Special Episode: CA vs. Donald Trump – Panel 3, Immigration

CAPITOL WEEKLY PODCAST: This Special Episode of the Capitol Weekly Podcast was recorded live at Capitol Weekly’s conference The Resistance: California vs. Donald Trump, which was held in Sacramento on Wednesday, February 26, 2025

 This is PANEL 3 – IMMIGRATION

Panelists: Senator María Elena Durazo; Luis Alvarado, Luis Alvarado Public Affairs; Kevin R. Johnson, UC Davis School of Law; David Trujillo, ACLU California Action

Moderator: Andrea Castillo, Los Angeles Times

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

ANDREA CASTILLO: Thank you so much, Tim. Really glad to be here. I am, like I said, or like you said, in Washington DC, but was in California for many, many years. I have a lot of love for California and obviously still work for the LA Times.

With me today are Luis Alvarado, public affairs consultant with expertise in representing government, business and Latino communities. Kevin R Johnson, who’s a professor of immigration and civil rights law and Chicano studies at UC Davis. David Trujillo, who’s the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union California Action, and hopefully joining us soon will be California State Senator María Elena Durazo.

MARIA ELENA DURAZO: I’m on.

AC: Ah, she’s on. Oh, great. Glad you’re here. Well to start it off in response to President Trump’s first term, California lawmakers back in 2017 signed the California Values Act, which limits the use of state and local law enforcement resources for federal immigration enforcement purposes. At the time, Trump was unsuccessful in getting the law overturned. But I’m wondering, you know, a question for anyone on the panel here: Is there anything he can do now to target California’s status as a sanctuary state, and how our leaders and advocates preparing for that?

LUIS ALVARADO: Well, I’ll take a stab at it.. Well, I think we need to set the the mindframe. That and we’re starting to experience it, that this administration is absolutely nothing compared to the first administration.

And I hear from many voters who supported Trump that what their expectation was, is that they were just going to have a Trump 2.0, with small variations of what he did in the first administration with regards to all the policies. And many of us know that he was surprised that he won the presidency last time and he had to inherit RNC leadership that was given to him. And that is not the case today. Today there is actually a very thoughtful process that went into… you know, they denied it during the campaign, the Project 2025, other think tanks that conservative think tanks that have now been planning the administration’s process in immigration, as many other things.

“I don’t think Trump or the administration are looking for a policy. They’re looking to scare the community. They’re looking to create fear and intimidation” – Senator María Elena Durazo

But immigration is, is is the sweet spot for them because that’s what they feel. And I emphasize that’s what they feel, is what gave them the opportunity to lead again and made him president again. So they have to deliver. They have to at least try to, in the eyes of the supporters, do a good job.

And unfortunately for those… for us who don’t see that this is helpful to the nation, actually, it’s it’s hurtful to the nation in the way they’re going about it. And, Andrea, I read your article I think it was fantastic. I think it’s actually a great illustration that there is Trump, the immigration policy he wants to implement and the one that he can actually implement because the bureaucracy is actually stopping him. And the Czar [Tom Homan] is actually, if you listen to his CPAC speech, you know, he was using great profanity to say how disappointed he is that the, the, the process of, I’m going to use this word and I’m going to be controversial  – of cleansing of America is is not as going as fast as he wished it was going.

But that being said, setting that mindset the fact is that they’re not happy right now. And I think the legal process that they thought there was going to be much easier is, is not rendering as of right now, the expectations that they want.

MED: If I can jump in… I want to say that I don’t think Trump or the administration are looking for a policy. They’re looking to scare the community. They’re looking to create fear and intimidation, and that’s what they’re looking for. They don’t really want a policy. They don’t want something that works. They don’t want something that addresses the community’s needs. They don’t want a policy that addresses employers and business. They don’t want a policy that addresses the economy. They just want to create fear and terrorize the communities where people of color live. Or workplaces where people work, you know, contribute to this economy.

So I just want to make clear, if it was about a policy, we could, you know, we could struggle over that the way we have for years and years and years. So that’s one thing that I think is is real clear. Crystal clear. He just wants to terrorize the community.

“We are now under an administration that has promised to execute a cruel – and there’s no other way of describing it – It’s a cruel deportation agenda” – David Trujillo

Now, why would he want to do that? Well, one, he got elected, like you said, because of that. He used that just like Pete Wilson did on Prop 187. So he used that to get elected. He, you know, it’s something that he thinks he could deliver on. But in the end, he also is helping that part of our economy, that underground part of our economy that relies on cheap labor, you know. And he will through by scaring our community, by terrorizing our community… you know, there will be more abuse in the workplace. There will be more wage theft. There will be a lot of of that will be going on.

So I just, you know, what’s really at stake here, what’s really going on. And also, you know, with regards to SB 54, it’s one way in which we are protecting our community. And because the Ninth Circuit Appeals rejected the administration’s effort on SB 54. You know, we now have that. And that’s a big that’s a big part of protecting our community.

AC: David.

DAVID TRUJILLO: Yeah. I just want to mention the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from commandeering state or other city and county’s law enforcement. Right. So that is the safeguard that we have, the constitutional safeguard that we have.

And as you mentioned, the first Trump administration sued the state of California over the the Values Act. And the Ninth Circuit upheld, rejected the, the arguments that the administration made, which were that that the the Values Act was limiting collaboration with immigration enforcement that those efforts were, were illegal. The Ninth Court rejected that, claiming those claims, and explained that states have the right, pursuant to the Anti-Commandeering Rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts. And so, you know, I think we have clear precedent here. And to the senator’s point, a lot of this is sabre rattling and trying to create fear amongst our communities.

AC: Well, that segues perfectly into my next question, which was for you. The ACLU was really significantly involved in getting the California Values Act to the finish line. You know, what are some of the lessons from the work that it took to pass that law? And are there any other policy changes that advocates are going to be looking to implement under this current administration?

DT: Yeah. The ACLU was one of many players in helping pass the Values Act, which underscores the power of coalition work. Now more than ever, the immigrants rights movement needs to continue building and deepening relationships with labor, faith-based groups, criminal justice partners, and educators. If we want to strengthen the protections that we worked to pass seven years ago, it really in this moment is going to take all of us, and it’s going to take elected officials having the courage of their convictions. It’s going to take nonprofit organizations having the courage of their convictions, and also holding ourselves and elected officials accountable. And it’s going to take every resident of this state working together to say, we’re going to stand up for our neighbors, right? We’re going to protect our neighbors.

And Senator Durazo mentioned Prop 187. I remember being in middle school and my community feeling that threat, right. As an immigrant myself, my friends feeling that threat of what does this mean? Can I trust my my teacher? That is what we’re seeing again.

And so over the last seven years, the ACLU, along with many of our partners, have worked hard to implement the Values Act from reviewing countless policies to ensure compliance, to meeting with local sheriffs to discuss their practices, to bringing lawsuits to enforce the law.

We are now under an administration that has promised to execute a cruel – and there’s no other way of describing it – It’s a cruel deportation agenda that not only seeks to remove countless of immigrant community members, but also wants to make life unbearable so that people self-deport.

There is an opportunity here for California to build on the protections of the Values Act and ensure that California not only not participate in programs that seek to terrorize local communities, break families apart, and devastate our local economy. I’m really glad to be able to say that there have been several local jurisdictions that have passed ordinances saying our resources are not going to go into immigration enforcement, and at this time, we need the state to step up and say no Jurisdiction in California is going to use public funds to participate in federal immigration policies.

AC: And just to be clear for everyone, the Values Act limits the ability for state and local law enforcement to participate in immigration enforcement. But there are several exceptions. And so, you know, further efforts have been trying to sort of close that door completely.

Senator Durazo you know, one of these more recent efforts was a Senate Bill 1132 last year, which was signed into law and allows county health officials to investigate health and sanitary conditions in private detention facilities. California has several private detention facilities and, you know, is expected to potentially gain at least another one. There has been an RFQ posted by the Trump…. Sorry, I think it was by the Biden administration, actually for another facility in a California city. But so the Trump administration is looking, of course, to expand immigrant detention, including in California.

Can you talk about what your law will mean for the state’s ability to oversee those detention facilities and why you felt that was important?

MED: Well as we understood it, the law as it stood before 1132 passed… It did not explicitly cover private detention facilities. And that’s what we wanted to close that loophole and make sure there wasn’t an opportunity to use that. And so there are six private facilities in our state. They hold about 7000 people there. And so closing that or clearing up that gray area on health and safety codes so that while public health oversight laws empower inspections of publicly operated detention facilities, they did not explicitly cover private detention facilities. And again, that was that’s what we were we were trying to do.

We had in 2019, I had introduced another bill, SB 398, and it made sure that state laws related to our protection and advocacy agency which advocates for the rights of disabilities was another law to make sure that we got in and we could see really what was going on and being able to do those kinds of inspections. So you know, again, those were two examples of what we’re trying to do to make sure that our detention facilities are safe. For those who are being detained while they are being detained.

AC: Are there any other kinds of oversight powers at the state’s disposal? And this is not necessarily for you, but a question for anyone. What kinds of immigrant detention oversight powers exist for California to use?

MED: Well, you know we we picked on the ones that we knew that we had, you know, fairly good chance of making sure that that the state had the authority to be able to to do that. For example, on 1132, it doesn’t require the inspections, right? It just gives authority to the counties for their health officers to be able to go in and do inspections. So, you know, always being careful and respectful of what the state’s role and what the state’s authority is.

AC: And have county health officers been able to utilize that?

MED: I haven’t heard specific examples, but I know that just having it, I hope, really has made it is starting to make a difference on that.

AC: Absolutely.

DC: I would just say there is no mandate for state officials to participate. Again, the 10th amendment gives us the protection. The federal government cannot commandeer state resources to enact federal immigration laws. Right? And so, to the degree that there can be oversight to make sure that our state resources are not being used for that purpose, that alone is a huge protection and a way for residents to trust our officials here in California. Right.

“I gotta give him credit….  even though I am completely opposed to what they’re doing, what they politically are doing is very smart.” – Luis Alvarado

This is a public safety issue when residents cannot trust, If I go to to access services that the state provides, I’m going to end up on some list that the federal government’s going to access. That’s a public safety issue. Right? And so we need to make sure that we are disassociating that that state resources are not being used for these purposes.

AC: Kevin.

KEVIN R JOHNSON: I think those are all important points, but the federal government and federal facilities has the authority over those facilities, and the states don’t. There’s limited power to intrude on that. The 10th Amendment and federal supremacy are the flip side of the same, same coin, basically. And it’s unfortunate in my view, but they’re limited ways of policing ICE immigrant detention facilities. Some of those involve Congress in oversight hearings and reports and, and human rights reports.

But I do think it’s important to remember that it’s the state can’t stop the federal government from engaging in immigration enforcement. It cannot cooperate. It can. It can stop being commandeered. But  there are limits to what can be done. And is the Attorney General Bonta was talking about earlier, there’s a fine line between obstruction and state prerogative.

AC: Well, over this past weekend my colleagues reported that you know, there had been rumors swirling for the past few weeks that the federal government was planning this massive immigration enforcement operation in LA. And, you know, when it took place on Sunday, what my colleagues found was that, you know, the arrests were not as widespread as many people predicted. You know, the Trump administration, including his border czar, Tom Homan, have made it very clear that they are displeased with the rate of arrests so far. And the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement was actually reassigned last Friday.

So I’m wondering, you know, can someone talk about why it’s so difficult to scale up arrests and deportations as quickly as the Trump administration would like? And, you know, in the absence of these higher numbers, what are they accomplishing by, you know, all of this visibility surrounding the expected enforcement actions?

LA: Well, I can talk a little bit about that. And I think we have to recognize, first of all, that it’s only been 30 days since this administration has been at work. And there’s many things about this administration that is trying to break… some of them destroy completely and some of them modify… to what the vision of what this administration wants to happen.

You know, as I’m listening to you guys about protections on the facilities, you know, one thing that can happen and that’s, you know, it’s a possibility… is that the process can be militarized and then nobody has access to military bases. And I think that was one of the discussions and the reasons why they were talking about taking some of the immigrants to Cuba, because then, you know, they have total control about not only the facilities, but also the legal access that the detainees are going to have with regards to legal counsel.

And when it comes to where they are right now, it’s that bureaucracy has been entrenched for decades and how they process immigrants. And what’s happening is that this administration has a vision of how, you know, if it was up to them. They would have the military, you know, engage in this process. But they don’t. They only have finite resources, and they try to manipulate them to deliver on what the promise is of, of having these mass deportations.

I gotta give him credit. You know, being the conservative on this panel is that even though I am completely opposed to what they’re doing, what they politically are doing is very smart.

They’re only targeting criminals at this time. And, you know, who doesn’t want criminals out of the country?  And we had a press conference in the a few days ago where Republicans were saying that, you know, they’re trying to modify the laws, that gives them more facility to go after criminals that are undocumented.

And, general population generally would be okay with that. It’s not until we see that this that this fantasy that, you know, they’re going to be millions of undocumented, you know, hunted down in this country to be taken out to their respective countries, that we’re really going to see if they’re going to be able to put this into motion. But so far, there is no indication that they have any resources to make it happen.

You know, they have the will and they have the executive office, but the bureaucracy is still fighting them on that. And the question is, are we going to be able to fortify those… you know, guardrails to ensure that the undocumented have access, you know, to constitutional protections?

DC: I’m sorry, I got to push back against this idea that they’re only targeting quote unquote criminals like that is falsely … that that is patently false.

We know that these raids are indiscriminate. We know that Ice uses this racial profiling in these raids. There are plenty of cases of residents, of Native Americans being detained for hours of legal residence, of U.S. citizens being detained and caught up in all of this.

And so we have to reject this notion that there are good immigrants and bad immigrants, and that some of this actions are somehow justified one way or another. Look, as someone who was born in Tijuana, who came here because my family believed that this was where I could have a better life. As someone who fiercely believes in the promises of this country, we have to fight, and for our shared values and our shared principles as a nation, that this is a place where we can all get, where all are welcome and we can all build a better future for ourselves and the next generation.

And so we’ve got to reject this false narrative of these bad immigrants that are, first of all, that’s not who’s truly being targeted. And it’s not an accurate portrayal of what’s happening.

LA: David, all I’m saying is that’s what that’s what the campaign. That’s their campaign.

DT: I hear it’s a nice slogan, but it’s it’s false. And we gotta stop. We gotta stop falling into it. Because the fact of the matter is, immigrants are, as you know, Luis and I know that you get this immigrants are a valued, an incredible value to our community.

“The idea behind a lot of this, and all the talk of raids for weeks and weeks, has been to terrorize communities, to drive fear into communities” – Kevin R Johnson

We contribute to every sector of the economy. We have educators we have medical professionals at every sector of our economy, of the fabric, of our community. There are immigrants there. And especially in a place like California where we have nearly a quarter of the immigrant population … where nearly half the workforce is immigrant or the children of immigrants. We’ve got to stop playing into this narrative that devalues everything that immigrants bring to the table and to this country.

MED: I just want to jump in here for a minute. A week after you know, Trump and the administration announced, you know, they were going to do more of the deportations. There were a number of rallies held in downtown Los Angeles. And they were primarily youth. And I, I gotta say, I was very proud.

I was very proud because these youth are not protesting and marching because they think that, you know, immigration is going to pick up, you know, murderers, you know, from the streets. They were doing it because they know that our community are not these, you know, full of rapists and murderers and all these dangerous criminals.

Our communities are full of hard working people who contribute to this community, contribute to our country, contribute in every way possible. And that gave me a taste of what is going on in, in the, in not just the immigrant community, but in communities of second and third generation Latinos, or second or third generation immigrants. Really, really understand how hard immigrants work in this country and how much they contribute to this country. How many industries would not exist without them.

So it was it was it was a reminder to me of what is really felt in our community. And they kind of went ahead of everybody else and said, “hey, we’ve got to do something. We have to defend ourselves. We can’t let these accusations and threats of coming, you know, in, in mass raids into our community. We can’t let that happen. We got to stand up for ourselves.” So that was a very beautiful sign of the truth in our communities.

AC: Kevin, did you want to say something?

KJ: Sure, sure. I think the question should be, what was the intent of this publicity about the raids and all the raids? I don’t think it necessarily was about arresting people, although that would have been a nice photo op that would have been on the DHS home page.

The idea behind a lot of this, and all the talk of raids for weeks and weeks, has been to terrorize communities, to drive fear into communities, to get people to be afraid to go to the grocery store, to go to the doctors, to take their kids to school, to go to work, to go to the courthouses, to take care of judicial business.

This impact will be felt whether or not five, ten, 15 or 10,000 people are arrested. And this impact will be felt for generations in the sense of belonging that certain communities will will have in light of these times, will be with us for generations.

During the Great Depression, there was a mass removal known as the Mexican Repatriation, where roughly 1 million persons of Mexican ancestry, including US citizen children, were removed from the United States. That had huge impacts on the sense of belonging of the Mexican ancestry community, especially in the greater Los Angeles area, where many of these people were arrested and removed. And I think that what we will see for generations are the impacts.

And I know that that the word was used earlier “cleansing.” And I do think it’s important to, to understand that the people affected by these immigration policies are primarily people of color, many Latinos, many Asians. And if you look at the numbers, you just look at the numbers. 90% of the people deported year in, year out, are Latino. The top four undocumented immigrant communities in the United States are Latino. It’s Mexican Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduran. Indians are fifth.

And I think that the the campaign in the rhetoric that’s used by President Trump makes it very clear – he started his 2016 campaign talking about Mexican criminals and rapists. He talked about Haitians eating pets. He talked about immigrants poisoning our blood. So we should know at this point that race is at the bottom of this, and it’s certainly seen in the impacts of these policies.

And if you go to a know your rights session for for immigrant communities, I can’t describe to you how great the fear is among ordinary people of what might happen just by living their ordinary lives, going to church. And it’s impossible. It’s truly impossible. I’m not an immigrant. I’m a born citizen. I can’t imagine what it be like to worry that if you went to Saint James on Sunday, that something could happen and you could end up not being able to see your kids for an awful long time.

And I think the human cost of what’s going on there, they’re very tangible. They’re hard to to for. They’re hard to fully express for me. But you go to some of these sessions where people are crying, they’re screaming, they’re upset, and I don’t blame them. I understand where they’re coming from.

So I don’t think that the Trump administration necessarily cares precisely how many people are arrested. The impact… one of the important impacts is the tear that’s created in communities. And maybe there is also a hope that self-deportation will take hold, or that people won’t come because they feel it is very unfriendly. But I think some of the damage is as intended. And it’s having devastating impacts on communities across the country.

And just the the regular saber rattling there’s going to be it’s been going on for weeks in LA. There’s going to be, you know, an operation coming soon. You know, it’s happening in some places. And we may see that. I’m not saying we won’t see that, but I don’t think that’s the entire intent of this set of operations.

AC: I think that’s a great point, Luis.

LA: Yeah. Very briefly, I just want to you know…. I talk to people who are in this administration, and my observation is that, you know, we’re we’re seeing this administration as monolithic when it really isn’t.

You know, there are elements inside of this administration who totally don’t agree with the immigration policies that that they want to implement. You know, talking about Kevin’s … remembering what happened when they took all those Mexicanos out in trains with zero due process. You know, there are people in the administration who envision exactly that. You know, the Stephen Millers and the people that have been sponsoring him for all these decades and to get to exactly where he is today. You know, those people, you know, they’re organized and they have that vision, and they do want to see the numbers of residents in this country to be lowered. And they don’t care. They don’t want to be the policemen of the world.

So they have an agenda. And I don’t think it’s Donald Trump’s agenda. You know, just like Elon Musk has his own agenda of where he wants to take this country with regards to science and and space. And, you know, he wants to pay for a trip to Mars.

You know, there are people who don’t agree with that. You know, there’s they’re you know, Bannon and Elon Musk don’t get along. So we’re going to see, you know, double talk from this administration. And we’re going to see, you know, advertisement, and on process that are not going to take place. It’s up to us to be vigilant and understand who are the true players with the true power and those that are actually going to be implementing policies that are going to directly affect the undocumented community.

And I think that’s what we need to be vigilant with. You know. The the nonprofit Non-profit organizations or elected officials in Sacramento and municipal localities. And we all have to be looking out for our own communities. And we all accept that the fact that the undocumented community is undocumented, because the immigration process is broken, and neither side has found a way to make it work for the nation. And there is absolutely no way that mass deportation is going to help this country be more successful. On the contrary, it’s going to make it weaker.

AC: Thank you. Luis. Last night, the Trump administration announced that it’s going to create a registry of undocumented immigrants. That was, I think, pretty significant news. I mean, they’re expecting that anyone over age 13 is going to submit personal information and fingerprints, or else they could face fines and jail time.

Does anyone know about other times in our history in which, you know, these registries have been used? I’m thinking as one example, when President George W Bush, after 9/11 used a registry to deport thousands of people from Muslim majority countries. You know, so, can can anyone talk about these other times in our history when these have been used and how, you know, these this registry could affect people in California on a very tangible level.

KJ: I know a tiny bit. I mean, the special registration program that you referred to applied to basically student visa holders who from… who are Muslims from various nations. And it was in place right after September 11th for about ten years. And students, they were here lawfully. They did report they did register and for the most part, the students who did register and did comply weren’t removed from the country. So I’m not saying it was a successful program because it bothers me that they were targeted because they were Muslim. I’m not sure that that was the right approach to things.

In previous times in our history, we’ve had registration programs in the ‘30s and the ‘40s when we were at war, and we were trying to keep track of people at that point in time. This particular law that’s on the books has been on the books, I think, since 1952 or thereabouts, has never been enforced. And it would be a newly enforced law.

Now I talked to some immigration attorneys today. They’re not sure what to do with the law. And Attorney General Bonta earlier today said they were still looking at the new statement, and I think that it’s going to put undocumented immigrants in a very difficult place to go and register with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, take the risk that you end up getting arrested when you register, or do you not register and then take the risk when, if you get apprehended, of getting removed to the country from the country and maybe criminally prosecuted for not registering? And I think that… I mean, I talked to at least ten immigrant immigration attorneys this morning trying to figure out what the best advice to give clients was. And I think that there’s going to be a lot of discussion over the next few months. It’s a slick legal tool.

AC: Does it seem like this version goes beyond what previous versions have done, or is that sort of remains to be seen as they implement the details?

KJ: It’s much broader in scope because it could conceivably apply to 11 million. That’s the estimated number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, with roughly 40% in California. So it’s a large number and probably, you know, larger than almost any registration program we’ve ever had.

MED: I haven’t read any of the specifics on this, but why would anybody who’s undocumented go give you information about where you are and where your family is and where you…. I mean, that just doesn’t make sense, which goes back to what this administration is doing, is not to create policy that makes sense. This administration just wants to create fear. And, you know, somehow you know, take advantage of it. Certain employers might take advantage of it.

I don’t, you know, don’t know who, but it’s also creates it’s a distraction. Right. It’s a distraction from other things that the administration is doing, which are extremely detrimental. I mean, closing down the Department of Education or all this Department of Parks and Forestry, and, I mean, there are so many other things that they’re doing. This is just a distraction.

So there’s no good that will come out of it. There’s no good that is intended here. It’s creating an instability because people don’t know if this was a letter, was it a law? Do I pay attention? Do I not pay attention?

“They’re truly shooting from the hip. There is no expectation of of check and balance or risk management or, you know, judicial review” – Luis Alvarado

We have a history of immigrants from different parts of the world that, you know, that was as extreme as putting them in concentration camps, right? The Asian Americans, Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps. You know, somebody just passed a law to do that, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Mexican Deportations. So there’s enough examples out there of what our communities have faced that they are easily, you know, intimidated by these kinds of things.

They don’t…. He’s not looking for something that’s good. He’s looking to create more instability in our in our community. And that’s what makes it hard, which is knowing your rights, I think is a great way. You know, one way, of protecting our communities. And it’s not just the undocumented, it’s anybody. We don’t want anybody coming to our doors and lying about who they are or giving us a administrative warrant versus a judicial warrant. We don’t want that happening to anybody. That’s not the way this country works. And so I we’re trying to make sense here of something that is completely nonsensical.

LA: Yeah, it’s actually it’s actually the same thing as Elon Musk asking federal employees to submit an email with you know, “what did you do this week?”  They don’t think there’s no there’s no true process in thinking of how this administration is rolling out their policies. There is no check and balance. There is no systematic review. There is absolutely just shooting from the hip and hope something sticks.

A friend of mine said that, you know, when they did some of those layoffs his wife was federal worker. She received technically four letters. The first one was like, you’re let go. The second was like, never mind. And then there was like, no, really, we’re going to let you go. No, no, really. Don’t mind. Ignore that letter. We’re going to write you another letter.

So they’re truly shooting from the hip. There is no expectation of of check and balance or risk management or, you know, judicial review. There’s zero.

So what we’re what we’re observing is, you know, we’re trying to give them credit for having a strategy that in reality they’re just shooting from the hip and see if something sticks. So, you know, my recommendation to any anybody who comes to me who’s undocumented and says, what do I do? I say, ignore it. What are they going to do? What are they going to do?

AC: We have time for one more question for me before we get to the audience. Yeah. I wanted to talk about you know, the economy, the Trump administration has begun targeting Temporary Protected Status and these other provisional legal statuses. So TPS, for example, allows people to legally reside in the US if they face conditions like a natural disaster or a civil war that would prevent the safe return to their homelands.

And an estimated 350,000 Venezuelans are expected to lose their TPS by April 7th, 500,000 Haitians are expected to lose theirs by August 3rd. There are 17 countries designated for TPS alone, and of course, there are others through other types of provisional legal programs. So these cuts could, you know, easily affect more than a million people. Can anyone here talk about how this would impact California and its workforce specifically?

DT: I’ll say temporary protected service…. Protected status holders. TPS they’re vital members of our community. They are here in the US because they cannot return safely to their countries of origin. They are educators, workers, caretakers and advocates, parents, students and children. They live all across the country with homes, families and jobs and deep community ties.

So TPS holders are more than their contributions to the economy, but they do contribute massively to the health and prosperity of our communities. So, when TPS beneficiaries enter the workforce legally, they alleviate the pressures on the social safety net and are able to work in the very often high skilled fields they occupied in their countries of origin. They contribute billions of dollars to the US economy.

For those reasons, the ACLU of Northern California and Southern California, alongside our colleagues at UCLA and the National Day Labor Organization Network, have sued Secretary Noem for her decision to undo the Biden administration’s recent extension of TPS for Venezuela. The Trump administration’s actions are unlawful for many reasons, including the vile racism that motivates them. Indeed, Secretary Noem called Venezuelans “dirtbags” as she stripped away their status. So our lawsuit aims to halt these, recissions before they have a chance to harm the Venezuelan community.

AC: Thank you. I think we’ll stop there. Unless anyone had a very, very brief comment to make on this.

LA: Quick, quick comment. You know, you have to understand how they think. You must remember that President Trump extended an invitation to South white South Africans to migrate to the US. Right?

So you have to understand that for him, it’s for this administration. It’s not about what this immigrant group specifically can do for our community or our population or our economy. It’s what can it do for my personal political vision of how this country should operate with immigrants and how restrictions are have to be implemented.

It shouldn’t matter which party you’re at to defend the Constitution of the United States. And yet we’re having extraordinary violations of our, you know, constitutional rights.” – Senator María Elena Durazo

El Salvador is in California is the largest community that has TPS, You know. But, you know, we saw that Secretary Rubio was with El Salvadorian president who actually coincides with the political views of the president. So we may have a little bit of hope that, you know, that we’re not going to see El Salvadorian community lose their TPS. But for certainly, you know, those other communities are going to be affected and it’s just part of what we expect from this administration.

There’s going to be damage. There will be people who are going to be hurt. And it’s just a reality of this administration. And we’re just going to have to learn how to mitigate it as best we can.

MED: And those all those TPS should be permanently….

LA: You know, it’s a broken immigration system. And that’s why.

MED: We never followed up with what should be done, which is to give them permanent status, not just temporary status. There are now 2 or 3 generations here from a temporary status.

KJ: If I could just add one short thing: Donald Trump has said he’s against undocumented immigrants and he favors legal immigration. TPS status holders are legal in the legally authorized to be in the United States. DACA recipients are legal, and they are legally authorized to be in the United States.

The truth of the matter is, is that President Trump himself wants to limit the number of lawful immigrants, as well as to rid the nation of undocumented immigrants. And we should recognize that and addressing the policies.

AC: Thank you for that point, Kevin. Okay. To audience questions. The first question is, “can DACA recipients still get access to medical insurance or Covered California despite Trump’s immigration policies? Open enrollment started on November 1st, 2024.”Does anyone want to take that?

KJ: My understanding is that they can.

MED: That’s my understanding is is DACA if you have the DACA status that you have access to the Medicare medical coverage.

AC: The easiest question all day. Okay. Question: “Does the panel foresee the US Supreme Court being forced to take up an ICE versus state sovereignty case If an intensely extensive societal pressure implies the necessitation of legal clarity? My students pose fascinating questions about these matters, and that troubled me as much as the president is challenging constitutional principles, delving us headlong into uncharted waters.”

DT: Yeah. As I as I said earlier the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already upheld the, the Values Act and similar judgments have been done by, by other courts on, on similar laws. So we we’ve got a very strong argument and strong position where the 10th Amendment really protects states from having to, to execute federal policy on immigration.

LA: Well, you know, you need to recognize one thing is that in the last 48 hours both Stephen Miller and Elon Musk… the majority of their tweets are directed, their anger is directed at the judicial system. And there is there is an organized process to minimize the power that the judicial system has so they can have a free reign of their executive powers.

You know, and that’s the constitutional challenge we’re having right now. And it’s up to the pressure of the of the populace to be able to identify what that is and then to somehow fortify our judicial system so it actually does what it’s supposed to do. You know, but they, the administration, see that for them to implement, you know, other actions like TPS, DACA and undocumented, they have to find a way to go around the judicial system.

So, you know, if if we think that it’s business as usual, then we’re making a mistake and thinking that we’re just, you know, oh, the courts are going to stand up and protect it because it’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional. That no longer is a valid argument to defend us.

MED: No longer the standard. If I can it’s not the question. So if I can just say something else. I, I think also is we can’t give a pass to all the Republicans who still support Trump.

Because it’s not just him by himself who was able to pull off doing all of these things or attempting to undo our constitutional rights… is that people in that party need to take responsibility for what he is, for what he is doing. And I think that’s really important because, you know, we shouldn’t it shouldn’t depend. It shouldn’t matter which party you’re at to defend the Constitution of the United States.

And yet we’re having extraordinary violations of our, you know, constitutional rights. And I think it’s important for, you know, the Republican Party and leadership and, and others to stand up and say,” this is wrong. We will not tolerate this.”

AC: Another question here. I mean, I think we got into this early on, but if there’s any other points to make here. “Is there currently any oversight that ensures that state resources are not used for immigration enforcement?” Of course, we talked about SB 54, but if anyone wants to expand on that.

DT: I would just add, you know, this is this is where every resident of California has a role to play, right? And making sure that city councils are doing their part to protect our community, making sure that school boards are making are doing their part to protect our students because it’s going to take all of us to do this work. Right. Like, this is this is about standing up to our values and having the courage of our convictions. And this is the moment to to act on it. Right?

I’ve been quoting President Kennedy ever since Donald Trump’s inauguration. In saying that we do this not because it’s easy, but we do it because it’s hard. And in this circumstance not only is it hard, but it’s to really get to a point where we can finally fulfill the promises of our founding documents.

LA: Well, I’ll say real quick is, you know, we have to be vigilant because on the municipality side, there are counties in our state that are red counties. Right. And we we’ve seen that some of those elected officials are who are more MAGA leaning have said that they will challenge state leadership and side with the federal side of enforcement. So the question you know, unfortunate for our undocumented community, is, you know, where do you live? It may be different if you live in Riverside and how the the probability that you’re going to be targeted is going to be much higher than if you live in Los Angeles.

So I think you know, for my friend David and other organizations that help these communities, they have to figure out how they, you know, extend those protections, or at least that vigilance in ensuring that the Constitution is being applied correctly in our other communities in California, not just LA County or San Francisco.

AC: That’s a great point. Yeah. Riverside County and other counties in the state have sheriffs that have said that they, you know might go against state leadership here. Final question, I think. “Do you think that there will be a path toward citizenship for DACA individuals, as Trump once proclaimed he would do?”

LA: No, it’s it’s you know, it’s it’s not Trump when it comes to immigration, it’s Stephen Miller and his people, you know. And my I think you guys know that I used to be a Republican my whole life before I became an independent. But, you know, I’ve been in Congress. I’ve been in those back door meetings with US senators when we’re trying to pass immigration reform all those years ago.

And, you know Senator Lankford from Oklahoma is a perfect example. You know, that he actually tried to put something down a few months ago, and it was killed by this administration. I don’t see that there’s anything that is going to try to build something as opposed to break something. And if we have that mentality that, you know, that they are going to be reasonable because they have the interest of this nation first and foremost, that we’re setting ourselves up for failure.

I think we need to understand that this is completely open warfare. If we’re going to protect this country and we’re going to protect the undocumented and the legal immigrants you know, and that includes you know, the relationship with Mexico and the relationship with Canada, then we need to be vigilant to all of those policies that are going to be rolled out from this White House.

KJ: I, I share Luis’s pessimism. But today, a bipartisan bill was introduced in Congress that would provide a path to legalization for TPS recipients and DACA recipients. And at one point, President Trump did say that he thought there might be room for some kind of bill that would benefit DACA recipients. I…. maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I’m not willing at this point to say it’s impossible for something so reasonable to happen.

DT: I think that that reasonable point is the one that that’s sticking with me. As Senator Durazo has said several times today, this isn’t about a policy, right? This is about terrorizing a community. And I don’t see where reason fits into that with this administration and frankly, with many of the members of Congress. Right? Because if if they truly wanted to do this they should have more than enough votes. In considering that the Trump administration’s party, the Republican Party holds both houses of Congress. So if they truly wanted to do this, if it was truly about policy it could get done. But this is about terrorizing and creating fear.

[Crosstalk]

MED: I would Just say one quick thing on that. The business community could have an influence. If you think about in Florida with the hospitality industry, they are overwhelmingly Haitian, right? To do something and take away their Temporary Protected Status would, you know, have an extraordinary impact on that, on that industry. And there’s a lot of other industries in similar position – agriculture. Who of your kids are going to go work in the fields and pick the grapes and do all that hard work.

So if employers used their leverage, if business used its leverage, you might see something come about it.

AC: On that hopeful note, I think we are at time. Thank you all so much. It was a great discussion. Thank you for being here.

MED: Thank you, Andrea. Thanks, everyone. Thank you all.

Thanks to our sponsors:

THE TRIBAL ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS, WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PERRY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, CAPITOL ADVOCACY, THE WEIDEMAN GROUP, and CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS