tv DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Discussion on Immigration CSPAN April 30, 2021 3:02pm-4:04pm EDT
repair, restore, and heal. the american people elected a 50/50 senate, a closely divided house, and a president who preached moderation. he promised with his whole soul, he was committed to uniting our people. many hoped his administration >> you can watch the rest of this program at our website, c-span.org. we will take you live to hear from dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas. he's talking about immigration policy. live coverage on c-span. >> the center's mission is to conduct meaningful inquiry into our current immigration laws and policies as we consider how they might be adjusted and improved. building on our expertise and our deep roots in the community, the center has been a critical and set for committee
organizations, lawyers, policymakers, and experts throughout california and the nation. these partnerships were made essential in the years ahead with issues related to immigration occupying a central place in the national agenda. i would like to give a warm welcome today to the united states secretary, alejandro mayorkas. with the administration's plan, we are grateful you made us time to join us at this event. i worked closely on immigration issues with one of your predecessors when she was uc president. i look forward to working closely with you as well. we hope to host the on campus in person soon and to collaborate on important issues of mutual concern. i am now pleased to introduce the dean of the ucla school of law. she has led our lascaux since 2015, also a leading scholar and the founder and faculty
codirector of our program on understanding law, science, and evidence. i am happy not to turn the program over to her. thank you. >> thank you so much, chancellor. thank you for those welcome remarks, and for joining us today and supporting our law school program, including of course the center for innovation, law and policy. as dean of ucla law school, i get to do a lot of terrific things, a lot of fun things. today's introduction of the guests certainly rank high among those. is my great -- it's my great pleasure to introduce dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas. he assumed his post three months
ago and has already been at the center of a number of decisions that have usually impacted the lifes of refugees in the united states. -- lives of refugees and they netted sites. he is the first latino to serve in this position. his background, and addition to his decades -- in addition to his decades of experience. secretary mayorkas and his family were refugees when he was a child. he and his family eventually settled in los angeles, where he grew up. he attended beverly hills high, uc berkeley, and went to law school. in 1998, he was appointed u.s. attorney to the central district of california by president
clinton. then under president obama, he servedas a director of u.s. citizenship and immigration, later as deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. he also spent a substantial amount of time and practice during his career -- in practice during his career. for those of us in the audience, his last name might ring a bell. if that is true, you are thinking about the mayorkas name, you are onto something. his sister is indeed our much beloved and the retired -- although she's been helping out around the law school -- the one and only kathy mayorkas. she ran the loss over many years. any member of the mayorkas family is welcome here at ucla law school. it is my pleasure to welcome secretary alejandro mayorkas. thanks so much ribbing with us
today -- for being with us today. sec. mayorkas: thank you. it is an honor to speak with everyone and to frankly participate here at ucla. it is my pride to follow in the shadow of the one and only kathy mayorkas. so thank you so much. >> mr. secretary, before we begin, i want to thank you again. it is truly unusual and important that you are willing to come here and have this conversation with me. we greatly appreciate that. we did have a discussion with your staff and shared some of the topics in advance. as adjusted also may be even sharing some of the questions, and you rejected those, saying you wanted the conversation to be free-flowing and organic. let me jumping, if that's ok with you. >> i look forward to it.
thank you. >> you tweeted, "the united states provided me and my family refuge. now i'm going to be the dhs secretary to protect americans and those who flee prosecution and search for a better life for them and their loved ones." i was almost brought to tears when i read that. i was born here, but i'm also from a refugee community. it was extraordinary to hear that kind of statement coming from the dj secretary. -- dhs secretary. my parents would most likely be expelled nowadays under title 42. can you give us a timeframe as to when that might end, or what
metrics might be used to determine one title 42 expulsion will end? sec. mayorkas: let me start by assuring you and everyone that the use of title 42 is not a source of pleasure, but rather frankly a source of pain. but it is something that is condoned by the reality that we are building an asylum system in a covert environment -- covid environment, and we have other challenges, as well. regarding operational capabilities for asylum laws. i can assure you our reliance on title 42, the expulsion authority, in a public health
imperative, our timeline is as quickly as possible. quite frankly, your old employer, the american civil liberties union, is suing us for our use of title 42 and has given us an opportunity, not much of an opportunity, i should say. frankly and nobly, so, to manage through the pandemic, while pushing the limits of our asylum cap abilities to the maximum. -- asylum capabilities to the maximum. as soon as possible. >> that is very helpful, your thinking on that. it seems are two things you are talking about in terms of when the u.s. would be ready.
one is about the ability to process asylum-seekers. the other is to rebuild the system you say the trump administration dismantled. the other seems to be about coronavirus, public of considerations. are there other metrics you can look to for either of those? for example, for the latter. go ahead. sec. mayorkas: let me explain. because they both contribute to the public health imperative. what we are managing is the -- we are managing against the restrictions on congregant processing. we cannot have individuals in close proximity to one another in a very condensed space for and extended period of time, by reason of the pandemic. so that is a public health imperative. and white the dismantled -- and why the dismantlement of the
process is relevant to the public health imperative is, we have a system of people, personnel were moved, promises were changed, policies were changed, and so, in a dismantled environment, there is a greater likelihood of individuals in close proximity to one another for a longer period of time. as we rebuild the efficiencies we once implement and and enjoyed, the covid pandemic is more looming. that's just the reality of it. >> that makes sense. i assume over time, schools will reopen, indoor dining, people going to basketball games inside of stadiums. as those things open more and more, presumably the risk associated with what you are talking about, people having to
be socially distanced and these facilities, would decrease. -- in these facilities, would decrease. do you know when title 42 would end then? sec. mayorkas: it is a fact specific inquiry. but there's no intention, there is no intention to use the cdc's title 42 authority for a day longer than the public health imperative requires. what we have done, quite frankly, and i think it is something to remember, is we have made a decision to put more pressure on ourselves because of what we consider to be humanitarian imperative. and that is to not exercise our title 42 authority, the cdc's title 42 authority with respect to unaccompanied children. what -- what that has done is
created a tremendous amount of pressure, as we process those children through our system. and through a system that we are rebuilding post-dismantlement. and the pressure of congregant space, as we have seen through very powerful and heart wrenching victors. it's put a greater strain on us. but we drew a line in the humanitarian environment, that this we just cannot do. >> i watched the press conference and saw someone say to you, this is just a trump policy, and you said no, because we are not applying it to children. we are not going to expel unaccompanied children into the desert. it's not who we are. i found that also extremely moving. having represented children, i want to talk to you about now, since 2014, i found that also be
removing -- as you say, i want to ask you about something specific to that, thousands of children coming. dhs is also putting those children into removal receiving. in 2014, when we had a similar situation, that led to a lot of unrepresented children going to immigration court, without legal representation. and tens of thousands of them were ordered removed and abstention. -- in absentia. i assume you were not happy to see that that she would not be happy to see that. do you have thoughts as to how you would present a similar situation from happening now? sec. mayorkas: we are very focused on the well-being of those children, not only as we process them to hhs then unite them with their parents, or other sponsors here in the u.s., but also with respect to their rights to seek relief, either in
our asylum system for through -- or through the court process any special juvenile status. -- in a special juvenile status. consider the processing of children without counselors on except it will. we are focused on not only doing everything we can -- unacceptable. we are focused on not only doing everything we can on them attaining counsel, but also you will see us promulgate policies that impose upon our own lawyers the obligation of caring for the rights of the children, who are on the other set of the courtroom. our responsibility is to do justice, and to do justice for the unrepresented, as well. and when a child is unrepresented, what that means for a government lawyer is not
by any stretch and easier case, for quite the contrary, a more difficult case, because now not only must we insure the rights and obligations of the government are adequately addressed, but the rights and access to relief for the children are adequately presented to the court. that is as much our obligation as anything. as a matter of fact, we cannot fulfill the government's response abilities without ensuring the rights of the child are well represented. and therefore, government has a lot more to do. >> i thought you were saying at one point that you were assuring us that children would not be forced to proceed without representation. in immigration court. perhaps you were saying that it is the duty -- you want it to be the duty of the prosecuting
attorney to protect the rights of the child. can you clarify that? sec. mayorkas: i'm sorry if i wasn't clear. the law is not as it is currently applied. you know this very well. that an immigration proceeding, with respect to a child, cannot proceed, unless that child is represented. and so, we will work with organizations, with institutions, both public and private, to do everything we can to make sure that a child is represented, very often by community-based organizations, kind, for example, gives defense through law clinics through pro bono counsel and the like. but when a child is otherwise
not represented, then it is the obligation of government counsel to make sure that the arguments that a child might have in furtherance of relief are actually presented to the court. >> you mentioned special immigrant juvenile status earlier. incredibly important -- and incredibly important form of relief. -- an incredibly important form of relief. a huge number of children coming here to our borders had one or both parents completely drop out of their lives, which is awful, but also creates a possible avenue for release for special immigrant juvenile status. but you have to go to state court to get that. one of the things i noticed, when litigating this issue just several years ago, is that it just never happens, that the unrepresented child has some person go to state court. it's inconceivable that an under
present a child could do that. -- an underrepresented child could do that. it's something perhaps for you to think about. it is something of to -- of deep concern. a lot of them require absent representation. mr. secretary, you could require it if you wanted it to. [laughter] sec. mayorkas: i'm not sure i understand. i understand the problem of children not represented in the court. are you focused on the fact that they are not led into that court, because counsel is not there to steer them in that direction? or is at the fact that they are
not represented in the court? >> you mentioned kind, there's a number of organizations. they go to state court to get the order needed for the state court judge to verify that the child has been abused or neglected by one or both parents. if you don't have a lawyer, if you are an unrepresented child, you don't have a lawyer to get that order, then it is unavailable to you. if it's unavailable to you, then the humanitarian lies meaningless that congress established. it seems you cannot actually protect children and the situation without guaranteed representation. that seems like it or something the dhs would have the power to decide. to choose only to proceed against those children who are represented and put the ones that are under-represented at the back of the line. sec. mayorkas: that is a profound policy question that quite frankly i have not delved into, which is really, i feel what you are saying is to not
pursue the removal of a child who is unrepresented, because the rights of that child will not necessarily have been advanced, because in the immigration court, i think we can address that through responsible government counsel, but what you are saying is there's a whole other revenue that may not necessarily -- avenue that may not necessarily be excluded in the best sense of the term. -- avenue that may not necessarily be exploited, in the best sense of the term. that is something i need to look at. >> just knowing you and the way you have led things, it gives me great comfort to hear you say that. because i know that you will. let's move on. i want to talk about temporary protected status little. i know it is a little complicated. i still represent the negation about that. we will run a conference here on
national tv. but i want to see if there's anything new that can be said. if not. the president's campaign website, which is still up, joebiden.com, says he would order an immediate review of the trump-era terminations. we are talking about 400,000 people. most of home have lived here for more than 20 years lawfully. 700,000 american-born children, many of them are school-age. and they are nervous. i talk to these people regularly. as part of the case. they wonder if that promise is going to be kept, because it's been 100 days. can you say anything? is there anything you can say to
reassure them whether the president will keep that promise? sec. mayorkas: i appreciate both the acknowledgment of the constraint and also the acknowledgment of the gravity of the issue and to the needs of the people. so, the administration, we have taken some actions with respect to temporary protected status. -- protective status. there are other nations with residents here in the u.s. who are seeking tps. all i can say is that the country can -- the country conditions are very much under review. that review was ongoing with respect to the countries that are higher profile than others. haiti, a powerful example. and some countries that quite friendly may not necessarily be similarly on the radar, but we are taking a look at, whether it
is cameroon, or mara tanya, -- mauritania, or others. we are very thank full of the campaign promises, but more fundamentally, we are very mindful of the fact that the conditions in those countries deserve our close review, and that review was well underway. >> thank you. thank you. let me switch gears a little bit. we had a panel one week ago on activists. it what sort of centered around this film called "infiltrators," a fabulous film. a past documentary sort of fiction about these undocumented activists during the obama administration who deliberately got them subs arrested to go into detention centers in order to document there were people there with no criminal histories
. then the from -- then the film came out, and the trump administration targeted people, activists, for deportation, including one of the people in the film. mr. rojas. he was under supervision, checking in for a long period of time, then was deported suddenly even though nothing had changed. were talking about hundred of thousands of people. but there are think at least dozens of people who were immigrant activists who were targeted for deportation, very clear that it was in this case retaliation for promoting the film. have two questions for you about this. the first one, i saw people toda y protesting outside the white house, immigrant activists, can
you assure people that the new administration is not going to retaliate against people? they will move them up in the line, if they speak out against immigrant rights? sec. mayorkas: let that be the easiest question that you asked me. and the time that we have together, of course -- in the time that we have together, of course. that is on except it will. we should probably delve into something more difficult, which is the the detention system itself. retaliation and response of the constitutionally protected right of free speech, and the civic obligation to protest government positions with which one disagrees, that is just on except a vote. -- unacceptable. frankly, i find other aspects of
the detention system to be unacceptable. the bases of detention, i grew up in my government service as a federal prosecutor. we had two bases on which to seek the custody of an individual, pending the disposition of criminal charges. direct public safety, or risk of flight. those seem like reasonable predicates for the the tension of an individual -- detension of an individual in a civil proceeding. i don't know why we approach it so differently. i think that the public will see detention policies promulgated in relatively short order from this day forward that speak to
significant and much-needed reform. >> i will definitely take you up on your offer to talk about detention with you. i will do it in just one second here. let me just ask one more question about this issue about the activists. i think for me, it has sort of outside importance given the number of people involved, because i think when people can protest, when they can protest freely, it creates all kind of political space and momentum, which may not otherwise exist. [indiscernible] the infiltrators. now we've got the situation where there are people who are abroad. like this guy, rojas, his wife and children live in florida and he is in argentina. in contexts like family separation, the administration has greeted processes whereby the office -- i think it is your office or an office related,
some very powerful set of people -- are reviewing cases. would you be something to reviewing cases of potential retaliation, something like that? bringing back people who were victimized to parole or some other mechanism? because i would send the message that what you just for does. that message israel. >> truth be told, when you made that point with respect to the community of people who were the victims of retaliation or reportedly the victims of retaliation, i do owe to my colleagues in the department to give them a due process with respect to the basis of the removal. i have not delved into the evidence. i do believe in doing so. but to speak with michelle brian a, the brilliant and extraordinarily talented and
visual who joined the task force to reunify families to speak with her about the community of people who might have claims of retaliation and to see if we can look into those in our overarching effort. >> i greatly appreciate that. >> i will make decisions on the evidence and i believe in process. i do believe in giving the agency the opportunity to communicate facts it believes and we will take it from there. i don't shy from difficult decisions. >> let's talk about the tension. -- detention. >> let meet there was a rally in georgia yesterday. i think you heard about this. the president reference there was protesters and the president
reference desired and all private attention. the executive order to and criminal systems with her is not one currently on private immigration detention. is that something you would favor? >> that is something iot the president to deliberate internally before speaking externally. >> we had a panel on detention as well in the first week. it even included a former obama administration official who worked on detention. starting with public, no one would defend it on public safety grounds. the basic reason for that is that the people who were coming they're coming there as public safety threats have all finished serving their time in prison.
so, if they were born in the u.s., the approach of the law would be to reintegrate this person back into society. give them the support they need to survive. obviously, it is not always work that way. that is just the theory. it seems like just because they are born abroad, they don't get that and that seems unfair. it also seems like an odd public safety rationale. if you are a citizen, do this thing. if you are a non-citizen, do this thing. i know you disagree with this. >> fundamentally so. asked want to give you in opportunity to tell us your views. >> i can bring it to life through a real case. let me just ask a question. so, an individual, a single male
enters the country unlawfully, without a legal basis as laws currently stand. seven years ago. commits a series of crimes. some are quite violent. does his time. by reason of the fact that he is in his time, is he allowed to stay here in the united states? is it the proposition? >> no. i would say that the fact that the fact that they created -- committed the crime does not mean that they should be detained. >> ok, a detention specific issue. they should be released until such time as they are removed? >> whether or not they should be released should turn on whether they are a risk of flight and a
risk of flight that cannot be satisfied through other methods, not whether or not -- the public safety threat to this person poses is not different from the threat than the person next them in the cell who was born here and come to the same crime has the same offenses. >> that is because we cannot detain. let me just articulate my view. let me indeed ring it to life. an individual enters the united states unlawfully without a legal basis in the ports of entry at the age of 19. commits a misdemeanor sex offense. does a short. of time and is not removed and why they are not removed, i don't know the facts.
but, did a short. of time. commits a second misdemeanor sex offense the matter of 24 months within release. does more time. is not removed. reasons, i don't understand. and then, within 24 months of that release commits a felony, sex offense. the forced portal on -- prolonged penetration of a 14-year-old girl. a rape. that individual does their time. i will not release that individual pending removal proceedings. because, i have an obligation number one, to enforce the law and number two, to enforce the law and the service of public safety.
i might not have the opportunity in the criminal justice system to continue the incarceration of the individual if the individual was a united states citizen because that individual completed with the law provides. i have a tool at my disposal with respect to an individual who unlawfully entered the country, who was recidivist, and who in fact poses a significant threat to public safety because there is no evidence whatsoever of an intention not to commit a fourth offense. i will protect the public. by the way, that individual tends not to victimize minors in bel air and in devil hills, but in the very immigrant community
that we all serve. i must tell you i feel strongly about this. it is a tool that i have at my disposal. it is a tool i feel obligated to employ for the reasons i have articulate it. none of us on this call would want that individual residing in an apartment two doors down from our residence as we kiss our child, as the child leaves the residence to walk to school. and yes, there is a distinction between a united states citizen who commits offenses and what the law provides and an individual who enters our country unlawfully and commits serious offenses and poses a continuing threat to public safety. >> something tells me that i am not going to persuade you.
>> i have been passionate about other issues and have been persuaded that i am aaron in my direction of my passion. strong does not necessarily mean close minded. you have a hill to climb here. >> i completely appreciate that. i think my preference would be to say, let's agree to disagree on the case you described and whether it is justified in that instance to treat -- >> i would love to hear your reasoning. i did not find it persuasive that the reasoning that well, that is not how we handle a
recidivist u.s. citizen who has had multiple conflicts. i do not find that persuasive. >> to me, there is a judge to sentence that person. the judge operating under criminal laws who created by the people of whatever state that state believed within the constraint of that law that would be the appropriate sentence. one of our panelists that week who now quite effectively and quite extraordinarily advocate for asian americans advocating justice. she spent 16 years in prison for an offense related to a murder and six months in immigration detention. and then a judge thought that she deserved a second chance and they were right. to me, that is the argument for it. i don't -- i understand --
>> this individual could be removed. >> right. understood. i guess my thought is i totally understand that people could have a view as to these sort of cases. the dangers we have seen sometimes in the past, and you take lily horton and you end up with mass incarceration. you take the example of sex offenders, murderers, and things like that and you end up with a system with the mindset of being detained is dangerous when they lived in the community for 20 years without committing offense or people arrested for drug-related offenses and things like that. i guess my thought is in these priorities, i know your department has created an attempt to focus on narrow it to
these most extreme cases. >> you make a very, important point. and i want to echo it if i may. i won't disagree with you about the overuse of detention. the miss categorization of individuals as public safety threats when i would judge differently and now in a position to execute on my judgment. those, i think are very different things. in the case that i presented and the rationale that i presented versus an individual and we reviewed this 24 hours ago. an individual who is been in immigration attention for over 500 days and has not had any
encounter with the criminal justice system paired that is a misuse of detention in my opinion. the enforcement guidelines by the way our interim to date because they were, gated before my arrival. i work to revise them, but they remain interim guidance and i will be engaging with the workforce and i will be engaging with the different voices in the communities to propagate the final -- finalize the guidance. including guidance that defines the use of detention for when it is appropriate to serve public safety interests. thank you. i look forward -- >> i look forward to seeing it. let's switch gears. race this commission nation --
race this coming nation is a particular interest on this policy. obviously, it's been at the front of many people's minds in the recent past. i was struck by president biden after the conviction of derek chauvin. he said something similar yesterday, but he said we must confront systemic racism in the criminal justice system. he called it a stand on our nation's soul. ice enforcement, some of what you have been defending, though not the way you have defended, though a lot of ice enforcement relies on those criminal systems to make pipelines to detention and deportation. it does seem particularly harsh on black immigrant spirit they are at 7% of the immigrant of the population but they make up
20% of the criminal deportations. how do you think about this problem? >> i had a very thoughtful discussion, a provocative discussion with advocates in new york city about this issue. just a couple of days ago on wednesday. i think we have an obligation within our limitation and i will speak on that in a moment. do not perpetuate the injustices that really are in the criminal justice system. that we do not perpetuate them because in fact, we do rely and maybe not in the case that i identified, but we do rely on criminal justice records and making our public safety
determinations that drive our immigration enforcement into action. . we do inherent criminal justice system for better or for worse in many of the decisions that we make. we have an obligation to not fetch with the infirmities in the state. at the same time, we do have some limitations. so, i receive every week reports of apprehensions. they are numerous. we do not have the capacity to investigate every criminal conviction and individual and removal proceedings who has been apprehended has had to determine
whether that criminal conviction is born of or in fact is racism. we don't have the resources to do that. we can't do a 2255 proceeding in every case. but, if there is evidence of infirmity, then i think we have an obligation to delve further into it. how to operationalize that it's up to us to figure out. >> a 2255 is away to check if there is a defect in the underlying conviction. it's very heartening for me to hear that you see that as upper preparation is a problem. i think that is a very important -- i understand it is important
if you have all of the resources it might be difficult in many cases to figure out individually and individual level that the racism had affected the process. what you think about doing it whether the jurisdiction has been targeted perhaps by the doj in which there are problems and whether systemically to doj or through other entities? i'm thinking in arizona from back in 2010, but you can imagine other situations like this to, ferguson police department was investigate by the doj. one idea to me is that i can choose not to rely on criminal convictions from the state system as a pipeline. where there is a jurisdiction
which is been found to have these kinds of problems. >> i have not thought about it. it seems sweeping. it seems quite sweeping and my visceral reaction to that an immediate one i should say is too sweeping and interestingly, i don't know that the department of justice but it is undertaken the investigation of a police department has found problems and has entered into a consent to agree with the police department whether it has as a matter of course then to determine that for the. of time it investigated and determined that he to peak -- the police apartment was afflicted with fundamental problems that it would look at
all of the criminal convictions that were born of the police work of that department during the relevant time frame. i don't think they have done that. for reasons i can well understand. for those very same reasons, i think such a rule would be to sweeping. i think that we would need to figure out how we protect the immigration system from perpetuating problems in the criminal justice system. my effect is to not figure out those problems in isolation but to figure them out in collaboration with voices such as yours. >> i appreciate that.
i admit, yeah it is a problem. we had just a few minutes left. let me shift gears slightly. it's sort of in the same sphere. local law enforcement, sane choice it is, the relationship between state and local entities. you recorded in the washington times but i'm not totally sure the way it was written was accurate. it was written that one of your significant priorities was to educate to the officials on sanctuary city policies that meant -- a much or that's what it said. is that your goal to end sane tory and if so the massey's other questions. >> this'll be a return to a point we previously discussed in
some way. here is my approach. the dialogue is so infected by the challenges of secure communities and i think the view that many that the priority enforcement program, that succeeded it was an old wine in a new bottle. here is my fundamental view and this will not be received in anonymity, i had that 26-year-old single male that describe with the two misdemeanor defense -- offenses is in custody. it is in state custody. i did not believe that
individual should be released into the community so that ice fugitive operations have to go into the community to find him, apprehend him, and place them in detention pending removal. i think that the state facility it should turn that individual over to ice rightly. i think that is a public safety meet. -- i think that is a public safety need. i think that is a cooperation that should be achieved and it is my responsibility to see that cooperation modeled and if the same time, and the relationship that are pernicious or survey pernicious need. i think we can do both. >> adding that relates to my
half made earlier point that you don't want to use lily horton a basis for making public policy. i worry a little about that at this the person in our head as we think about all the policy that should happen, that it can be distorted. i think it is a great way to think about that and illustration of that. there have been empirical studies about whether secure communities actually decreases crime. i looked at several and they are very rigorous. nbc's -- it has no effect on crime or public safety which suggests that the person you describe is extreme we ramp of the judgment of whether there actually a threat may actually be extremity difficult to make. the harmful effect of deportation that harms the children, not the one you describe, but someone who does have children, that tears apart
the family, that is bad for the community. the net effect of it is actually a wash. i guess my question is are you aware, would data matter and this conversation? with that make a difference that ? >> could you imagine of isa data did not matter? [laughter] the real answer is, isn't the real answer that an element of the cancer is that we don't make decisions in individual cases based on kata coral -- categorical assumptions. rather we make decisions and individual cases based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
do we exercise our discretion wisely and appropriately in an individualized matter? isn't that the way we need to go? and all too often, by the way i was a prosecutor in the time of united states sentencing deadlines that were guidelines that were mandatory and they made categorical decisions and i encountered many instances where those guidelines created injustices. tragic injustices. we need to move to a more individualized determination model in the immigration arena. >> yeah, i think in that context we were talking about an ice agent trying to work with a jail or someone who is arrested and having that person make detailed particularized assessments, in my experience in seven car lot
-- 70 point, but the not always come out right. that may be the reason why i go back to it, but we know that if you deport a person you take them out of the community. it is a complicated question. secretary, i think that given the television requirements that would cut off right at one, maybe somebody can correct me if i am wrong. we are actually out of time. is that right? do have time for one more question? >> i think you might have time for one more quick question . >> i look forward to part two. >> i'm so grateful for you to do this. i think it is an extraordinary time for transparency and it is just remarkable somebody who is a dhs secretary has so much
knowledge on so many issues that i don't know about that i have to ask you. it is extraordinary could you have been willing to do this. i hope it would be something that government officials would do if they had your knowledge. lastly i had to say is very quickly, we filed a brief in the supreme court about the greek -- illegal reentry statute. and its origin was enacted and then reenacted in 1929, and then again in 1952. it was a mechanism of white supremacy. it was to keep out mexicans because they would dilute the racial stock of united states. i know you litigated those cases, either send them. i had no idea of its history at all. my last question to you is that is that something that you heard of? what a change or views in which that statute should be used? >> i am not familiar with that
history at all. i believe in the use of 1326, i don't know to 1325 as well. i know one element of 1326 was the element of an individual having criminal liability or illegal reentry into the united states following the removal subsequent to a felony conviction. that is the area that i am involved in and of course, if the individual whom i described had been removed in between one of the misdemeanor offenses and one of the felony offenses, i would've thought to use that statute. i was not aware of its racist origins. those statutes should be used quite advisedly and certainly not in a way they were used over the past four years. >> i'm going to jump in here
with an enormous thank you to both secretary mayorkas and the host. just a terrific discussion. senator merritt, thank you for taking time out of your schedule. thank you to both of you for participating in a tremendously important conversation about these issues and for the transparency and engagement of this conversation has provided good thank you everybody tuning in pursuit -- purchase bedding in this event. if you're watching, and forget that the ucla law school summit conference continues with another group of panels. and another one next week. these join us for those and please join us in giving them a terminus run of appreciation for being the best today. >> thank you. thank you everybody. >> thank you. >> book tv on c-span2 as top
books and authors every weekend. saturday at 9 p.m. eastern, university professor talks about his book breaking the social media prism, how to make our platforms less polarizing. sunday at noon eastern on indefinite live conversation was historian craig shirley. his book includes reagan rising, citizen, and owing ball washington. on afterwards, cindy mccain talks about life over late husband john mccain in her book stronger. she is interviewed by former u.s. senator joseph lieberman. >> american history tv on c-span three. exploring the people and events that tells the american story every weekend.
saturday at 8 a.m. eastern. megan history tv and washington journal host a live study session for high school students preparing to take a push test. live sunday at 9 a.m., on american history tv and washington journal, we will look back 50 years on the spring of 1971 when tens of thousands of anti-vietnam war protesters converged on washington dc with lawrence roberts, author of mayday 1971. a white house at war. revolt industries, and the untold history of america's mass arrest. exploring the american story. watch american history tv. this weekend on c-span3. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> up next. west virginia senator and virginia democrat senator tim crane. they answer questions on bipartisanship in congress. presidents joint address to congress, the january 6 attack on the capital and other house and senate agenda items. the institute of democracy is the host. it is about one hour. >> good morning everyone. my name is jim ryan. and the president of uva and i am delighted to welcome you to the second installment of the democracy dialog which is cosponsored by my office and uva's institute