 Welcome to the University of Texas at San Antonio. This town hall meeting is being sponsored by the San Antonio Express News, KLRM and UTSA. I'm Francine Romero of the College of Public Policy here at UTSA. Our topic tonight is certainly most timely and it will be an understatement to say it is sparking a lot of passion and interest. While the notion of sanctuary cities is not clearly defined, it allows us to get at the topic of how local jurisdictions generally interact with immigrants, with federal immigration policy, and federal immigration officers. No matter what your opinion on this topic is, it is both a legal and a human question. And tonight, I hope that we can educate more than we actually debate. But let's get on with our panel. We have a great panel to help us start unpack this topic. Representative Diego Bernal is a social worker, attorney, musician, former district one councilman for San Antonio. He was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 2015, where he continues to represent District 123, and we are sitting in that district right now. Chief William McManus of the San Antonio Police Department has over 30 years of law enforcement experience. He served as the assistant chief in Washington D.C. and the chief in Minneapolis, as well as Dayton, Ohio. He was appointed our San Antonio Police Chief in 2006. Jeff Judson is a senior fellow with the Heartland Institute. He has worked in Washington D.C. for several elected officials, including President George H.W. Bush, former president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and a recent candidate for the Texas legislature. And Robert Stovall has served as chairman of the Republican Party of Texas since 2013. He is the owner of Jamal Farms in Ecuador and Jamal Full South Laurel Company in San Antonio. He was a recent candidate for Bear County Tax Assessor. So please welcome our panel here tonight. By giving our audience a sense of how each of you assess the current dynamic of local jurisdictions and immigrants who may be here illegally. This is the most basic policy question there is. Do you see a problem that needs to be addressed? And if so, exactly what is that problem? And just briefly for now, we're beginning to lots of different topics here. Representative Bernal, if you could start us off on that one. Do I see a problem that needs to be fixed? Yes. Not really. Not in our city. In my experience in our city, all residents, whether they are undocumented or not, get along really well. They respect each other. They're part of the same fabric that makes our community. That doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be enforcement along the border, that we shouldn't make efforts to ensure that a certain contraband doesn't make its way into the country. And likewise, a certain contraband doesn't make its way out of the country. But overall, as we assess the landscape of our city, and I think of the things that we need to fix, when I think of the issues that are plaguing our community, when I make my list of things I'd like to correct that would make my city a better, more livable, friendlier place, the presence of people who are undocumented is not on the top 20. In fact, it doesn't exist there at all. Thank you. Chief? Sure. My job is to enforce the laws. I don't see a problem with what we do right now, and as we do it right now. Our primary mission in enforcing the law is to answer calls for service, your calls for service, and work with the community to help prevent and solve crime. That's my job as a police chief. That's our job as SAPD. I don't see a problem with what we're doing right now. I think we do it pretty well. Thank you, Jeff. Well, the question will hopefully be answered tonight, and I guess it revolves around whether or not San Antonio is indeed a sanctuary city. There are people in Austin who think it is. There are people, public officials, who deny that it is in San Antonio. And if it is, then that is indeed a problem. But it's important to understand that the issues of sanctuary cities are not about apprehending people who are here illegally. That's the entire big immigration debate. What we're talking about here tonight is getting known criminals off the street and keeping them off the street and cooperating with the immigration and customs enforcement to make sure that our streets and our neighborhoods stay safe, that preserves that fabric that Diego talked about. We need our safety. And the sanctuary city policy undermines our safety. Thank you, Robert. Do we have a problem? We don't need to. Let me just start off saying thank you to Express News and KLRN for having this. It's a very important topic. And I think that it's been kind of, we've been starting for the last couple of years here in San Antonio and Baird County. But do we have a problem? We don't need to have a problem, but the potential is there. I think that we've seen across the state of Texas with the Travis County Sheriff and the Dallas County Sheriff that they're looking at de facto sanctuary city type processes as far as not releasing the illegal aliens to ICE to be deported. And so what we want to find out tonight is the direction with the state of Texas with San Antonio, with Baird County, with our own police and our own police chief as far as which way he's going with this. And because if we don't act like a sanctuary city or we don't say we're a sanctuary city but we're acting like a sanctuary city, I think we have a problem. Okay. Thank you. As a professor, I always like to go to the U.S. Constitution to start a conversation. I think it's a good place to start. So chief, I'd like to start with you on this one. In matters involving this kind of thing about arguments about what level of government have what powers, of course the Constitution sets the stage for all this. So in your view, how does the U.S. Constitution just give us the background to frame this debate maybe for some people in our audience who need a little bit of a brush up on the Constitution? You know, I don't know that there's any clear authority that the Constitution or any laws in existence right now give the police to give local police authority to enforce federal regulations. I don't think we should be enforcing federal regulations. We've got enough to do as it is right now and handling calls for service and then mirroring out of other things that we do in the community. So I don't think that local law enforcement should play any role in immigration enforcement. And I don't know if I answered your question or not. You did. Thank you. Robert? Well, look, this is a federal issue. Once someone penetrates our borders, whether it's to the north or to the south or east or west and we have someone coming here that was not invited here, then they become an illegal alien from another country to Chief McManus' idea that obviously they don't have the authority to enforce federal, but there are systems in place that allow the police and local police departments in counties to, once a person is apprehended and stopped, they do a background check or there's a check if that person is not identified and at that time they are detained and their detention, they can notify ICE. And I'm sure we're going to get into that a little bit later, but as far as a constitutional issue, it's black and white folks. This is a legal issue. You break the law. We are a country of laws as our president has stated and he is reinforcing. And so, yes, if you come across without invitation or the paperwork and you're coming in illegally, just like any other country that exists in the free world. All right, Jeff? Well, there's several constitutional issues. There's, of course, the right to protect our borders. The issue of federal supremacy of laws and our interaction with the federal government and enforcing laws and there's a lot of confusion about whether we are acting as federal agents when we're simply cooperating with ICE to turn somebody over and I would argue we're not. And the other issue is the issue of unlawful detention, which is a sacred right in the constitution that the government is not allowed to detain somebody without due process. And so, this is one of the issues that I think the ACLU has used to sue and threaten cities that if you hold somebody waiting for ICE to come pick up somebody that's being released from jail that needs to be deported, that cities think, oh, well, we can't hold these people at all. We just have to put them back on the streets. And that's a constitutional issue. Okay, Representative Bernal? The question is, is immigration the sole purview of the federal government or is that a responsibility also shared by the state and cities and law enforcement? And the answer is immigration is the sole purview of the federal government period. It is in black and white in the Constitution. Okay, thank you. All right, we're going to get to some specifics now and get into the details of this. There's obviously across the nation a lot of variation in regard to how cities and counties do interact with immigrants and federal immigration law. I wanted to focus this on our state now because this is the big dialogue we will be having in terms of what has been proposed in our state legislature. Senate Bill 4, I would like to, if you don't mind indulging me a little, I'd like to briefly summarize Senate Bill 4 so that we're all pretty clear on what the provisions are on this. This may not be the final version of the bill, but I think these are some of the big topics that people are talking about with sanctuary cities. So what Senate Bill 4 does, first of all, it says that local peace officers are prohibited from searching a vehicle, business, or residence to enforce immigration law unless they are working in partnership with federal officials. So that's one piece. A second important piece is that cities and counties may not prohibit or discourage the enforcement of immigration laws. In particular, local officers cannot be barred from asking the immigration status of a person under lawful detention or arrest, but that excludes crime victims or witnesses. A third, if a person detained or arrested cannot provide proof of legal residency, local law enforcement must check on their information in the Federal Priority Enforcement Program database. And finally, if that database shows a federal detainer has been issued for the person, the local agency must hold them until federal authorities can take custody. So those are the key substantive provisions of SB 4. I just want to mention, too, the enforcement of it. If this does pass in its current form, all local law enforcement agencies will have to demonstrate compliance through their written policies pretty much immediately. And furthermore, any citizen or the federal government can file a complaint with the state attorney general that that city or county is not complying, which could trigger an investigation. If that unit is found to be out of compliance and refuses to come into compliance, state funding will be cut. So I know that was a whole lot to get out there. But I'd like to start with the chief on this one. And if you could address, you know, if Senate Bill 4 passes, how much would that change your standard operating procedures? How different are these items from what you already do? And I think I'm really interested to know what you think about the citizen suit for non-compliance and how that will affect your operations. Let me take the points one by one. So we work with the federal authorities in many different areas on task forces. We don't necessarily work with immigration unless they are in physical danger on the street. We will assist. We do not assist them with immigration-type raids. We do not do roundups with ICE authorities. So our work with ICE is very, very limited. We will call them if we stop someone and find that they're wanted on an immigration-type warrant. But beyond that, we don't do any kind of work with ICE agents. Let me correct that. We will work with them on situations involving human trafficking. Now, the Senate Bill saying that the police department cannot prohibit their officers from asking for proof of citizenship. What that does, that usurps my authority to actually run my police department the way I see it needs to be run. If you can't provide proof of citizenship, you must check the prior enforcement database. That puts us acting as immigration enforcers. And my position on that has been very, very clear over the last almost 11 years that I've been here, and it hasn't changed, we should not be enforcing federal immigration laws. We don't have the capacity over the time to do that. We must hold for federal authorities. That's done by ICE agents who enter the detention center and the county jail. I won't get into the county jail because that's the sheriff's ballot week. But ICE agents do come in and they check the prisoner log for people that they may be looking for in our detention center. Those things that they're looking for, they're looking for people who are wanted on very, very serious felony type charges. And I'm okay with that. But as far as us doing any kind of work whatsoever to enforce immigration laws, we should not be doing that. Okay, and can you also talk about the... The civil suit. Yes, the compliance. You know, I think that this bill is very, very damaging to local law enforcement. I think it's damaging to local authority and to say that every time a citizen thinks that we're not enforcing immigration laws, as the law might provide, that they can file a lawsuit. I think that's going to tie up the courts and make a lot of frivolous lawsuits. Make for a lot of frivolous lawsuits. Alright, we'll go to Jeff next on this one. Well, I think it's a very well-written law, as you might guess. It's interesting that the very first section of the bill, and I have it right here, talks about what an officer may not do, which reinforces the fact that they are not there to enforce immigration law in the place of a federal official. They are there to cooperate and to maintain the safety of our city. And I think much more dangerous than, as the Chief said, this would be damaging to local law enforcement. I think what's damaging to local law enforcement is when a known criminal is released from jail and put back on the streets when the federal government wants to take that person and either deport them or do something else with them to keep our streets safe. And what's happening now is I think the Chief was right. They really don't come into contact with ICE that much out on the street. This is not about going up to people and saying, show me your papers. This is about arresting people who are committing crimes, taking them back to the police station, processing them. And in the process of processing them, you enter their information into the FBI database, which automatically tells you if this person is wanted, if there's a detainer by ICE on this person. And it's just a matter of cooperating. It's not a matter of acting to enforce immigration law. So I think they make a much bigger deal about this. And the bottom line is, are we really safer when you are letting people out on the street because you refuse to, you're going to ignore the flashing thing on the screen of your computer that says there's an ICE detainer? Okay, and the Chief has asked to respond. And I think for the sake of clarity, it's good to have him respond right now. So we do exactly what you just talked about. If we find, we've run everyone's name that we arrest. If we find that they're wanted on any type of warrant, whether it's federal or whether it's local, that person will be detained for that warrant. If we find that they're wanted on a federal warrant, whether it's for some type of immigration violation or whatever it may be, we will turn them over to those appropriate authorities. So we don't turn a blind eye toward people that we find out have any kind of warrant on them. We're required by law to execute those warrants. So to say that someone's going to be turned loose if we see that there's a warrant outstanding for them, it's just simply not true. If I may, the key issue here is a warrant. A warrant is a very high bar that is sometimes in place for criminals, but many times a detainer doesn't reach the level of a warrant. The federal government has good information that indicates that this person needs to be processed through their system and deported, and a detainer is not necessarily a warrant. And so it's my understanding that you have to cooperate beyond just a warrant. I want to go one more round on this with the Chief because this is a really important source of disagreement and confusion, I think, about the term warrant. And so does that mean that you would not adhere to a detainer if it doesn't have a warrant attached to it? When ICE asks for a detainer, they're asking the jail, not the police department, not the detention center. They're asking the jail to put a detainer, a hold on someone for up to 48 hours or let them know when they're going to be released so that they can come and pick them up if there's a warrant outstanding for them or if they're wanted for some other reason. So when you're talking about local authority, when you're talking about local enforcement, we don't do detainers, that's when it shifts over to the jail, to the county. Okay, thank you. Robert? Well, look, my thought on this thing is why do we need another bill that's something that the law should already be standing for? But it looks like because we've got some rogue people around the country and around the state of Texas, especially in taxes that this bill is going to be go through, it probably won't be in this form, it'll be in something else similar to it because it's got to go through all the senators and representatives. However, being said, that being said, most of these things are already in compliance with what the police chief is doing. I mean, he admitted to that. The only thing that he is going to have a problem with is where the Senate bill asked for him to ask a question about legal status. And I have the San Antonio Police Department's Immigration Practice question and answer that I got off of their website, and it looks like from the Attorney General's Office that number three is the one that SAPD is going to have a problem with, and that reads, is it the policy of the SAPD to ask all people they encounter for proof of legal and residence slash status? Answer, no. SAPD officers will not, officers do not and will not ask people they encounter for proof of citizenship or legal residency. That will be in contradiction of SAPD four. So that will have to be part of their compliance, and I think that's the problem that the police chief is going to have and what he referred to earlier. I think those are important things. We're not asking for anything out of the ordinary when you stop someone from a broken tail light and then you find out that he's got maybe some marijuana or some cocaine in his vehicle. Those are other questions that they've reached off into and to ask them about citizenship or find out that they're not identifiable is just one of the questions of anything. I think that binds the police officers that are out there working hard that they can't even ask the question under SAPD standards. And I just, I think it's unfortunate we're going to have to have a law that demands that. Okay, and we are on our way to Representative Bernal, but if the chief, I think again this is important to clarify when an officer does pick somebody up, at what point would they be allowed to ask that question or to start looking for information? Well, the big problem that law enforcement in general has with asking people for their immigration status or for their papers is what do you base that on? Do you base it on the color of their skin? Do you base it on the fact that they may have an accent? Why? Maybe they wouldn't ask me if they stopped, maybe they would ask Diego Bernal for his paper. So that boils down to profiling. If we stop someone, if we stop someone and we believe that there's human trafficking involved, drug trafficking involved, we may well do that, but not simply because they're just because. Okay, and now let me send him over for more because he's one of the people this actually does have to go through. Right. Between the three of you guys, there's a lot. Let me try to take this piece by piece for a second. The first part is the detainer part. Detainers are not warrants. They are requests. They're not based on anything but a name match. And so the idea that someone could be not even arrested but taken but detained by police, they think that they have, that there's someone that ICE wants to talk to, they discover that that person has the same name as someone else. The idea that the law would force them to hold on to that person for 48 more hours, that violates the Fourth Amendment. So there's a detainer issue is one half, the other half I think does get us closer to a show me your paper situation because section 364.003, I did the reading, it says that a local entity shall not adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy written, formal, or informal under which the entity prohibits or discourages the enforcement of immigration laws. That is true for the entity, meaning the city or the department, and it is also a prohibition for individual officers. So in the midst of an investigation, if an officer wants to ask someone what their immigration status is, their superior officer, officer can't say, don't do that right now, or that's not appropriate or we're not here for that. This law requires that officer to be able to follow through with that request. So I would disagree that it's well written. I think it's inartically drafted. I think it is dangerous. I think the one thing we're also not talking about is the chilling effect it would have on the community. If our community believes that officers are defective immigration officers, they will stop calling. And when they stop calling, our community is a lot less safe. Public safety has to be paramount to whatever boogeyman we think or you think is out there. So, and I will also say this and we can get into this if you want, on its own, this bill is bad. But after yesterday, if you take, there is a certain reading that if you take the language of the executive order and you couple it with the language of this bill, we are even closer to a show me your paper's compulsory interaction between PD and immigration than we have ever been before. We look like Arizona. While the legal scholars in the room may say correctly that that policy will certainly fail in the courts, there is a period of time where it would be in place and that period of time would be a very dark period of time for our city and that is why this cannot pass. And as someone who has to vote on it and organize people around it, I can almost guarantee that the House will do everything it can to ensure that it does not. Just respond on one basic note. I knew this was going to come up tonight about people calling. Can you cite any statistic that you have about it? We do have a question on this coming up if you can just hold that thought. And I did want to remind the audience we're just not going to have time if we have long applause after every statement. I realize you have strong feelings on it, but if you can hold your applause to the end, we'd appreciate it. So, I do want to pull back the focus just a little bit. This is something that's coming up and we will get to what happened yesterday in a moment, but this issue is one of several where local government discretion is potentially being limited by the state or by executive order. Other examples in this session include annexation, local property tax, limits on local discretion. Yesterday, Governor Abbott apparently said he would like to be able to remove any sheriff unilaterally. So, I wanted to start with Robert in this one and if you can talk about this general climate of these apparent limits to local discretion, is this appropriate? But what about deference to the authority and expertise of our local police chiefs and sheriff? Should the state legislature be questioning that? Well, look, it's not, this is not complicated. All we're asking for the state bill is asking for is cooperation between our local police department and the state and federal agencies. I don't understand why is that complicated. These guys are out on the street. They're in the neighborhoods. They know where the problems are. They see this stuff every day. So, to think that these guys are going to be out there profiling, you really limit your own police officers by thinking that because they've got to ask a question that they're profiling. I mean, that's just absolutely absurd and silliness. I mean, I don't know how this shackles a local police, actually, I think it's going to free the police officers when they feel like something is going on or if they're under an investigation that they look, what's going on that they can actually proceed on finding out if these people are here illegally. We have a crime problem. We have a crime problem in San Antonio that has been building since the sanctuary cities became notices to people from around the world that it's okay to come in the United States and that there will be a safe haven somewhere for them to go. It's evident just here in San Antonio with our crime rate going up. And to that, I think it would be only smart for a police chief to ask for more help from the federal government, cooperate with the federal government and the state government to do a better job in making our neighborhoods safer. Representative Bernal, state control versus local discretion? In the past, a certain party was a pro-local control party until the local started to do things they didn't like and now they're against local control. And I will also point out that it usually happens when those localities start to erect protections for themselves, whether they're NDOs or tree ordinances or plastic bag bands or bands on fracking, that's when the philosophy switches. But I'll also say that, one, I've been disturbed in my short time in the legislature at how it seems that politicians believe they know policing better than police. Police were against campus carry, we did it anyway. Police were against open carry, we did it anyway. Police now are against this and you're going to do it anyway and you're telling them what they would like in the face of them saying, no, we actually wouldn't, please do not do this. So I don't know where this expertise comes from about law enforcement that is beyond the wishes and desires of law enforcement. And I also think that we should say this. What's inferred in these comments is that there is an immigrant or undocumented immigrant and criminal is the same thing. And it is not. What he's saying is we need to do this because our cities are less safe and there's a spike in crime and that's why these policies are necessary because somehow that spike in crime is related to this population. I don't see any evidence of that and I would challenge you to produce it. Okay, by law when a foreign national illegally smuggles into the United States or violates visa restriction, he or she is an unauthorized illegal alien present in the United States in violation of the U.S. law subject to deportation under Title VIII of the U.S. Code 1227 Deportation of Aliens. Alright, so let me respond to that. Someone who was undocumented, making that synonymous with a violent criminal, he did that earlier and people who are watching can rewind and hear him say that. But I also think it's important to point out that you're creating an image that these folks are violent criminals responsible for what's happening in our communities where for the most part, especially in this city, an undocumented person is someone who's working, who's taking care of your house, taking care of your kid, making the city run. Chances are four years ago they were a biology TA in this building and they fell in love and decided not to go home. These are not the people who are causing problems violent criminals are the issue, not these folks who have a certain legal status because they've overstayed their visa or they've come to make up their life for themselves. You cannot equate the two and you should not. Okay, we're going to go to Jeff on this issue of state control versus local discretion on this and how this fits the general atmosphere. Well, in a broad sense, the U.S. Constitution grants all power to the states except for certain enumerated powers that are given to the federal government. At the state level, all power is also kept at the state level with certain powers that are delegated to the local communities and this notion of local control is fine but just as Governor Abbott has said it goes from federal to state control and then to individual liberty and if a local community is violating our individual liberties and not keeping us safe which is one of their most important functions then we do rely on the state to step down and make sure that our liberties and our safety is ensured. This notion of that when we talk about sanctuary cities and these enforcement issues that this is somehow code for our real racial profiling and we really don't want these immigrants in the country is just, this is how the left keeps fanning the flames on this and prevents us from having rational dialogue. I want to, this is the governor's letter that he sent to the sheriff of Travis County yesterday or two days ago and one of his paragraphs in here is that in the last five years 200,000 undocumented aliens have been booked into Texas jails. They committed 559,000 criminal offenses, 1100 homicides, 682 kidnappings, 5,900 sexual assaults. Okay, it is a fact that there are hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens who are committing crimes and it's not most migrants or immigrants, but it's a law. The United States is the most generous country on earth when it comes to allowing legal immigration. We allow a million people a year to become U.S. citizens and that doesn't count refugees and other classes on top of that. So that number is more than all other countries on earth combined. So there's no anti-immigrant anything going on in the United States. We are, we allow a lot of them in. The rest, but we want them all to come in legally. We want to see who they are. We want to make sure they're safe and that they're going to assimilate into our society hopefully instead of come here and pray upon us. And all this is about, we keep focusing on this issue of racial profiling. I'll say this again. This is not about the interaction of our police with people on the street. That's a tiny, tiny sliver of what we're talking about. The vast majority of these interactions are when people are already in jail, they've already been arrested, they're already possibly serving a sentence they're about to be released and it's whether or not we're going to put them on the street or turn them back to ICE to deport and deal with because they're dangerous criminals. So, you know, and I'll give you one hypothetical example. It isn't pulling somebody over for speeding and they have dark skin and the policeman says show me your proof of citizenship. More than likely it's one of these 200,000 people that maybe is even deported once or twice before. The 7-Eleven was robbed down the street. They're in a gray Nissan and it's suspected that this person might be one of these people that had already been deported. It's perfectly appropriate for a policeman to ask, can you prove your citizenship to see if there's a match with who we suspect might have just robbed that bank. It has nothing to do with that happens to be that person's color of skin. But again, those instances are so rare. We're really talking about people who are already in jail. Okay, Chief, can you weigh in please on the state control local discretion? I'm not sure what good it does asking a bank robber or a gas station robber what your immigration status is. We are going to arrest you no matter what. Whether you tell us yes I'm not here legally or yes I am here legally. We're going to arrest you. This issue where the state is meddling in the police department's affairs by dictating rules and regulations that police departments have to follow no matter what the chief thinks is absurd. The issue of learning someone's, whether someone is here legally or not happens on the very, very tail end of an arrest. And it doesn't have to be the police officer that's asking. It happens over in the county. So to say that nobody's checking and everybody's letting criminal illegal undocumented immigrants back on the street without any kind of check whatsoever, that's simply not true. When ICE goes into either the detention center or the county jail they have people that they're looking for and they match them up against the people inside the jail. And if they find those people then they do the whole detainer thing and we talked about that up here. But we are not ignoring the fact that there are undocumented immigrants who are committing crime, but that is being checked once they're in jail. And it's not up to the police officers to deal with that. We have capacity issues if we start adding work on to what we already do. So again, just to close it out, local law enforcement officers should not be in any way enforcing federal immigration laws. Okay, thank you. Okay, I agree with the chief there. I mean, this is about criminals. I mean, this is what exactly when the law is broken, this bill is not about stopping or walking down the street and seeing somebody that you're suspecting or something like that and asking them for identification. That's not anything what this has to do with. This has to do with in the process of this and the cooperation with the local authorities to book them and hand them over to ICE and allow those 48 hours. And I agree with the police chief because it is done at the Bear County Jail. The magistrate is shared with the city and the county and pretty much is turned over after that to them and they have nothing to do with it. However, when that crime is committed, that background check is run and that person has identified and then the detainer goes on that suspected criminal. Okay, we're going to have two last comments down here. I just want to put this in the context. From January 2014 to September 2015, do you know how many decline detainers there were in Bear County? 11. That is the scope of the issue that this law purports to fix. 11. And of those 11, do we know how many of them had any sort of criminal background? Any sort, not violent, just any sort. Four. So the idea that this is about those 11 people and not creating an environment that is hostile to an entire community, I don't buy. Chief. This whole issue started with not because local law enforcement officers are not enforcing federal immigration laws. It started when the counties throughout the country, some counties, decided that they weren't going to work with ICE agents and whole people on detainers. That's where it started. Somehow or another, you know, local law enforcement is getting sucked into this with this bill up in Austin. But it did start with local law enforcement not enforcing federal immigration laws. It started with county sheriffs deciding that they weren't going to work with ICE and somehow or another again that police officers are getting drugged into this debate. Okay, we're going to focus back even farther and talk about what happened yesterday because we have a lot of questions on that. So yesterday the president did sign several executive orders, but one of which says that sanctuary cities would be penalized with the loss of federal funds. The legality of that has been questioned by some, but I want to get at your thoughts on the propriety of that and the feasibility of that action. And we have several questions from the audience. Specifically, how will President Trump's announcement to crack down on sanctuary cities affect San Antonio's policy toward immigrants? How can Trump withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities when it is the people's tax money? And will the San Antonio Police Department be willing to pass on federal funding because of this? So I'd like to start with the chief on this because I think it probably calls for some clarification. I think San Antonio is not considered a sanctuary city, but if you could address this a little bit. Well, you just said that we are not a sanctuary city. We do cooperate with federal agents once the officer has done their work and that person is magistrated and put and shipped over to county. That's where ICE gets involved, but we don't get involved before that as we all know. But I don't see where that puts us in the category of a sanctuary city because police officers do not enforce federal law, federal immigration laws, which we know nothing about as far as training goes. Jeff, your views on the executive order? Well, I'll be honest. I really hope what comes out of all of this is that San Antonio turns out not to be a sanctuary city or if there's any policies that unwittingly appear that they're sanctuary-like, that they will be clarified so that we're not. And so I would hope that the president's executive orders have no impact here and that we're keeping our people safe. But I do think that the federal government clearly has the authority to withhold funds. They threaten that type of thing all the time. It's how they make us all wear seatbelts. They did the 55-mile per hour speed limit back in the Carter days, threatened to withhold funds, so they can definitely have the legal authority to do that. Okay, Representative Bernal? The federal fund part is scary. I also think it's important to point out that in the Texas bill, the bill does not specify whether it would be the police department or the city or the county that would lose funding. They don't say just the police department. So funding for the city as well could be withheld and they don't specify what funding or what program it would be. So in that way, it's scary. What really concerns me is the way that these two things could work together. You've got President Trump saying through an executive order that essentially he's going to ask every law enforcement agency to engage in a 287G agreement, which is where local law enforcement would act like ICE officers. So that's on the one side. Then you've got the policy here which says that no department agency will adopt, enforce or endorse a policy under which the entity prohibits or discourages the enforcement of immigration laws. If Trump asks SAPD to participate in that program, and SAPD says no, and this law is in effect, theoretically one of two things happens. One, PD is compelled to become ICE officers or compelled to enter into 287G agreement or they're compelled to forego funding. Those are their two choices. So I'm really, really concerned about the way these two things could work together were this bill to pass. Okay, Robert, thoughts? Well, look, I go back to this. Is there anything wrong with cooperation with our local department and state and federal departments? I don't see that as a problem. Matter of fact, it can be used as a leverage tool by our own police chief or our new Bear County sheriff to ask the federal government that they need assistance with money to help shore up some of the things that they might be short on. We're two hours from the border. I mean, we are going to have people coming up here and some of these people will be dangerous. People have previously committed crimes. I think this is a serious issue in this country and the president wants to tackle it. What a better situation that if we could get some of that money, federal money to help citizens here in Bear County to be safer, to be safer in your neighborhoods. I don't see that as a real problem. Matter of fact, I would like to see tonight that we reach out to the president and to the governor and say, hey, listen, we're willing to work with you, help us out, show us the money, show us how we can be beneficial. I saw a news tonight that the mayor of Miami-Dade has asked their departments and their jail system to cooperate with ICE and the president of the Trump administration. So these things are taking hold. I think you're a better friend than a foe with the federal government and the state government because both Governor Abbott and President Trump are taking this serious. Okay, thank you. And Chief, I'd like you to just elaborate that a little bit because we hear that argument a lot. What's wrong with cooperation? Why would you not cooperate with federal authorities? And I think that what you've been saying is that it's a fine line and cooperation quickly becomes something else, something that might undermine your actual mission. We do cooperate with federal authorities, and I'm not sure how clear I'm coming across here, but because police officers don't ask people for their status, immigration status, does not mean that we don't cooperate with federal authorities. Allowing people in our detention center, ICE, in our detention center to check their list for who's in that detention center is full cooperation. No one has ever asked us before to go out and enforce immigration laws. We allow ICE into our detention center as they requested, and we've been doing that forever, and then they also go over to the jail, as I mentioned before. So to say that we don't cooperate is simply not true. I do not say that they don't cooperate because by the fact that you do, when you turn them over, you send them to the jail. My whole point was saying that they're asking you to be agents for the federal government or something like that, and you said we don't do that, we don't have the resources. Was your excuse for that? Well, ask for some resources. Maybe that extra money will help the San Antonio become a safer place to live. I don't think any citizen would have a problem with that. That's the easiest thing to do. Ask for resources. A lot easier said than done, and that's part of the reason, the big part of the reason why outside entities should not be getting into the business of the police department, because they don't understand the government. And I know I'm using these legal terms, but the 287G program is a program that essentially deputizes local police departments to act as full-fledged immigration officers. It has been tried around the country, and in the places where they have tried it, they ran out of resources. They were focusing on immigration more than they were focusing on public safety. Crime spiked, and the lawsuits from the legal detention, the legal tarry stops, and straight up racial profiling skyrocketed in those jurisdictions to the point where, after those experiences, they said we don't want any part of this. That is the exact program that President Trump is asking local law enforcement to join, and that is the exact program that the executive order along with this law would force to some degree local law enforcement to join. So we know exactly what that experience will be like, and it will fail. I want to get away from policy specifics just a little bit and talk about the social climate around this issue, and is this simply a policy disagreement coming to the fore, or is it more of a reflection of a deeper rift based on social and ethnic differences? What does this issue symbolize for us, and Representative Bernal, I'd like to start with you. Are you sure? Relative to us. My personal feelings are that we're in an era now where we identify a group usually that's vulnerable, that doesn't have the resources to defend itself, and make them the bad guy. Whether it's the LGBT community or immigrants, that just seems to be what we do now when we do it. One, because it helps people get elected. Two, it helps people stay elected. And three, it distracts us from focusing on the issues that we've been trying to tackle with healthcare, education, transportation. Because there's no real political will to tackle those things, but people want to stay in office. They prey on the vulnerable and make people afraid of them. Undocumented people are criminals. They're making our neighborhoods unsafe. Trans people are going to go into the bathrooms and violate kids. This is the narrative, and we spend so much time on those things and not focusing on the things that really make society better, that it's really unfortunate. So I feel like there are lots of folks who feel like they're being attacked. Like they don't have the same level of advocacy. And it casts us versions on not only a very large segment of our population, but people who are in our families, who are our neighbors, and who we interact with every day. Not only is it unfortunate, but it really saddens me. Jeff, what do you think about this political atmosphere? Well, I think it does to people on the left again. They see this as a means of oppression because they see a lot of things as a means of oppression. And that it's just simply a way to get elected for us to kind of satisfy our base. You hear that a lot. That is so far from the truth. It is preposterous. We are a rule of law country, and that's why everybody around the world wants to come to the United States. You don't see people flooding into Mexico or a lot of other countries around the world because in the United States, no man is above the law. The law protects the little guy. It doesn't oppress little people. It protects them. It allows them to climb the ladder. It prevents the powerful from abusing people who are trying to climb the ladder. I know. That is a fact. That's why there's a million people a year that we allow to come here legally. And all we want is to continue a rule of law country where we have rational laws. Maybe a million people a year that we allow to become citizens isn't enough. So let's debate 2 million or 3 million. We should discuss how many people can assimilate into our country and become part of the fabric of our society. But just pretending we have immigration laws and having millions of additional people beyond what we've said that we legally want to allow come in, then we're just becoming like all the other countries around the world that have laws but they're really not laws or kind of guidelines. They apply to some people but not others. And I just, people feel in our country and I will tell you, I walked over 7,000 doors when I ran for the legislature and I talked to many first, second and third generation immigrants and they felt exactly the same way. They love America. They are hardworking. And they feel like this is dismantling our country when we have laws that are just ignored and millions of people are coming in that are undocumented. All right. Chief, would you like to weigh in on this atmosphere? Sure. We spent decades with the police department. Police departments across the country have spent decades building our relationships with the community and that relationship is very, very fragile. It's fragile from day to day. This kind of policy will drive a wedge between the community and the police department. And because the federal government has neglected immigration enforcement over the years and they want to dump it on local law enforcement officers now to fix it's just simply it just destroys that relationship with the community and the police department because once that happens those policies are enforced or enacted then who's going to want to talk to the police department? Who's going to want to be afraid because they're either they or someone they know they're afraid that they'll be deported? So that is what will make crime go up when people stop calling the police to report it and people stop giving information to the police to help us solve crimes. I think this is a policy where local law enforcement will be forced to enforce federal immigration laws will be a disaster. Robert? I want to go back and ask our representative lawyer slash social worker to quit using the word immigrants because as I referred to before people that have come uninvited or crossed our borders illegally are not immigrants to begin with the social aspect of it being born in Mexico and raised here in San Antonio all my life this city is very important to me and to see that there is high crime in areas of San Antonio that continue and there are people that are from other countries and we don't know who they are where they came from to continue these crimes. I ask you where do these people continue to go? I want to go into the poor areas of San Antonio and the poor areas that can't afford to have this kind of criminal activity and they return over and over in these areas. So for the social aspect of it to be able to work with our federal and state government to correct this and yes the federal government has neglected our borders the federal government has neglected the immigration issue they haven't been able to work on both ends of the aisle on this thing and we need to solve it but going back to people who live in these poor neighborhoods that are continually plagued by crime in these areas I can tell you that on the north side an illegal alien that has broken the crime several times he's probably going back to the rougher neighborhoods it's easier to commit those crimes and a lot of those crimes aren't even reported I know the police chief says and he's worried about the fragile situation of not reporting but less than 50% of those crimes are even reported whether it's rape or break-in or high crime criminal activities less than 50% is reported and guess what if those people that have broken the law are not here anymore we wouldn't have that problem to begin with so I think that's a whole aspect from the side of San Antonio that the crime keeps mounting itself if we don't fix this problem I did want to return to this a little bit and let the chief respond and represent in Bernal but we have heard a lot about the importance of law enforcement's relationship with communities and the idea of the policies that either rightly or wrongly instill fear among immigrant communities make it harder for you to protect all of us because some residents may be reluctant to speak up if they've witnessed a crime or if they're a victim of a crime and the opponents to that argument would say that you don't have proof of that I've seen that on several websites that well there's just no proof that this happens in those communities so chief how would you respond to that wait how would you respond to the argument that all of this that you say about the trust with communities that you really don't have a lot of evidence to support that to support that that community trust helps us well to support the community trust can be harmed when you are more aggressive about seeking out someone's immigration status I would bet you if we took a poll here right now raise your hands if the police had had authority to ask you for your papers would you want to associate with the police at all I bet you if I took that poll in here right now we'd get a lot of hands so I mean it already happens I mean people are already afraid of police so to enforce to force us to ask for about immigration status is just going to reinforce that and I've been in this business for a long time even Major City Chiefs Association has taken that position understanding that that this would fracture this would send a large part of this community underground and they would have nothing to do with police okay Jeff well there is no I've asked y'all to show one study that indicates that has occurred many studies this has been alleged for many years so there are many many academic studies that show that there is no correlation between increased enforcement of immigration laws and a lack of trust with police or lack of reporting of crimes the Bureau of Justice Statistics did a report that shows that Hispanics are more likely to report crimes than other groups and Hispanic females are more trusting than other groups the University of Virginia did a big study that showed that crime reporting by Hispanics after implementation of a local program working with ICE to increase immigration enforcement found no decline in crime reporting and the most reputable survey shows that the main reasons for people not reporting crimes are A. language barriers B. cultural differences understanding of the U.S. criminal justice system but not on the list is fear of being turned over to immigration authorities that was not on the list the tried and true ways of encouraging crime reporting this is shouldn't be anything new is community outreach hiring personnel who speak the language of the people in the community establishing anonymous tip lines setting up community substations with non-uniform personnel to take inquiries and reports and is not by suspending cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts and so I think this whole notion of eroding the bonds we have in communities I think just the reverse would happen I think if we made our community safer we gave people anonymous ways to provide tips and that we would again strengthen that bond that we want to preserve Representative Bernal well first I I'm just sort of fascinated by this idea that people who are in D.C. or Austin or think tanks seems to know what works better for police than the police and all the major chiefs across the city themselves I've never been able to understand how they know better than the people who do it for a living every day and have done it for most of their lives and I don't want to get into a battle of data but I find that the lawsuits where they in cities where they've had 287G agreements where local law enforcement acted as immigration officers that everything that you just read they found the exact opposite they found that people were afraid they found that calls did go down they found that the relationship between local law enforcement and the community was fractured those are public records, those are court records and so again if I have to it's a court record, they hire experts there are several dozen if not hundreds of studies so the answer to your question is yes I'm more likely to believe the man sitting next to me than anyone behind a computer putting numbers together for their own interest well I can tell you for every police officer or police chief that supports sanctuary cities you're a hundred in the state of Texas who don't so to say that we should do what the local police want I've talked to, especially in the last few days in preparation for this many many people in law enforcement who are very pleased with what the president has done and is very pleased with what the governor has done because they think it will help people get serious about ending criminal activity and to that I just want to reinforce that we are not asking the local police to be preaching to agents and I think these police officers deserve more credit than what's being given this stuff can be done on a case by case basis just because someone reports a crime doesn't mean they have to be taken in these are people that they'll know in the neighborhoods where this crime was took place and that person is apprehended and arrested and taken in and if they are of illegal status then they won't be held for ice and that's about as simple as it is I mean I don't see again the complication of cooperation with that it's been done in this country for a long time with people that cooperate with local authorities to get stuff done nothing needs to go beyond that to round up everybody or round up anybody that's an informant if they come forward and they've got information our police are smart enough to go into the investigation and go after the criminal it's important to note that if you are here illegally and you report a crime you are shielded from being deported because you are now a witness or a victim of a crime that attacks you and keeps you in this country for that very purpose so maybe if we communicated that a little bit more in our communities this irrational fear would start to go away you're not objecting to that provision you're just pointing it out no I'm not objecting at all it's good law and order okay chief any final thoughts on this I don't disagree I don't agree with the fact that it won't be won't go underground if police officers started forcing federal immigration laws there's another city I won't say what it is and it had a fairly large has a fairly large Hispanic population and the city didn't treat them too kindly and you didn't see them you saw them at church on Sundays and that was it but they stayed underground for the most part so I don't agree that explaining it or telling people hey if you report crime you get a U visa and you know you won't get deported I don't think people care people are afraid okay I have a question I want to make sure we get to and I hope you all take some time to think about this one I just want to point out that while we certainly have differing opinions at this table I don't have anybody here who is arguing in favor of the sanctuary city side somebody who is say on the very far left of that spectrum and I want to make sure that viewpoint does get represented here even though we don't have anybody here so even though this might not be all of your first inclination especially Jeff and Robert I think but the question is how as San Antonians can you not fight for us to be a sanctuary city our roots and compassion is what makes us this beautiful and one of a kind city so I think that is important to think San Antonio is different in so many ways especially because of our diversity and our ability to get along with each other have you all spending time thinking about this and you know maybe we should be even more not even more but more in that direction representative Bernal yeah I mean I've always felt like especially when I was on city council and I learned about the policies that the PD has and the chief has that I didn't care at the time what we called ourselves I worried about the way people were treated and as long as they were treated fairly and equally and they had a good relationship with the police officers that's what mattered to me I didn't care so much about the title that was a theater to me the world has sort of changed since then and I do think that there are moments in time where you have to put your foot down and articulate and radiate to the community that you're not going to participate in programs or efforts that make them feel afraid unwelcome or unsafe and so whether or not we call ourselves a sanctuary city is less important to me than the policies that we have but certainly if we decided to do that I would welcome it okay thank you Jeff I'm going to throw this to you I think that San Antonio if you want to find a post-racial city San Antonio is about as good as they get I think that we are so comfortable with the diversity that we have in our city so much who we are the culture, the food the intermarriage everything about it it's sad that we keep making these claims about all of this fear and this discrimination when San Antonio is the perfect example of a city that really doesn't act that way and I just wish that we could start acting like accepting the fact that we're post-racial and kind of moving on and being that kind of society alright but you're not advocating sanctuary city Jeff? not advocating sanctuary city but the law would allow with regard to immigration and it's about cooperation among law enforcement whether or not we love people in order for us to love the immigrants that we allow into the country we have to have a strong country that follows the laws that we pass through our system of checks and balances and when we throw our laws out the window and ignore them we're hurting just the United States alright Robert? it sounds great for about a split second and then it's over I mean why why would we want to think of San Antonio as a sanctuary city that would invite crime I mean it doesn't go beyond anything more than that the word sanctuary city invites that I mean if you were a criminal and you know that there was a face and we all played that game when we were kids where we touched the ball and we were safe that's what a sanctuary city is and that's what it's going to invite why can't we just be a city of law and order and why can't we be just a city of a normal I agree with Jeff that this is an amazing city city of San Antonio Jeff's lived here all his life I've lived here all my life the diversity that we have is second to none in this country there's no other place like it so the idea of just thinking calling San Antonio a sanctuary city because we're thinking well that's a cute thing to do we can invite people that want to be here safe in case there are criminal status is just absurd I just think and I had this debate a year or so ago with my counterpart who's now running for mayor who's for sanctuary cities and I just think that would be a total disaster if San Antonio became a sanctuary city not only from the fact that Donald Trump our new administration is against it but that governor that's going to come pretty hard on any sanctuary cities that are going to populate or come up in in the future and chief your thoughts on this if you commit a crime in San Antonio it doesn't matter who you are where you from if you're a predator, if you're a criminal gang member, if you're a drug dealer whatever it is if you commit a crime here in San Antonio it doesn't matter where you come from or who you are you're going to get arrested we are just not going to ask you for your immigration status because it is irrelevant to the crime when you get further down the line in the judicial process out of SAPD's hands you may run into that question about you but SAPD is simply not going to do it and because we don't I don't think that that designates us as a sanctuary city okay thank you we're very close to being out of time but I just wanted to have all of you address a question from the audience and one of my own this came up before and the citizen asked because we can tell that citizens are going to need to step up their attention over the next year what will you do I'm not sure what you all can do but in order to ensure transparency citizens will have access to factual information so if citizens are interested in getting good information and they have opinions and they want to speak out on those opinions what would you all suggest is the best thing for citizens to do to get good information and to articulate their opinion so that it matters I'm going to start with Robert and just go down the line get involved we've got city council races coming up help someone or run those things that if you have ideas press on I think it's important that all citizens stay active in the community and that's how we become better okay thank you Jeff well you've got to go beyond the mainstream media because that's only an inch deep and generally you'll start leaving the myths about this debate if all you do is stay there you've got to go in and actually read the bill this is senate bill 4 it's really not that many pages and if you read it you can see in black and white that a lot of the claims are just not true I'm coming from the think tank community I like the work of think tanks and you can put whatever filter you want as you're reading the data but if it's well documented you get a good feel for what the truth is about what underlies the debate and I think it's very important to go in there and do a little bit of research thank you chief the police department has never had any problems with receiving information from the public we have many many many community meetings we attend many many community meetings there's ways to get to us on our website we probably are the receivers of more information in the city than any other agency around because we're available 24-7 we have offices on the street 24-7 and again we attend many many many community meetings I would say to tell us so while we may have a website and do eblast to the chagrin of my staff on social media at DeHorizontal TX you can say nice things or mean things but sometimes people come to us and say this would be helpful have a coffee hold a forum give us the ideas in ways that you think would be most helpful to stay in touch and inform them we will do that okay thank you very much I would echo that there are a lot of original documents online SB4 is very easy to find read those original documents it's very clear and you can judge them for yourselves I want to thank you all gentlemen for a very reasonable and reasonable discussion I think he gave everybody a lot of good facts a lot of good opinions to think about tonight and I want to thank you all for coming thank you all for joining us here at UTSA and please join me in thanking our panel