Trump Allies Already Pressuring State Leaders on Immigration
57:37 Share

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Earthjustice, a national legal nonprofit defending everyone's right to a healthy environment. Learn more and join the fight at earthjustice.org. Earthjustice, because the Earth needs a good lawyer. From KQED.

From KQED in San Francisco, I'm Rachel Miro in for Mina Kim. Coming up on Forum, incoming Trump border czar Tom Homan has said sanctuary policies like those in San Francisco and L.A. will not prevent the federal government from aggressively enforcing immigration laws. That's not a threat. That's just a reality. If they don't want to protect their communities...

than the Trump administration will. Homan also said the administration may prosecute officials who knowingly harbor undocumented immigrants. We'll look at what the threat of mass deportation could mean for California's immigrants and sanctuary cities looking to protect them. That's next after this news. Welcome to Forum. I'm Rachel Miro in for Mina Kim.

Hundreds of local and state officials in California could face jail time if they attempt to block the administration's immigration agenda. That's according to a letter from a nonprofit with links to Stephen Miller. He's the hardline anti-immigration senior White House aide who effectively oversaw immigration policy for the first Trump administration. In the second term, he'll have another major role as deputy White House chief of policy.

Miller's America's First Legal Foundation warns that sanctuary jurisdictions are violating federal law and that officials in California and elsewhere could face criminal prosecution and civil liability for resisting federal immigration enforcement.

Let's begin this hour with the man who covers the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Policy for The New York Times, Hamid Ali Aziz. Hamid, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you for having me. Well, that letter sounds scary on the face of it, but catch us up here, Hamid. What else does the letter say? And how real do you think the threat is, given that Trump supporters and sometimes Trump himself appear to be internally split on a whole host of immigration issues?

Well, I mean, I think that, you know, if you look back to the first administration, the first Trump administration, they very quickly targeted sanctuary cities and jurisdictions, trying to withhold funding from jurisdictions that had in place sanctuary policies, as well as suing California for the state's sanctuary policy, limiting cooperation with ICE. These types of efforts...

We should expect to, you know, come back again, given that they were part of the playbook the first time. Some of the officials that are going into the administration have intimated ideas such as withholding funding or bringing back, you know, certain efforts on that front.

This is a main focus for this administration, specifically because they know that most of the immigrants picked up by ICE are from jails. And many immigrants live in places like California and other jurisdictions that have these really progressive and expansive policies.

And Trump's rhetoric has, when you think about it, over the years and more recently been pretty blockbuster. He said he wants to expel as many as 20 million people from the U.S. in this term alone, which would mark a huge increase from his first administration. He's pledged to build mass detention camps to deputize National Guard troops and get local police who are willing to assist in this effort.

Yeah, there have been a lot of major promises and obviously a lot of that came during the campaign trail, this idea of mass deportation and cracking down on folks living in the country without authorization. The reality of it though, uh,

will remain to be seen. It'll take a lot of time, I believe, to get ICE up to speed on new efforts to target different communities. And then also, as well, this idea of getting more cooperation from locals, sheriffs, and police, that takes time as well. And it's important to note that ICE's budget is limited and

Congress will play a major part in whether or not ICE will have the money to build more detention, to get more resources to be able to carry out these major, major promises. But I think it's fair to say that

You know, when the Trump administration comes back, they will be quite aggressive on immigration enforcement. And that will be one of the major focuses in the first year and the first part of the administration. Well, Hamid, hang tight. I want to bring in some local perspectives, specifically the former mayor of Sacramento, Daryl Steinberg. Daryl, thank you so much for being here.

It's good to be with you, Rachel. I know you've got just a few minutes for us. What details can you offer about how Sacramento is mobilizing resources to respond to whatever the Trump administration throws at the city and its undocumented residents?

Well, Sacramento is a proud sanctuary city, and we have actually put city resources into developing the legal resources for people, immigrants, dreamers, refugees, who are threatened by the Trump administration's promises. We set this up back during the Trump first term, and I'm sure even though I'm not the mayor now, that

The new mayor and the city council will intensify those efforts. Look, when it comes to the Trump administration's threats and Stephen Miller, everybody recognizes that the border must be tightened.

that where people have committed serious criminal acts, that deportation may be appropriate. But that's not what Trump is talking about. He is talking about mass deportation of working people, of people who have lived in this country for a long time, people who have been even born here as he wants to end birthright citizenship.

And the only way to deal with a bully, even a powerful bully, is to resist and to push back. I say, you know, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this election for Democrats. We need to look inside in terms of how we relate to working class people, for example, many lessons. But one thing we should never forget.

give quarter to is the abuse of people's civil and human rights. And that's what Trump is about. It's not a coherent policy. It's not

It's not just about controlling the border, which everyone agrees is imperative, but it is about actually harming people who have lived in this country for a long time. And that's just plain wrong. And so, you know, the stance of cities like Sacramento, but I'm sure cities throughout the state will be wrong.

you know, work with the federal administration, of course, where we can, always trying to find areas of common interest, but resist and fight

anything that deprives people of their civil and human rights because to give in to this kind of thing only, I think, encourages them and him. And, you know, they'll make all kinds of threats. Do they really have the resources or the will to do everything that they're saying? Who knows? I think you've got to take it seriously. But we've got to stand for the best of American values, and that is standing up for hardworking people who have lived in this country for a long time.

Daryl, what do you say to people listening to this program who wonder how much of the fight in California's Democratic Party

politicians has to do with political rivalry from the desire to smack back at conservatives versus protecting residents or advocating for positions that your voters expect from you. And I say that knowing you're the former mayor. Mm-hmm.

former mayor well i think you have to distinguish again between those things where democrats have to take in the message from the voters the voters said yes control the border the voters said um

have made sure that you are promoting strong economic policies that benefit working people and working class people. The voters did not say we want you to deport people en masse, especially hardworking immigrants and refugees who have lived in this country for a long time, regardless of their legal status.

and i think we're capable uh... of being smart and drawing lines again where uh... we can find common ground with uh... the next president and of the republican congress we do so because that's what's good for the country but we never

given to that which is cruel, that which seeks to just plain divide people and harm people who are contributing, actually contributing to this country, regardless of their legal status. I mean, it's been said many times, but this Congress has every opportunity, along with Trump, to actually engage in comprehensive immigration reform. They won't.

But they could. That distinguishes people who shouldn't be in this country from people who came here and have been working hard and contributing. And so we have to just be smart. But it's history tells us that it's always a mistake to

To give in to cruelty and what Stephen Miller, who is this guy? Stephen Miller is promoted along with Trump when it comes to this idea of mass deportation, ending birthright citizenship. People are born in this country, I think, falls on the side of cruel. And I don't think we should give in to it.

Well, Daryl, thank you so much for laying out the stakes for us. That was Daryl Steinberg, former mayor of Sacramento. I want to bring in now Francisco Ugarte, managing attorney of the Immigration Defense Unit for the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender.

Francisco, let's just break in right away with your analysis of the money that comes out of the special session Governor Gavin Newsom convened. From your perspective, has the money the state has set aside to boost legal defenses, is it enough?

Well, I think that it's a great start. I think it's a great indication of where the focus is in the state of California. And let's remember there's around 25 to 30 percent of our state is foreign born. There's a lot of wild inaccuracies in this letter that was written by America First Legal. And ultimately, what it doesn't

kind of discuss and what the Trump administration during its campaign kind of failed to address is the panoply of laws that immigrants have in this country, including constitutional rights, right to bond, right to defend against their deportation. And so, you know, previously in 2016, when Trump was elected and made similar promises

Many people stood up, fought back. We created a unit here at the Public Defender's Office in San Francisco. We have eight lawyers and we defend against deportations and we can be quite successful at this. And certainly we're going to see jurisdictions increasing deportations.

for what should be a fundamental right, which is the right to appointed counsel. And I'm going to have you hold that thought. That's Francisco Ugarte of the Office of San Francisco's Public Defender. We're talking about how California and its cities are preparing to respond to the Trump administration's plans for mass deportation. Join the conversation. Email your comments and questions to forum at kqed.org or call

Call us at 866-733-6786. Support for Forum comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment.

From wielding the power of the law to protect people's health, preserving magnificent places and wildlife, and advancing clean energy to combat climate change, Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer. Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Rachel Miro in for Mina Kim. And we are talking about California, how it's going to preparing to respond to the Trump administration's plans for mass deportation in Donald Trump's second term. We've got some great voices on the air to talk about all of this. I want to introduce as well.

Ahilan Arulantham, faculty co-director for the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, former legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. Ahilan, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you for having me. You know, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about December 2024, so just last month, a survey from the Public Policy Institute of California that found that a significant majority of Californians, especially in the Bay Area and in Los Angeles, oppose mass deportation efforts. Is it your sense that California has the stomach for this kind of a fight?

I think that was certainly true in the first Trump administration, that California resisted federal attempts to deport people in large numbers. And as your prior interviewees were noting, Hamid, I think, said this at the beginning, the Trump administration sued California

because of California's robust sanctuary policies and the Trump administration lost. The courts upheld the laws of California that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and then said the federal government didn't have the power to try and take away certain law enforcement grants, which the Trump administration tried to do in retaliation.

for California sanctuary laws. So I think it was certainly true last time. Obviously, some of the politics have changed this time around. But I think what we've seen from the initial reactions of state and local government officials here is that they do recognize that there is overwhelming opposition to the concept of mass deportation and how it would actually play out in California communities.

Hamid, California's Attorney General Rob Bonta has been talking to the press, including KQED, promising his office will play a key role in defending California against Trump's agenda. But he hasn't offered much in the way of specifics. If he were to dial us up right now, and he's certainly welcome to, what questions would you want him to answer?

I would be interested to see if he is going to take the same type of aggressive approach that the former Attorney General

did back in the first Trump administration, suing over several Trump administration policies, whether it be DACA or other efforts. The former attorney general was quite aggressive in getting involved in that type of litigation and trying to reel back some of the immigration policies that Trump put forth.

And I'm interested to see, given the changing politics that Ahilan referred to, if that has the same stance as before this go-round.

You know, I was wondering, Francisco Ugarte, managing attorney of the Immigration Defense Unit of the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender. Wow, your business card must be packed tight with tiny font print. What do you anticipate in terms of who you'll be suing, who you'll be defending, and why and how in the new year?

Well, it's really hard to prepare for something so bombastic and extreme, this idea of mass deportation. And so what we've done essentially is to kind of control what we know we can control. And so

creating a system whereby every San Francisco resident has access to counsel in the event they are encountered by immigration or they're facing deportation. That's really what our goal is as a city. We tried to do that last time in 2016. We weren't perfect. You know, there are cases that are very, very difficult. But for the most part, that's an achievable goal. And again,

In this country, we are a nation of laws as American First Legal recognizes. And that means that immigrants have legal rights. They can defend against deportation. They can assert claims in removal proceedings. They can seek release from custody. There are just so many different ways to challenge a deportation legally that this idea that we can just round people up and throw them out is

is antithetical to how our legal system works. So we're ready for this. And I think a lot of people, my colleagues are as well, we're kind of tired. We know what the four years were like before, but we got through them quite successfully and we'll be able to do that again. We feel confident about that. There will be challenges, no doubt.

Well, we've got a lot of calls and comments rolling in. I want to give our listeners a chance to weigh in. After letting the rest of you all know, you can join the conversation as well by calling 866-733-6786. And now that you've picked up your phone.

and done the Face ID thing, 866-733-6786. You can also email your comments and questions to forum at kqed.org or post. You can find us on Blue Sky X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, even Discord. So with that said, let's go to the phones now and Paul in San Francisco. Hi, Paul.

Yes, I'd like to ask your guest, Mr. Ugarte, if he believes the city of San Francisco should shield our convicted fentanyl dealers and also who are in the country illegally and other people in the country illegally who have committed serious felonies, if the city should shield them from being turned over to ICE.

Francisco? Sure, happy to answer that. I think that goes to a deeper question around drug sales, drug use, and the problems, you know, a global epidemic. In terms of drug sales, drug sale is illegal and the city and county files charges, the prosecutor files charges, the federal government files charges.

Sanctuary ordinance there's this kind of concept that a sanctuary shields immigrants from deportation that's just like not accurate at all the federal government has

complete authority to engage in immigration enforcement, to engage in field operations. What a sanctuary ordinance does essentially is say our city has a lot of money, but it needs to use its money wisely and we're not going to engage in assisting the federal government in deportation efforts. And if you look at the stats, you know, anybody who knows anything about this issue

will see that sanctuary jurisdiction, there's no correlation between higher crime rates and lower deportation rates. Immigration enforcement has never been a public safety tool. And the people who support sanctuary policies, by and large, are chiefs of police in major cities because sanctuary policies are designed to get undocumented folks to go to the police for help.

So the question about shielding, like, well, no, I mean, nobody wants to shield. People should be held accountable for their acts. But this concept that deportation is a way to police crime is just not, it's kind of a fact-free zone.

Thank you so much for that question, Paul. It kind of launches us into our next line of inquiry, which is, you know, the interrelationship between what we're talking about now and the large population of undocumented immigrants, you know, behind bars in California.

Ahilan, in 2017, California was the first state to pass a sanctuary law under Trump. The bill prohibited local law enforcement from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the long name for ICE. Even though that law was watered down to allow state prisons to coordinate with ICE, it had a major effect, didn't it?

It did. In fact, deportations at the national level decreased from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. And the primary reason for that was because sanctuary jurisdictions, California being the leader, as you mentioned, but there were also a number of others across the country, both cities and states, adopted policies that minimized that cooperation between

uh, state and local law enforcement and ICE. California's law, as you mentioned, has a carve out, uh, permitting state and local law enforcement officers to notify ICE when somebody convicted of a serious or violent felony. And that's a term defined in the statute and it lists a bunch of offenses. And for those offenses, they can notify ICE when the person is going to be released. Um, they don't have to, but they can. Um, but for other offenses, um,

There is no such authority. And then I want to say one other thing because Francisco had mentioned it. These laws actually first arose in their modern incarnation as a response to Obama era policy because the Obama administration extensively tied up state and local law enforcement in the business of immigration enforcement.

And there was pushback to that because people saw that, as he mentioned, it didn't decrease crime. There's tons of studies showing this, very detailed analyses of crime rates and jurisdictions that adopted these policies versus ones that didn't. And also people saw that there was a huge social impact from these families torn apart, people hitting the social service system, children hitting the child welfare system because their parents were being deported.

And then in the Trump administration, that kind of resistance increased a lot. So in a way, for me, it feels a little bit like history repeating itself. You know, having this debate about whether sanctuary policies are good or bad. It's like we already had this discussion during the Obama administration and in the first Trump administration. And at least the data on the subject, I think, is quite clear. And during the Biden administration. Yes. So the Biden administration, after some initial push back,

from Secretary Mayorkas, DHS Secretary Mayorkas, in the end, they sort of gave up on the idea of trying to get state and local governments to abandon their sanctuary policies. At the beginning, they actually wanted it. Secretary Mayorkas said, hey, I want you to stop these sanctuary policies. Give us

the power to decide, us meaning ICE, the power to decide when we're going to enforce and when not. But that really didn't go anywhere. And that's the reason why most of these sanctuary policies remain in place, the ones that were put into effect during the Obama and first Trump administrations.

Hamed, let's talk about the scope and scale of immigration, immigrant detentions in California. I think a lot of people don't realize how central California is to this whole debate. In this state alone, ICE detains about 3,000 people each day and holds them in six facilities nationwide.

all of them run by private for-profit prison companies. That's the third largest population of detained immigrants in the country, am I right?

Yeah, I would say that, yes, but it's important to note that as jurisdictions, liberal, progressive jurisdictions have kind of pushed back on immigration detention, a lot of the immigration detention is now focused in the South, Southeast, places like Louisiana and

and Georgia and elsewhere. And it's a really interesting discussion as we move forward, whether or not these efforts to get rid of immigration detention in states like Illinois and elsewhere will take off or there will be a push to continue immigration detention.

Well, we've got a comment in from my old professor at UC Berkeley's J School or journalism school, Bill Drummond, who writes, quote,

I don't know if that's something you, Hamid, or Ahilan want to talk about. Yeah, I mean, I believe, and Ahilan and Francisco could correct me, but I believe there was an effort in the California legislation, California state politics, to try to get some sort of bill passed that

that would limit the folks who are in prison custody transferred to ICE, and that did not get signed by the governor. My understanding is that more of the serious offenders are in California prison custody, so that could be one reason why some folks in California political circles were more hesitant to

to limit that interaction with ICE, given the individuals and their criminal backgrounds, but I defer to Ahilan and Francisco who have more detailed knowledge on that.

I think that that's exactly right. Um, Hamid, we mentioned this carve out, right. For serious or violent felonies. Um, in, in other jurisdictions, there's some places where they don't, they don't have any carve out like that. Illinois, for example. Um, and they just say, we're not in the business of federal immigration enforcement period. And so we don't care what you're convicted of. You should do your time. And then you're treated just like everybody else who does their time. But in California, uh,

There have been multiple legislative fights about this, but California has consistently said, "We want to allow for people with serious or violent felonies to face deportation. We're going to funnel those people, or at least allow jurisdictions to funnel those people."

to immigration custom enforcement? I mean, I think it's a complicated question because, you know, as I said, there's a mountain of data on this and there is no evidence that doing that sort of programmatically actually decreases crime.

But on the other hand, you also understand the kind of impulse, whether you agree with it or not, you understand the impulse of people who say, hey, someone who's done some really terrible thing, we just want to expel them and kick them out of the country. It's kind of the same impulse which drives the death penalty sometimes, I feel. There's just a sort of visceral opposition to people who have done very bad things. And I feel like that's what that debate is about. It's not so much, I think, relevant to

The the the upcoming time where the Trump administration is talking about deporting people with no criminal history, people who committed committed very minor offenses and things like that. But that that I think is the core disagreement that's happened over that carve out for serious or violent felonies.

Well, a follow-up question here. Federal immigration authorities are reportedly looking for a potential new detention center within a two-hour drive of ICE's San Francisco field office. The effort actually began during the Biden administration. It doesn't look, Ahilan, like California has much leverage to stop this.

That's right. I mean, this is actually another litigated fight that the Trump administration and then the Biden administration won, which is they can build detention centers in California and legislation that tried to stop private immigration detention in California was struck down in the courts. So I think you're right that California's options are pretty limited when it comes to trying to stop detention.

the federal government's own efforts and they can, California can choose not to cooperate with those. But if the federal government wants to build a building and put an immigration prison in California, there's not a lot that can be done to stop it, at least as I understand it.

We're talking about how California is preparing to respond to the Trump administration's plans for mass deportation and its expected legal challenges to our state's sanctuary laws. And I wanted to give a

Enough time here to remind you all who we're talking to, which includes Ahilan Arolantham, faculty co-director for the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law. Hamid Al-Aziz, who covers the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Policy for The New York Times.

and Francisco Ugarte, managing attorney of the Immigration Defense Unit at the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender. Yes, that's a mouthful, but we still have time in this show to hear from you. What questions do you want to ask these experts on the front lines about California sanctuary laws and the fight that

or fights, plural, against the Trump administration in the coming four years. Email your comments and questions to forum at kqed.org. Of course, you can find us on Blue Sky, X, Facebook, Instagram, threads. We're at kqedforum.org.

Of course, you can find us on Discord. We're monitoring that as well. And, you know, the OG way, give us a call. Pick up that phone right now and call us at 866-733-6786. That's 866-733-6786. I'm Rachel Miro in for Mina Kim. You're listening to Forum. Don't touch that dial.

Support for Forum comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment. From wielding the power of the law to protect people's health, preserving magnificent places and wildlife, and advancing clean energy to combat climate change, Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer. Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Rachel Miro in for Mina Kim, and we are talking about California, its sanctuary cities, and the expected next four years fighting with the Trump administration's plans for mass deportation, primarily in the courts and prisons. Let's go to a call now, Robert in Santa Rosa. Hi, Robert. Hello. Thank you very much.

I'm a recently retired attorney, literally this past week, but I've been doing state administrative law hearings for 30 years in California, and I'm a member of the ACLU, and I would very much like to be involved as much as I can in the efforts in California. And I understand that it's a pretty limited leverage because of the recent decisions, but I'm wondering if your guests have

suggestions for how an unemployed attorney might be of some use in the process. Ahilan, do you want to take that on? In general, I know that nonprofit organizations

And I think not just nonprofits, I think legal service organizations like Francisco's definitely have a huge need for more legal expertise. And I feel saying that to somebody, I feel like I should say congratulations on your retirement. But instead of saying, you know, you should jump back into the fray. But, you know, as Francisco was suggesting, you know, there's not a

universal right to legal representation in immigration court for people facing deportation. And as a result, many, many people face deportation without a lawyer. And that's a very, very serious problem. And so one thing that nonprofits have done is tried to ramp up

you know, legal resource capacity. And I realize that it may be very difficult just to jump into like start representing people in immigration court, but there's a whole load of legal resource needs short of that. You know, know your rights presentations, trying to meet people when they're in custody, particularly when worksite raids happen, which is something the Trump administration has promised.

So those are some of my thoughts. I don't know if Francisco has others. Francisco? Yeah, Robert, let's talk after. And I will just say that your call is so inspiring to me because it reminds me of early 2017 when people came together to say, no, we're not going to let this happen. When the travel ban happened, millions of people went to the airports. There were volunteer attorneys to take removal cases there.

People are going to stand up, and this is again why I'm so confident that when facing massive flagrant human rights abuses that we as a people will be able to defend for fundamental human rights. This is a country with a Bill of Rights, with fundamental constitutional protections.

that this idea of mass deportation just flagrantly violates the intent of how we are to live. And I think lawyers in particular see this concept of a crazy intense consequence like deportation

which can disrupt permanently a family, economic disruptions, to think that there would be no legal process around that. Well, of course not. The Supreme Court said over and over again that immigrants have procedural due process rights.

You can't deport someone without judicial process. So there are rights. And Robert, we can talk after because I think there are a lot of mobilizations happening among lawyers and certainly taking on pro bono cases would be a great thing or getting involved in litigation. I know Ahlan will be very busy during the Trump administration. But thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that question, Robert. Why don't we go next to Colin in San Francisco? Hi, Colin. Thank you for joining us.

Good morning. Thoughts? Comments? My thoughts are about Dabrina Kawam, who is identified as the woman who was burned alive on the New York subway by a Guatemalan migrant who had already been ordered deported from the United States.

Doesn't the public have a right to be safe from those people? I mean, it doesn't seem to me that Trump was completely lying when he said that other countries are emptying their mental institutions and sending their mentally ill offenders here to be taken care of.

I also wonder if this is really the hill that the Democratic Party wants to go fight on. It just seems to me to be a failure to read the room.

And I'm really surprised that more mayors aren't following the lead of New York City's Mayor Eric Adams and actually pledging to work with the administration to make sure that violent offenders who do not have legal authority to be in the United States in the first place are removed.

Thank you for raising that question, Colin. Let's put it to Hamid. Hamid, is Colin Wright, are Democratic politicians and officials and lawyers here, especially in California, failing to read the room?

Well, I think it's certainly an interesting point. I mean, I think we saw with this election with President-elect Trump focusing on immigration, that brought him, you know, that was one of his main talking points on the campaign trail, and he won, obviously.

And, you know, you have to think that Democrats, they've already kind of turned a little bit more rightward on the immigration issue. You see with the Biden administration cracking down on the border in his last year in office, more Democrats are talking about the need to tighten the southern border. And cases like the ones that the caller mentioned, I think are ones that the Trump administration will look to highlight. And

as we move forward in the next few years, specifically cases in which an individual was released from a jail in San Francisco or another progressive jurisdiction, and they go on to commit a crime. And it'll be interesting at those points whether or not

the Democratic run cities will stick to those sanctuary policies or turn and try to cooperate more with ICE. I mean, we're seeing that with, like the caller mentioned, the mayor of New York City talking more aggressively about working with ICE and trying to collaborate with ICE on specific individuals who've committed specific crimes.

I think it's a really interesting issue, and I'm not sure where voters in places, even in San Francisco, where they fall on this issue alone. Very well put. Thank you for that answer. David writes, what about those who have already had a legal asylum hearing and were rejected but have not left the country? That is a lot of legal cases for not. What do your guests believe ought

Who do your guests believe ought to be deported? Anyone? I guess that's a question for you, Ahilan. Yeah, it's true that there are actually many, many people living in the United States with final removal orders.

And while some of those people probably didn't get a fair day in court because they weren't notified of the hearing properly or didn't have legal representation at it, there are definitely other people who did have all of the rights that Francisco was mentioning earlier and that our law provides, who nonetheless have not been enforced against.

And, uh, I do think that presents really complicated questions because, you know, on the one hand, you know, the, the immigration laws, uh, in those cases have been sort of satisfied and the law is that the government can remove that person. But on the other hand, many of those people are living in mixed status families, supporting children, you know, living productive lives, working because often the law provides for employment authorization, even after you have that. And many, um,

So-called dreamers, DACA holders are in that position. These are people who have finished higher education and are working productively, but they're living with a removal order. So I think it's a very deep and complicated question as to what federal policy should be towards people like that.

A listener tweets, imagine if millions of undocumented workers are deported, the U.S. economy would be severely damaged. Isn't this the time to push for legal work visas so the workers aren't exploited and don't have to live in fear? If these vital workers are deported, we will all pay.

Lynn in Riverside writes, what is the status of undocumented workers who live in an unincorporated area? I ask because there are many farm workers who live around us and our sheriff is very conservative. Francisco, you know, obviously you're in San Francisco, but any thoughts about Lynn's concern?

Yeah, I mean, just from a rational perspective, an economic perspective, the wealthier people that run our country probably don't have an interest in removing one of the most profitable workforces ever known to humanity.

And so I just, it's really hard to imagine that we'll see mass, we will probably see, the word has been invoked already, shock and awe, shock and awe type raids. There may be a workplace raid here or there. But to think that there would be systemic mass deportation in Afghanistan

you know, agricultural areas, places like that is pretty, would be hard to believe. Now, perhaps that will happen. We don't know. But in terms of protections, there are, there is a rapid response. You can Google it, ice rapid response in California. Every, virtually every county has a rapid response network.

that people can call and access legal services. You know, I want to go back to that question. I don't know if it's possible, the Collins question about the woman on the subway. You know, I'm a public defender. I represented someone accused of a homicide in San Francisco, the person who...

was accused of shooting Kate Steinle. And when I first took that case, I'll be honest, the evidence looked very grim and it looked like my client had actually committed cold-blooded murder. That's what the facts look like. That's what the news was reporting. And yet when we

when we investigated the case, eventually it turned out, well, this was just a awful accident. It was a long distance, single shot, ricochet from a gun that was fully loaded. And I took, that was a learning experience for me because all of the press seemed to focus, not on the physical evidence of the case, but on our client's birth place and status. And, and it, it

It was a reminder to me that when we talk about crime and we start talking about these immutable characteristics like where someone was born or some immigration status that has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case, there should be a moment of pause. Well, why are we doing that? And I think what has happened in our society has been immigrants, and this has happened for centuries, unfortunately,

take blame for things like crime. Whenever there's a crime perpetrated by an immigrant, that case tends to be reported in the press. Why? Because the person's an immigrant. If that was a different racial dynamic or something, perhaps the press wouldn't report quite like that.

And so I think that, you know, if you look at the stats, sanctuary cities are safer than non sanctuary cities. Violent crime in San Francisco, for example, has gone down since our implementation 2013 of the sanctuary ordinance. And without a doubt, there is a deep concern of crimes like that in the subway. Everyone can can feel, wow, that's real. How can we break down as a society like that? But then

We need to have rational responses and not rush to judgment and have a society that can truly acquire public safety.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Rachel Miro in for Mina Kim. And I'm thinking that this question from Jay kind of, you know, follows well after what you just said, Francisco, you know, which is we don't really have a strong sense. There's what plays in the press, but we don't really understand politics.

that much about this population of people who are with us and have been with us for many years. Jay writes, what percentage of undocumented workers are intending to become immigrants? And what percent are expecting to return home someday? The guests are talking about immigrants, but I assume many people are not intending to stay permanently. So I guess that's really a question for Ahilan and Hamid.

Do we know? Do we know the answer to that question? I don't think that there's, I'm not aware of detailed like survey data about that question, but two things I'll say, which I think feel relevant to it. One is there used to be a lot of what was called circular migration of people coming to the United States, working for a number of years and then going back home. And some of that was seasonal and

And then even if not seasonal, just, you know, sort of over a couple of years and then you go back and you come back for a couple of years because the southwest border was not so heavily militarized and controlled in the way it is now.

As that border became tighter, historically, it became harder and harder for that kind of immigration to happen. And that's how we ended up in the system we have today, where something like 70 or 80 percent of the undocumented people in this country have lived here for more than a decade. I've had many clients who lived here for 20 years, you know, and that's a product of the fact that they really, you know, once they come, if they go back, they're not going to be able to come back again very easily.

So I definitely think that there's that shift. And I think it suggests that the law influences the answer to that question, right? Like there's some people who probably might be inclined to go back or, you know, live a more sort of circular binational life. But our laws make it very difficult for people to do that. Haman? Yeah, I think Alan's right. There is no firm data on those specific questions. But I think it speaks to...

this idea that there are several million undocumented individuals in the United States, and we've long talked as a country whether or not Congress will come up with some sort of solution to this population, whether or not there would be a pathway to citizenship, whether or not there would be some effort to

afford individuals a chance at having some form of formal status. And that just has not happened.

And we continue to see conversations of we need immigration reform, there needs to be immigration reform, and yet Congress has not done anything, and it does not appear like there will be anything done. It's really interesting to see that despite kind of a call from voters on both sides for some form of change in Congress, nothing has been done in Washington, D.C. Okay. I...

I think you're right. I think you're right, Ahmed. I want to thank all of our guests for helping to shine a light and provide some detail and context for what is such a complicated topic. We've been talking today about how California is preparing to respond to the Trump administration's plans for mass deportation in the year ahead.

in the next four years. Thanks again to Hamid Ali-Aziz, who covers the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Policy for The New York Times. Ahilan Arulantham, faculty co-director for the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA's School of Law and former legal director of the ACLU of Southern California.

Francisco Ugarte, managing attorney of the Immigration Defense Unit at the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender. And earlier we were joined by Daryl Steinberg, former mayor of Sacramento. This has just been a fabulous conversation and I do thank you all.

This hour of forum has been produced by Caroline Smith, Mark Nayeto, and Dan Zoll. Francesca Fenzi is our digital community producer. Jennifer Ng was our engagement producer this week. Susie Britton is lead producer. Our engineers are Danny Bringer, Brendan Willard, Catherine Monaghan, and Jim Bennett.

Our intern is Brian Vo. Katie Sprenger is the operations manager of KQED Podcasts. Our vice president of news is Ethan Tovin-Lindsey, and our chief content officer is Holly Kernan. I'm Rachel Miro in for Mina Kim. Thank you so much for joining us on this hour of Forum.

Funds for the production of Forum are provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Generosity Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Support for Forum comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment.

From wielding the power of the law to protect people's health, preserving magnificent places and wildlife, and advancing clean energy to combat climate change, Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer. Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org.