. the immigration service is denying more than 30% of these applications. often can'tanies bring those workers to the united states. let us say you are to get a work visa. they come here for three years. often they have a spouse and children who come with them. you try to extend the visa. for thet at all unusual immigration service to deny the extension.
it is not unusual to have similar applications filed and to have one denied in one approved. the challenges that there are not that many visas available. documented --ion undocumented workers in this country. sponsors can also foreign workers for the green card. there are quotas for this to. under the current law, there are 144,000 employment-based green cards available each year. and there are quotas within quotas.
can come from% any one country. that has tremendous impact on mexico and the philippines. china,are from india and you may have to wait nine years to get your green card because of the country quota. let a step back again think about the numbers. if we would try to put those 8 million undocumented workers , it woulde system take 49 years to deal with them all. similar long waits for family-based immigration.
green car doesn't give you any permission to live and work in the united states while you are waiting. folks to come through whatever reform system have to get to the end of the line. some suggestions for reforms. that make people wait decades. is important to educate people about this process. there are lots of different ideas about how we can do this reform. think we could easily get a consensus that there is a strong need for reform. [applause] thank you. [applause]
to the operation code. the fallacy of the thought that the people that are here illegally should just get to the back of the line. cases, there are no lines to get in. is very important first to be .ducated about that i want to talk a little bit more about family immigration. talk about some of the other problems that families face. as a structural matter, the immigration law puts a lot of emphasis on family unification.
the immigration law is family unfriendly. waiting times that are particularly harsh from specific countries. i want to focus on the fact that a significant number of children are in families where at least one family member lacks legal immigration status. what this means is that we have a situation where millions of people live with family instability every day. millions of u.s. citizen children who are undocumented
caretakers and providers. it puts them in a constant state of stress and uncertainty. we have seen efforts at stitching. two of the eight some of the stresses of this problem. it would have deferred to who haveon actions u.s. citizen children. but no disqualifying criminal convictions. the authority of the department to issue work authorizations.
you can't really generate more stability for the lives of these families. this could've been a huge boost to millions of children. parents who rely on the income and support. they could lead to improvements in wages and workplace conditions. for citizens as well as immigrants. the immigrants would no longer be in the shadows. it also would have been a huge for the economy. billion over 10 years in economic growth.
it is important to see that what we are doing is something that foot,economic shot in the , and it doesn't make a lot of policy sense. pattern is enjoined by the fifth circuit court of appeals. togress should pass a law take people out of the situation of uncertainty. if the deferred action for parents program were to go into it is not legislation. it doesn't lead to citizenship.
not even temporary visas. it is contingent in nature. nothing more than a stopgap measure. we need something to give .roader at protection i want to suggest something a little bit more radical. because i am a professor. stressed that it not going to help criminals. but we must remember that even some people who committed criminal acts to have families.
when talk about felons not families we created dichotomy. trump is talking about building a wall and making mexico fund it . we don't have enough people on the other side talking about how to open up our immigration laws. [applause] i have tenure. about a child who has appeared to committed a felony. perhaps was in a bar fight and has an aggravated assault on the record. someone who matter how minor 20 years ago.n most of the legalization programs we are talking about do nothing for them. rhetoric in our
politics. we have defined more and more people buys criminal aliens. one thing that we might want to do as we are part the discussion is to create a little bit more space on the other side of the spectrum. that might help us reclaim some middle ground. the toxic rhetoric is really harmful. people that have long track records here. let's not let the most extreme members of society drive this discussion. talking about greatest and -- rapists and
criminals streaming across the border. by thatt be manipulated rhetoric. decades studies over have established that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than nativeborn people are. high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime. we not talking about criminal populations. we should deconstruct those fallacies. [applause] about endingalking birthright citizenship, let's embrace it. it expands the number of our society's long-term members.
let's bring people into the fold. let us make our democracy work. if we can start to have these conversations, we know that expanding opportunities good for us. we can see the evidence from the deferred action for childhood arrival program. individuals year, were able to get better jobs and get bank accounts. more stable but not stable enough. it is good for the national economy when people are able to work lawfully.
these things are good for all of us. it should be a no-brainer. what could be wrong with this? the demagoguery on the other side has been so toxic. to not let fear and misinformation drive the immigration debate. we should be offering immigration as a solution. improve the economic and emotional stability of our families. they can revitalize our democracy. we are suffering because we have so many members who are not able to voice their opinions.
[applause] hernandez: immigration is a large body of law. deferred action for childhood arrivals. actions, executive those are not laws. they can be changed by the next president. what they were please -- receive is an employment authorization document. they cannot travel in and out of the united states.
there are other benefits that are not given to them. some politicians might say they are taking away the benefits. they are meant for citizens. this is not the case. priority enforcement program, we look at this felons not families issue. that is not necessarily the case. dui is a significant any immigrant who has that is not eligible for these programs.
there is no look back. child is convicted as an , they will not be eligible for these programs. removal. mixed status families. -- u.s.removing mixed citizens as well. there is no recourse but to take the family away. we are in a reactionary posture. we nothing about what is going to happen when these children
become adults and come back into the united states as u.s. citizens. it brings an interesting dynamic. family when to a you are putting u.s. citizens in a latin american culture that they know nothing about. and they can get no government benefits. there is no health care latin america for foreigners. you are putting u.s. citizens into poverty by deporting a when you are not actually deporting a felon. it was a misdemeanor in the past. some people do commit felonies. the numbers will show that the great majority of people removed andin fact not criminals
how many of you have heard of laverne cox? there's a broader understanding of what transgender people aren't what they are not. . termgender is an umbrella for many stages of what we call transitioning. many of these concepts are very and immigrants have no idea that there is access to hormone replacement therapy. or sexual reassignment therapy. californiad cases in where inmate and california prison will get gender reassignment. these are the type of cases that we are litigating.
i want to give a little bit of recognition that we as a society have made great strides in the last 10 years. now that marriage equality has been achieved, there is more than we have to work on. prisons in general. to you a little bit about immigration but also some examples of some of my clients. we go back to 2010, the counter terrorism prevention act was enacted.
the beds for immigration detention had to be increased by 8000 per year. last year we had about 40,000. you can see the increase. also in 2010 we had an appropriation act, which basically set a quota. at any given time is was to have 33,400 beds with immigration detainees. this is quite problematic. the quota system makes it more difficult to achieve -- to make sure people are released. as recently as july, there was a decision that addressed family
detention of women and children. detention centers in texas were ordered to release families and children. there have been other litigations, most by the aclu. forof you, i thank you doing these types of cases. it is a structure that has many pieces. one of them is this quota. the other is that 62% of the immigration base are managed by private corporations. the cost of immigration detention is about $150 a day per person, which makes it $5 million per day, and $2 billion
per year. prophets are going to these private corporations. -- profits. the appropriations act was enacted by congress. between cca and the other group, between 2008 and 2014 they spent about $10 million in lobbying expenses. we have huge corporations lobbying for the to remain where it is. -- for the bed quota to remain where it is. a detentionisited center in l.a. and a detention center in atlanta, as well as a third in pennsylvania. i can tell you what i have not congruent with civil detention. many of these facilities are on
center worked with 2 different transgender women that were basically enslaved as men, subject to verbal abuse. the other was sexually assaulted in arizona. they are being placed with men. these are women who have taken hormones from early in their teen years and a present female and have a few nobody. but they are faced with men. -- have a female body. but they are placed with men. one of the larger messages i want to leave is that because of the mandatory detention issue, that includes moral the two crimes and other felonies -- turpitude crimes and other felonies, those that we can represent are not able to get
out on bond. a memorandum was issued. this is something we have been able to use to advocate for re i ief of vulnerable populations, such as transgender women, being subject to sexual abuse. we have been able to use that along with committee organizing efforts. i want to talk about the radical other side issue. youngare movements, people that organize for the dream act. many of them are now organizing more"ment called "not one movement. not one more deep rotation, not more family broken apart. -- deportation.
there are organizations that are pushing for "not one more" deportation. for both cases, one was released from bond. one was just granted asylum. 75hink that they represent transit or women in immigration -- transgender women in immigration that could be released. i think we should also look at alternatives to detention programs that could lessen the costs that ice is paying. another thing i will talk about ourhere we focus
enforcement and detention efforts. we are talking a lot about criminalization of people. i just want to highlight that for transgender women in the both racialofiling, and gender policing that occurs is at its peak. mply had a client who was si at a hotel with another transgender friend, in the hotel called the police with alleged prostitution suspicion. when transgender people cannot live their lives without being policed, for example, going to a bathroom that is not messed -- does not represent their perceived gender identity. it's hard to not fall into the categories that may make them deportable or inadmissible. something that, in the
midst of trying to figure out what a good solution could be, it has to do with changing the framework of who should be prosecuted and stopped. and what crimes are we talking about that are making people inadmissible or deportable? >> thank you. [applause] >> just a brief comment on that. this administration has taken a is aion that detention deterrent. you will hear that quite a bit. any immigrant becomes into the u.s. and gets removed from the u.s. -- one cr removed -- once
you are removed, if you do come back, you're not eligible for bond. your subject to something called mandatory detention. these facilities are supposed to be civil detention facilities, not criminal detention facilities. they are supposed to be afforded more "freedoms" than your typical criminal detention facilities that we know in the state level. companiesave private that are lobbying for increased detention and you have quotas that are mandating incr increasedeas -- increased detention. this is america and this is a business, and we have a $1 billion business that is detaining human begins. i think we all know where this is heading. if you see an immigrant and he has some sort of reasonable
suspicion that they are in the habla unlawfully -- espanol, for example. and where are you going to go if you are detained? to prison. they are not really freedoms. it's nice that they are called civil detention. but the truth of the matter is that they are not civil by any. that, rachel. >> i like to start off by thanking the president. colorado is proud of you and we all thank you for your leadership. as well as the law student division. thank you for hosting the panel. it's very important that lost to are able to engage not only in the networking events that the convention provides, but also in the important policy discussions. my name is rachel velasquez. i work at vanderbilt law school.
i worked at the u.s. senate for senator bennett's of colorado. when the director holds up that statute, probably older than a lot of people in the crowd, it does not reflect the values of our culture today, including when it comes to enforcement. abouthe professor said executive action not being the solution is correct. the next president can just as easily remove the daca and dapa programs that president obama has been able to implement. what i like to do is do a brief overview of what the senate immigration bill contains. i think it's important for two reasons. one, it provides a good basis for what possible solutions can look like. second, we can look at the prevention that individually -- is this a solution that we think should be implement it, or should we change it in a future
legislation? my office was part of the immigration negotiations that occurred in the senate. my policy was immigration. i was part of the team that drafted the legislative language. when looking at the bill, there are three main provisions. border security, the pathway to citizenship, and a restructuring of the visa system. the border security provisions are extensive. they involve an additional mandatory 350 miles of fencing, doubling of the border patrol agent. in addition to that, surveillance and new technology. in order for the pathway to citizenship to begin, there are certain triggers the need to be met for -- that need to be met for the border security side. something called the registered provisional immigrant status, or rpi. in order for that to occur, first the department of homeland security needs to create plans for how they will build the
fencing, how they will implement the new technology. once rpi status begins, a lot of undocumented immigrants will come into the system and will be able to work and live in the united states. once someone is in rpi status for six years, they can renew. and at 10 years, they can apply for a green card. at the green card phase, generally without the tenure mark. there are two provisions included in the bill for a faster track to citizenship. that was for dream-ers and those that work in the agriculture industry. if there was an undocumented immigrant that worked in agriculture for 2 years, they would be able to get their green card after rpi in 5 years. the final provision that i mentioned was a restructuring of the visa system. jenny mentioned the provisions before about the need for greater h1v's. the bill would double the amount
of h1v's visas. those were still maintained. there was something that was changed a little bit. people are that are u.s. citizens are allowed to have their spouses, siblings, and children able to apply for status. we changed the provision for allowing siblings and instead put those visa numbers into something for a merit-based visa. that is a point-based system. basically looking at education, employment history. the applicant can rack up points. the most points would get the nearest waste visa -- the merit based visa. in the discussion of future
legislation and in the discussion of republican candidates making, frankly, offensive comments. what we need to remember is the power that we have in this community here today. the hmva has extensive knowledge. you here today are the ones helping process pieces, helping get asylum for people. -- process visas. it's important not moving forward we utilize our resources here to be able to craft a new solution. not only get it through the senate, but also through the house of representatives. which is a challenging task. i'm looking forward to discussing solutions with everyone on the panel. [applause] host: okay, thank you. have ourso let's panelists field some questions. i'm sure you are thinking of questions. i will start us off. we've all heard that illegal
immigration costs taxpayers billions of dollars. illegal immigration costs taxpayers about $45 billion a year in health care, education, and incarceration. could we please comment on the idea that immigrants are a drain on the u.s. economy? >> i will hit that one just weekly. -- just briefly. unauthorized immigrants to the u.s. paid $11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012. that is just a myth that they are a drain. in addition, there are lots of benefits that undocumented people are not eligible for. that is a major misconception. this country has been built on immigration, entrepreneurs, folks bringing in new ideas, new energy. again i would say that is myth. >> one issue that is a recurring
theme is that there is a on proportionate cost for migration. true that the costs and benefits of migration are not evenly distributed. we have to step back and take account that economically, immigration has been good for the country. that includes unauthorized migrants. they pay both state and local taxes and also federal taxes. they pay into a social security system that they don't then access. there are issues about how we distribute revenues and economic benefits that migrants generate. those are fair game for discussion. but i don't think it's fair game to talk about the tremendous cost that migrants impose. that takes cost in a vacuum and writes out the benefits from the equation. we need to be talking about this in a holistic way, how we offset costs to certain areas that are
impacted, maybe spending a little less money on things like detention, which does cost a lot of money. we are detaining thousands of women and children. they probably don't need to be in detention at all. if you want cost saving, that might be a start. [laughter] there are places where we are spending money that really isn't well spent when we think about how we enforce immigration laws. think one of the big misconceptions you here is "they are taking our jobs." that is something in the media lot. that is actually not the case. 40% of the fortune 500 companies in this country were founded by immigrants or their children. immigrants create 1 in 10 american jobs. not only are immigrants onto material --entrepreneurial, they go beyond creating economic opportunities were themselves, but contribute back to the u.s.
economy. >> if i might jump in on the incarceration and detention costs. we talked about trying to remove rapists antiterrorist and things like that. --rapists and terrorists. once someone is listed as a violator, there is technology in which immediately your fingerprint will be sent to homeland security. you will be placed on an integration detainer. in practice it is not happening. i want to mention the aclu because they filed a detainer case in oregon. this case stated that
immigration holes are unconstitutional. held onple shouldn't be the immigration part until there is probable cause to hold them. at this point, this happen in march 2014, and some jurisdictions are choosing not to uphold the immigration detainer. there are ways in which we can save money. host: this brings up a couple of good questions. how about the idea that the influx of illegal immigrants will -- and this is a quote from president obama from a few years ill "harm the wages of color americans --
blue-collar americans" and " put strains on an overburdened safety net." do the influx of human agreements harbor -- harm blue-collar wages? >> the first point is this influx of unauthorized immigration. we know from the hispanic center that unauthorized gratian is zero. -- immigration is zero. we do have unauthorized immigrants coming in and also going going. we are talking about migration from mexico. we are looking at a different picture from 10 years ago. we are looking at it mexico that doesn't have a sizable population to send as workers. when shift we need to make in our mentality is accommodating the realities of today.
we are not dealing with this same intensity in terms of flow. what is theoint is, ratio of wages? we should all be concerned that when you have a population that is criminalized and not able to be recognized for their work lawfully, that that has detrimental impacts in the workplace. it obviously has a negative impact on wages. if people can advocate for better wage conditions, it has an impact on how employees work. when you failed to take into account the workers in your system, when you fail to recognize their presence, that is detrimental. what is the solution to that? i think in this case, we have workers that are part of the fabric of the work case. -- the workplace. unauthorized migrant populations
have been here in excess of a decade. we are not talking about a transient publishing, we are talking about an entrenched part of the workforce. -- a transient population. legalization is one ofhe keys to improving workplace for conditions for those workers and those that they work with. that is where i would start. then there are questions for most economists. the general economic consensus is that immigrants help the growth of the economy. we have to be competing for jobs with migrants. we do need to focus on u.s. foreign workers and on u.s. workers, making sure that they have job training and opportunities. there is a whole discussion we could have about the need for working-class people to have
opportunities. but linking that to the discussion of unauthorized immigration seems like a disingenuous ploy to shift the focus to not the real source of the problem, to take us outside of the realm of wages and fairness for workers. conversations that we can separate out more than they are separated out in much of the rhetoric. >> there are absolutely industries in the u.s. today where no matter what the employment numbers are, it will not be american workers filling the jobs. you think of meatpacking, or working in the field. from speaking with farmers grand junction, colorado two years ago. there is a whole process they have to go through through the department of labor. they advertise 2 americans to be able to have workers come into their field.
they've done all the advertising, everything required, have not heard anything back, had to do a second round of advertising. finally they were able to get 3 american workers in. by the end of the morning shift, they left. i agree that there is some disingenuous incentives when it comes to discussion. that is always a value immigrants can play in the larger economy. --t: what about the notion why don't we just do it the right way? my parents did it the right way, why can't they just do it the right way? >> a lot of interesting history there. if you look back up until the early 1920's, if you integrated to the u.s., you said we had to show up. there were not quotas. if you could get yourself you're on a steamship or walk across the border, you were basically made it to stay. ---- permitted to stay.
in the early 1920's, we put in to a system that looked back at the demographics in this country in the late 1800s. and we put in a quarter system which -- quota system which led to people primarily from northern europe. folks -- for so many folks whose families came up into the 1920's, if they just themselves here, they could stay. after that there were significant quotas that limited people from a lot of different countries to come. it that way"y "do are erroneous. talking about the quotas. we have so few people that can come. every year, only 7% of the people that come in family-based immigration, other than immediate relatives, can only be from one country. mexico has significant limits on
immigration. there is not a path, there is not a way for people to come in many. -- in many instances. >> i completely agree. i want to add to the pre-1920's scenario. we did have a massive ban on asian immigration. the chinese exclusion act later expanded. one thing actually just a complaint is -- contemplate is the role immigration law has played in enacting the nation's worst impulses when it comes to racism. many people that say "my grandparents came here legally" benefited from a system that was based on racist quotas. that is something that we don't necessarily want to be so proud of as we are. "my grandparents did it the right way"
they came through a system that benefited northern europeans to the exclusion of all others. we need to think, why is it that the claims of birthright citizens that came through those access avenues should be seen as any more valuable than birthright citizens who are here through other channels today. let's think about the fact that yes, there were legal channels. and legal channels themselves should raise critical questions for dide let me interject, i'd -- >> let me interject, i wanted to talk about some of my clients. the type of discrimination and trans-phobia they face in our country is unimaginable. many experienced violence from family members, violence from police, and addition to violence from gangs.
it is super face of that people -- it isrvive ridiculous that people cannot survive in their own country. for the population i work for, it is unimaginable that they can do it the right way, or even enter with a tourist visa. beyond what is in our immediate purview of what can be done the right way, or legally. host: so, due process. should undocumented immigrants be afforded due process? >> i think everyone here would say absolutely. has side ofsomebody ldana's side of the
statistic of how much it would cost. it could cost substantially less. you could just load up fences and send people away. that is not how we have done things with the immigration system, by and large, and i don't think any of us would advocate for the removal of due process. some of the reasons that we would not go back to remarks just now. we have an asylum process that people do arrive at our borders fleeing violence and are unable to remove through normal -- move through normal channels. we need a system that tries to figure out the equities of individual cases and cancellation cases. we need a system that is able to figure out whether individuals are citizens. there are many cases when individuals do not know they have u.s. citizenship through
bloodline. it is important to have a system that is able to figure out whether we are deporting u.s. citizens. there are a lot of reasons we need a system that is defective effectiveective -- and values process. a lot of the discussion about the 11 million suggests that none of these people could have any reason to stay, and i think that is wrong, and that is why due process is important. one thing we should be advocating for is more resources for the adjudicative part of immigration law. we do not have enough immigration justices. their caseloads are horrendous. resourceshave enough to work through the cases in backlogs, so we have people sitting in detention for long periods of time, we have a visa process that is incredibly slow.
talk about due process, then we really need to look at the resources in the process, and i think that we have been focused on putting resources into the enforcement peace, and what that means is there are more people in the need to be processed. you get to the end and you don't lawyers, orrs, resources. i think that is another place where we should really focus, advocacy efforts. you should be focusing resources on the people who are going to be educating the cases -- adju dicating the people in the system. due process doesn't really end there. if we are looking at -- you are saying it's a benchmark, what if we just remove the 11.3 million. how about this recent notion
about, have been hearing i don't think that they have american citizenship, when referring to birthright citizenship, 14 to minute, or as they like to call, "anchor babies." -- 14th amendment, or as they like to call "anchor babies." twice the eliminating of birthright citizenship surfaces -- >> the eliminating of birthright citizenship comes as a topic every 20 years or so. some believe that the constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship and it would be subject to statutory revision. believe birthright citizenship is indeed guaranteed by the 14th amendment, and it
would require a constitutional amendment to eliminate it. if that is the case, getting there is a tough road. i think we are having a discussion about birthright citizenship that is in fact a -- i don't know that birthright citizenship is under threat, and probably shouldn't you. -- shouldn't we. -- be. questions of are people living in places where they cannot hit birth certificates for their children, falling into the potential category of nameless individuals. in texas.ppening getting the documents to demonstrate citizenship has become difficult for people. fantastic discussion about birthright citizenship and changing it is happening, there are subtle ways in which individuals who have the right to citizenship are being denied
the documentation they need to establish it. that is a concern we need to be focusing on. the broader issue of birthright citizenship, once we start asking the question of what we do without it, we realize this will require intense bureaucratic structures to maintain and oversee. it is much more difficult than birthright citizenship to administer. we would have to really talk about resources shifting in a fundamentally new way as that is the direction we want to go. it would call into question the citizenship of all kinds of people, including some of those calling for the end of birthright citizenship, so we might not want to go down the road. to push back on this notion of removing the 11 million. one of the things i wanted to mention is that there are other
means. some of my clients might not be eligible for asylum, and are eligible for those types of means. happent know what would if they were to return. part of the due process system considers all the available remedies that do exist in that great book currently, and people should be afforded the right to make a claim as to why they should not be returned. the other important to a news that aside from due process, i think that has happened regarding detention has also tried to latch onto fourth and fifth amendment claims, particularly for children. i think there are ways that we can use the constitution to challenge some of these practices. more point, add one
this goes out to people in the room. is that issue representation is critically important, and representation -- thisined noncitizens is not a place where counsel is guaranteed. pro bono representation is critically important in these cases if you are not involved in representing individuals. this is a place where there is a huge need for lawyers. detention complicates representation because people are removed from remote places, removed from family support, etc. so this is a place where lawyers should be concerned. this is a place where you have a population with the disadvantage of not knowing the language of the law, who are being asked to represent themselves in complex proceedings. you saw the code. i have students who study law that still don't understand the code. i know people who are teaching it and still don't really
understand the code, not to mention any names. but to expect that migrant children are going to represent themselves in deportation proceedings, and that people who have recently arrived are going to be able to successfully represent themselves is just not fair, and it does not find what our notion of due process. that is a place where we should focus our attention as a bar. about five years ago, i ,epresented a pro bono client and she was able to obtain a visa. i wanted to follow-up on that and see whether the program is still valid. i wondered if it is still valid, what is the weight like, and w like? wait
like? [indiscernible] >> i can provide a quick answer, because i think we are running out of time. the new visa provisions are still applicable. there are 30 club -- 30 crimes. you have to be a victim of a crime for it. there are other visas for which they might be eligible, but for you need a- u visas, prosecutor, lawyer, or judge to sign off on the supplement fee portion of it, lifting those 30 crimes of which that individual immigrant was a victim of. the normal waiting time and for monta is approximately 24 months, but that is getting longer every day. -- in vermont is approximately 24 months, but that is getting longer every day. on what theds
victimization was and what impact had on them. that being said, there is no such thing as a guarantee, and what we find is education is probably the most important issue. prosecutors at the local level, law enforcement at the local level, and definitely judges at the local level, they feel that signing that 918 supplement document gives that person naturalization, or citizenship, or some right, where that is just not the case. an just gives them employment authorization document. with that, if i could have a round of applause for our great panelists. [applause] thank you. thank you for your time and your preparation. thank you. and thank you guys for joining us this morning.
and north carolina republican mark walker. nonfiction books and authors on c-span2 book tv. 3:00, fromternoon at george mason university, robert poole on a 14 acre plot at arlington national cemetery known as section 60. and sunday night at 9:00, attorney roberta kaplan who argued the united states versus windsor. >> we filed the case, and the government gets a certain amount of time to respond. i got a call from the trial
level attorney, saying we need 30 days. we are thinking about what to do in the case, we need time to decide. i will be honest with you, i do not believe her. i thought she was stalling for time. and first of all, i don't get to be a plaintiff all that much. number two, she had a lot of issues. i was very worried not to make sure that when the case was over, not only was she still alive, but she was healthy enough to enjoy it. that was very much weighing on me. i said forget it, no offensive. announcer: she is interviewed by zoeey. watch book tv on c-span2. >> all persons having business before the supreme court should give their attention. coming up on c-span's landmark cases --
>> do you manage to see the paper, read it and see what it is? before she did so, she grabbed it. and then a scuffle started. she put the piece of paper into her bosom. very readily, the police officer put his hands into her bosom and removed the paper. and thereafter, thereafter, handcuffed her. while the police officers started to search. announcer: in 1957, the cleveland police went to a home -- where they believed to be harboring a bomber. she refused access. returning with a document they claimed was a warrant, they forced himself in and searched the home.
not finding the suspect, police instead confiscated a trunk in the basement. she was arrested and sentenced to seven years for the contraband. she sued and her case made all the way to the supreme court. we will examine the case and explore the evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure. and how police have been transformed nationwide. that is coming up monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it is available at c-span.org/landmarkcases. announcer: our look at the u.s. immigration system continues now as mayors from several cities along the texas border discuss trade, drug cartels, and relations with mexico.
this is from the annual texas tribune festival held this year at the university of texas at austin. >> good morning. thank you for joining this morning. my name is carlos sanchez. on behalf of the "texas tribune," i am happy to welcome you to a program called "border reality check." we are scheduled to talk for about an hour. and for the last 15 minutes or so, it will be reserved for
questions from the audience. forreminder, the hashtag this event is #ptf. in the interest of time, i ask you to look at your programs for bios of the gentlemen. instead, i will introduce them by name. thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. [applause][applause] i would like to ask, in relation to the $800 million border security package, is that a blessing or a curse? curse things, it is a because of the publicity with the national guard and that $800 million to protect the border, he gives the impression that the border is unsafe, which is not
-- it is not. recruit industry, we are doing it from the economic development standpoint. the first question people ask is, what about security in that area? the border security issue is that -- is bad from a political standpoint. it does have a positive standpoint, and there is some money in there, for example intelligence and infrastructure .or that as i always say, coming to a neighborhood near you is the word for the first line of defense on that, but overall i would say publicity outweighs more than the benefits immediately. how about you, blessing or curse? >> it is really both.
i appreciate the fact that the governor is interested in the border, but it does bring this publicity -- negative publicity that the border is not safe. laredo and all the entire border are very safe. there is plenty of data that evidences that. it is more on the mexican side, frankly. the laredo area now is a lot safer than maybe the lower valley area up on the mexican side, but we take turns every so often. , and ias border is safe want to state that people wanted to visit the border, please comment. it is truly safe. , do you thinkeser this would be stomped on order border issues -- other border issues?
where i was going to lead you. one of the biggest things is trade that comes through our borders. it is important that we make it easy to be able to do trade. if we have that kind of money, i believe we need to spend it on agents to go on the bridges and crossings.edite the through el paso alone, we have $90 billion to $100 billion from traded that crosses every year, and the city of el paso went project. took on a we are actually funding to be able to open up the bridges and expedite. if we had that can of money, it -- we have that kind of money -- if we had that kind of money, this would be a great place to spend and would make it a lot easier to keep the trade from coming across. host: mayor villarreal, do you think the issue of trade is