Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
we can ensure that C-SPAN remains a trusted resource for you and future generations.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started.
Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Joining us this morning is Benjamin Johnson.
He's the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, here to talk about President-elect Donald Trump's immigration plans.
Let's begin with your association.
Who do you represent?
We represent about 17,000 immigration lawyers all across the country doing almost every conceivable type of immigration, whether it's asylum to highly skilled folks.
Yeah, in just about every jurisdiction in the United States.
What do you think about President-elect's call for mass deportation?
Well, it's hard to know what to make of that.
I think Donald Trump is famous for, I think he calls it the weave.
Like what he says and what ends up happening could be very different things.
If he's true to his word and he's talking about truly a mass deportation, then I think it is deeply troubling.
I think it's going to have enormous ramifications both financially, economically, and socially.
There's a lot of people in this country who have been here for a very long time, and ripping them out of the workplace, ripping them out of the communities where they live is a reality that I think it's going to settle in pretty quickly.
And I think people's view of that will begin to be shaped by the truth, not just by rhetoric.
And the truth is it's going to be very hard and very disruptive.
Which agency right now is in charge of finding and deporting immigrants who are here illegally and who are committing crimes?
Well, overall, it's the Department of Homeland Security.
Specifically, the sub-agency is Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
Also known as ICE.
ICE, yes.
Maybe, you know, with the added involvement of the CBP, Customs and Border Protection, certainly at the border doing that.
But yeah, those working together, ICE and CBP, are primarily responsible for that.
And do they have the authorization in law to do so?
And are they doing that?
Sure.
There's no question that the law, somebody who is here without authorization, is subject to deportation.
I think what's driving most of the way that we enforce immigration law is a reality check.
It is the fact that because in large part Congress has not done anything to align our immigration policy with economic reality, we have a lot of people here who have been here for a very long time out of immigration status and randomly and enforcing the law against all of those would be incredibly disruptive and incredibly difficult.
So primarily, most agencies, excuse me, most administrations have operated under the theory of discretion, figuring out who we can focus our attention and resources on, because we just don't have the resources to say we're going to try to find, arrest, and remove somewhere between 11 and 13 million people in the United States right now.
I mean, it's sad that we've gotten to that point allowing that to happen, but the answer is not to be naive about the reality that we are in now.
Of those undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants who are committing crimes, do they have a right to a lawyer before they're deported?
They do have a right to a lawyer, but it's different than in a criminal context.
The proceedings can continue whether they've got a lawyer or not.
So the ability to find a lawyer, particularly when you've been put in really remote locations, really remote detention centers, is incredibly difficult.
So many, many of the folks that are going through the system don't have a lawyer.
They don't understand it.
I mean, immigration is incredibly complex and confusing.
So there's a lot of folks that are getting moved through this system without any understanding of what their rights might be or how the process should work.
But I also want to underscore, there are folks that are committing crimes in the United States, but it is a tiny fraction of the undocumented population.
What is the percentage?
Well, I mean, look, 85, 90% of the folks that are here in the United States have been here for a very long time, majority more than 15 years, and they have no criminal record.
Of the ones, that other like 10, 5%, they have a criminal record that's almost all traffic violations.
It is a tiny fraction of the immigrant population here, the undocumented population, that has committed a serious crime.
So there is an opportunity then to focus on those folks because that is a very small number.
I know that folks have been playing fast and loose with what that number is in the current environment, but it is a very small number.
If they wanted to go after serious criminals, that's something that's doable.
And I think that's something that across the board people would support.
It doesn't help that under immigration law, we have a very broad definition of what's a serious criminal.
I mean, the definition of an aggravated felony can include shoplifting and murder.
So that doesn't help with the ability to really decide what do we mean by criminal alien.
Murderers?
Sure.
Shoplifters, I'm not sure we should make that a priority.
How quickly are those folks deported?
It can happen very quickly, particularly if it's a very serious offense.
You'll go through something called the expedited removal process.
So you could effectuate removals in that context in days, weeks, if not hours, depending on the circumstances.
I do believe, as a lawyer, I do believe that the system can move very quickly without losing our core values as Americans, which is everybody needs an opportunity to be heard.
You can lose your case, but you've got to be able to make a case of what happened and assert your rights.
So I would be really concerned about America in response to this environment, giving up the things that we believe to be true and sacred, which is a judicial system that is fair can be fast, but it should be fair first.
Here's a headline in the national section of the New York Times.
Trump will need help to fulfill his promise of mass deportations.
Local level cooperation would be indispensable to make a policy work.
You're probably going to need either a massive increase in capacity for the immigration and customs enforcement or some cooperation with some local folks.
And I think the idea of these sanctuary cities is a little bit of a misnomer.
Mostly what that means is, look, states are saying, I'm going to do my job.
I'm focusing on enforcement of state laws, state criminal laws, and let the federal government do their job.
But even sanctuary states or cities, I think, would agree that when we're talking about serious criminals, states would be willing to cooperate.
Everybody wants their streets safe from real threats to the safety of a community.
Where I think there is disagreement is what do we do with those folks that have been here for 15 years and they are actually very important, productive members of those communities.
Treating them the same as serious criminals is a mistake.
Let's listen to President-elect Donald Trump.
He appeared on NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday and criticized the leniency migrants face when they go through the immigration process in the United States.
Somebody walks onto our land and we have to now say, welcome to the United States.
They could be a criminal or not a criminal.
We release them into our country.
It's called catch and release.
We release them into our country.
Wait, just one second.
And now they get them lawyers.
And the lawyers are good lawyers.
And everybody has a lawyer.
And you know how many judges we have?
Thousands.
Thousands.
Now, here's what other countries do.
They come into the land and they say, I'm sorry, you have to go.
And they take them out.
Okay?
With us, once they touch our land, we're into litigation that lasts for years, costs us hundreds of billions of dollars.
We have judges, and I'm sure they're all honest, but I don't know that for a fact.
You can imagine what's going on with the judges.
But just so you, because I have a lot of judges, I tell you what, I know more about judges than any human being in history.
Look, we have judges.
Every time somebody puts two feet or even one foot on a piece of our land, it's welcome to long-term litigation.
Other countries, every other country, when somebody walks on and they see that they're here illegally, they walk them off, they take them back to where they came from.
We have to get rid of this system.
It's killing our country.
Benjamin Johnson, your reaction.
I mean, if what Donald Trump is saying is that by getting rid of the system that we get rid of judges and lawyers, then, I mean, that's a complete remaking of who we are as a country.
It's what distinguishes us from many of the authoritarian, oppressive regimes that we have always stood up against.
So I think he's just dead wrong if what he means is we need to get rid of judges and lawyers in the system.
He's also wrong that everybody who comes in and sets foot in the United States is entitled to stay here.
We do have asylum laws.
I think there's been some manipulation of asylum laws by cartels and smugglers.
But the answer is not to abandon our asylum laws.
Our answer is to invest in the system so that we can decide who really deserves protection and who has to be sent home.
We could do that quickly and fairly without getting rid of judges and lawyers is the richest country in the world.
How do you do it?
How do you address the asylum laws?
You do need to hire more judges.
You need to create processes that are workable, but you've got video technology.
You've got the ability to invest in lawyers on the ground there and judges who can evaluate these cases.
These cases could move quickly.
Cases could be made in a matter of weeks or months rather than years.
And when you're talking about people whose lives are potentially at stake, I think that's an investment we can and should make.
I mean, keep in mind that there's a lot of talk about the manipulation of the asylum system, but the thing that we should be proud of in terms of having an asylum system is that it protects people that are being persecuted in China for being Christians.
It protects women who are in oppressive regimes where the Taliban is treating them like animals.
So the idea that we can and are a place where people can receive asylum where they're being persecuted is something we should be proud of, and we should invest in a system that can figure out who deserves that protection and who doesn't.
Throwing that away because it's a challenge is a mistake.
Let's go to Alexis, who's in Detroit, an independent.
Welcome to the conversation.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you.
My question is, and I know the guest won't have an answer, but I'm posing the question, I guess maybe more to C-SPAN, Greta, and if you guys could do a segment on this, on immigration with this angle.
How many housing units are going to be opened up once the mass deportations start, and what is the effect going to be on housing costs?
I believe millions will open up and housing costs will fall precipitously.
This is the problem with having illegal aliens in our country.
And I just want to say to you, sir, I believe all the current modern immigration lawyers are bleeding heart traitors.
Mr. Johnson.
Well, I think that the last comment obviously was wrong and bleeding heart traders were folks who believe in the American system of justice and work to ensure that the decisions that are made by the system have integrity.
And I think that the integrity of those decisions is improved by there being a real process and an opportunity to be heard.
That can happen in an expeditious way, but I think it's an important part of who we are as a country.
In terms of the housing units, the thing you have to remember is, sure, if you removed all of those folks, would those houses be available?
But what about the jobs that they are working in?
What about them as consumers of goods in those communities?
So you have to remember there are places like Topeka, Kansas.
Topeka, Kansas is literally paying people to move to Topeka, Kansas.
You move to Topeka, Kansas, and get a job, the city will give you $5,000.
That's because they are really desperate for workers and citizens to be living in that community.
So maybe what we should do is be thinking about how do we deploy this resource, which is hardworking people, ready to make a better lives for themselves and for the communities where they live.
How do we put them in places where they can succeed in a legal way that allows the communities to benefit from that?
That doesn't mean all of the folks that are coming will fit into that equation, but it means we are missing an opportunity to say, how about if those folks came legally to places and communities that needed them?
Then that problem becomes an opportunity.
But that's going to require Congress to look past the politically expedient solution, the rhetoric of mass deportations, and think about how do we create a system that will work, that will put immigrants where we want them and need them, and create a legal system to do that.
If we did that, then again, I think we could absolutely solve this problem.
We'll go to Eastern Pennsylvania.
John, Democratic caller.
Hi.
Mr. Johnson, I was wondering if you can explain to me why immigration is a problem when the very people who wrote our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights were immigrants.
Our whole First Continental Congress were immigrants.
And why is the border a wall on the border when Mexico is part of the free trade agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Just like Canada.
There's no wall in between us and Canada.
And why is Trump saying immigration is a problem?
He's a product of immigration.
You're a product of immigration.
I'm a product of immigration.
Clint is a problem of immigration.
Thanks, John.
Mr. Johnson.
Yeah, to be clear, I don't think immigration or immigrants are a problem.
It is true that we are facing problems in the way that we manage immigration.
It's not properly funded.
There's too much political infighting and partisanship and figuring out how do we build a system that will work.
So our immigration system is the problem.
I think immigrants are caught up in that.
And look, here's the basic reality.
When you pit the world's largest economy against an immigration system, the economy is going to win every time.