tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN December 15, 2016 12:40am-12:57am EST
immigration journalists in congress, we cover all sides. we don't refer to people who support sanctuary cities as being pro-immigrant, and we do refer to people who are supposedly undocumented who allegedly have false documents as illegal immigrants. my question, as i understand, the letters would be mainly to convicted felons who have served their time, know they will be deported, their families know they will be deported, and it is no surprise, that everybody knows at the end of their sentence, ice will come in and secure them. and yet for some reason, they , say, no, we will not allow them to be deported and we will
, release them. i don't know how you can defend not continuing with the sentence that is unique to illegal immigrants, but they are convicted felons. william: i think it is important to recognize that we support enforcement of immigration law, that people who are evicted of crimes that are listed as being resulting in deportation. if there is no relief from deportation for those folks. the problem with the secured communities program is that it -- as it existed is that it was not focused at the conviction end of the process. it was focused at the arrest end of the process. and someone who is arrested and charged with a crime or even worse, if you look at some of the statistics, they are compiling together a detainer requests that were refuse for d for people who were
convicted, arrested, or suspected of criminal activity. so what we have seen in communities, our members report to us is that an individual will get tagged as a suspected gang member and will then be subject to a detainer order from immigration because they criminal authorities don't have anything to charge them with. instead, they say, let's use immigration instead and get this person out of our community. >> they are illegal. william: it's really using immigration law in lieu of criminal law against someone they can't prove a case for. we saw this after 9/11 where people were individuals were , rounded up with immigration violations and were flagged as suspected terrorists when there was no evidence of whether they were a terrorist or not they -- not, but they would be detained under the immigration authority so that they could be interrogated, for example. >> go to the microphone, please.
jessica: again, it is not the prerogative of the state or local authorities to decide criminalillegal or aliens are subject to deportation. the constitution has given congress that authority to we simply cannot let states and municipalities decide which illegal aliens will be deported. it is not their call. whether they are criminals or not. >> another question. >> my name is steve cameron, with the center for immigration studies. so, i just want to know both of your positions, if somebody is arrested for drunk driving or doing something and the local jurisdiction doesn't hold them but say, secure communities show this person is clearly illegal
. they crossed the borders illegally, they were fingerprinted, and their fingerprints match. your position is we don't have to hold them. this person is unambiguously in the united states illegally immigration asked them to hold , them, and you say they have to be a violent felon that has previously been convicted. how is that different from foreign -- from open borders? i think most americans say well, , we don't want police rounding people up but would both of you , say that person should be deported and the jurisdiction should hold them even if they haven't asked killed someone or committed another serious crime? either one of you. >> who wants to go on? the firsture, so thing i would point out is that the founders of this country understood that the physical detention of any person was the most coercive power that the government has. and it should only be exercised under the supervision of a neutral magistrate.
they enshrined the privilege of habeas corpus, being able to go in front of a judge and hold that your detained meant is unlawful in the constitution, , that it could not be suspended, except in cases of invasion or civil war era so what we're talking about is the requirements for physical detention of any person in the united states, that it need be done lawfully, and one of those requirements is that any detention be done only upon probable cause upon showing to a neutral magistrate. when an immigration service officer requests the detention of someone who is suspected as an undocumented immigrant through a fingerprint check, they don't have to prove that to anyone. in fact that foreign national , may not even be subject to any kind of post-detention review of their status for weeks or months. the supreme court will decide whether or not the constraints
that they said were lawful on detention of people during the immigration process, whether those have been exceeded over the last 10 years since they made their first decision. all right? because that coercive detention power is the power of the government that the founders most feared, they required that it be exercised within strict constitutional limits. that is why i think cities which say, immigration service, please get a warrant to show that this person is subject to the tension areo your jurisdiction upholding the fourth amended of -- amendment the constitution. solutionagain, this that bill has suggested is neither required under the law or practical. what we are talking about is people are getting arrested. it is discover they are here in illegally or potentially deportable through a fingerprint
match or through an interview in a jail. ice issues a detainer. that detainer has an indication that ice has probable cause to believe that this individual is deportable. that is not even the standard. the standard is articulable facts. this is not a criminal case. there are no trappings of the criminal system. there are no magistrates available who could even provide the blessing he is suggesting. all that congress has decided that ice needs articulable facts -- is articulable facts that the person is deportable and that the state are local law enforcement shall maintain custody of that individual for -- "shall maintain custody of that individual ice," just as they would do for any other law enforcement agency, "up to 48 hours." usually, ice gets there much quicker than that. states and local governments get
theirrsed partially for costs already through a federal works program. again, we are talking about people who have already been arrested, that sanctuary policies would rather release rather than have them be sent back to their home country where they can no longer prey on individuals in the community. >> i am with the mexican american legal defense educational fund. i have a question about your statement. you mentioned that this is not a criminal case. so i want to ask you why is it that we are holding the se suspectedse suspected undocud immigrants in detention if this is a civil matter? and can you know any other instance of federal civil laws requiring people being detained before being given due process? jessica: sure. and again, it is not just that they are suspected of being here
illegally. the ice officer has to have articulable facts and is stating that they have probable cause. and often, the identity is matched through a fingerprint. so they know what they are doing. those are the individuals that are being released by the sanctuaries. and the reason that they need them held in custody is because ice can't be in every jail and every courthouse patrolling the streets, looking for criminal aliens. when they are notified that a criminal alien or an illegal alien that they want to deport is in someone's custody they are , asking them to be held in custody in accordance with federal regulations and in accordance with the law that congress has written, which determines what that due process will be. >> ok. matt? >> accuracy in academia. the $50 billion drain.
where does that number come from and what does it include? jessica: the $50 billion a year is the net drain on public coffers, the difference between what illegal aliens are estimated to have paid in taxes and fees and so on, minus what they are estimated to receive in welfare benefits, educational services, housing, health care , and all the other array of publicly funded services that are made available to them. so it is a net cost. that's the difference. william: i would point out that you get that net cost by putting the costs that are attributable to u.s. citizen children onto the foreign nationals. the revenues from the u.s. citizen children, as they grow and become taxpayers on the u.s.
citizen side. so that math only works if you count the children as costs when they are children but as benefits when they grow up. >> another question? how does the lack of a definition of sanctuary cities affect the debates you have, especially with people who are not so well versed in immigration policy? william: i think it is critical that we have some sort of understanding of what we are talking about when we label something sanctuary cities. there is no accepted legal definition of what a sanctuary city is. right now, section 1373 says no policy can prohibit medication -- prohibit communication between state officers in the federal government with respect immigration. that's fine but it doesn't , answer a far more important question. does mayor jim kenney one
want philadelphia police officers spending time and resources finding out information about immigration status in the course of enforcing the law? so those, i think we have to , define. in 300 jurisdictions, you're going to find 300 different nations of how they cooperate or don't cooperate. so we don't have an idea. and sanctuary cities is a label that is applied to try and argue that these are cities who are somehow shielding immigrants when in fact, what they are , doing is simply requiring the federal government to do its job. jessica: there is definitely a spectrum of sanctuary policies across the nation and it may mean different things to people, but our definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction is any government that has a policy, practice, ordinance, rule, or law that actively obstructs immigration enforcement or shields illegal
aliens from federal detection. and there is even a spectrum of policies within that. but i would disagree that there is no legal definition because, again, as we've discussed, 1373 does say that no government can in any way restrict medication. restrict -- 1324 says no one may harbor or shield from detection criminal aliens. i agree that this is evolving, but i think we do have a standard and ice knows which jurisdictions are not cooperating. no one is saying that cities should not have a policy that is welcoming to immigrants. the issue is when it crosses the line into obstructing the legitimate enforcement of immigration laws. >> other questions? any other questions? if not, i think we owe both speakers a round of applause. [applause]
>> and we especially want to thank the audience here. you've been wonderful. jessica: definitely. >> take one of these. thank you. of hours. copies the report that is being released today up here. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [indistinct conversation]
>> attorney general loretta lynch sits down with political tomorrow to talk about the tenure as head of the justice department in the obama administration. that is live at 8:00 a.m. eastern. paul ryan among the speakers at a forum examining the challenges of economic mobility for low and middle class income americans. that is hosted by the american enterprise institute, live 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. every weekend, but tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here is some of the programs coming up this weekend. saturday night at 10:00 eastern on afterwards, georgetown callssity jason brennan
for a change in how government is run in his book "against democracy." he is interviewed by the vice president of the cato institute. >> fairness doesn't get you to democracy. that system.reject they think it will not work very well and will lead to bad outcome. they are probably right. once you say that, i care about conscious fairness but bad outcomes, then you have to ask, how are you going to weigh fairness versus equality of the outcome? >> the before columbus foundation presents the american book awards, which recognizes out ending literary achievement from the entire spectrum of america's diverse literary community. five :00 p.m. eastern, jonathan zimmerman, professor of history education at the university of pennsylvania, on the increasing pressure to