 OK, ladies and gentlemen, thanks for being here today. You are at the Office for the Advancement of Research's book talk on policing immigrants, local law enforcement on the front lines. So I'm guessing by the fact that you're all staying in your seats, that you're in the right place, which is good. Today's book talk features two of the four authors of this book, Doris Marie Provin, who is a professor emerita of justice and social inquiry at Arizona State University, and Monica Varsani, who is a professor of political science, a now full professor of political science here at John Jay College, and a professor of geography at the CUNY Graduate Center. And criminal justice. And criminal justice. OK, good to know. This particular talk is very special to me because Professor Varsani was a member of my own doctoral committee. So I'm very pleased to have both she and Professor Praveen here as foundational scholars in a field that I would call immigration. They may not call it that, but I would call it that. Which is the study of the many and increasing intersections between criminal justice and immigration policy, especially immigration enforcement. These two scholars approach the study from slightly different perspectives that turn out to be highly complementary. Professor Praveen as a scholar, as a political scientist, and a scholar of civic membership. And Professor Varsani as a geographer and a scholar of migration. The book they have written might be called prophetic, given what's happened in the year since its release. But it's really just good social science. The policies, practices, and attitudes that this book describes all took place during the Obama administration. What we have today is, in many ways, an extension and enlargement of something that was built under previous administrations. And it's important not to forget that and think that what we're experiencing right now and we have experienced for the past year in terms of immigration policies is brand new. It is not. And I think, I look forward to hearing what Professor Varsani and Professor Praveen have to say about the ways that these policies and practices take place at the local level with local law enforcement. Welcome them all today. Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for coming. It's really a delight to see all of you out there, especially some of my students who just suffered through a midterm, like literally 15 minutes ago. So thank you for being here. I just wanted to start us off today by talking about how this project first came to be. I was originally an assistant professor in the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at Arizona State University where my colleague Marie was the director of the program. She hired her, wasn't that brilliant? Yeah, she hired me. Thank you, thank you. And we couldn't figure out why we were at this meeting. We were just talking about it, but we were at a meeting in a church of various immigrants. And they were talking about this and that. And then one of the women and then a few other people piped in as well were discussing how they had difficulties driving to work in Phoenix, in the city of Phoenix. Because as they drove to work, they had to drive through several jurisdictions. They had to drive through Maricopa County as well as the city of Phoenix. And at this time, the city of Phoenix had more of what we might call a sanctuary kind of orientation towards its immigrant population. So the local law enforcement, the local police in that city were not interested in doing immigration enforcement. But right outside of the city of Phoenix, we had Sheriff Joe Arpaio doing his thing in Maricopa County. And if any of you have not heard about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, we'll talk about him a little bit later. But suffice it to say, he called himself America's toughest sheriff and was sort of hung his reputation on being one of the toughest immigration enforcers in the country. And he lived up to that reputation to some level. So these women who were speaking at this meeting had to drive to work very conscious of whether they were literally driving through Maricopa County, the streets of Maricopa County, which is the county that Phoenix is located inside of, or whether they were driving through the streets of Phoenix. Because depending on which city or jurisdiction they were driving in, they would be facing different law enforcement. And both the Phoenix PD and Maricopa County sheriffs had vastly different enforcement policies towards their immigrant communities. So this, we heard this. And we thought, well, this is very strange. We have two jurisdictions that are literally overlapping one another with vastly different immigration enforcement policies. And this is what kicked off this project. Now it's about 10 years ago, right? Shortly after we were at that meeting, we invited our co-authors to join the project, who are Scott Decker and Paul Lewis. I'm sorry they couldn't be here today. And this project really got kicked off at a time when the federal government, actually laws that were passed in 1996, enabled this. But it wasn't until the mid-2000s that the localities throughout the country started to grow interested in participating. And at that time, what were called 287G agreements. And what 287G agreements were was this invitation by the federal government to localities, so cities, counties, et cetera, to start participating in immigration enforcement. But when this came about, sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, nobody knew what was going on. There was no kind of knowledge about how this was going to impact communities, how this was going to impact law enforcement. And a lot of people were asking questions, like, should we do this? Should we not do this? Should we partner with the federal government? Should we not partner with the federal government? We just don't know. So this is where this project got its origins, was in this moment, and particularly when we were living, Marie still lives in Phoenix, but when I was living in Phoenix at the time. So our three questions, where's our clicker here? Is this working? Is it not working? So when we developed this project, we had three basic guiding questions. And on the whole, this project was funded by a number of smaller sources, but on the large by two National Science Foundation grants. And the questions that we put forward in our grant applications and that we tried to have motivate our research were the following. How has local law enforcement responded to pressure, both from the federal government and from communities as well, to more actively engage in enforcing federal immigration law? So lots of local police, again, and sheriffs were not only facing pressures from the federal government to start doing this enforcement. And at the time this project started, this was under George W. Bush. And but very quickly after that under President Obama. But also local communities were pressuring their law enforcement agencies to start getting involved in this realm. And again, they were wondering how is this going to impact their law enforcement mandate and the communities that they lived in. We were curious, just at a very basic level, to try to understand what approaches were being taken in this realm and why different approaches were being taken in different locations. Why were certain communities deciding to do immigration enforcement, whereas other ones were rejecting it vehemently? And why were other communities not really engaging at all in the issue? So what were communities doing and why? And what were law enforcement agencies doing and why? And finally, the sort of major question is what were the outcomes of the decisions that were being taken at the local level? If a community did decide to engage in immigration enforcement at the local level, what were the impacts on law enforcement and on immigrant communities in those places? If communities decided not to, like New York City, and to become what are called, I mean, they're called sanctuary ordinances with air quotes around them, cities often prefer to be called non-cooperation cities or cities where there are non-cooperation ordinances. They're not cooperating with the federal government. Well, if they decide to do that, what then are the outcomes of this? So these were the three major questions that were guiding our research in this project. How have local law enforcement responded? What approaches were they taking and why? And then what were the outcomes of these decisions? And with that, I will hand it over to my wonderful colleague. Hey, first of all, I wanted to say thank you so much for coming here late in the afternoon. And I see a lot of students here. And one thing I've learned in my years of teaching is that students are often kind of reluctant to ask professors questions at events like this, especially when we're telling you all the stuff that we did research on. But I hope you will be thinking about things that you think are important that are related to this and be thinking about questions to ask us, because that happens to be my very favorite part of a presentation anyway. Not so much telling you, but hearing what your questions are and responding as well as we can to them. So be thinking about saying something soon. And let me just tell you how we're going to organize things. Monica and I are going to kind of pass the baton back and forth. But we're going to tell you a little bit about our findings. And then we're kind of starting with the large scale and moving to case studies. And then we'd like to get into implications and bring it up to now and what the Trump administration initiatives mean for how that kind of overlays what we did. Well, our biggest problem was figuring out how to do this research with four people. And a lot of questions that as Monica said, hadn't really been fully formulated when we were starting to ask them. So what we decided to do was to try to get a picture of what was going on at the national level and then get up close and personal with how communities were kind of coping and kind of learning some of the details. The only way to get the kind of national picture, you can ask everybody and things were up in the air. So we settled on asking police chiefs and sheriffs what they were doing and what was going on in their departments. And as you can see from this slide here, we went to cities that were large but not huge like New York City is huge. Okay, Chicago is huge. We stayed away from cities that were that large because we didn't think we could kind of comprehend what we needed to in our survey. But we were kind of looking at medium-sized cities and smaller cities. And then we did a third survey of sheriffs who are independently elected. So they're kind of in a different world of their own. They feel they have the mandate of the people to do what they want to do in law enforcement. And that's one of the reasons Monica will tell you about the conflict between cities who choose their police chiefs usually kind of on professional credentials and they do it with the city council. And sheriffs who get elected by the public and they have whatever qualities they have. And that can sometimes be a source of conflict. So that's kind of how we did it. We did what I think was a good sampling technique. We went to places where there actually were immigrants and we were at a national level. And then we did a series of case studies that we'll tell you more about in just a little while. But I'm gonna focus for a minute on what the chiefs said and what the sheriffs said. And our first sort of series of questions was, well, how do you feel? Are you kind of like isolated from your community? Do you think that people in your city agree with what people in your department are saying? So we asked this, okay, what's the view in your department? What's the view in your city? And we looked to see if they were the same. So that's what you're gonna see here. Now, I'm gonna go through these kind of quickly but it's really a kind of a simple visual for you. The department is in the dark. You know, to make sure it looked dark up there too. That's what the views are there. So just as this one as an example, our question was unauthorized immigration is a controversial topic, emphasis on controversial. In my department or chief, what do you think in your locality? Well, chiefs basically said, well, we don't think it's so controversial. We disagree that it's controversial but we think that they think it really is. So that's a pretty basic division between chiefs kind of saying, well, we know what law enforcement is but out there they're really up in the air about it and fighting about it. So they're not on the same page, we could say. People believe it's relatively easy to determine who's in this country without authorization. In the department, well, no, we haven't found it all that easy so they disagree with that statement but they think that outside in that larger community people think that their job is pretty simple and of course it's not but another major disagreement. Gaining the trust of unauthorized immigrants is a priority. In my department, well, yeah, they agree, maybe not quite so much. They don't see that the outside world thinks it's all that important. Responsibility of the federal government, you bet that local police, even this is in the early years before things really got to the level of tension that they are now, that there was a strong feeling from local police and sheriffs that, yeah, darn well is a responsibility of the federal government. Don't give us one more job that we really can't handle with the resources that we have. Again, the out there view is that the community doesn't quite get it, doesn't get their dilemma. And I miss one here. I may have just missed a slide. How do you get, how do you go backwards? Maybe there is no going back. Yeah, okay, I got it. Okay, this is an interesting finding that we have. So we asked our chiefs and sheriffs, well, what kind of community do you live in? What are the politicians in your community say? Well, as you can see, very few places are what are known as a sanctuary community back in those days. There's more support for a don't ask, don't tell approach. And then some encouragement of support of cooperation with federal immigration agents. But look at the, what's the really big one here? No policy at all. In other words, police departments and sheriffs were kind of navigating without controls. They were out in the, kind of in the dark about what they were being asked to do by the people. And remember, police chiefs are chosen by their city council. So in a sense, the boss hadn't told them yet what it wanted. It kind of, as we did this research, we felt more and more compassion for chiefs trying to figure out where they were supposed to be in this issue that was becoming hotter and hotter. It's kind of like the proverbial frog in the water that's coming closer and closer to a boil. They were kind of like the frogs in this water that was getting hotter and hotter. Well, this next slide gives you an idea of what might have been happening on the ground. And I have to warn you, we didn't actually interview frontline officers about, well, what do you do, Joe or Jose, when you encounter someone you suspect might be undocumented. We asked chiefs to estimate what their officers were doing. So there's a little wiggle room in there. But this is a really interesting finding. We constructed a kind of a series of questions. This is a summary here. And we started out with the kind of case where you would think you would wanna let immigration know if you thought you had an unauthorized immigrant who was arrested for a violent crime. And indeed, in both large cities and small cities, most would report to federal immigration authorities that they had such a person in their custody. The same thing, a little bit less so with a parole violation. And it works on down to interviewed as a crime victim, complainant or witness. And there very few think that their officers would call immigration authorities. Now, what's interesting to us about this is that it's a sliding scale. In other words, at least from the point of view of chiefs and sheriffs, they believe their officers are exercising discretion what might be called a humane way. In other words, you don't rush to the phone when you've got a victim of a crime because you suspect that victim might not have papers. But if it's someone who's really a danger to the community, well then, gee, it might be convenient to have federal immigration authorities know about that and deal with that person too. They kind of see it as a way of moving violent people out of the community. It's a reminder, and this is gonna be a theme that we come back to in our discussion today, that there's a huge amount of discretion at the individual level. Essentially, what the immigration system was for about the hundred years or so that it actually operated because we didn't really have one until after the Civil War. So I'm kind of talking slightly more recent times was a pretty porous thing in which the federal immigration law was tough, but the interior enforcement of that, in other words, not on the borders was pretty haphazard. There were very few agents assigned to that. And local police, if they had somebody they really didn't want in the community, somebody they thought might be working with a mafia, for example, they might contact federal immigration authorities. But it was a pretty Swiss cheese kind of system for the longest time. And it's really hard to kind of think about that now because we talk so much about immigration enforcement, but it hasn't been a major topic for most of our history. Okay, I'm gonna skip this slide in the interest of time. This is one that's important though that I'm showing you now. One of the questions we asked was, well, okay, police chiefs and sheriffs, do you have a policy, do you have something written down about how to deal with these interactions with people you suspect might be unauthorized immigrants for the federal government, kind of encouraging you to be involved. And the number that you really wanna look at as a third one down, have no policy. Large cities, 51%, smaller cities, 61%. And if you added to that, have unwritten practices, which is not what I would call much of a policy, that number is even higher, that percentage is higher. It's relatively few, it's a distinct minority that had any policy at all directed to this issue. So I think our initial finding that people didn't know what was going on was true and it would be true for police officers too. Okay, we're getting to the case studies at this point. So let me just kind of sum up what this little piece of our findings was, is that first of all, individual police officers and sheriff's deputies had a lot of power to decide what to do, whether for example, to issue a citation or an arrest in a situation. If you issue an arrest, if you take someone in and they're booked, then as procedures developed over the period that we looked at, you would, the person ran a much higher risk of deportation. If you issue a citation, this is John Jay School of Criminal Justice, you know that that means you have to appear in court and you have to pay, probably have to pay a fine, and nobody's gonna be asking you about your immigration status. So citation versus arrest is a really important decision or letting the person go, talking your way out of it. That's another possibility, yeah, in the back. Well it was interesting, we did ask whether they had a policy on racial profiling and 98%, I think it was 97% said, well yes we do. So they do have policies on some of what you might call the issues of the day, but that was very much understood to be black versus white, as opposed to immigrant versus non-immigrant. So what we were isolating was a confusion about immigration rather than a kind of a lackadaisical attitude about policies in general, but that's a great question. Okay, why don't we go into our case studies and then we'll come back. Okay, as Marie mentioned, we did three national surveys and those were some of the results that she was just assessing, but part of what we also did was that we actually traveled to seven different cities and did in-depth field work in those particular cities and talked with a whole variety of people ranging from race chiefs, rank and file officers when we had access to them, community leaders, religious community leaders, a whole variety of folks. So in our case studies, we found a variety of things but the one particular finding that I wanna share with you today is what we call a jurisdictional patchwork. In its longer form, we call it a multi-layered jurisdictional patchwork. Now, what does that mean? We have three different cities that I wanted to tell you about today to tell you what that jurisdictional patchwork means and what the jurisdictional patchwork basically is, is this sort of, just to give you sort of a preview of what I'm just about to talk about, it's just essentially that jurisdictions across the country are all taking on different approaches to this immigration enforcement issue. So there are cities that take different approaches that are both either pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant or enforcement or non-enforcement. There's counties that take on pro-enforcement versus non-enforcement. There are states that take on non-enforcement and enforcement, et cetera, et cetera. And the federal government kind of laying over the top of the whole thing. But what's so interesting about it is that across the country, you get jurisdictions flooding up right against each other, on top of each other, et cetera, et cetera, with competing policies. So we basically get this kind of like patchwork effect of enforcement across the entire country. The first case study that I wanted to tell you about today is the city of Mesa, Arizona. Mesa, Arizona is something like the 40th largest city in the country, isn't it, by population? It's bigger than Minneapolis, Minnesota. Yeah, it's bigger than Minneapolis. Who knew, right? Mesa, Arizona. It's in Maricopa County. In Maricopa County, actually, where Phoenix is, correct, Phoenix, Arizona, is something like the fourth largest county in the country, population-wise. So these are pretty substantial places. Mesa, Arizona, this is back in sort of the late 2000s, 2008, 2009. The police chief in Mesa was a man named George Gascon. He went on later to become, he's now currently the DA in San Francisco, the city of San Francisco. He brought to Mesa, Arizona a fairly sort of pro-immigrant, non-immigration enforcement stance to the city. And that was what the police in the city of Mesa were working very hard on communicating to its communities when, in 2008, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was again with the elected sheriff of Maricopa County within which Mesa's located, showed up at City Hall one midnight with all of his officers dressed in riot gear and then broke into City Hall and conducted sort of an immigration raid on the janitorial staff that was working at Mesa City Hall. Sheriff Joe had not notified anybody in the Mesa City government that this was gonna happen. So this became a very sort of dangerous moment where there might have been misunderstanding between the two law enforcement agencies and obviously people and the government in Mesa were very, very upset about this kind of, this lack of communication on Sheriff Joe's part with the city of Mesa. Normally, when you have a county and a city in a county, there's a principle of comity where sheriffs do not, they sort of unofficially agree to not police within the cities in the county. So they police within unincorporated territories in this county but not within the city. But in this case, Sheriff Joe took it upon himself to go ahead and police throughout the entire county including in cities that had their own policing policies vis-a-vis immigrants. So you get basically in this case, a situation in which Mesa is a fairly, I wouldn't have called it like a sanctuary city but sort of a non-compliant city with regards to immigration enforcement and a city that was trying to reach out to its immigrant communities and let them know that the police were there to help them and be part of the whole situation of public safety. And then at the same time, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe having one of the most aggressive anti-immigrant campaigns in the country. So you get, again, two layers right on top of each other with very, very, very different opposing policies immigration, which again leads to a situation where even though Mesa tried to push this sort of pro-immigrant agenda with its immigrant communities, they were afraid of the sheriff coming in and policing in the county. So Mesa wasn't really able to put into place a policy that it felt was important for its communities, its communities within the city. Our kind of dynamic is something that we found in Raleigh, North Carolina. In Raleigh, North Carolina, the city of Raleigh, again, the police did not have an enforcement-oriented approach towards the immigrant communities. They had more of a sanctuary sort of policy of sorts. However, Wake County, which is the county in which Raleigh is located, did have at the time what's called a 287G agreement so that when immigrants were arrested and brought into jail, they were checked through immigration databases. So if an immigrant was arrested and brought into the county jail, they would have their information checked through the immigration databases and potentially be subject to deportation depending on what their immigration record would say. So what happened in Raleigh was an interesting thing that we call dual-deniability. Raleigh police could arrest somebody and say, well, we don't have an immigration enforcement policy. We're not doing immigration enforcement. We're not paired up with the federal government. We're just arresting this person. But what happens when you arrest somebody is they go to the county jail. So in the county jail, the county can say, we didn't arrest them. We're just doing our job. We're just processing them through the immigration database. So they were sort of saying, well, we're not the arresting parties here. The city was saying, we're not processing them through databases. They're in the county. That's happening in the county. So both agencies were kind of not really claiming responsibility. And what this left was a wide open possibility for racial profiling on the part of local officers. Officers could if they sort of wanted to arrest somebody and then know that they would be screened for immigration violations once they got to the jail. So you see this kind of situation happening. We'll talk a little bit about this later, but this is what you kind of can see today with what's called secure communities, which is now coming back under our current administration, presidential administration. And then a last up is the cities of New Haven, Connecticut and East Haven, Connecticut. New Haven, Connecticut actually has various, where Yale University is, it has one of the most progressive sort of immigration policies of many cities in the country. It was the first city in the country to have a municipal ID. Now, do you guys have your New York ID cards? Do they have a New York ID card? Anybody, anything? Few people. Go out and get them, they're great. So New York actually took the lead of New Haven to create these parts. So it's a very sort of pro-Immigrant place. They realized that immigrants were basically coming home from work other times with lots of cash in their pockets because immigrants didn't have a kind of ID that couldn't open bank accounts. And therefore, various unsavory elements were learning that immigrants were walking home from work with lots of cash in their pockets and immigrants were getting robbed at very high rates. They didn't have access to bank accounts. So the city said, we need to do something about this. We need to get an ID for these immigrants so that they can open bank accounts and then not be robbed on their way home from work, basically, or have their homes robbed, where they're holding lots of cash. So the city came up with these Immigrant Visa municipal ID cards, which are available to everybody in the community. So I will take this to that. The police put forward a policy, a general order, which was sort of a sanctuary policy. We're not going to do immigration enforcement. Well, 36 hours after the general order was passed, ICE, immigration and customs enforcement, conducted its first raid in New Haven ever. And this was seen by many to be retaliation for this very pro-Immigrant policy. So we have the federal government, in this case, coming up at odds with the local city government and also from, and then in two other ways, also ranking file police officers that we interviewed were also not all of them were super happy about this general order, which prevented them from doing immigration enforcement. So we also have sort of rank and file discipline about this particular policy. And then thirdly, the city of East Haven, which is right next to New Haven, had a very, very anti-immigrant local government. And they actually would park police cruisers on the border between the two cities and call this border patrol. And if immigrants would drive into East Haven, they would start harassing them and hassling them and so forth, potentially arresting them again and then bringing them into a situation where they might be screwed for immigration violations. Their job's more difficult. They were just, the ones that we had spoken with, they had some of the officers that we spoke with said, they were just sort of like, well, these people are here illegally. We feel like we should have more tools at our disposal to be able to make them legible to the federal government. But shoot, our police department isn't allowing us to do that. So there's kind of like a tension between the officers and the police department. So just some sort of preliminary findings based on all of this to echo what we've said already. The federal government lacks sufficient interior resources to have some kind of uniform policy to cross the whole country. It just doesn't have the money to have ice officers everywhere across the country, which is why they started reaching out to states and localities in the mid 2000s to start to become a quote unquote a force multiplier in this issue, to kind of join them in the immigration enforcement situation. Because local police forces have autonomy, you see this huge diversity of approaches based on local needs. Again, some places pro-enforcement, some places anti-enforcement and everything in between. Overlapping, next to each other, you name it. We saw everything out there. It was very much a patchwork of local responses. Within that, like the Raleigh case study and also in the New Haven case study, you see police officer discretion playing a very important role. We all know that police officers have a great deal of discretion in doing their jobs. No less the case in immigration enforcement. And in that case, you can also have officers that are pro-immigrant or that are working very hard to become friends of the immigrant community and to gain their trust. On the flip side, you can see police officers that practice racial profiling and arrest people on pretextual grounds just to bring them in and know that they're gonna be screened for immigration violations. Simultaneous to that, we see sanctuary cities growing across the country and that's become much more of a phenomenon since we started this research. And communities really acting independently from one another and not coordinating with each other at all. So we also did a case study in Allentown, Pennsylvania and Allentown is a city in Pennsylvania and a city that was two cities away, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, had a completely different policy. They never talked to each other. The police chiefs never really coordinated about any of this stuff. Just they weren't talking to each other at all in these things. They were all sort of related to their local needs. And what you see then, and then I'll turn it over to Marie again, is a fear of basically the anti-immigrant pro-enforcement policy wins out at the end of the day. Because if you're an immigrant and even if you think your local police force doesn't do immigration enforcement or doesn't police immigrants, if you're not sure what are you gonna do, you're gonna err on the safe side, right? You're gonna not talk to the police. If you think there's any chance that talking to the police will get you deported. So what happens with this confusing patchwork of policies is generally speaking, a growing distrust of law enforcement. And if you have a growing distrust of law enforcement, it threatens public safety. So in fact, communities that have sort of a sanctuary orientation, in general, are much better at upholding public safety for all community members, which is very much opposite of what the Trump administration is arguing about sanctuary cities. We found very much that they are a place where public safety is enhanced, not threatened. Would you like to? Okay, yeah. Oh, these are, these were our recommendations. Oh, yeah, sorry. Yeah, that, you know, we haven't used the word community policing here, but back in the day before the talk was all about sanctuary cities, the debate, I'm just wanna scroll back here for just a moment to kind of put this in context. And then that helps understand what we're seeing right now. So back in 1996, Congress, as Monica alluded to, wanted to have the federal immigration authorities have a little help from the local level because they didn't wanna spend the money, but they wanted more enforcement. So the idea is force multipliers will get local law enforcement. They can be like the junior people that make the arrest and then we'll take over from there. We'll make all the decisions, but they can bring us people. And that was the 287G program, it was called that because that's where it fit in the United States code. Well, the odd thing was nobody wanted to do it. You know, it was 1996. Nobody signed up until after the World Trade Center attacks and the attacks on the Pentagon. So 2003 is the first sign-offs. And even then only like 60 at most of police departments or sheriff's departments signed up for this program of getting to be like the junior immigration officers. And there are like 18,000 of these departments in the United States. So it was like not popular. And so when the Obama administration came into power, you know, it was pretty, he chose my former governor, Janet Napolitano. Well, Janet Napolitano, when she was our governor, she'd always say immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. We in Arizona shouldn't be doing it. And she kind of held back the pro-enforcement people for a number of years with that argument. So Obama puts her in the federal government and she said, well, I'm here to do that job. So she came up with the Secure Communities Program. And this is all very relevant to what we're seeing right now. So what is Secure Communities? Well, that, you know, since nobody signed up to help be the junior partners, 27G seemed to be kind of dead, why not instead have all the information from booking go to the federal government and then all the place have to do is simply detain people that failed the are you a legal immigrant test and then ICE will within a couple of days pick them up. So this was like so efficient, it's such a good idea. So that rolled out. It also wasn't very popular but it also was pretty hard to avoid. It wasn't like something where you had to sign up to be trained. So that was rolled out. Well, interestingly and not surprisingly, probably for any of you who study racial justice issues, you would be like, I already knew this, there was a lot of problem with pretextual stops and racial profiling. And this was well understood by people who studied this. You know, they counted the arrests and they looked at this. And it meant that in this kind of dragnet of trying to be helpers to the federal government, there was a lot of racial discrimination going on. Well, the Obama administration to its credit eventually ended those programs because of that. And my own Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County who was really an outrageously active racial profiler played a big part in that. He was an embarrassment to a federal government that didn't want to have a charge of racial discrimination held against it. So Obama rolled that back. Now, what we're seeing now, I'm just gonna skip ahead here to the next slide if I can. How to make this, oh, it's gonna kind of reinforce all that. Federal policy under Trump. Can I make that come? Oh, it's gonna be coming in. I'm just gonna put this all down here because it's kind of a, I think that's all of them on this. Yeah, it's a package that we're seeing. And we're seeing a revival of both 287G and secure communities. Now, this is something you should really pay attention to because we already know, we already know to a certainty that these programs are racially discriminatory. We already know that, it's kind of like already in the can. And so their revival is a signal of something in the same way that back in Phoenix when it was about 115 degrees, our president came to Phoenix to give a talk. And that was right about the time, or not, yeah, he came and said, I'm, everything's gonna be all right with Sheriff Joe. It's gonna be fine. And he pardoned this guy who, this sheriff who had been found guilty of racial profiling. That was another signal of a shift in policy. The fact that President Trump has created a shame and blame list. Now this, almost everything that's on this list has run into some interesting problems. Certainly the 287G and secure communities revival, they haven't gotten off the ground, but there's gonna be problems with the fact that we know how they work. The grant forfeitures idea that if you don't actually comply with what the immigration authorities want, we're gonna withhold your grant funding that comes from the federal level. That has run into lawsuits as well. The name and shame list is one of the, to me, one of the most amusing ones. These are communities that say, you know what, we're not gonna help you enforce immigration law because we want, as Monica just explained, we want our communities to feel safe, to report crime, to, if you're a witness to crime, to report what you've seen, and to generally trust your police department or your sheriff's office. And so those communities let that be known. And so the idea was that there was gonna be, every week, a list of communities that weren't cooperating with the federal government. So they started putting out the list and of course they made a lot of mistakes and so these communities were right and said, you got that wrong. We shouldn't be on the name and shame list. And so it got so awkward and embarrassing, they've temporarily suspended that. I think I would really have to conclude on the difference between the Obama administration that was interested in enforcement for a long time. We have the DACA program and the DACA program that came at the end of a two-term administration. For years, the Obama administration was upping the enforcement machinery and what President Trump did was walk right into those shoes and take it further and pretty much to say, I'm not worried about the racial profiling part. I'm not worried about race discrimination. Let's just go with this. It's more important that we cover this mandate. What we are seeing is more pushback than we have ever had because of this. The whole thing has become so much more salient than probably any police chief in the United States would like for it to be and pretty much any sheriff would like for it to be because they are really caught in the middle. The evidence is that public safety is greater if you don't involve local police and immigration enforcement and it's pretty obvious why because you can't have a whole segment of the community terrified of the police and have a safe community for everybody. On the other hand, the pressure is really on these departments and sheriffs to cooperate with a kind of a law and order policy. And so they would really prefer not to have this be the issue of the day. They're not even have John Jay want to have a talk about our research to have to just shut the whole thing down and not talk about it anymore. But that's not the situation. And what we are also seeing is a real lineup with a kind of fervor on one part of basically the Republican Party is dividing itself on this issue. And my evidence there is a very interesting senator. How many of you have heard of Senator Flake? It's not exactly a household expression, but it is funny because Jeff Flake, the senator is from Snowflake because his family had been in this part of Arizona for so long that it was the snows and the flakes that founded Snowflake. And so Flake is from Snowflake, but then Flake flaked as those of you who know about Senator Flake's recent resignation saying I'm not going to be running again for Congress, for Senate. Well, the backstory on that is a few months before he published his book, Attacking the Current Administration, he wrote a long op-ed about how he grew up in Snowflake on a ranch and his very best mentor and friend was an undocumented immigrant man a few years older than him who had illegally crossed the border something like 11 times to help the flakes on their farm in Snowflake and young Jeff got all sorts of advice and they put up fences together and stuff like that. That was the old bipartisan agricultural business alliance that kept this whole issue of enforcement tamped down so that pretty much as Monica said, you could have a patchwork of places that didn't want to enforce immigration all but you could talk tough about it and sort of nothing, not too much would happen. The Obama administration actually really changed that and we've seen this become kind of an issue of right-wing populism in the current administration and I would really defend that as right-wing populism of just not caring about the consequences of this policy that is in fact quite popular with a lot of Americans and a lot of voters but remember Senator Flake because he was the old school that is, he's not running for a reelection because he might not get reelected but also maybe because he truly is disgusted with the whole thing but that old alliance of farmers and business people managed to keep the border pretty porous for a long time and that is, that's now history. Where we go from here is really uncertain. I did wanna mention and I know we're kind of out of time so I'm just gonna say it quickly. There are a lot of cities and counties and even states that are pushing back in the courts and politically against these policies that we're seeing now so the whole thing is gonna be up in the air for a few years about how it's gonna come out legally but in terms of the mood of the country I think we're as divided as we've ever been on this issue. I wanna thank you all very much for coming today and I'll turn myself in.