tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 15, 2016 4:40am-7:01am EST
>> i will just say, i find it shocking in an age where we are seeing a former secretary of state, a major political party hack, sony hack, their emails spilling everywhere, these nude photos coming out of icloud, that it is hard to recognize the security value of using a more secure option is. i think there a lot of people, especially in politics and hollywood now, using email less because it is riskier. no one saying gmail is super insecure, but it is certainly less secure than an end to end solution, and we need to be promoting the spread of that technology rather than trying to dampen it considering just how dire our cyber secret situation is. >> counterpoint. how were those computers hacked? was it through phishing? because if it was, that is going to make it worse in a situation where end to end encryption comes into play. >> great. we could go another hour with
this topic. let's open it up to questions. we will bring the microphones around. please identify yourself, and ask your question in the form of the question. thank you. this woman right here. >> i went online to research something, because i thought for a second that i forgot a fact. that email was created by the government, by a needy employee, who gets royalty every time it is used. icann was delivered under the clinton administration. all these domain names for uploading nude photos, and isis, all of this is using -- used at of california, which went in september to switzerland. let's remember where it started. >> what is your question? >> my question is why are you talking about the correct origins?
these dark things did not just pop out. government employees and academics had access to them. emails exchanged by the rnc said, maybe we should not use this stuff. >> i'm not sure how icann is relevant, but the other is developed by the government esource. for one, it is important to protect our own spies. they need secrecy as well. also, it was funded by the state department to help defend human rights outside of the u.s., the rights of dissidents and others. and all i would say is, if it's good for them, them, it's good for us, too. if the u.s. supports people outside of the united states having these tools, they should support people inside the united states having these tools. >> i should just interject.
i share the board of directors of the core projects, and i assure you, if there are royalties, there are no oyalties involved. i should also point out that one of the reasons that this is open for everybody to use is that it is simply not possible to protect our own spies and government employees who are using it, without the cover of the general public using it. anonymity and privacy loves company, in that sense. that is simply part of how the technology has to work. >> it i could just add one quick thing. i think there are people asking the question, has it outlived the value? is the benefit worth the cost? and where there is absolutely rampant criminal activity going on, it is fair to ask how the balance works today. >> the woman in the green
sweater in the back. >> i'm with the national association of criminal defense lawyers. >> can you speak more directly? >> is this better? and with the national association of criminal defense lawyers. i just think there's been a huge missing piece of this conversation when we talk about the process and the notice and how it works. this is based in the state's ability to incarcerate someone and deprive them of their liberty. so when it comes to the question of notice of the techniques used, i think the government often has the sort of blanket comparisons, like it is a sledgehammer, as if it is one uniform thing that only operates one way. i want to get to the point that when you talk about using these techniques to break into computers, investigate people, prosecute them, and potentially deprive them of liberty, it is extremely important notice is there.
i think the government knows full well there are many ways that can be done. in camera, not in orbit court, essa bancorp, not in a way that releases information to the public, but gives information into how a computer was broken, search, what might have operated differently. i would like someone to address -- to differentiate the peace between what a traditional search warrant does, which is limited, and how this echnology being used changes that considerably. it is not a place you can go and look, and say they searched my home and hit the three places. i would love someone to address that, particularly from the technology piece, but also from the rights of the accused in a criminal case, who do have the right to confront the evidence against them. >> i think i touched on this briefly before, but i agree that the courts have a lot of
tools that are useful here in trying to sort out these questions, and they are going to do that in due course. there is, however, a long-standing rule for decades and decades that there are certain times when there is a technology, or something that has particular investigative value that will lose its value, if it is disclosed broadly. take for example, how a particular recording device is shaped. it is, of course, useful to the future mobsters to know how we are concealing a recording -- our recording devices. it is generally not that useful to the defense to know what exactly shape the color was, or the battery life. that it can happen in a certain way is critical. turning over all of the relevant stuff to the defendant makes sense, but whether it is useful to know the exact shape of the device, not so much. courts have traditionally tried to balance these questions and
i expect that is the kind of debate that will happen as we go forward. if there is a situation where the code is indeed needed in order for the defendant to be able to evaluate what the scope of the search was, then yes, that is probably something that will have to be turned over, at least on camera with a protective order for the defense. what we need to know is what was search, how much was searched, what was the scope, and if they can be answered through other means, courts are likely to look at and say we will use traditional rules, and say that this technical specification does not need to be disclosed. >> let me just interject one quick point. the lifetime of these tools is much much shorter than the lifetime of a recording device. it is entirely possible, that on the timeframe of a criminal prosecution, by the time that disclosure would take place, those tools are well on their way to being obsolete. >> time for one more.
all right, well -- >> if you will join us upstairs, we will have lunch rom noon until about 1:10. i think c-span cuts away here, but if those watching at home would like to see the lunch -- see something by the civil rights legend, see our livestream at caddo.org -- cato.org. join me in thanking our panel. plaw applause [applause]
they were decisive men. buchanan comes to the top -- you can't come to the top and not be decisive. buchanan was a waffler. he always we want back and forth. you're my adviser. so that's how he was as president. >> now a debate on u.s. immigration policy and sow exalled sanctuary cities. this event was held at the national press club.
if you are interested in joining, please see me afterwards. sanctuary cities is an extremely important issue today . we have 300 of these jurisdictions. the governor of new york is now proposeling that new york become a sanctuary state. san francisco is proposing nding legal fees for illegal -- undocumented workers. and with that i think i have spoken long enough. we will have each speaker speak 10-12 minutes and then we will have questions and answers.
essica vaughn represents the anti-immigration city side. she is with the policy director at the center for immigration studies. william stock is with the american immigrant lawyers association. he represents the pro sanctuary city side. with that, jessica, and then william and then you get a one-minute rejoineder. >> thank you so much. i'm pleased to have this opportunity to visit these issues in a format that is going to promote discussion and give us a chance to explore some of the details, the arguments. sanctuary cities, yes or no?
the answer is very clearly no. and i will be telling you why. mainly because they are illegal and because they create public safety problems, but also because they don't help in establishing trust between immigrants and the community and authorities. d before i end i will also tell you what i think should be done about them. we have heard that sanctuary policies are fine. that they're even necessary. and the reasons that people give for supporting or promoting sanctuary policies are basically one of two reasons. one positive, one negative. the positive reason that's often given is this so-called trust issue. we've all heard it said that if local authorities cooperate with federal immigration authorities then immigrants in the community, epersonly illegal immigrants, will be afraid to report crimes because they're afraid they might then get turned over for
deportation. this is something that authorities generally should be concerned about if it were true, but it turns out that the it's not. and i'll be developing into that a little later. the other main reason that you are going to hear about in favor of sanctuary cities is a negative reason, what i call the you can't make me argument. that the federal government can't force states to enforce federal law, or make them spend their money on it or force local officers to become immigration officers. these don't hold up, either, upon examination. and cooperation between local authorities and federal authorities is clearly within the constitutional framework of immigration enforcement. so i am going to address these arguments but first i want to give you the three reasons why i feel that federal government must address the problem of sanctuaries. first of all, sanctuary policies obstruct the legitimate enforcement of immigration laws and they're
illegal. it's important to remember that immigration law is not some obsolete relic of a law that is not worth enforcing. it protects job opportunities for americans and for leel immigrants, especially those legal workers who don't have a college degree. their job prospects have not improved whatsoever in the last 10 years. not even close to improving. and these are the americans and legal workers who are hurt most by illegal immigration. that needs to be more of a conversation for our policy makers. also, immigration law protects resources for education, house, and welfare that should be reserved only for citizens and people here legally. illegal immigration is a net fiscal drain on the federal budget to the tune of about $50 billion a year. that is not insignificant. perhaps most importantly
immigration law enforcement protects the security and safety of our communities, and that is because the main target for deportation is and always has been that small fraction of the illegal alien population who are criminals and who are causing problems in our communities. since ice doesn't patrol the streets looking for people to arrest it depends on local law enforcement to help it identify which illegal aliens are causing the problems. it turns out that's who the sanctuaries end up protecting, the criminal aliens. that is because the most common and problematic kind of sanctuary policy is one that tells local law enforcement agencies not to cooperate when the feds are trying to remove someone for a state or local crime. 90% of the people being removed by ice have a criminal conviction. that is who ice is targeting and that is who is protecting by sanctuary cities.
congress passed a law in 1996 that made sanctuary policies illegal. no local government can have a policy that in any way restricts local officials from communicating or exchanging information with the feds. which is exactly what the most egregious sanctuaries do and that is the exact policy that was in place when san francisco sheriffs office released a man who later killed kate stinely in that now inl famous case. in addition there is a u.s. code 1324 which says that no one may harbor illegal aliens or shield them from detection by federal authorities. so any place that has a sanctuary policy that goes against these laws is not only utting the people of its community at risk but they are putting themselves at risk for consequences from the federal government. aside from the legal and constitutional issues, sanctuary policies cause public safety problems. this is because the practical effect is that they end up
releasing criminal aliens back to the community who should be deported. starting in january 2014, when the number of sanctuaries started to proliferate, ice started keeping track of exactly which jurisdictions were not cooperating. the number of detainers that were rejected because of sanctuary policies, who the subjects of the detainers were, and what happened after they were released. i was able to obtain a copy of this report through a foia request and we posted it on our website. and this is what ice found. over that eight-month period that they studied, sanctuaries released about 8,000 individuals who were the subject of an ice detainer. by june of 2015, it was 17,000. 6 % of those who were re-- 63% of those already had a serious criminal record, meaning a felony or violent misdemeaner. within eight months, already 23% had reoffended just within those eight months. and they were charged with more
than 4,000 new crimes. of those, ice was only able to rearrest about 40% and the rest are at large. now, the sanctuary supportors say they have no responsibility for the problems created by these releases and that ice should just go arrest them. easier said than done. if you had to arrest an illegal alien gang member or a drug dealer, where would you rather do it, in the jail where they are already being held on local charges, on the street in their apartment where you don't know who else is there? of course not. forcing ice to make these arrests in the community is dangerous for the community and for the agents, and it is also upsetting to the public and creates this climate of fear that the immigrant advocates say that they are opposed to. some say that they understand and deplore the public safety problems created by the sanctuaries but nevertheless sheriffs have no choice but to let the criminal aliens go and
they say that because some courts have ruled that holding the alien for ice is a civil rights violation. most sheriffs actually don't agree with that. 90% of them are complying with ice detainers. and i estimate that about 250 of the more than 300 sanctuary that is exist now fall into this category of erroneously maintaining that they cannot hold someone for ice. what i say to them is, look, ice does provide warrents. administrative warrents. they are not required to provide criminal warrents. ice has offered to pay any additional cost foss holding the alien and has established rapid response teams to the get officers there quickly to minimize costs to the local jurisdictions. but there are still some of these places that will not cooperate on any terms. cook coil, illinois, san francisco, contra costa and santa clara counties in california and king county in
washington state still do not cooperate even with all of the accommodation that is ice has offered them. and the reason is it's not because of legal issues or cost issues. the reason they have the sanctuary policy is because they want to obstruct immigration enforcement because they disagree with it. but the federal government can't just look the other way at this obstruction. so these sanctuary policies are illegal and they are dangerous to top it off they do not even accomplish the goal that they allege is their main reason for having them, which is to encourage immigrants to report crimes and to trust authorities. first, there is simply no evidence that whatever that immigrants report crimes any less than others. not reporting crimes is a problem in a lot of places and the reasons complex. but as i mentioned in the report that we are putting out today, which is available on our website, the national level
data on crime reporting show no signs of less reporting of crime by immigrants. the data from a lot of law enforcement agencies that i have looked at shows no sign of a decline in crime reporting by immigrants when there is robust cooperation between the police and ice. i include a very detailed study done not far from here in prince william county, virginia, a few years ago. there has been some surveys done and reported in the academic literature. what they found is that when immigrants are asked if they did not report crimes and what was the reason, what they say is that it's because they faced a language barrier. or, the second reason was that they don't know how to report the crime. or they didn't think what happened to them was a crime. not because they were afraid of being turned over to ice. so to the extent that there are access problems to police services, then local police
should adopt tried and true community policing policies that directly address those problems. -- hire officers who speak the language. have anonymous tip lines. have nonuniformed personnel taking crime reports. do outreach to build ties. and, most importantly, what they need to do is get the message out that innocent victims and witnesses are never targets for immigration enforcement. that is the message that all of these groups should be spreading. instead of the message that immigrants have something to fear from police. none of the community policing tactics that i mentioned involve suppressing immigration enforcement. so what can be done by the trump administration to address the problem? it's reasonable to expect that this will be a focus for the new plsks because the president elect has said so and he clearly took to heart the stor as of the americans who have lost family members to crimes
by illegal aliens. addressing the sanctuaries has to be an important part of the trump administration's plan to boost the deportations of the estimated 2 million criminal aliens who are now in the country. and, again, 90% of the jurisdictions are cooperating. it is the 10% who are not but they happen to be in place that is do have a lot of criminal aliens. so the first thing the new administration should do is address the legal concerns of the jurisdiction that is make up the majority of the sanctuaries. the 250 that i mentioned. one easy step is to agree to issue administrative warrents where requested. this is not a big deal for ice. they are going to have to do it anyway in the processing of someone for deportation so they might as well do it when they issue a detainer and meet those law enforcement agencies halfway. help them out. this is a solution that has allowed suff ok county on long island, a big community, has a lot of problems with illegal
alien crime. they reversed their sanctuary policy last week, which again i describe in the report they needed to do this because of a huge problem with ms-13, which has been growing since the arrival of the illegal alien youth from central america and hundreds of them have been resettled on to long island in those communities. the next thing i would do is if i were in the trump administration, would be to begin to publish a weekly list of all of the criminal aliens who are released by the sanctuaries. i would call it denny's list after dennis mccann who was killed by an illegal alien drunk driver in chicago in 2011. that illegal alien's name was sal chaves was one of the first people released under the cook county sanctuary city policy. and he has never faced charges because he fled to mexico
because cook county released him because of the newly adopted ordinance that said that they will not turn anyone over to ice or hold anyone for ice. that kind of a list would give you folks here at the press club something to write about on a weekly basis. no question. in addition, the new administration should continue the process that is already begun to cut federal funds to the sanctuaries. the department of justice has recently determined that certain sanctionry policies are inconsistent with federal law. and if you are not complying with federal law then you cannot receive federal funds. in 2016, the ten jurisdictions that were identified by the department of justice as having a policy that's a problem received $96 million this year that they might end up having to pay back if they don't change their policies by june 30, 2017. this is not unconstitutional
coercion as some have claimed. it is proper for the federal government to do this if local governments are violating federal law. and it's been done before. and i think that if -- that there are still even after taking those steps of meeting the jurisdictions halfway on the legal concerns about warrents and withholding federal funds to the noncompliant jurisdictions, there are still going to be some die-hard sanctuary jurisdictions that are going to cling to their policy. if that is the case, then of course the federal government should look at withholding other kinds of grants. but if they persist with these policies, the government is going to have to the look at possible litigation to enjoin some of the sanctuary policies or possibly even prosecution in certain circumstances and selectively. because this continued egregious obstruction of ice is
going to cause more horrific consequences as we've already seen have happened. and i have to say if the i were a police chief or sheriff, watching what's going on, observing what's been happening, i certainly would not want to be on the other end of the that kind of a case, on the other end of a microphone like this trying to explain to the family members of the victims or to the citizens in my community why i did not do everything possible to get that person turned over to ice. and i certainly would not want to deal with the potential legal liability, either. so it is going to be interesting to watch this play out over the coming year. and i think right now some of these die-hard sanctuary jurisdictions are playing a game of chicken with the federal government. but i am not sure how long the public is going to tolerate it. and the federal government hould not tolerate it, either.
thank you very much. [applause] >> before we go on, we notice a number of people in the back. we're very lonely up here. could you please come up. seats up lenty of here. with that, william stock will speak for an equal amount of time and then she will have a chance for a rejoineder. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here with you today. sanctuary cities, the phrase is made to make you think of state officials standing between the immigration authorities and immigrants who are subject to removal somehow shielding them from removal and in spite of their unlawful status. but in over 300 jurisdictions there is no policy that instructs officers to actively thwart the enforcement of immigration law.
what we're talking about then is policies that instruct state officials to stand aside from the federal agencies that are responsible for enforcing immigration laws. so let federal law enforcement do their job of enforcing federal laws. while the state's law enforcement resources remain focused on enforcing laws in their communities and keeping their communities safe. so the question before us today is not whether or not state and local law enforcement is allowed to assist with immigration law enforcement. clearly, they are if they wish to be so. the question is whether state and local law enforcement can be compelled to provide assistance in federal law enforcement matters in a civil immigration law enforcement. so in my remarks today i would like to briefly address how this current question of immigration enforcement relates to task disputes between states and the federal government over
how much the states are supposed to be involved with enforcement of a federal civil law. so you have to go back all the way in to the founding of the republic when you find out that one of the first arguments between the states and the federal government was how much states in the north had to cooperate with states in the south who were trying to return fugitive slaves. and when african americans would be kidnapped out of new york or massachusetts or other states, what assistance did those states legal systems have to provide to southern agents who were coming up to capture individuals and take them back. so that was the first set of issues that the supreme court had to decide. in fact, the state of pennsylvania was involved in a case where it said that the state of pennsylvania could not make it illegal for federal agents to be able to work under the fugitive slave act in the state of pennsylvania because of the supremacy of federal
law. but at the same time, they never had to make their own state law enforcement resources available to help with that. fast forward to prohibition. everybody remembers that the 18th amendment to the constitution made it illegal to manufacture, distribute, sell alcohol in the united states. but the federal government didn't have anywhere near enough law enforcement resources to enforce that throughout the united states, so states and cities were passing laws that allowed them to also concurrently enforce the 18th amendment. but cities and states also decided not to. the entire state of maryland for the entire duration of prohibition never passed a law allowing the enforcement of that. and so of course alcohol remained available on a much greater basis in the state of maryland than in other places. the city of new york had more places where you could get alcohol during prohibition than
it had during prohibition again ecause still and local -- city and local officials did not support the federal law and did not cooperate and the federal government was not able to compel them to do that. what we talk about whether the federal government should be allowed to compel a state or a city to go along with its priorities. i think we need to be careful to think that any precedent that's set in the area of immigration law could be equally applied in other areas of law. so, for example, the federal firearms act requires the registration of certain kinds of firearms, sawed-off shot guns that may be perfectly legal to possess under state law. but many of those weapon which is are involved in terrible crimes are not registered properly under the federal regulations. so should there be a law that says no state shall get federal funding if they refuse to turn over to the alcohol tobacco and
firearms any unregistered federal weapon that their police encounter? well, it is not very dissimilar from what happened in the brady act in 1993 when congress said that because there wasn't a national background checking system, state law enforcement officials had to run a background check of any handgun purchaser. all the way to the supreme court in the prince versus united states case the supreme court said the federal government could not command deer those local resources to enforce a federal purpose. so that is an important precedent about federal law enforcement is responsible for the enforcement of the immigration laws. if an individual comes in to the united states and they do not have a proper status, if they have a proper status and they let it laps or they commit a certain list of crimes they are removeable from the united states and the federal authorities are responsible for
removing them. but to say that a state law enforcement officer has to hold on to that individual while a federal officer is coming to get them, while a federal officer is determining whether or not the person is subject to removal raises serious constitutional concerns. because while it is true that it may be a relatively short period of time, it may be 48 hours or less, in some cases it's not. and more importantly, the supreme court has already said has already said is something not allowed to be required by he federal government.
so then, we get to the question of funding for removing funding as a sanction for refusing to cooperate and provide assistance to the federal government in this matter. well, the supreme court has already made that decision as well, quite recently, in the case of obamacare, where justice roberts said that it was unlawful for the federal -- for the obamacare statute to threaten to remove medicare payments unless they adopted obamas medicare expansion. in the same way, if a federal act were to say that states would be deprived of more than the directly relevant law enforcement grant, all right, the grants, for example, that provide states assistance for
the cost of housing persons who are undocumented who commit crimes, to go beyond that, to threaten federal funding more broadly would be, again, and unlawful coal, a violation of he 10th amendment. why are we here? we are here at least in part because we have allowed immigration to be different from every other kind of law enforcement. the city of philadelphia, where i am from, has a policy that has been labeled a century policy. --sanctuary policy. our mayor has been quite clear that every other law enforcement agency that wants to take custody of someone in the philadelphia jail system can get a judicial warrant and produce that warrant. the montgomery county police can do it. he other federal law enforcement officials can do
it. but ice believes it does not have to. they believe that they can rely on something called a myth -- called an administrative warrant, which is not a ward at all. the fourth amendment to the constitution says that if someone is to be taken into custody, it must be done upon a warrant proven by probable cause to an independent magistrate. none of those elements are necessarily required of an immigration detainer. in an immigration detainer, our immigration officers will look in a database or decide that someone is potentially subject to removal. maybe not even that there is probable cause at their subject -- that they are subject to removal. they will then ask for the person to be detained. if the person is detained -- so it is a warrantless arrest, similar to when a police officer encounters someone driving around, right? they have to have a probable cause that a crime is being committed. but this is not even a crime. this is a civil violation of the immigration laws. so requiring these procedural
protections is not about protecting criminals. requiring these procedural protections is about protecting lawful residents and american citizens because situations like in my own state of pennsylvania, when the lackawanna county sheriff's department was served with an immigration detainer for a u.s. citizen who was then kept in detention for longer than 48 hours, are cases for why these procedural protections are necessary. why is it not require that ice bring a person before a neutral magistrate within a reasonable period of time, 48 hours according to the supreme court? why is that such a big requirement that the immigration service cannot meet but every other law enforcement in the united states somehow manages to? so i want to conclude with a story about community trust because what our members tell us is that these kinds of issues are fundamental to the relationships that police in
their communities are trying to set up with their broader communities of legal immigrants. and there may be undocumented immigrants who live within these communities of recent immigrants to the united states, but the community policing efforts are about establishing relationships. nd as a practical matter, what happens when local police become enmeshed in the enforcement of immigration laws are cases like what one of our members reported from washington state. now, mirabella, just not her actual name, was arrested in a domestic violence incident. she was the victim of domestic violence by her u.s. citizen husband. she had never called the police before because, of course, her husband was telling her that the police would be on his side and she would be deported. when the police came to the house because of this incident, she only speaks spanish and her
husband was able to convince the police officers that she had been the aggressor. and so, she was arrested. she was taken into removal. she had no relief from removal. she was deported from the united states. so this is a situation where an individual who was the subject of a criminal investigation at a local level became enmeshed in this deportation system, and this is what will happen. if you have a car which gets pulled over that has four people in it, it won't matter that there was only probable cause to stop the car because of what the driver was doing. everyone in the car may become subject to immigration enforcement. and so, these are the reason why we say that each community needs to be able to make its own decisions in these matters. there are communities that will decide to fully participate and cooperate with immigration
enforcement. there are communities that will decide to partially do so, and there are communities that will decide to honor federal requests, to comply with federal law, that is consistent with the constitution, but to go no further. so that is what we are asking hould be able to continue. >> one minute. >> clearly what we are talking about is they are not just standing aside. they are standing between the federal government and an individual that they are trying to deport and who should be deported from this country. jessica: they are not the compelled to enforce immigration laws. they are being asked to hand over an individual for a legitimate enforcement purpose,
just like every other law-enforcement agency does routinely. this analogy does apply. when the washington, d.c. police hand over someone who is wanted by the state of california on a warrant, they are not in forcing california law. they are cooperating. and that is what ice is asking for. and ice is really the only agency that is blocked in this way. and the other reason that we know that these issues of constitutionality and costs are not really the purpose for sanctuary policies is because when ice then offered to pay any costs to that agency for holding that individual, the sanctuaries still say no. ice has done everything it can to try to overcome these supposed excuses for not cooperating, and they still don't cooperate. why doesn't ice give criminal
warrants? number one, there's not such thing, and any agency that asks for a criminal warrant with a detainer might as well ask to have it delivered by a blue unicorn because it doesn't exist. they know it does not exist. it is a way to give themselves ome cover. what this debate is really about is who gets to decide when the immigration laws will be enforced. our constitution clearly gives authority over immigration matters to congress. and congress has laws that gives ice the tools they need and says -- they need to enforce the law and also says that sanctuary policies are illegal. so sanctuaries are substituting their judgment for the federal judgment, and that is the problem. that is what is unconstitutional. >> william, you will be able to answer her unless you want the first question.
william: that is fine. i would be happy to take the first question. >> i will call them. and please identify who you are ith. name and who you are with. > thank you. i cover immigration. before i asked my question, i really need to clarify that, as 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 refused 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 which is illegal or criminal aliens are subject to deportation. the constitution has given congress that authority to decide and 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? william: sure, so the first 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 equirements 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 -- to your jurisdiction are upholding the fourth amended of -- amendment
the constitution. jessica: again, this solution 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 nforcement agency, "up to 48 hours." usually, ice gets there much quicker than that. states and local governments get reimbursed partially for their 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 these suspected undocumented 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 hat 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 mmigration 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 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 overnment to do its job.
jessica: there is definitely a spectrum of sanctuary policies across the nation and it may mean different things to different 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 liens. 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 pplause. >> and we especially want to thank the audience here. you've been wonderful. jessica: definitely. >> take one of these. thank you. >> we have copies of hours. the report that is being eleased today up here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016]
he said, i read about your article from your father's gas station in arizona highway and i would like to interview you. and i said sure. his first question, the very first thing he asks me is, what was it like growing up in such an historic place? >> my father was a great collecter. my mother loved the civil war but also was enamored with the women in the west. >> then, on american history tv, hear about the founding of scottsdale from arizona state historian. mr. trim billion shares the story of win feel scot a civil war hero who saw potential in the arizona salt river valley. >> he just graduated from seminary school and been assigned to a church when the civil war broke out and little called for volunteers.
so he went back to his hometown in new york and he started recruiting and raising his own company of soldiers. i think he recruited about 33 of his own cousins. and his bible study class. he even recruited the town band. >> we'll visit the winter home of frank lloyd wright. >> an example of how to live in the desert southwest. it was a building that frank lloyd wright used as a laboratory. >> wright was working to create a new kind of ark tertur for america. >> the c-span city's tour saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span-3. working with our cable affiliates.
>> up next, remarks from congressman keith elseson who is running for democratic national chair and vermont senator bern asanders. senator sanders and congressman elseson talk about their vision. >> welcome. the first job i want to play a video message from former solis of labor hileda who is unable to be with us today but wants to make it crystal clear her support for keith ellison.
>> i'm l.a. county board superviser and former secretary of labor under the obama administration. i am pleased to tell you that i am in strong support of keith, our congressman and someone who has chaired the progressive caucus which i was a member of when i served in the house for eight years. it has been a pleasure to know him and to know he cares so deeply of all the concerns of all of our citizens and residents in the united states. he has been one of those individuals who has worked so hard to gine so much support. in fact, i know that he is there with you now with my good friend randy and other that is i know support him. in fact, i know that some of our key leadership in this senate and house are supporting him. i just want to the cast my vote in support of him as well. i've known him for many years. when he came to the congress hi asked me to come out and help him talk about the needs of immigrants and to talk about
health care coverage and the disparities that exist amongst low income women. i know he is going to fight hard on the minimum wage. he is going to help protect workers rights. he is going to make sure that we take care of our environment and is going to be there to protect a woman's right to choose. these are all important elements. but most importantly what i think he brings to the table is the fact that he represents the midwest and he survived there. i know he is a coalition builder. he has traveled around the country. he can raise money. he has the stamina. and i know that he can energyize our party the way we need to. he will start at the local level with our counties, cities, lifting up our democratic parties around the country and helping to invest, to do more voter education and registration, and also to fight the good fights. when trump comes out and says he wants to deport 11 million immigrants, he knows he is going to be there to stop that. when trump comes out and says
that he wants to build borders around our borders to keep mexicans out or to call out muslim americans and thing obvious that nature, i know that he is going to be right there. but more importantly he is a fighter and he is a friend, and he will do everything he can in his power to make sure that the democrats have a good foundation to begin the movement to take back our country and to take back our community. neighborhood by neighborhood. i have no doubt that he will be up to speed and be able to do it and carry through. so this is hilda solis again. i want to thank everyone to my labor brothers and sisters that re watching. >> so, as i said, my name is
randy and i welcome all of you to our house. welcome to welcome to our house because this is the house of fight-back and this is the house of fight for our communities. so i am delighted to spend a couple of minutes before i introduce our next speaker. but i want to spend a couple of minutes talking about keith and talking about why i personally endorse him, why lee saunders personally endorsed him and why the entire labor movement has now endorsed keith elseson. ow -- but for any of you who don't know keith, keith is an organizer, he is a fighter. and the democratic party of which i am a member and a proud member needs that kind of fighter each and every day in each and every neighborhood and
each and every community in america. we need to reengage and rebuild our party to ensure that our most valuable assets, many of whom in this room fit that, are grassroots activists, are engaged and engage others so we elect champions of working families at every level of government. that is what keith can lead us to do and that is why i am so not just scomb pressed with him but am willing to follow him everywhere. [applause] because we need to get back to that trust and that engagement. you saw what trump did. he found a way with a volume of lies to undermine the trust in every institution that we believe in. and he did over and over again.
to create chaos and confusion. so nobody would trust anybody. you know what that leads to. and 50 years of progress may go down the tubes in the first 100 days of this person's elevation to president since when you blocked -- lost the popular vote by 3 million votes it's hard to call somebody the actual president. having said that, keith understands that to win you have to talk to people, you have to engage with people, you have to listen to people, and you have to engage in a shared vision. he can tell that he truly believes what he is talking about. just by spending three-and-a-half nano seconds with him. talk to anybody in his district. talk to working people in minneapolis and minnesota. you see the connection that
they have. he knows he can't abandon any area, any place in this country. and, frankly, i think keith will be able to unlock the door as bernie did so well to small doner fund raisers and fund raising that gets resources in to our state parties which is critical for the success of the democratic party. look, i can go on and on, but -- and i can talk about all those issues. but on every issue that i have been involved in, in my adult life, whether it is labor, whether it is education, whether it is human rights, whether it is siverl rights, whether it is environment, whether it is any issue you can think of, keith is not in the back but he is in the front of that fight, standing up for all of us. that is why i support my union
supports educators support nurses support college professors support public servants support -- that's why e all support keith ellison. our next speaker is la toya williams who is a federal contract worker at a call center for the federal emergency management agency as and a good jobs nations organizer. so i want to thank la toya for her tireless efforts on behalf of working people and i want to bring la toya up to also tell you why queetsdz is the right choice for working folks in america.
>> good evening, everyone. my name is la toya williams. i am honored to stand here tonight with keith and bernie because last week they stood with me and thousands of other striking federal contract workers. i work at a call center for the federal emergency management agency, what you may know as fema. every day i'm on the front lines helping victims of natural disasters. when a hurricane hit, americans called me to help them rebuild a home. i'm proud to be able to help people who are temporarily homeless get out of gyms and shelters. ut here's the irony. i was homeless myself for two
years because of federal contract workers that i worked for stole thousands of dollars from my paycheck. not only was i homeless, i had thousands of dollars of medical debt and i had to rely on food banks to feed myself. last week, when i told my story at the strike, keith encouraged me to keep fighting and keep organizing. he said that every worker deserves a good union job. that is why, as a worker, organizing with the communication workers of america, and good jobs nations, i am proud to say that we support keith as the next chairman of the democratic national committee. brothers and sisters, we all need to come together. and our anion in our churches
in our mosques and temples and in our communities. to fight for change. as keith says, when we fight ogether, we will win together. -- it is now onor my honor to introduce another good jobs defender. he also believes that when millions of us organize together, nobody is going to stop us. give it up for senator bernie sanders. cheers and applause] >> thank you. well, let me thank la toya for
the great work that she does and for that wonderful introduction. let me also thank the tens of thousands of americans -- in fact we think perhaps hundreds of thousands of americans -- from every state in this country who are joining us this evening. thank you all. [applause] let me also thank congressman keith ellison for his willingness to serve as chair of the dnc, the democratic national committee. and i want to thank the many grassroots organizations consisting of millions of americans who are actively supporting keith, including our revolution, the cwa, the american federation of teachers, the national nurses united union, democracy for america, working families, party.
move on, good jobs nation, people's action, people for bernie -- yep. why not? and free speech tv. i also want to thank the many, many members of the united states senate and the house of representatives who are supporting keith, some of them are harry reid, the current democratic leader in the united states senate. the new democratic leader in the united states senate chuck schumer is strongly on board. as are senators elizabeth warren, martin heinrich, tammy baldwin, amy klobechar, al franken, chris murphy, and tammy duckworth. and i want to thank all of them. and there are many, many, many colleagues of keith in the house, john con yers, maxine waters, elijah cummings, many others. too many to name. and i want to thank them also. and i also want to thank mayor
bill deblasio of new york who today came on board keith's campaign. thank you very much mayor deblasio. and i further want to thank the atf and president randy wine garden for allowing us to use their beautiful facility throughout the country. thank you very much. all right. now the thank yous are over. let's get to the meat of the issue here. all right? you've got to be polite. that's the right thing to be. what we are doing tonight is not sexy, and it's not going to make the headlines in the newspapers all over the country. but it is unprecedented for the democratic party and for the long-term future of our country and it is of enormous consequence. at a time of low voter turnout, at a time as you all know when
millions of americans are demoralized politically and are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment economics, we are gathered here tonight not only in this building to begin the process of transforming american politics and of creating a government which works for all of the people, not just the 1%. [applause] that is what we are here to do. edit order to make that happen, our first step is to transform the democratic party from a top-down party to a bottom up party. [applause] a grassroots
organization of the working families of this country, the young people of this country. i will tell you, having been all over this great nation of ours, the incredible idealism and courage of millions of young old who believe in this country, who love this country and you are prepared to fight to make this country all it can become. and i want to also thank and birch all of americans, regardless of income, regardless of race and nationality and sexual orientation, jump into the political process and make the democratic party a a t andic party with not just in d. .
for the chair of the dnc is not a personality contest. the media may think it is but it is not. theseat i gather, opponents are decent people who want to improve the democratic hearty and you want to see us become victorious. whatey difference here in this election is really about is whether we continue to status for the future of the democratic party. and that is why we need to go in a very different direction than currently exists. painful truth, and it is a truth that we have got to recognize and not sweep under the rug, the painful truth is despite president obama's
strong victory in 2008 and 2012, the democratic party has lost enormous political ground over eight years. running against the most unpopular presidential candidate in history, the republicans have just won the white house. republicans out control the united states senate. republican governors now control are most two thirds of houses in this country. and over the last eight years, democrats have lost some 900 legislative seats from one and america to the other. that is the indisputable truth. the leadershiper of the democratic party has been doing over the last many years
has failed. and we need fundamental change. unbelievably, and it really is unbelievable when you think about it, despite competing against an extreme right-wing party that is so out of touch with the needs of ordinary partyans, the republican that advocates cutting social security, the american people want to expand social security. these guys want to cut it. they want to throw 20 million americans off the health insurance that they have. they want to cut federal aid to education. despite competing against a that is in they
midst of massive income and wealth inequality, the republicans want to provide hundreds of billions of dollars for the top 1% despite competing against a political party which, to a very large degree, not only does not want to do anything substantive about climate change, they don't even recognize the reality of climate change. but despite all of that, despite all of that and much more, the democratic party has lost significant political ground. and we have to ask why that has occurred. sisters, the status quo is not working. and we will not succeed if we continue along the same old path. is the time for real change in the democratic party.
now is the time to revitalize the democratic party and rain and people who have not been welcomed in the past. [applause] mr. sanders: we should not be afraid of new energy and new faces. we should welcome and embrace new energy and new faces. now is the time for a chair of the democratic party who has a very different vision of the party than those who are in control today. now is the time for keith ellison to become chair of the democratic party. [cheers and applause] mr. sanders: as i know many of you are aware of, keith is currently the cochair of the congressional progressive caucus
and on the forefront of all the issues of our working class families. he has been there on the picket lines and has been upfront and out front in terms of workers' rights, in terms of the environment and climate change, terms of the need to create a health care system that guarantees health care to all people as a right. [cheering and applause] mr. sanders: he has been out in front on women's rights, on the rights of the lgbt community, the need for real criminal justice reform, the need for immigration reform, and the need for real tax reform so that donald trump and the other billionaires start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause]
mr. sanders: for many, many years, keith has been there, not as a follower, but as a leader. unlike some of the other candidates who are running for chair, keith knew from day one that the tpp was a disaster for working families and help us defeat the tpp. keith is by nature a grassroots organizer. that is what he does. that is who he is. he is not a creature of the inside, the beltway world, he is a person who lives in the real world, feels comfortable in the real world, and is going to bring the real world into the democratic party. [cheering and applause] mr. sanders: as i mentioned when i began, keith already has the support of some of the strongest
grassroots organizations and trade unions in this country, and we have the support of many, many progressive elected officials, but we have something even more important than all of that. right now, we have support of more than 600,000 men and women in every state in this country who have signed petitions to demand and urge that keith ellison become the next chair of the democratic party. 600,000 people. [applause] mr. sanders: our goal together, and i urge all of you who are watching this livestream to get involved in this process. let us take that 600,000 number and make it a million americans who want keith as our next chairman.
[applause] mr. sanders: please get your friends and coworkers involved. please go to our revolution.com and get your friends to sign up. brothers and sisters, we are in a perilous and momentous moment in american history. you all know that. and we are going to need a political party that has the guts to stand with working families, has the guts to take on the big money interests who control, to a large degree, our economic and political life. it is my great privilege to introduce to you someone who i believe is going to be the next chair of the democratic national committee, please welcome congressman keith ellison. [cheers and applause]
mr. ellison: how are you doing out there, everybody? [cheering] mr. ellison: if there was ever a moment when people who love this country and the people in it need to step up and do everything they can to improve the lives of their fellow americans, that moment is right now. that moment is now. if i told you you had an opportunity to fight for people who felt vulnerable and scared in this trump america, would you do it? >> yeah! mr. ellison: if i told you you had a chance to stand up and fight for working people, would you do it? >> yeah! mr. ellison: if i told you that you could be the hero of folks who pour the cement, who teach the classes, who take care of the folks in the hospital -- i mean the hard-working people of america, would you step up and
do something for them? >> yes! mr. ellison: that is good, because we need you, right now, to do all of that. because let me tell you, it's hard to imagine somebody like donald trump being elected president, but in a few days, he will be the president. i don't know what stage in the whole spectrum of grief you may be at, but i think we need to arrive at acceptance that he is about to be the president. and that means that each of us and all of us have to do every single thing we can to protect our fellow americans and to advance the cause of economic and social justice. we have to do it. [applause] mr. ellison: this is a history movement. this is a movement at a moment
when the american people fought back to reclaim their democracy of, by, and for the people. [cheering and applause] mr. ellison: trump, you know he ran saying stuff like, you know, more jobs, new trade models, he said these things. and as soon as he got in there, he said he was going to drain the swamp. you all remember that one? he is filling it up with lots of millionaires, corporate executives, hedge fund managers, all these folks. we are going to have the richest cabinet ever. if you just had a few million, you would be like the poor guy in that bunch. he said he is going to fight for little people, yet he puts the secretary of education, another
billionaire who is against public schools. when 90% of american children will go to public school, they want to privatize them. he said he's going to get his labor secretary, another billionaire, who makes his billions on the backs of low-wage fast food workers, is actually against the minimum wage, and would lower it if he could. and don't stop there. he said he was going to improve the health care system, and yet his health and human services secretary wants to dismantle the affordable care act, throwing 20 million people off health care. this is the cabinet he has picked so far. he said he was going to appoint the best and most qualified, and yet dr. ben carson admits he knows nothing at all about housing. [laughter] mr. ellison: i didn't say it, he said it. so i guess it's no surprise that he nominated a guy who says that
there is no such thing as climate change, it's a hoax by the chinese, to be the head of the environmental protection agency. at a time when communities are being washed away because the waves are coming up and katrina and sandy and all of these kind of places, and a time were people are living in toxic areas all over this country, and he picks an epa leader who is not in favor of protecting people from environmental hazards. we got our work cut out. we have our work cut out for us. he said he would fight for workers. yet republicans in congress ended health care for coal miners. black lungs, mineshaft cave-ins, all the hazards of that job, they're doing that and he is even attacking her and he has the nerve to attack a hard-working steelworker local president. y'all heard about that? you say you're saying all these
jobs, but you're not saving them all, and your giving away the tax base of indiana in order to do that. even sarah palin saw that. so the bottom line is he attacks this man on twitter, which he likes to do to people. so that is what the right wing is doing. the real question is what are we going to do? that is always the question -- what are we going to do? we can always count on them to say that rich people don't have enough money and the poor folks have too much money. we can always say the rich folks need one more tax cut, one more regulation they do not have to follow, and regular working people need one less thing that will help them make it through the week. that is them. what about us? are we going to hit the streets? are we going to organize? this is what we've got to do.
one of the main things we've got to do right now is reset the future of the democratic party. we have to reset the democratic party on the basis of grassroots activism. [applause] mr. ellison: we have to reset the democratic party on the asus -- on the basis of working people who are striving every day to make a better life for themselves and their families right here in america. i am talking about african americans, latino americans, asian americans, people who are jewish and muslim and christian and buddhist and hindu and with no faith at all. i'm talking about folks like you and me. i'm talking about folks like us need to say that the democratic party has got to be democratic and it starts with getting some leadership in their that will fight for that democracy. i'm telling you right now, this is the moment we have been waiting for. it is a time for us to stand up
and fight back and reclaim our nation. are you ready? [applause] mr. ellison: now look, i want to tell you that i am very proud to have your support. i am so amazed at the tremendous turnout we had here tonight physically and folks on the livestream. big shout out to folks on the livestream. [applause] mr. ellison: this moment right here is historic. literally hundreds of thousands of people join us right here to talk about the future of the democratic party in our country. a million people all around the country. if the democratic party is going to make any reforms, one of them has to be that we use moments like this one, mass meetings of hundreds of thousands of people to get together to talk about what we are going to make our
country better for everyone. we have to include everybody. we have to use technological moments like this because it is not about the technology and the software, it is about us the people. if technology can help get more folks around the table, let's do it. are you all right with that? [applause] mr. ellison: i want to say thank you for your support. i want to say thank you to the american federation of teachers. they teach our kids every day. let's give them a shout. you know, i don't know about you, but when -- and i come from a big family, and i remember feeling kind of ordinary and not too special. there was a teacher who came up and said you're smart kid. a teacher grabbed me and said stop acting up because i know you better than that. you are just high-spirited. i am going to give you some extra problems to do because i know you need a challenge. they made me feel good about myself and they made other kids
feel good. those teachers knew which kids were homeless, who were being abused at home. they knew which kids needed to be challenged more. they knew who needed to be encouraged a little more. god bless those teachers. give them a hand. [applause] mr. ellison: let me say thank you to the communication workers of america. you know, the people who make sure that when you call and the phone works? thank you cwa. bless you guys. get a hand to move on. thank you to democracy of america. also, the afl-cio. that is the largest organization of workers in america. [applause] mr. ellison: steelworkers, united nurses, and more and more and more. don't be mad if i did not mention you. i love you. we all have to be working together.
give a hand to everybody. [applause] mr. ellison: let me tell you something. the democratic party should be the party of the people. the democratic party should be the party for those who want a better future for their children and grandchildren. it should be a party that invests in workers, protects their ability to work in eyes -- to organize. the democratic party should be the party that believes everyone should have equal access to the american dream and equal rights before the law. the democratic party should say it does not matter what your color is. look at the future with were quality and respect. it doesn't matter me go to bed with that night. they are your choice. we respect that. honor your choice. that is what the democratic party should be. they should say whether you were born in america or you came
here, we respect you and honor you and what to see you come together. we believe that the democratic party should be the party of, by, and for the people. [applause] mr. ellison: and yet, and yet, we know that even a good car sometimes needs a tuneup. you know what i mean? even a good car needs a tuneup. it needs new wheels, new brake pads, new belts, new hoses, new oil. the spark plugs, maybe a paint job. it needs that window that got cracked fixed. you have to maintain and update and invigorate everything. if you just let it slide, it tends not to work so well. now i know some folks to want to hear it, but since 2008, democrats have lost 935 legislative seats, and republicans now control two thirds of governors offices. let me tell you, state legislature is very very important. that is where our voting rights
are made. if you have same-day voter registration like in minnesota, if you have a lifetime ban on voting, it is because the state says so. if you never lose your right to vote, that is because the state says so. how is it impacting the american people's right to fully participate in democracy when 935 legislative seats have been lost? how has it affected redistricting? how has it affected the right to cast a vote and be a part of this democracy? how has it affected a woman's right to choose?
in ohio, governor kasich signed a 20 week man on the right for a woman -- 20 week man -- ban on a woman to select an abortion if that is her choice. this is none of his business. it is unconstitutional. but he did it because he wants a constitutional challenge, because he wants the case to go up there, because he wants to see the supreme court stripped -- strip away a woman's right to make a decision for herself and her body. that is something we have to take seriously. 11 governor seats lost. raising the minimum wage is winning on ballot initiatives. democrats aren't winning. they like our ideas. somehow our candidates are not getting through. i don't recommend folks smoke marijuana, but it is crazy to throw people in jail for it. [applause] mr. ellison: when see -- when you see all over the country, these ballot initiatives are
passing. for medical and even recreational use. why phil up the jails for something like that. that does not take no sense at all. i running for dnc chair because it is time to turn all of this stuff around. it is time, and all of us have to step up. each of us. no dnc chair, no elected official can make the changes that have to be made. they will have to be made by the thousands and millions of americans all across this country who believe in a better quality of life for all people, who believe in a fair economy, who believe if you want to have the right to choose and make your own personal decisions. who believes climate change is going to destroy this world or our ability to live on it and let's do something right now. -- on it unless we do something about it right now. this is what we have to do. but i want to say that we can
bring that change that we need. we can stand up to trump and the republicans if you get involved and if we remake this party right now. i want to tell you this -- i am a person that believes in unity. i do. i absolutely think the people who are been around for a long time and honor their institutional memory and thank them for their service. i also believe it is absolutely time for a very serious injection of energy, reinvigoration. these two things do not need to be at odds. if they work together, they can serve us all very well. we need new energy, we need the folks who have been around. we need some unity to come together, and i stand for that unity. we went to nevada to help people who were supporting my different bernie sanders and hillary clinton and sat in a room for five hours as they hammered out a memorandum so that they could somehow try to work together. unity is something that must be
bought for and struggled for. we all have our ideas of how things should go. we need leaders who say that we're going to stick together and work together and made -- and maybe cussed each other out a little bit, but at the end of the day will -- we will be together. we believe in unity. i also believe that we have got to stand up tall for small. what do i mean by that? howard dean was right to say the 50 state strategy. we have to go beyond that now. we need a 3141 county strategy. we need a strategy that gets granular. we need a brock -- a block by block, we need a precinct strategy. the resources of the democratic party need to be moved right now closest to the voter. that is where they need to be. i'm talking about the money, the training, the data, the resources needed for people to be closest to the voters. city officials and state
legislative folks and local county people and just grassroots rank-and-file do not feel like they are being heard or listened to or inuded. this is a fact. i am telling the truth. if we want to win, we will listen to our local officials and our grassroots rank-and-file people. we have to get small. [applause] mr. ellison: i already mentioned to you we have to communicate. we have to be live streaming like we are right now. this has to be our regular practice. if we're not talking and listening, we are not going to be able to take everything that everybody knows and put it in the service of all of us. all of us together are smarter than anyone of us. if we do not share our information, we cannot make maximum use of all of the intelligence and creativity that people are coming up with every
day. we will do these things. we will make use of the talents we have available to us. if all he we would let go of our need to control everything and head the power to the people closest to the voter. my home state of minnesota, i am so proud that i come from a state -- and i know you're proud of your states to -- that there was a man named hubert humphrey. he is worth applause, y'all. [applause] mr. ellison: hubert h. humphrey said in 1948 at the democratic national convention in philadelphia that america needed to walk out of the shadow of states rights into the bright sunshine of human rights. when the democratic party goes for human rights for all, some like strom thurmond walked out the door, because they did not want human rights for all. the democratic party must always be a party that says do we stand
for the respect and dignity of all people? we must always be that party. we will never stop being that party. but when walter reuther said at the 1963 march on washington -- which was not only for civil rights, but for jobs as well -- when he got up there and said the breadbox -- there is a direct line between the breadbox and the ballot box. he was right, too. we have to fight for economic justice. we have to make sure prosperity for working people is available to them and that they haven't. -- that they had it -- have its. we don't need to decide between social justice and economic justice. we have to have all of that
stuff together. [applause] mr. ellison: i have heard people talk about the white working-class versus the rising new american electorate. let me tell you something, we have to stand for both. we can never sacrifice between the two. if we do not stand up for both, we are not going to have one. they will use tribalism and racial manipulation to lower our wages. once they get us fighting with each other on the basis of these things, they are always going to come take the money. let me tell you, ronald reagan went to philadelphia, mississippi, and gave a speech about states rights. this is where cheney and smarter -- and schwerner were killed and buried.
he used racial manipulation to stir folk up. then once he gets in, he does what? fires air traffic controllers and really begins a period of wage stagnation in america. when you use racial manipulation to divide people, invariably, you use it to suppress everyone's wages. we have to stay together. so let me tell you, we have also got to turn out the vote. we have to turn out the vote, people. in 2014, we saw a 70 year low in voter turnout. we have the smallest house caucus we have had since truman. over 90 million eligible voters did not vote. we say we're only going to campaign in the swing states, and we're only going to go to the likely voters. we leave literally millions of people not participating. when we do that, we leave ourselves to lose wisconsin, which is a blue state. we leave ourselves to lose
michigan, which is the home of the uaw. we also lose ohio. no way we should lose ohio. we also lose florida. we think we should win because we have the strategy that we only go to talk to certain people. what if we started talking to everybody? [applause] mr. ellison: let me tell you this -- i want to say this to you. this word i would like us to and is from our vocabulary -- to banish from our vocabulary. can we not say rust belt anymore? i can guarantee you the people in philadelphia and ohio do not feel rusty. they feel ready to ring back the country. this is the industrial midwest. that is what it is. i will tell you something else. places like washington, d.c., new york, and california, they should not be viewed as democrats as just a political atm. as a matter of fact, they're not
just places you go to get a check. they have done good things out there in california on climate, on criminal justice. we ought to look at them as a model of how to organize. we need to see each other as true allies of each other to reveal this party. -- to rebuild this party. i just want to say to you, and i want to say to you right now -- we have to energize activists at the grassroots to unite all throughout this country. we have to give black lives matter people a place where they can express themselves elect poorly -- electorally. we have to give the fight for 15. they have to be able -- the fight for $15, we have to give them a party that they feel good about expressing themselves and -- expressing themselves electorally. the immigration activists have to have a place where they feel there is a party that is
listening to them. we have to have a place for the folks who fight for climate justice and adjusting climate to have a party. they know that that party is listening to them. if you want these things, we are going to have to fight for them. [applause] mr. ellison: i just want to say to you that we are off to a good start, because senator bernie sanders and secretary clinton combined to write the best platform the democratic party has ever seen. [applause] mr. ellison: i am telling you. i was privileged and honored to have bernie of point me -- appoint me to the platform drafting committee. good things came out of it because of that collaboration
and that unity. we got ground breaking language in the platform on college debt, on apprenticeship programs for students who do not want to go to college but want to get a good job and work with their hands. on expanding social security. bigging it up. on high environmental standards. we have the best platform we have ever had. we have to use it to move forward. we can organize with this important tool. i just want to say that if you would take up this battle and you will pledge to yourself and each other that your love for this country outweighs any beef you may have with anybody, if you would promise to yourself that you will work hard every single day to make this democratic party really work for the people, then we are not only looking at victory in 2018 and redistricting in 2020, we are looking at a generation full of
successful working people. republicans in 1964 thought that they were at the bottom and were down and out. people said conservatism was dead as a philosophy because goldwater lost to johnson in a historic number. and yet those guys excluded people and they climbed back, and they won. and then they want some more -- they won some more. in 1980, that culminated in the election of ronald reagan and i don't want to be like them, i don't want to believe what they believe. i do admire determination when i see it. we will have the same level, if not more determination, for working people. [applause] mr. ellison: let me just say this, and that i just want to
tell you some things i want to do and then i will stop talking. as democrats, liberals, progressives, the left, we stand for the right values. we stand for the right values. i think that because we stand for the right values, we think that is all we have to do is stand for the right values. the people on the right, they know that the program they're pushing is only going to benefit about 1% of the people. they still live in a democracy, so they have to find out a way to win even if they only stand for 1%. they must divide and distract. they must make you disunified and discouraged. they work at it all the time. they're pushing photo id laws, so they are trying to hold your wages down. they're trying to break up the rights to organize. the right to feel that the government can work. they're always on this. we have got to understand that just being right is not enough. we have to be unified and be active.
we have to be fighting together. we have got to strengthen and unify at the grassroots level, and we need a democratic party that will help us do that. [applause] mr. ellison: so if you're ready to do those things, we are ready to win. i need to ask you to do just a few things. one is bernie said -- and can we just thank bernie sanders one more time? [applause] mr. ellison: thank you bernie sanders. bernie said that we need to sign those petitions. we absolutely have to get one million signatures. can you help us do that? that means you need to get on twitter, get on facebook, you have to get on hustle. you have to get on whatever you need to and get on. can you get us a million signatures on the petition? if there are dnc members in your state, gently and politely tell them that you would like them to
support ellison for the dnc chair. and there you go. i just tell them that you as a supporter of the party would like to see him as the dnc chair. now don't be too hard on them, ok? but let them know how you feel. also, we need to be doing meet ups all over this country. invite people to your home, seven or eight people, and just talk about what our country needs and what you all can do together on the local level to do it. i am talking about meet like once a month, get some cookies, tea, coffee, whatever you want. and say what if we did this? what if we did that? and maybe even have a listening session to feel what people really think. there are a lot of people who voted obama, obama, trump.
do not reject them. ask them what are you thinking about? how do you feel now? are you willing to work with us now. did he disappoint you? are you satisfied? there are a lot of folks who after they lose their health care will be a little bit annoyed. don't push them away. bring them in. be kind. but bring them in. and the last thing i want to ask you to do is just understand that there is a lot of folks who might have their family roots south of the border and a guy who just got elected said build a wall. these people need our support. these are our brothers and sisters. we cannot let them feel vulnerable and afraid. [applause] mr. ellison: a dear friend of mine said to me recently that
she was called to a meeting with her friends and they would sit at the kitchen table, and she brought her little five-year-old daughter with her and she is smart as a whip. and my friend told me that her friend said to her if me and my husband are picked up and deported, you know? one need to is born in america, she it -- juanita is born in america, she is a citizen, would you take care of her? that is a real conversation for people. there are others who heard they would be banned from immigrating here based on religion, people who were muslim. be a friend. there are people who are gay, lesbian, people who are -- anti-semitism has really popped up. you have people with swastikas
and all kind of ugly stuff. you have to stand with everybody who is feeling vulnerable right now. one of the things that trump has uncorked is that hate machine. we have got to resist it, stand up against it, and it is our own solidarity. [applause] mr. ellison: let's remake the democratic party, everybody. [applause] >> are we all in for keith? [applause] >> are we all in for keith? [applause] >> thank you everybody very much. get home safely and have a good holiday, and be ready to fight. ♪ [chatter]
>> president-elect donald trump holds more victory rallies this week. this evening he is joined by in hershey, pennsylvania. friday, they had to orlando. saturday, donald trump will be alabama., live coverage of all three rallies here on c-span. >> full of the transition of government as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and democrats and republicans prepare for the next congress. we take you to key events without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on-demand at c-span.org or listen on our c-span radio mobile app. c-span's washington journal
live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. -- on up this morning, the foreign relations finance committee talks about the selection of rex tillerson to be secretary of state. reports that about russia intervened in the election. then, they bipartisan policy center, raising interest rates and what will be -- and what this means for consumers. cyberthe issue of billion. which mrs. trump says will be her platform as first lady. washingtonwatch journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> democratic representative representsn soto
florida's ninth district. he spoke about background and previous experience. this is just south of orlando. representative elect darren soto represents the ninth district of florida. tell us about your background? darren soto: i'm originally from new jersey. my whole family came down from the tri-state area from central florida and up from puerto rico. and now there are million of us in florida and it is a big part of my election here. >> and you said you will come out here and represent the interests of florida and also the interest of the island? darren soto: certainly, it you understand quickly when you represent florida the cultural ties that we have between central florida and the island of puerto rico. you realize that in addition to the constituents in your district, you have or .3 million
relying on you because they don't have representation in congress. >> what about your experience, that factor of your area -- but also your heritage? what do you think that brings to the job and the work that he will do out here in washington? darren soto: we will hit the ground running. i served 10 years in the florida house and senate. i passed numerous bills helping families of foreign firefighters. fighting against fracking in our state. and making sure to increase education opportunities and economic opportunities. we have created millions of projects with new roads and a new commuter rail system to our area. so we are coming here with an army of folks who have the working with me for over a decade. and a lot of great ideas on what we will do. what committees who want to sit on and the needs of the area. >> what is your background in civil rights?
darren soto: i was nominated as class counsel at 26 years of age. being led atuit the time by the department of justice because we had at-large elections. which discriminated against hispanics. and so we fought to try to change that system. where ithing happened became a plurality so we lost the cause of action. but at the end of the day, it was a very diverse city commission and county commission with two hispanic members and three in the city council. that you areid self-described environmentalist. darren soto: leading the charge against fracking in florida. voting against offshore
drilling. isflorida, our identity conservationists. we have the most beautiful state in the union. and we are also an agriculture economy. being aerception of beautiful, clean state is critical to both our tourist industry and the agricultural industry. so we take that very seriously in florida. an energynot producing state, historically. far andve prevailed so now on the state level, i will take the charge. but there are other issues that we will be looking at on the federal level, digitally with regards to natural resources and parks, and our sovereign waters. an a ratingou get from the national rifle association? darren soto: back in 2010, to have legally
carried guns in their trunks. half the caucus voted for that. half the caucus voted against it. d ratingly was a overall. but i believe people have an individual right to bear personal arms like handguns and while military style arms like automatic weapons and things like that, i don't believe our founding fathers intended for us to be able to carry. so that is where i stand. >> what influenced you think your parents had on your ideology? your outlook on these issues that you have been talking about? darren soto: my family is the classic american dream. my grandfather and grandmother moved from puerto rico because my grandfather didn't want to make a few dollars a day. so they moved to new jersey. my father, who works nights and was in the navy in order to be able to get us to go to school,
had a family and went from living in an urban environment to ultimately living in a suburban environment in new jersey and ultimately following many tri-state types down to central florida. we have been there for the past 15 years and my family from puerto rico has been there for 20 years. so we not only represent this rise out of poverty and urban poverty to living the american dream, that also to follow this classic migration that is the story which has elected me as a puerto rican from florida into congress. so a much bigger story of our community. that has brought here today. >> what message would your parents want, or have they given you over the years, advice they have given you, that you keep in your head as you approach this new job? darren soto: no question that
higher education was stressed. no question that my brother and i would go to college. from there, they asked us to follow our dreams. my brother and i went to law d.c.ol in at the time, i never would have anticipated coming back here. it was really about going back to the neighborhoods and volunteering that got me to fall in love with politics and representing our community. i think it was about making sure we had a good education. something i will certainly keep in mind as we look at legislation and opportunities in the budget, going forward. replacing --u are in senate. any lessons from his career for you as you take on this new job? darren soto: one thing i that hely learned is
filed amendments. so i expect to continue that tradition of trying to message and provide alternatives and better ways of doing things. --ave a more -- how do i say measured style? courtroom,er in the i practice law to this day. monday.on a trial on certainly, the garnishment did his best to represent the district. we just went through redistricting so i'm taking on areas that another congressman had before, as well as congressman rooney. so there are a lot of shoes that i'm having to fill in the district. >> how will you balance your work here with your life back home? and your family? darren soto: it is one foot in
de district and one foot in .c. my wife will be quitting her job as a public school teacher. that is crucial. she is my not so secret weapon. ird know where the district offices will be and what staff we will have. all these things were decided over the past couple of months so we can hit the ground running with our infrastructure in the district, and what our team is we areo look like, and pretty close to the airport. so i view it as a drive to tallahassee from the airport. >> where do you plan to live out here? darren soto: we already filled out our bid for an apartment that is four blocks from the capital. so hopefully we get that one. because i know that makes her happy.
we plan on living close to the capital and being around in committee work, and hopefully passing key pieces of legislation through amendments existinggh proving bills, as well as bringing home projects to the district. >> anything you are looking forward to doing out here in washington? darren soto: i tend to have almost perfect attendance in committees. and i tend to be a cerebral type. so i plan on being very active in filing amendments. i believe it is all about committee work and oversight and the day to day business of the house that is really going to help distinguish us and meet the goals of our district. >> our c-span viewers will see you on the house floor, representative election darren soto. think you for your time. darren soto: thank you for having me. >> loretta lynch sits down with morning tois
talk about her tenure. that is live at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. house speaker ryan are among the speakers -- low and middle income americans. hosted by the american enterprise institute live at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three. "washington journal" is next. we will take your calls and look at the days news. this afternoon, a look at the current state of the nursing home industry. starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, donald trump holds another victory rally in hershey, pennsylvania with mike pence, live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. coming up this hour, we talked to ben cardin about the choice of rex tillerson to be secretary of state. on the federal
reserve decision to raise interest rates. later, a discussion on cyber hughes. with donna rice that is one of the issues that the first lady mrs. trump will focus on. host: good morning on this thesday, december 15, 2016, 225th anniversary of the bill of rights. the 10 amendments that were ratified in 1791 to protect individual rights in this country. the state of virginia became the last to ratify the amendments to the constitution. we want to begin this morning with your thoughts on the bill of rights and which one or ones are the most important to you. republicans, (202) 748-8001.