 Good morning everyone and welcome to the 88th annual LULAC National Convention Exposition and welcome to this wonderful workshop we're having here this morning. My name is Rachel Haynes and I'm a LULAC National Policy and Legislation Intern at the National Office in D.C. I am also a rising senior political science and Spanish major here at Shenanyi University in San Antonio so it is good to be home. Before I introduce the moderator for this panel I would like to ask all of you to share your insights if you were active on social media and spread the word about this amazing panel which you learned today using either the handle at LULAC or the hashtag LULAC17 so we can spread the word about what goes on here this morning. We would also like to ask you to take out your phone and text juntos at 52886 that's juntos at 52886 to join our team of advocates who form part of our rapid response team that help us push Congress and our current administration on key issues of importance to our community and so without further delay I'm honored to introduce our moderator for today's presentation Thomas Sayans the president and general counsel of MALDEF. Thank you Rachel and good morning everyone thank you to LULAC for making us to hold this very important workshop in addition to being president and general counsel of MALDEF. I am the vice chair of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda and HLA which put together this panel as we recognize as a coalition of 40 of the most prominent Latino civil rights organizations in the United States the national importance of Texas SB4. Before we get much further I do want to acknowledge our SB4 task force co-chairs at NHLA who are here and put together this important workshop Ben Monterozo of Mi Famiga Ota and Kenneth Romero of NHCSL National Hispanic Office of State Legislators. So we are here because NHLA recognizes as national organization of our obligation to not only support the efforts of those inside of Texas to resist SB4 to prevent its implementation and to organize around the threat that it presents the very serious threat it presents to the Latino community in Texas but at NHLA we also recognize the national repercussions of a bill like this the most draconian anti-immigrant legislation we have seen in decades and that's saying something when we're only seven years removed from the enactment of Arizona's SB1070 and the enactment in 2011 of five other states versions of that law. So at NHLA we very much see SB4 as an issue of national concern to the Latino community around which we must work to support those in Texas and more important to prevent replication anywhere else in the country the federal level under the current administration or in any other state. Texas the second largest state in the country critically important in setting a national agenda and currently what it's doing and contributing to our national agenda is not positive for the Latino community. We fortunately have a wonderful panel of folks from Texas who have been involved from the beginning the introduction of SB4 in the state senate its enactment and it's challenging court as well as the organizing around resisting SB4 around the state of Texas and building off of it to ensure that the Latino community and its allies can participate civically and guarantee that in the future leaders who support measures like SB4 will not be in positions of authority in the state of Texas. So I'll introduce them each as they come up and make introductory remarks or from their seats and first we have a now ten term participant in the Texas state House of Representatives one of the leaders in opposing SB4 to talk to us about the enactment of this bill there was certainly much controversy around it some of that controversy will be taken up in court as already been taken up in court but it is my great pleasure to introduce from the Dallas area representative Roberto Olanzo. I want to cover the agenda that you mentioned and first I want to thank the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda for putting this together and taking a national effort in combating SB4 because as Thomas mentioned what happens in Texas affects the rest of the country as well also joining and thanking the National Caucus of the Spanish State Legislators who can influence and introduce and open our organization as a part of the Hispanic leadership agenda so this bill SB4 was initially filed by Charles Perry in November 2016 and it has several provisions and I'm going to go through them briefly and then comment a little bit about what happened in Austin. The first part forbids cities, towns, counties and universities from becoming or maintaining sanctuary cities or sanctuary colleges from limited immigrants and allows the Attorney General of Texas to request that the state court remove from office any elected or appointed official even for endorsing a sanctuary policy or enforcing one already in place. This limitation on sanctuary policies also extends to unwritten policies and common practices and the law allows any citizen who resides in the town or city or county or any employee or student of a college or university to follow in place stating that the citizen believes the city or town or county or university is behaving as a sanctuary city or university and that is enough to trigger a case to remove elected officials and employees from the jobs that they are government jobs or posts. Originally this was going to be true for doing this even for churches but thanks to the great pushback from our Hispanic evangelical pastors the largest group to bring people to the Capitol to lobby against the law an amendment was passed stating that one of only two places where an officer can give people a break is inside a church so please thank the Hispanic evangelical pastors were heavily involved I can tell you personally being there with the Capitol probably 90-95% of the people that would come the bodies were Hispanic and evangelical pastors so we thank them and we thank the Congress of Issues. There is another provision called the jailing provision SB requires all local, county and state law enforcement agencies are correction facilities to hold anyone in custody who has an immigration detainee request even beyond the time that person would normally have been held and even though immigration detainee requests are issued by US immigration enforcement not by a judge. This is unless the person can prove they are a citizen. Basically right now the national law says that INS can send a request to hold somebody. It's not an order, it's not a warrant and that's why some of you will see around the country lawsuits against shares who are holding people because it's a request and essentially they are illegally being held so that's the second provision The third thing SB does is establish show me your papers provision. Under SB 4 nobody not even their boss can stop a commission officer or a correction officer a booking clerk or a magistrate or a district attorney or a prosecutor an attorney from asking about and investigating the immigration status of a person even a citizen who is under lawful detention or under arrest including their place of birth and keeping that information forever represented to the federal government. So that essentially is the bill. I've been asked to talk a little bit about the legislative effort that was done in a nutshell I can tell you the position we took was this was personal. The attack on this bill was a personal attack so we provided and submitted tons of amendments. I submitted a couple of things that I argued extensively that said why don't we implement this thought after it goes to the Supreme Court because in the end everything goes to court like the voting rights act, like redistricting, like the voter ID but it was personal. Quite personal because many of us or all of us have a story to tell a personal story about immigration has a personal asset on the floor of the house. My grandparents came from Mexico, I've also elucidated from Coahuila and some of them went to Brownwood, right one, but many of them went to Toledo, Ohio and there my dad and Ansananquas were born and when the depression came they were deported back to Mexico. My dad grew up in Mexico and he was a Mexican, he came high with his brothers and sisters into the Crystal City area and they hid in the farms so one day they talked about where they came from, where they came across and where they were born and in the end they commented that they were born in Toledo, Ohio and people said you're not a Mexican so they didn't send for their birth certificate knowing we hope. And Miteria Alonso signed up Luz and Miteria Alonso born in Franklin County where the county is and it's a personal story. So that being said overwhelmingly all of us Democrats voted against it, all the House members voted against it, but there was 12, there were 12 witnesses for it and see right here this is it and then all these pages of witnesses that were against it so 12 against close to a thousand people that came and testified against we want to thank the groups that helped lobby against the law, Maldiv who's at the table Mi Familia Vota who's at the table, the National Latina Institute Reproducting how that's a table among the Association of Business ACLU Law Enforcement Agencies the Tech Council Commission, the Worker Defense Project, the Association of Business from San Antonio, San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, El Paso Chamber of Commerce United Retreat and of course Lulac American Federation of Teachers. In conclusion I'll tell you we thank everybody, I think this is a continuation of what has to be done, we will talk in a minute what else can be done one of the things that I did was donate a thousand dollars to Maldiv was leading the fight and asking others to help in that effort other cities, practical policies in Texas have joined the lawsuit with the exception of Holworth and finally I'll say how does this impact around the country I was talking to a county commissioner from King County at the Nareo Conference and in the end we talked about how county commissioners control the budget for the share and guess what the share of King County also has to deal with this issue so this is a personal story it's a personal fight but it's a fight as Thomas has talked about it impacts all of us so we must all be involved and it's interesting that we do this comment here in Texas because a lot of this fight started here with Biden vs. Trump Thank you very much. Thank you representative Alonso for giving us a synopsis of the bill which is intended to take effect on September 1st it's now my job to give a brief overview of what's happening in court surrounding SB 4 the signing of SB 4 was extraordinary because Governor Abbott chose to sign it on a Sunday afternoon on Facebook Live with the only media outlet invited to be there by Bart News so that gives you a sense of their own understanding of the bill that they were enacting that they signed it at a time during the week when it would not garner much attention and only invited the right wing extremist by Bart News to be there then equally extraordinarily the day after Governor Abbott signed the law the state of Texas filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking to have the law declared constitutional this is because they recognized immediately that there would be as a representative indicated a challenge in court they knew that there were serious constitutional questions about SB 4 and they wanted to choose where that case would be heard so they took the unprecedented step well almost unprecedented step of filing their own lawsuit they sued officials from the city of Austin officials from Travis County and they sued Malniff as an organization now such a lawsuit is frivolous and has no constitutional basis for being in court under our court system it's the plaintiffs who are challenging a law they get to choose where to file their lawsuit it's not the defendants who get to file a preemptive suit seeking to determine what judge where the constitutionality will be decided so needless to say the reaction to the filing of that preemptive lawsuit is a number of motions to dismiss now as others stepped forward all of the major jurisdictions of the representative indicated to challenge SB 4 in their own lawsuits the state started to amend their preemptive lawsuit to name as defendants anybody who stepped forward as a plaintiff in a case challenging SB 4 long story short that preemptive case still exists and the conclusion is the judge there is skeptical would be fair to say about the propriety of his hearing a challenge to SB 4 filed by the defendants rather than allowing the judge judge Garcia here and San Antonio where the cases challenging SB 4 filed by plaintiff jurisdictions have been consolidated to determine the constitutionality of SB 4 that threatened the state of Texas with sanctions for filing a frivolous action against them the state of Texas did dismiss us as a defendant because they realized that the case was frivolous against a law firm basically the challenges that have been filed now consolidated for judge Garcia here in San Antonio have resulted in numerous requests to have the law preliminarily prevented from being implemented on its intended date of September 1st last week judge Garcia heard argument and heard from a number of very powerful witnesses in court about why SB 4 ran a risk of creating irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages later on were the plaintiffs to prevail and strong evidence of the likely unconstitutionality of SB 4 let me briefly talk about that as you heard from the representative this is a bill that seeks to ensure that immigrants throughout the state of Texas are afraid with good reason that in the course of going about their daily lives they will be swept in to a law enforcement detention or arrest involving an officer who chooses to enforce federal immigration law and that that could then lead to their being placed in removal and possibly detention there are basically two significant operational provisions of this law one as you heard requires every jurisdiction regardless of what they decide at the local level to honor detainer requests from the federal immigration enforcement service that means that when they are asked to detain someone beyond when they would ordinarily be kept in jail on an arrest in other words even if they've made bail been allowed to be released on their own cognizance or even been determined not to be charged and would therefore be released if there is a request from ICE immigration and customs enforcement to detain that person under SB 4 every jurisdiction that we share would have no choice but to detain that person the problem with that as you've heard is that there are already cases that have included including here in Texas that that is a violation in many circumstances of the Fourth Amendment the Fourth Amendment protects all of us every person regardless of citizenship or immigration status from being unlawfully detained by anyone including a sheriff there has to be constitutionally requisite cause ordinarily probable cause to continue to hold someone detainer requests in most circumstances do not provide probable cause and therefore when people are held on those detainers it is unlawful under the constitution so basically the first important provision of SB 4 requires jurisdictions to violate the Fourth Amendment second major provision that you may have heard referred to as the show me your papers provision but I want to convince you it's not really a show me your papers law unlike Arizona's SB 1070 SB 4 does not require any police officer to engage in immigration enforcement it simply permits every officer to decide on his or her own whether and how to enforce immigration law so this means each individual officer would have been on the job for a day or 10 years and even if they've been on the job for 10 years they were never trained in immigration law but each of those individual officers gets to decide whether and how to enforce immigration law this is why I would characterize this as a badged vigilantes provision not a show me your papers provision it is basically licensing anyone with a badge in the state of Texas thousands of officers like vigilantes to decide on their own how to enforce immigration law and whether to enforce immigration law the rest of the provisions of SB 4 create all kinds of disincentives deterrence for the folks that we apparently expect to provide guidance and regulation of those officers from doing so shares police chiefs, city council members, mayors are barred by SB 4 from interfering with any individual officer's decision to enforce immigration law and how they go about doing it with the threat of criminal prosecution, exorbitant fines, and even being removed from elective office if you were elected to office so it basically ensures that each of those officers can decide on their own whether to opt in to enforce immigration law and how to go about doing it you can imagine kinds of officers who are most likely to opt in this leads to some of the other contentions constitutional contentions about Fulahaw it will invite racial profiling because untrained officers who decide to opt in are very likely to engage in unconstitutional racial profiling discrimination it provides no control over police officers and under our constitution we're entitled to not have vigilantes whether it badges or not roaming through the state of Texas deciding what to do and finally I would mention one more critical contention and that is that this law was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and there was strong evidence presented that a legislature that has already been found by other courts in the context of voting to have engaged in intentional racial discrimination but that same legislature engaged in same intentional racial discrimination here so bottom line court cases pending conclusion on preliminary junction pending no implementation until September 1st so there's no reason in the state of Texas to have fear or confusion about this fact at this point and strong hopes that the law will be prevented by court from taking effect nonetheless there is a challenge remaining whether it stopped in court or not that we should address and we have two folks from the bin Texas working for NHLA member organizations we're going to talk about some of the important work occurring now in reaction and even in anticipation of what as before means to the Latino community and to Texas as a whole and the first that we're going to hear from is the Texas Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy for NHLA member organization the National Institute for Reproductive Health we're working throughout Texas on organizing and advocacy on behalf of the Latina Institute in reaction not just as before but to the other threats faced by the Latina community in the state of Texas Nancy, governance so I work for the National Institute for Reproductive Health and I am based in Austin, Texas I was born and raised in the Rio Grande Valley and so much of our base and much of our work concentrates on the Rio Grande Valley so when we talk about as before we always like to apply a particularly different lens to it and it's that this is an intersectional issue that there are different issues of play and it's not just an immigration enforcement issue so when we talk about as before we also talk about reproductive health care we talk about how strict immigration laws affect folks access to their reproductive health care services so a particular example is in the Rio Grande Valley where immigration enforcement is a beast of its own because there isn't just ICE there's also border patrol that folks have to worry about on the ground so as the conversations around as before were happening we were very unapologetic about bringing their reproductive health care services in immigration spaces because a lot of our members are undocumented from our organization and they are volunteers for our organization that do a lot of canvassing and they also talk a lot about reproductive health care services in the Polonias in the Rio Grande Valley so one of the biggest concerns that we had is how as before was going to affect day to day life in the Rio Grande Valley and so something that needs to be talked about is this has always been happening right immigration has always stopped. There hasn't been anything that has stopped police officers or any other entities to ask folks about their documentation status and so one of the issues that we encountered during the as before conversation and when the raid started happening in Texas was border patrol and ICE along routes to health care clinics specifically being parked outside of Rio Grande Valley health clinics and so there have been a lot of conversations with a lot of coalition partners in the Rio Grande Valley because folks were very hesitant or needed basically needed someone to accompany them to their health care appointments and so when we talk about as before I always want to bring up that it's not just an immigration issue it's also a lack of health care issues. Folks don't come into this space and stop meeting reproductive health care services and all of those other realities just stop existing we live multi-issued lives and so that's something that we've always brought up so if you all are familiar with the Rio Grande Valley there is only one abortion clinic in the Rio Grande Valley that services a very very large area and so a lot of folks are talking about the Rio Grande Valley they always like to think that we're all just like one cluster of folks but it's ours apart there is a lot of cities and so when we're talking about SB4 we also have to talk about how this will impact the one abortion clinic that we have left in the Rio Grande Valley. So another aspect of this because I have done a lot of local work around immigration policies and it's a lot of conversations that were happening around what does a sanctuary city policy actually do and how does it affect folks from different municipalities because like I was saying these things were happening already like this it's not like SB4 is going to start giving entities the power to ask for documentation status this has always been the case and a lot of the entities that were a part of the lawsuit also participated in these programs so the city of Austin didn't have a sanctuary city's policy there's no policy in place for the city of Austin that prevents its police officers from asking folks about their documentation status but a lot of the conversations that we were having were strictly about police enforcement and them asking about documentation status but I really wanted to challenge folks to learn how cities cooperate with immigration when it comes to information sharing when it comes to Homeland Security's access to folks utility bills which is something that is a factor when cities have fusion centers so there are a lot of ways in which cities can cooperate with immigration that's not just strictly police asking folks about their documentation status and so we in the new and the valley work based with a very very unique situation which was even though there were other municipalities that supported SB4 our dear local elected officials and local law enforcement publicly came out in an op-ed with Greg Abbott to talk about their support of us before and so we organized in the valley and a lot of coalition partners signed on and we publicly demanded that they retract their statements so we have the city of Brownsville that is going to vote soon to join the lawsuit against SB4 and we're also pushing other cities to do that as well so that's part of a bit of the local aspect of this but we've also been talking about how we're going to help our members on the ground when it comes to the new law taking effect and so thanks to ICE out of Austin we have been incorporating binder trainings for our members which is basically a deportation defense packet with power of attorney forms with letters of recommendation basically a packet prepared neatly for a lawyer in case someone gets detained so we've really been trying to open the thing outside the box when it comes to how we're going to react and how we're going to live in a post SB4 world. Thank you Nancy for placing SB4 in the context of ongoing threats of federal immigration enforcement that has particularly been heightened under the current administration and I do want to note that the administration has taken a position in the litigation in support of SB4 at this point indicating the strong connection between the forces in Texas that enacted this and the Trump administration. Thank you also for explaining the impacts of SB4 on folks everyday lives and the threats that they face in going to clinics and the like. We will now hear from an immigrant activist who's been working on behalf of Progressive Causes for 25 years. He is the Texas State Director of Educational Fund, Carlos Duarte. Thank you. Good morning everyone. So I want to introduce myself as saying that I've been living in the United States for 20 years and I am a survivor of SB1070 in Arizona where my wife was actually racially profiled and now I get to relieve the whole thing again now in Texas. I want to say that this is now ground zero for the fight to defend our constitution. It's not only a fight for immigrants but it's really like it has been mentioned a racial profiling law and I want to assure you that we are going to win. This is a battle that we're going to win and the reason that we are going to win is because we are organizing and we're fighting back but the reason that we're going to win is not only because of the local efforts to fight back but also because of the support that we're getting from the national organizations. So I want to take this opportunity to thank Koby Kululak, NHLA and other organizations that have been instrumental in fortifying the efforts that we're doing at the local level. So what I want to do with my seven minutes is number one to describe a little bit of the work that we're doing locally. I want to emphasize how this law has impacted efforts for civic engagement but I really want to highlight what it is that you can do and again I mentioned that we're going to win because you're going to help us. So what is it that you can do as an individual and then what is it that you can do as a member of organizations at the national level and that's basically what I wanted to talk about. Before I go into that I do want to share with you what happened to us in this fourth of July celebration of independence so we're in Cotswill north of Houston just south of Dallas. It's a wonderful place, it's a lake we are kayaking, we're having a fantastic day with the family and then it belongs to me, my 17 year old daughter wants to go to the restroom and because it's a big park she grabs the keys, she turns on the car, she drives to the restroom and back. Mind you she does not have a driver's license. When she's coming back the park ranger is waiting right in front of her to spark, minding his business and then she panics and then she leaves the car without parking it properly and you know my daughter is like a perfect daughter she's never going to be in trouble at all. So as I'm walking in the park, the park ranger realizes that this car is from the park and approaches her and you know, long story short he ends up asking for our documentation. She doesn't have a driver's license and my driver's license it's not on me we're in a park and it might be in a swimming suit but another favorite to produce identification, fortunately my wife walks in at that time, produces her Arizona driver's license and the officer says you know the system is down in Arizona it seems. So I'm just going to assume that this is a valley document. We're fortunate right? We have a driver's license. If we have not had a driver's license he could have had the opportunity to say we're going to detain you and then you know, I guess I think it goes to the point that Nancy was making that. It had before has not been implemented yet but we're already seeing some of the effects. 90% of the population that were at the park that they were Latinos and I think RT that several of them did not have a driver's license so what was a fantastic family day could have ended in a tragedy, right? For any other family day right there. And I think that's the impact, right? So anyway what is it that we're doing to fight against this? You know I'm really proud to say that Texans have reacted very forcefully at all levels. You know the organizing is happening at the city level, at the county level and at the state level. And we have come up with at least two very powerful coalitions. One of them is the Informal Immigration for Texas Alliance that has been in place for several years and that has been instrumental in stopping anti-sanctuary CDBs legislature after the legislature and then there's a new coalition with groups that have been Austin based, right? Including ACLU, Workers' Defence Project, there is a Texas Alliance project and so many more. We have organized ourselves in two different ways. One is we're organizing at the local level with efforts for example you know getting the city of Houston to actually join the lawsuit and also statewide, right? Where we are coordinating based on I would say five main strategies to fight back. One obviously is the legal strategy, obviously being led by Maldives, ACLU and TCRP. Number two is obviously the political mobilization strategy, right? So for example you might have heard that at the closing of the legislative session we basically packed the legislature, right? And Madrid now basically called ICE on all of the protesters. So some of the work that has been done including groups that are indivisible, you know we organized some protests across the state in the law firm that employs representative Rinaldi. So part of the political pressure that has happened at the city to get the mayors to join the lawsuit and to specific representatives has happened because of all of the local organizing. Obviously we're talking about economic pressure and I want to leave that to the end. We're also doing base building and defense. Like Nancy was saying it's already happening. So we are doing a number of non-unright sessions all across the state. There are some groups that are actually defending people that are already on deportation proceedings. So that is an aspect of it. And I want to emphasize that this is actually one of the best opportunities that we've ever had in Texas to really organize. And what I've seen is how many people have started developing leadership skills that they hadn't had before because these opportunities are all from high school students that are justifying for the very first time at some convenient meetings to obviously some of our elected officials that are assuming a more prominent role. And then finally we have civic engagement and voter mobilization and I would say that the impact has been now we're becoming more targeted. So what is it that we can actually make an impact by educating voters on how legislators voted with regards to as before and how is it that we can mobilize in those particular districts. So what is it that people can do individually? What is it that you can do? Well number one is you can join the losses if you're a victim of as before. Obviously there's always a need for communities that have been affected. Number two you can help us mobilize with pressures on elected officials because we need to have school districts, some other counties, cities probably universities, hospitals because they do provide specific elements to show how this is going to be affecting. Join base building efforts and defense efforts and join voter registration and voter education and mobilization drives in your areas if you're here in Texas. Now if you're from an outside organization what is it that we can do? Well number one you can help us recruit other municipalities and states. For example California has already stated not related to as before but because of a discrimination bill that they are not going to be doing business with Texas and they're not going to be sending their elected officials here. So that's one of the things that we're hoping that you can help us do. So get your municipalities to make statements proposing it before and doing business. So that's one. Number two if you belong to an organization that was hoping to host events in Texas we are asking you to basically say we are not doing business with Texas as long as it before continues to be in the books. And then finally we would be identifying some corporations that might have an impact in getting this law overturned. So corporations that might have the ear of Governor Abba we're going to be putting pressure on them and some of them might be chains. So if those chains have business in your state we want you to support us by putting pressure on them right there in your state. So obviously Texas economy is huge. We do know that the main damage is going to be to Texas reputation. It's already happening but I think that we are only going to win if we get the support from all of you guys across the nation. Thank you Carlos for telling us all of the important organizing efforts and how those outside of Texas can support them. In a moment I'm going to open it up to questions from all of you so please have your questions prepared. I do want to ask a couple of questions on my own. Representative Alonso Governor Abbott has called you all into special session beginning later this month but I don't think he's included this on the call but you can obviously call for another special session. Is there any chance that this law might be modified as the legislature did with voter ID in response to controversy in response to the court action? Is there any chance that the legislature could take this up again prior to your next regular session two years from now? No because in the history of Texas they don't modify until after you guys win the lawsuit which is what you see in the paper today after the loss it was won on voter ID then it went back to the legislature to modify but like anything if you don't try you don't get so of course we will always make the effort so that's my call. And I want to comment as you were pointing out about the boycott from California about the bathroom bill. In thinking about that issue my take on it is discrimination on immigration, discrimination on bathroom bill but as I look at the bathroom bill it's not them and us it's us. And I say that because in some of our comments we say why don't we use the strategy of the bathroom bill by getting business engaged and we did ask business to get engaged and four years ago or so we did get engaged and stopped it but I think that what happened this time they said we have a bathroom bill we have a recipe for we'll stop the bathroom bill and hold back on the immigration I don't think it's the right thing to do but I'll comment that if the discriminator gets us an immigration the folks on the bathroom bill is also discriminating us and I'll tell you real quick why when Orlando happened in Orlando Florida 49 of the 50 kids were killed for Latinos. If you go like I do to the Gay Pride Parade if you look at the audience 70% of the audience at the parade are Latinos so as we look at these issues they are us as well. One community of course Nancy let me ask you you talked about the immigration enforcement on access to clinics and the like. One thing I note about SB4 and I noted because last month was the 35th anniversary of Plylar vs. Doe decision out of Texas by the US Supreme Court establishing the right of every student to attend public school regardless of immigration status from kindergarten through 12th grade so one thing that is specifically excluded in SB4 is kindergarten through 12th grade public school in other words if there are police forces at kindergarten through 12th grade school districts those police officers have the right under SB4 to decide whether and how to enforce immigration law. It's the only exception but Nancy I wonder if you could talk about whether that means kids are safe I mean they're still potentially subject to immigration enforcement by officers outside of school as you mentioned on the way to clinic on the way to school can you talk a little more about how the failure to lead out sensitive locations besides kindergarten through 12th grade school has an impact. Of course and I think this is something that as you are very aware was discussed here in San Antonio in a lot of camps that lots of folks stopped sending their children to school and it was something that we saw especially during the raids in Austin folks school attendance dropped dramatically so it's something that we have definitely seen and I think it's something that we're definitely going to see a lot more of as SB4 is implemented. I think something that I didn't add before and going with the question that you just asked about sensitive locations memo is that a lot of the conversations that we've also been trying to have is trying to adapt to ICE and Border Patrol being on route to our community meetings and our community health care clinics. So sometimes we've had to change the location of where we conducted that and so a sensitive location memo includes churches and so we really incorporated the use of churches in the Rio Grande Valley to hold our health care clinics or conduct community meetings. I mean it's not a policy that is set in stone but ICE usually does not go into churches in order to do immigration enforcement. Thank you. And my last question before I go to the audience, Carlos you talked about some of the efforts in response in building civic engagement. I wonder if you could talk about naturalization and whether that's a part of the necessary response to SB4 here in Texas. Definitely, so civic engagement is one of the key elements in the strategy to fight SB4. We know that there are huge numbers of Latinos particularly that qualify for citizenship and are not doing it at the rate that they should. But there are organizing you know very organized efforts that are pushing for that and actually it's something that started happening with the Trump campaign that people started asking more to the point that in the past we would have to go and convince people you should do it because of this that's why in C now people are coming to us saying I'm not safe as a resident anymore, but I think that is before this enhancing that aspect. I want to emphasize that the fight to SB4 is at multiple levels. So one of the key fights that we are engaging for example in Houston is trying to get policies with city police so that they do not detain people that do not have a driver's license. Because the police officer basically has the right to say okay so you're driving without a license you cannot drive this car anymore in front of me, right? However someone can come and pick up the car. Now if they detain that individual then they go into the whole process of maybe being deported and that is a fight that can be won at the local level and that is something that is already happening. So there are multiple spaces where we can fight back against this destruction and separation of our families So questions from the audience? My name is Jose Cervino with a non-profit organization called Mad Democrat Democrats. Is it safe to say that can we equate SB4 with Proposition 187 where Big Wilson is ruining his ugly head in Texas where people would be forced to turn in undocumented people, teachers, emergency room staff wouldn't have to be used by ICE as an extension of the INS and I don't think that's a problem. Yeah the answer is yes, it's similar as you will recall in Texas we were very aggressive against 187 I personally had a press conference asking that we boycott California because of 187 and I said even Mickey Mouse and adding to your comments about oppression and electoral fiduciary within the group that's American Democrats, what we do is ask that question how do you stand on the SB4, how do you stand on immigration what's your position going to be and we would have on many occasions political candidates that say I don't have to answer the questions they're running for JP and it doesn't impact me well it does and adding to your comment about oppression and electoral fiduciary especially if we move it to the election cycle, putting that question at the top of the list in addition would be to have all the schools even where Chicanos are the majority because it impacts all people they do a welcoming resolution finally I'll say one of the things that we did here in Texas in 1994 was ask that the Democratic Party take a position on immigration and the current senator from Moscow was at the time Kurt Watson was chairman of the Democratic Party and he said we're not going to have none of that because it embarrassed the governor and our guys got personal and said look this is not about you this is about our community getting beat up so 1994 because of that we're able to put that on the platform and six years later for Texas the organization of Democrats added to the national platform and since then it's been part of the platform as well oh hi my name is Lilia Galindo I came from California I have seen that the number of people who has become citizens has increased significantly also people registered to vote but they don't go out and vote that is the big problem I see that we make a lot of effort be sure to follow up that all the people that we registered have to go to vote and they vote in all the levels because they only vote for president how are we going to resolve that problem so I think that's a crucial question thank you for that we need to understand that in Texas we have a very organized and strategic effort to prevent Latinos from voting and I'm not saying it it's a supreme order and it's saying it right so we have the redistricting that's actually we have a hearing on Monday if I'm not mistaken Mr. Antonio it's the gerrymandering but then the older ID there was some research done recently that showed that a significant proportion of Latinos did not vote not because they did not have the proper identification but because they thought that they didn't have the proper identification so all of this is intentional confusion you know intended to discriminate against Latinos in particular and then before it's you know in that way I would say that is before it's a gift because it's just putting out you know in the open what has been happening underneath you know throughout the vote the different levels of government having said that I think that a lot of the groups that finance and help get out of the vote because it is a concerted effort rather we need to take money